IGX

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:Don't the Russians have a navy base in Syria?

They're backing Assad. Has it occurred to anyone that they may calculate that Obama is weak and risk a shooting war.
How many aircraft carriers are we prepared to lose?
And if Iran lets Hezbollah off the leash, how many MTA busses are we willing to have blown up here in NYC?
And what do we do then?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5Xv7QqXiM[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_eAFsjmOFI[/youtube]

protobuilder wrote:

Terry B. wrote:If Obama were concerned about losing face from his red line comments, he should be having fun that the US hasn't been able to convince a single country to join their "international coalition".

France is on board because they don't have an election coming up.

No election, but they did just announce plans for another tax hike. Blowing stuff up is a good way to distract people from how much money you're stealing from them.

Here, we've got a number of "phony scandals", and a certain something happening right around October 1...

Could they actually care about the people wrapped up in the civil war there? I guess, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Oliver North has it right. Get an Army of Mercs that speak the language together, give them the funds and weaponry they want and turn them loose to clean up Obama's horrific disaster he's created throughout the world.

Let's see-in the last few years we've had military action against:

Iraq
Pakistan
Iraq
Yemen
Libya
and now Syria.

We seem to be missing one. Oh, that's right-the one avowed enemy of the United States: Iran.

What a cluster fuck. I happily voted for Obama. I have to think he'd be managing this better than McCain, whose first instinct is to shoot. But that said, Obama is in so far over his head on so many fronts.

Never mind, can't afford it.

http://freebeacon.com/pentagon-cant-aff ... nal-funds/

I think that the only remaining super power has spoken loud and clear that the odds are favorable that if using chemical weapons on your own people will not be tolerated and will result in a measured, though admittedly limited, attack if enough cash can be scraped up to do so.

lasalle wrote:Let's see-in the last few years we've had military action against:
Iraq
Pakistan
Iraq
Yemen
Libya
and now Syria.

Just to get your facts straight, we didn't have military action against Pakistan or Yemen, we have it in them. In Libya we supported the people who rose up against their boss. Obama had nothing to do with Iraq, and got us out.

nafod wrote: In Libya we supported the people who rose up against their boss. Obama had nothing to do with Iraq, and got us out.

But in Iran we didn't, until we kinda did (after the fact). And in Egypt we did, and now we're kinda doing it again but on the other side?

Our foreign policy is a mess.

But at least we're more respected in the "global community" than we were in, say, 2007?

protobuilder wrote:

nafod wrote: In Libya we supported the people who rose up against their boss. Obama had nothing to do with Iraq, and got us out.

But in Iran we didn't, until we kinda did (after the fact). And in Egypt we did, and now we're kinda doing it again but on the other side?

Our foreign policy is a mess.

But at least we're more respected in the "global community" than we were in, say, 2007?

The world is a mess. To claim foreign policy is a mess is to presume we can control more than we can. For example, people kill me when they suggest that Egypt flipped because we didn't stand by our man Mubarak. That shit was going down with or without us.

Fuck worrying about global community respect, by the way. That and ten cents gets you nothing.

nafod wrote: Fuck worrying about global community respect, by the way. That and ten cents gets you nothing.

It got Obama elected, which has worked out really well.

Hypocrisy. That is the lesson that is on display.

From the President, to his corrupt party, to the nut less hacks Congress, down to the petty tyrants that voted for a demagogue.

Batboy2/75 wrote:Hypocrisy. That is the lesson that is on display.

From the President, to his corrupt party, to the nut less hacks Congress, down to the petty tyrants that voted for a demagogue.

Calm down. The peace loving folks on the other side of the aisle who are suddenly concerned with having congressional approval every step of the way and who are dead set against interfering in the affairs of other countries are just as hypocritical. The only real difference thus far is that John Kerry isn't as polished of a liar as Colin Powell was.

Terry B. wrote:The only real difference thus far is that John Kerry isn't as polished of a liar as Colin Powell was.

What?

Terry B. wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Hypocrisy. That is the lesson that is on display.

From the President, to his corrupt party, to the nut less hacks Congress, down to the petty tyrants that voted for a demagogue.

Calm down. The peace loving folks on the other side of the aisle who are suddenly concerned with having congressional approval every step of the way and who are dead set against interfering in the affairs of other countries are just as hypocritical.

Bush did get the bipartisan approval though - as insisted upon by Obama and Biden as essential. Biden said to do otherwise was an impeachable offense. The hypocrisy of the other side thus far pales in comparison to that of Dear Leader and Dear Leader Jr.

*Edit: The Ossiah has sought political cover w/Congressional authorization. While I have no faith in his motives, it's the right thing to do...and he did it

nafod wrote:

lasalle wrote:Let's see-in the last few years we've had military action against:
Iraq
Pakistan
Iraq
Yemen
Libya
and now Syria.

Just to get your facts straight, we didn't have military action against Pakistan or Yemen, we have it in them. In Libya we supported the people who rose up against their boss. Obama had nothing to do with Iraq, and got us out.

Lulz-a unilateral military action not supported by either the UN or the constitutionally required process is OK and somehow off the balance sheet because of who we were shooting at?

protobuilder wrote:

nafod wrote: Fuck worrying about global community respect, by the way. That and ten cents gets you nothing.

It got Obama elected, which has worked out really well.

Really well to make him the most chickenshit not an athlete cowardly bastard ever to weasel his way into the office. What's his golf score, proto?

lasalle wrote:

nafod wrote:

lasalle wrote:Let's see-in the last few years we've had military action against:
Iraq
Pakistan
Iraq
Yemen
Libya
and now Syria.

Just to get your facts straight, we didn't have military action against Pakistan or Yemen, we have it in them. In Libya we supported the people who rose up against their boss. Obama had nothing to do with Iraq, and got us out.

Lulz-a unilateral military action not supported by either the UN or the constitutionally required process is OK and somehow off the balance sheet because of who we were shooting at?

LOLOL

Pakistan and Yemen both allow us to hunt down Al Qaeda in their territory. Philippines too.

Turdacious wrote:

Terry B. wrote:The only real difference thus far is that John Kerry isn't as polished of a liar as Colin Powell was.

What?

Double what. Kerry is a fine liar. How dare you question his ability to spew utter bullshit?

lasalle wrote:

nafod wrote:

lasalle wrote:Let's see-in the last few years we've had military action against:
Iraq
Pakistan
Iraq
Yemen
Libya
and now Syria.

Just to get your facts straight, we didn't have military action against Pakistan or Yemen, we have it in them. In Libya we supported the people who rose up against their boss. Obama had nothing to do with Iraq, and got us out.

Lulz-a unilateral military action not supported by either the UN or the constitutionally required process is OK and somehow off the balance sheet because of who we were shooting at?

Who you are shooting at should always matter.

It's progressive "We are all equals" bullshit that tries to impose a universal standard towards everyone.

Syria is a no go because both sides deserve to be shot at by us to one degree or another but since the shit handling, shit PR of the Iraq war and larger effortsand the Dems bullshit created a new conventional wisdom that you can't go in with force because you think someone is breaking an agreement and could be a threat to your interest, but that you have to have mounds of evidence to support the "lawyer logic" to do so. This means people who pissed on our efforts in Iraq, screamed about the rights of animals who have no rights legally and campaigned on "No More Wars of Choice" and then had a war of choice 2 years ago, should not be doing so.

And it's in our interest to just let all these assholes kill each other. We should not help either side. we should vape the place and look at Iran, but since we lost our collective balls a long time ago, the best option all around is to stay the fuck out of it.

Terry B. wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Hypocrisy. That is the lesson that is on display.

From the President, to his corrupt party, to the nut less hacks Congress, down to the petty tyrants that voted for a demagogue.

Calm down. The peace loving folks on the other side of the aisle who are suddenly concerned with having congressional approval every step of the way and who are dead set against interfering in the affairs of other countries are just as hypocritical. The only real difference thus far is that John Kerry isn't as polished of a liar as Colin Powell was.

Except the other side of the aisle got gongressional approval. That little tid bit you left out.

nafod wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

nafod wrote: In Libya we supported the people who rose up against their boss. Obama had nothing to do with Iraq, and got us out.

But in Iran we didn't, until we kinda did (after the fact). And in Egypt we did, and now we're kinda doing it again but on the other side?

Our foreign policy is a mess.

But at least we're more respected in the "global community" than we were in, say, 2007?

The world is a mess. To claim foreign policy is a mess is to presume we can control more than we can. For example, people kill me when they suggest that Egypt flipped because we didn't stand by our man Mubarak. That shit was going down with or without us.

Fuck worrying about global community respect, by the way. That and ten cents gets you nothing.

I think I'm missing your point. What do you propose the US do or not do?

nafod wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

nafod wrote: In Libya we supported the people who rose up against their boss. Obama had nothing to do with Iraq, and got us out.

But in Iran we didn't, until we kinda did (after the fact). And in Egypt we did, and now we're kinda doing it again but on the other side?

Our foreign policy is a mess.

But at least we're more respected in the "global community" than we were in, say, 2007?

The world is a mess. To claim foreign policy is a mess is to presume we can control more than we can. For example, people kill me when they suggest that Egypt flipped because we didn't stand by our man Mubarak. That shit was going down with or without us.

Fuck worrying about global community respect, by the way. That and ten cents gets you nothing.

When our Secretary of State makes a moralistic call for action on national TV, we've raised it to a different category.

lasalle wrote:

nafod wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

nafod wrote: In Libya we supported the people who rose up against their boss. Obama had nothing to do with Iraq, and got us out.

But in Iran we didn't, until we kinda did (after the fact). And in Egypt we did, and now we're kinda doing it again but on the other side?

Our foreign policy is a mess.

But at least we're more respected in the "global community" than we were in, say, 2007?

The world is a mess. To claim foreign policy is a mess is to presume we can control more than we can. For example, people kill me when they suggest that Egypt flipped because we didn't stand by our man Mubarak. That shit was going down with or without us.

Fuck worrying about global community respect, by the way. That and ten cents gets you nothing.

I think I'm missing your point. What do you propose the US do or not do?

I said it up above.

Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs." Message delivered by bombing a few symbolic targets. The more the world wrings their hands over it, the better. We also let him know, "Next one is targeted at you."

Now that Obama has asked for Congressional approval, this ought to be interesting. We'll either man up or pussy up. Details at 11:00.