Oedius and Manfred,

No need to sorry! These dramas are all I have to practice my English... lol

Back to the original point of this thread- i think this says a lot.

BigC5798 wrote: Back to the original point of this thread- i think this says a lot.

Yea that sounds about right to me. Why the hell would Assad or who ever the heck he is use gas to kill people when we said we would attack if he did. I highly doubt he would test the U.S and use them. If he really did then he has no more since than a toddler playing call of duty and the parents of the toddler for letting it play call of duty. The rebels would be the only ones to gain something by using gas to sacrifice a few of there people. It would not be the first time people in the middle east sacrificed there lives in ridicules ways for there fare off and not so good greater good.

If america went in and attacked I would hope they where taking out members of both sides in the Syrian war because honestly there are no good guy's in that war. Both sides could easily put in the category as your evil villain you tend to see in most horror stories. They actually might be worse than the villains in your horror stories.

While I am on the side of Don't Intervene Especially if You Don't Know For Sure Who Did It, I must point out that the news source in BigC's video is RT Television, formerly known as Russia Today. Basically a multilingual version of BBC based in Russia. This news network would be extremely biased toward the Russian position, which supports Assad strongly.

But it DOES illustrate how easy it is to cast doubt on American leadership's insistence (without showing proof) that Assad did it. Sure does make you wonder! This shows that intervention would once again make the us look like Those Invasive Bastards.

Ya really got to know for sure 100%, and 100% defensible for all time, for all revisionist history, and against all future criticism. Kind of a high bar. For me, the Rebels and their supporters just have too much to gain here, and I cannot write off a ploy as a zero percent possibility.

Don't do it, U.S. Congress and Obama.

Manfred

Yes, the ONLY thing we DO know that IS 100% certain is what history teaches us, if we are honest enough to face it. We are dealing with 7th century "throw backs" & savages who will always hate us no matter what we do or don't do. They can never be trusted. True islam will never be compatible with American (western) values. This in spite of how many western "values" are becoming harder to be proud of these days.

As harsh as this may sound, I think that when you are really at war, the goal should be to destroy your enemy with overwhelming force, as quickly as possible. None of the B.S. about "winning hearts and minds". America has not fought a war to win since WW2.

Edited to add that; I have learned you have to be very careful with any of the news media, even FOX. Of course most all of the others are pure propaganga machines, though.

I don't have enough intellect to join this thread, but there are some good one liners in here........

Not true, Dent. You have as much insight as anyone.

On the Russian News, it uses a UN investigation, not a Russian one. The one the western media uses is the American investigation, quickly scraped together with little actual effort, and with a predecided decision

Righto. To balance my previous commentary about RT Network... I must point out that the news source in CNN's investigation is the Obama Administration.

Ok. Someone help me out. To me, Obama's speech last night said the following: Chemical weapons are really bad and we should'nt let anyone use them. Syria was bad, and they used them. We need to teach Syria a lesson. We are going to use coordinated strikes to do so. We are going to postpone doing anything about it.


Did I miss anything?

Jacklpe wrote: Ok. Someone help me out. To me, Obama's speech last night said the following: Chemical weapons are really bad and we should'nt let anyone use them. Syria was bad, and they used them. We need to teach Syria a lesson. We are going to use coordinated strikes to do so. We are going to postpone doing anything about it.


Did I miss anything?

Are you being snarky or did you only listen to the network news sound bites?

He stated what the evidence is. Was he lying? Assads admissions confirm what Obama has been saying.

Obama made a very good argument in support of intervention. Anyone who does not agree with the validity of his argument would probably not understand why torturing POWs is also a bad idea. That's not a perfect comparison but the way the "violation" erodes what is considered acceptable and actually places Americans at higher risk is very similar.

He said something to the effect that one of the most important goals of a military strike would be to diminish the Assad regimes ability to carry out such an attack. The latest statements about admitting they had used them and would now relinquish them accomplish that goal.

There is little doubt that Obama must be delighted with how things turned out. I wonder how much time he spent talking with Russian leaders over this . Is this Obamas "Cuban missile crisis"? It's not over yet but it's not as tense as it was just a few days ago and the world just might turn out a little for his actions.

We'll see. No matter how it turns out there will still be those who say he did the wrong thing and want him impeached.

(Actually, jacklpe, I guess you didn't miss much.)

In fact it's such a nice (nice sounding) solution that I have to wonder when it came up and by whom. I mean, did No One among the Obama advisors think of this? Those people are paid to think of Everything.

If you humor me a bit in my cynicism, let's play this out. Say, a couple days after Aug 21 (chemical attack in Syria) an Obama strategist identifies International Seize and Destroy as a terrific option in between military-intervention and do-nothing. Of course they identified this, no way they would have ignored Door Number Three. Obama says "Sure, but I'll be criticized for impracticality. It's a pipe dream that 100% of anything can be confiscated, and I'll be blamed when either side uses chemical weapons any time in the future." Think think, go the advisors. "What if we plant the bug in Putin's ear that he can be a big hero in all this, and we'll gain political popularity back as well but with a story that Russia thought of this. We'll start a Chest Pounding about military intervention and surgical missiles which we all know is idiotic because we'll kill civvies too. The conservatives will go all ass-crazy over Abuse of Power. But then the Prez can do a bait and switch, throw his hands in the air and NOT exert any Executive Order, and throw it at Congress. Looking forward to elections, Congress, the chicken-sh1ts, won't pass anything having to do with missiles, and even though voters don't want a war, Congress will look wimpy and you Prez will be Big Man On Campus. Then Putin suggests his diplomatic miracle, which people will see as quite inspired for Putin even though it has no gauge on reality. People's reality threshold for Putin is a lot less than they would require of you Prez. Then we gradually warm up to the new idea. Putin looks like a Renaissance Man, Republicans look irrelevant, and you have your own version of JFK's Cuban Missle Crisis."

A nice looking answer results, but it's so unrealistic to execute well. However no one cares because Obama didn't suggest it and Putin is held to a lower standard for pragmatism. And, if the confiscation is done shabbily, any future chemical strikes by either side won't be blamed on Obama.

Call me paranoid, but I think there's a high possibility that that's what just happened.

Manfred

Manfred wrote: In fact it's such a nice (nice sounding) solution that I have to wonder when it came up and by whom. I mean, did No One among the Obama advisors think of this? Those people are paid to think of Everything.

If you humor me a bit in my cynicism, let's play this out. Say, a couple days after Aug 21 (chemical attack in Syria) an Obama strategist identifies International Seize and Destroy as a terrific option in between military-intervention and do-nothing. Of course they identified this, no way they would have ignored Door Number Three. Obama says "Sure, but I'll be criticized for impracticality. It's a pipe dream that 100% of anything can be confiscated, and I'll be blamed when either side uses chemical weapons any time in the future." Think think, go the advisors. "What if we plant the bug in Putin's ear that he can be a big hero in all this, and we'll gain political popularity back as well but with a story that Russia thought of this. We'll start a Chest Pounding about military intervention and surgical missiles which we all know is idiotic because we'll kill civvies too. The conservatives will go all ass-crazy over Abuse of Power. But then the Prez can do a bait and switch, throw his hands in the air and NOT exert any Executive Order, and throw it at Congress. Looking forward to elections, Congress, the chicken-sh1ts, won't pass anything having to do with missiles, and even though voters don't want a war, Congress will look wimpy and you Prez will be Big Man On Campus. Then Putin suggests his diplomatic miracle, which people will see as quite inspired for Putin even though it has no gauge on reality. People's reality threshold for Putin is a lot less than they would require of you Prez. Then we gradually warm up to the new idea. Putin looks like a Renaissance Man, Republicans look irrelevant, and you have your own version of JFK's Cuban Missle Crisis."

A nice looking answer results, but it's so unrealistic to execute well. However no one cares because Obama didn't suggest it and Putin is held to a lower standard for pragmatism. And, if the confiscation is done shabbily, any future chemical strikes by either side won't be blamed on Obama.

Call me paranoid, but I think there's a high possibility that that's what just happened.

Manfred

The perfect plot!

"Back, and to the left...Back, and to the left."

Yessirree, a dogfighter shot him from the grassy knoll lol.

My story is only one possible re-creation. My point is, especially where there are politicians involved (incentive to stay in power, limited transparency, and a few bucks in petty cash), we can never rule out the solution that is the most self-serving while still being concealable. If we analyze the situation, there are three general courses of action. If we analyze each course of action, Obama comes out smelling bad in each. But if we manipulate this particular option so that someone else is credited with the responsibility, then we have the makings of having cake and eating it too, a politician's favorite course. All we have to do if say we want one thing, fake left, then fake right, and hand off to Putin in the end zone.

The hole in my particular attempt at piecing the events is that Iran would be pissed at Russia for bringing this up (or even appearing to bring it up). But maybe it still works, as apparent allies run power plays on each other all the time. And other contingencies seem to work as well. If Congress did ok a limited strike, no biggie, Obama would then appear strong but with restraint. If Russia chose not to bring up the confiscation option, then Obama could mention it anyway as part of his talks with Vladimir, and force his hand. Ehh, maybe that one's a weak one ok. But anyway, politicians will always cook up the best way to look good, we can count on them for that.

M

Did I miss anything?

Are you being snarky

Of course I am. The only thing I hate worse than a spineless Republican is a lying a$$ Democrat.

Oh ME of little faith.

(If you are curious I'm probably 55% Republican, 35% Libertarian, and 10% (real) Democrat. What I am not is a socialist or communist. Unfortunately, the modern Democrat agenda is about 60% Socialist, 30% Communist, and 10% Democrat. I miss real Democrats (think JFK)... I would vote for a real one over a spineless Republican...

Our whole idea of political parties is messed up. People just vote for them because they have (R) or (D) next to their name. George Washington said to never form political factions, because it would lead to our ruination. He was right. In these uneducated times, with the US 26th in the world rank on education, parties just lead to blind votes, backrooom deals, and shady politicians. Yall know the only politician not taking money to make laws, not in a party, and is the most honest?

Ron Paul, last is my opinion, but if you try to tell me other politicans are honest, i might crap myself laughing. Right now, our constitutional rights are being stripped and people dont even care about that! Who thinks they will care about another illegal war?

Although this doesnt have to do with the direct subject, it has to do with where this conversation has led. I am 95% libertarian, but this all has fact to back it up. Each amendment, with how it has been recently neglected.

Amendment 1- durin the occupy movement, whether you agree with it or not, many innocents were pepper sprayed and brutally beaten by cops, one was even shot. All were innocent, and this is only the stuff caught on camera. This violates the freedom of assembly

Amendment 2- "gun free zones" and cities like Chicago, the places where most murders happen, do not allow the right to bear arms, unconstitutionally.

Amendment 4- during the Boston bombing, the DHS and Boston police illegal busted people's doors and searched houses without warrants. Also, the patriot act and NSA spying make you not secure in your own home.

Amendment 5- NDAA, national defense authorization act, says that US citizens can be held without charges or conviction for however long the government feels like it.

Amendment 6- NDAA also, because you get no trial, you are just locked up without charge for however long the government sees fit.

Amendment 8- "enhanced interrogation" is allowed in camps set up by NDAA for US citizens, cruel and unusual punishment is allowed

Amendment 7- NDAA also gets rid of your right to a trial

Agreed on almost all points... I'm not Ron Paul's biggest fan, but I will concede that he is right an awful lot of the time. And, given the circumstances, I would probably vote for Rand.

I just somehow hope that we wake up one of these days and stop looking for an American Idol president. If you can find a man who hasn't ever made mistakes, I'll show you a man who has neither tried anything worthwhile, nor learned anything in the process. I'm also not looking for a president to be my spiritual advisor. I could really care less who or what he has slept with etc. I won't ask, you don't tell. If you tell, and disgrace your office, then you are a damn fool. Anyway, I think the criteria that our leaders are elected by is a big problem, and a smoke and mirrors game by design. I hope this changes at some point, but I'm not holding my breath.

Obama gives Russia president Putin the lead over Syria. What a sad day for the United States who use to be the leading super power of the world. Obama is doing a excellent job, how you say? Before he was elected he said he was going to transform the United States.

Well he has done a great job transforming us into a weak and divided country, we are an embarrassment to the world.

IF THERE ARE ANY OBAMA SUPPORTERS IN THE DOGFIGHT FAMILY THEN PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TELL US WHAT REDEEMING QUALITIES YOU SEE IN THIS MAN.

My goodness.

Davy Crockett wrote: Obama gives Russia president Putin the lead over Syria. What a sad day for the United States who use to be the leading super power of the world. Obama is doing a excellent job, how you say? Before he was elected he said he was going to transform the United States.

Well he has done a great job transforming us into a weak and divided country, we are an embarrassment to the world.

IF THERE ARE ANY OBAMA SUPPORTERS IN THE DOGFIGHT FAMILY THEN PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TELL US WHAT REDEEMING QUALITIES YOU SEE IN THIS MAN.

My goodness.

Umm... He's smart enough to read a teleprompter and let that skill alone provide an 8 year taxpayer funded job, with the finest travel accommodations in the world, over 100 free rounds of golf and other sports (often with instruction given by the worlds fines athletes), a reasonable salary, a mansion with servant staff for 8 years, a private jet, helicopter, a fleet of fine limousines, and a protection detail for life. He did so with very little experience, a very shady background, major doubts regarding his citizenship, and with other people's money.

Also, he has managed to maintain all of this while working very little and accomplishing even less, while neither accepting responsibility nor facing any consequences for his lack of effort or ability.

In the mean time, he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for simply doing nothing.

Hell, I think he may be brilliant.

Lol, u right, great deceiver he is.

The toll in Syria is now 30,000 killed and two million displaced. We have done nothing.
1,300 American soldiers died in Falluja and Ramadi during the occupation of Iraq. Those cities are again in the hands of Al Qaeda linked Islamist militants. We left the New Iraqi regime unprepared. Worse still, we knew it. This is the consequence.
We are bailing from Afghanistan with the same unseemly haste as we did from Iraq. We're talking months, but the Taliban think in decades.
The New York Times described a 'post American Middle East void' where militant forces are more powerful than before 9/11. What have we done wrong and what should we do better? Intellectually we can possibly separate Arab Spring from the War on Terror, but we all know they are connected. The War on Terror is not something that can be turned off at will, but it seems that this is what we are trying to do.
I would welcome a few opinions about this.

The mainstream news has been strangely silent, which means EITHER:
1) Nothing of importance is happening, or,
2) The administration is not proud of the result of its action or inaction, and doesn't want it well-publicized

Door #1, or Door #2?

I reserve judgment on whether intervention (at this late stage of the game, after all of the initial jockeying and positioning) is right or wrong. But the media politics are so prominent!

Manfred

Depends on your location Manfred, here in Australia its still in the news, just not as prominent since it's the same every day.

Interventions wouldn't have fixed things, unless the Russians withdrew their support in which case Assad would have left, and then you would have who ever take over after. at the moment it's a mix of opposition groups with different ideals, who other than having a common enemy for now, don't agree on much. If assad left tomorrow they would fight each other

The war on terror? You mean the war on innocent civilians and we every once in a while kill a guy with a gun? The US has yet to win a war against guerrilla fighters. Vietnam, Afghanistan, post saddam Iraq. Get the hell out and leave them alone. They're ticked off in the first place because we wont leave them alone, and us blaming them for something they didnt do to go to war ticked em off more.

The US needs to leave people alone. Decreasing military spending will lower the governments cost exponentially.

A good perspective C, and not so far from my own. I suppose the War on Terror should have been more carefully planned, using information, persuasion, negotiation over occupation and kinetic effects. The problem is what to do now that everyone's gone crazy. Is disengagement the only option, or is it the worst option?

Well we're obviously out of ideas on this front! (tumbleweed drifts past, stray dog barks in the distance)
Perhaps I should turn my attention to much more important issues like bomb dumping and camping. (turns and walks wearily to his half starved horse - camera holds for a few seconds then moves to close focus - a scorpion scurries over the man's boot print in the dust - credits) lol

Battles are won by bigger guns. Wars are won by winning peoples hearts. Greed starts wars. Love ends them.

Kevy wrote: Battles are won by bigger guns. Wars are won by winning peoples hearts. Greed starts wars. Love ends them.

Kevy, this sounds like a Dickensian way of quoting U.K's PM on the "hug a hoodie" idea.... GENIUS

Well actually maybe you have a point, if the jihadi terrorist believe in 72 virgins and a 'reward' for being a martyr, maybe we could allow them 73 not to?

.O.G. wrote:

Kevy wrote: Battles are won by bigger guns. Wars are won by winning peoples hearts. Greed starts wars. Love ends them.

Kevy, this sounds like a Dickensian way of quoting U.K's PM on the "hug a hoodie" idea.... GENIUS

Well actually maybe you have a point, if the jihadi terrorist believe in 72 virgins and a 'reward' for being a martyr, maybe we could allow them 73 not to?

Hey if you're going to do that, I think I just turned into a jihadi terrorist.

Sorry i didnt respond sooner, I lost my charger...

And Biggs, what option is worse than killing more innocents and ticking more if then off? Like kevy said, win their hearts

I actually had to post that first...because I believe it.
A strong military is a must have deterrent in our world. It must be used correctly however. Intervening in other countries affairs is not a reason. Eliminating a despot is however.
The best approach is a United worldwide view that dictatorships and violent groups will not be tolerated. The current status quo is big countries using little ones to their benefit. When evil men see the world looking the other way in say Africa for instance they think they can do it in their country. The world as a whole has to fight this evil wherever it shows. Not just in strategic places but everywhere. This over time will eliminate the extremest groups around the world. We will probably never see eye to eye as a race. If you look at the different cultures they all preach love and peace but none of them practice it unless it is with those of their own beliefs.
War makes money and gives power. Fix it so it doesn't and most won't start.
Survival of the fittest is Mother Nature's rule not ours. With our God given brains why can't we decide to change that rule. We certainly break all her others.