Oh, who are we kidding, let's get back to what means more...
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...psdd399411.jpg
Good link BTW; I was explaining the WWI similarity to my better half. I hope we're all wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
Printable View
Oh, who are we kidding, let's get back to what means more...
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...psdd399411.jpg
Good link BTW; I was explaining the WWI similarity to my better half. I hope we're all wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
Hmmm... When the Bush administration "concluded" through various intelligence collection efforts and foreign governments that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and used them on his own people, as a prelude to war in Iraq, their were not enough vile adjectives in the left's vocabulary to describe him.Quote:
However, President Obama in an interview with PBS Wednesday declared unequivocally that the United States has "concluded" that the Syrian government carried out the attack.
When the Obama administration "concluded" Syria was responsible for chemical weapons attacks on their own people through the use of various intelligence collection efforts and foreign governments, as a prelude to war in Syria, let's see what the left has to say.
for an idea of what we'd be stepping into:
http://america.aljazeera.com/article...eldclinic.html
Really Bad Idea. All kinds of factions each fighting for their part. There is no side that would be in our interest to have in charge so we'd only be fighting to end the killing...
That might be the plan on purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by merl
No Proof that Assad was behind the attack:
Quote:
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats - including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials.The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders has said an Aug. 21 rock strike killed 355 people.
A three-page report released Thursday by the British government said there was "a limited but growing body of intelligence" blaming the Syrian government for the attacks. And though the British were not sure why Assad would have carried out such an attack, the report said there was "no credible intelligence" that the rebels had obtained or used chemical weapons.
full article here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-29-03-11-56
The UK is out.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ng-go-it-alone
I wonder what ol' shit-for-brains will do now.
Royally piss off the rest of the world by attempting to play a very serious and deadly game when he is a rank and arrogant amateur.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
His ideology has the potential to cost millions of lives.
He is a clear and present danger and the fact that he wishes to lend aid to basically AQ is near treasonous in nature.
Iran,Russia and China have already told him to sit this one out.
China and Russia have the ability to kill us financially.
Iran, hell they'll just kill us.
Tell me, just how many "sleeper cells" are in the country?
Yeah, this ought to be interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
What is the pResident trying to hide?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...est-live-cover
These bastards are going to get more good Americans killed, if they want a war so bad why doesn't that son-of-a-whore get his own AK47 and step out with his al queda buddies.Quote:
Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller White House has declined TV networks request for live coverage of Pres. Obama's remarks on Syria at 230pm.
Rumor is that US intercepted a phone call in Syria about the attack and how it was more potent than they had planned.
Nation building is tough business. We were helped immensely by many countries during our war of independence: France, Netherlands, Spain and others helped us out. France went bankrupt helping us and then had a revolution of their own.
These countries were looking out for their own interests when they helped us. They wanted to weaken the British, because of Britain’s military strength and widespread colonization. We are now the British; putting leaders “puppets” in control of a country in order to serve us.
We are doing what France did and bankrupting our country to “help” other countries out for our loosely defined interests. It seems our biggest interest is keeping much of the world destabilized so we can get what we want from them, and they know if they don’t do what we want we will depose or destroy them as well.
Of course we are always told we are spreading freedom and democracy. I don’t know about that, but our leaders are sure spreading something around.
NATO bails on our feckless leader.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...-obama-his-own
Quote:
NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, setting the stage for the defense alliance NATO will have no role in any military action in Syria.
...
"I predict not a NATO role in what I here call an international reaction to the regime in Damascus, says Anders Fogh Rasmussen at a press conference in Vejle.
However, it can change the situation if NATO member Turkey, which shares a border with Syria is attacked. At present, Nato keen rockets along the border in order to respond to any aggression.
How many times does Obama have to step on his dick before people realize the only thing he does well is step on his dick?
Hadji is covered, all he has to do is promise our money to the free shit army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Saddam. It's blatantly obvious, considering a high level Iraqi officer defected and wrote a book about trucks crossing from Iraq into Syria prior to our invasion in 2003... Now when the pictures come out of the victims of this attack let's hold them side by side with the Kurds from the mid-90's that had chemical weapons used on them in the uprising against Saddam. And people called Bush a liar....Quote:
Originally Posted by skullybones
Iraq or the Iranians, maybe we were helping the Saudi's, maybe the Saudi's got Saddam's WMD and gave it to Al Quada. In any case Saddam had WMD and moved it before the invasion. I could see President Bush telling the Saudis that we were going to invade and that WMD was on the table, maybe the Saudi's took care of Saddam's family as they fled Iraq and the payback was WMD. Between them and from opposite sides the Bush administration and the media have completely screwed up the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
The media screw up the facts? That's just crazy talk... they never do that! [Sarcasm2]Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Punting to Congress so he doesn't have to lose face, he can blame on Congress.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...utin-1-obama-0
Hey barry, do us all a favor and go golfing every day until your term is up.Quote:
After bringing the world to the edge of WWIII and nearly giving the first order to launch the ironically named Patriot missile, then dramatically punting in the very last second whether to invade Syria to Congress, something he should have done from the every beginning, Obama went on to do what he does best.
One more thing
FUCK YOU Hadji
What a pussy.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ne-sums-it-all
:)
One of the comments
Quote:
If you voted for the President....you voted for Al Qaeda....twice.
They are going to muddle this up so bad we'll never be able to factually figure out who did it even though al queda did it with saudi/u.s. help.
That's ok as long as hadji can't commit US forces to help al queda.
Who benefits from a war with Syria?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ates-and-syria
i agree 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
http://www.examiner.com/article/brea...emical-weapons
This just popped up as a link in one of my FB feeds. Still trying to verify.
We dont have any reason to be worrying about it anyway, it is not a direct threat to our national security so stay out of it already
*Sorry. Forgot there was a thread in L&P. Feel free to delete.*
But I agree, stay out.
So here are my thoughts and have been the whole time since the Sarin attack. We must do something, When looking strartegically there are threats to the United States. The first is weakness, the red line comment forced our hand one year ago. In this case the President needs to nut up or shut up. Second you all have commented on who is fighting, what if AQ gets their hands on chemical weapons? This is not only a threat to our allies but possibly directly to the United States.
The CW threat to the Unites States is real, especially when the Federal Government is currently reducing its capability to respond to Weapons of Mass Destruction. WMD preparedness is very weak at all levels of response with the exception of the military. CBIRF is the best resource available. CERFP's are available but with a 24 readiness window.
On a history note, Ronin is right, these CW's are more than likely from Iraq. It's no coincidence that federal and local WMD preparedness staring increasing in 2002-2003. In fact on 9-11 I was at the Center for Domestic Prepareness in Aniston AL taking part in evaluating the training program rolled out by TEEX to prepare first responders for WMD's.
Of course I am just a high school teacher, what do I know.
Forgot to add, on the tactical side our target should be the CW's, regardless of which side they are on. This keeps us neutral but targets the true threat to the United States and our allies. This must be done with boots on the ground which nobody wants, but it is a specific objective and best option from a national security standpoint.
Right now we look like a monkey fucking a football. It is amateur hour in Washington.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Agreed! This is exactly how it should happen.
Based on that methodology of thinking; I guess we better strike Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea at the same time. We cannot allow CW's to get into the hands of terrorists right?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmailliard
If the UK is saying they won't get involved, regardless of if we do or not, that says something. One of our most loyal and steadfast allies won't back any action we may take, we should probably take a hint.
I just watched a documentary from the BBC last night on the history of Syria and how it got to this point. Bashar Al-Assad's old man was a friend to the Muslim Brotherhood (sounds like a certain world leader we know of in the west), Bashar can't have fallen that far from the father. They both are also part of the Ba'ath party (so was Saddam)- which the Ba'athists align quite closely with European Socialist ideology (see: Nazi Germany) but then they throw in a mix of secular Islamist ideas, which when mixed together equal just about everything we do not stand for here in America- traditionally. So the choice is which evil does Obama want to support? The socialists who want "equality" for all Syrians (which includes 10% of the population that is Christian)? Or the Al Qaeda rebels who want to adhere to strict Sharia Law (which would seek to eradicate the Christian minority in Syria if they gain power)?
Well, just to simplify things, we should keep Israel's back and remove ourselves from the middle east, let the muslims have their civil wars in which eventually they will kill millions of them selves with Russian and Chinese arms. After they do that they will have then become a "state" of sorts and we will have a real target to shoot at. Once they unite their hold in the middle east they will go after Europe as hard as they can and make a big push into our extremely tolerant neighbor to the north, Canada. Europe will need to grow some balls to stop the islamic take over of their own countries. While they go after Europe they will at the same time push into India too. Then Russia will be targeted for extermination. The communists will hold out in China and the mostly Catholic areas of South and Central America will go commie before they go muslim.
I'm old so simple works for me, still trying to figure out which way things will go here in the USA but I have an idea where I will stand if things get really out of hand here.
Ah! So the coverup (mishandling my 'Merican ass) has started because the initial plan to blame Assad failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoner01
http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/eviden...ons-not-assad/
http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress...mical-attacks/
The other question is "Why would Assad need to use CW when he is winning?" The logic doesn't follow, CW is for when you're desperate and losing or you're trying to influence the politics surrounding your conflict.
Good reading & some interesting video. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
If Intel shows they are supporting AQ with direct aid (supplying and training) in CW's, yes, absolutely. This is what AQ has wanted all along, Weapons of Mass Destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by <MADDOG>
What if that intel discovers the Saudis and our own oval office participated?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmailliard