PDA

View Full Version : Obama may have to attack Syria soon


cutthemdown
04-26-2013, 02:11 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/us-usa-syria-whitehouse-idUSBRE93P17D20130426

U.S. President Barack Obama warned President Bashar al-Assad on Friday that any use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war would be a "game changer" but cautioned that intelligence assessments that such weapons had been deployed were still preliminary.



Of course they have been used already and rightfully so Obama still not wanting to jump in. Sooner or later though does anyone doubt the USA will step in? What would a war do for Obamas 2nd term agenda? Would it be good for him and give him a deistraction that takes off the pressure domestically? or would it just turn into a nightmare for him?

Requiem
04-26-2013, 02:16 PM
AfPak was already a foreign policy graveyard, getting into another boondoggle in the Middle East when we don't need to be there would beyond stupid.

"Praise the War Machine."

Pretty sick and sad that there is so much private lobbying that has a strangle hold on or foreign policy.

Rohirrim
04-26-2013, 02:21 PM
I imagine it would be much like Libya was. The UN would put boots on the ground and the U.S. would provide air support.

cutthemdown
04-26-2013, 02:24 PM
If it could be ended much like Libya why are they waiting so long Roh?

W*GS
04-26-2013, 02:35 PM
No.

houghtam
04-26-2013, 03:15 PM
I imagine it would be much like Libya was. The UN would put boots on the ground and the U.S. would provide air support.

Syria's military capability >>>>>>>> Libya's

Stay out unless the UN leads it IMO.

cutthemdown
04-26-2013, 06:44 PM
Syria's military capability >>>>>>>> Libya's

Stay out unless the UN leads it IMO.

So even if Obama said use chemcial weapons and that is a "Game Changer" we will not tolerate WMD bla blah blah. You would want him to not follow through even if they use chemical weapons? That's amazing to me he's your friggin president you want him to be someone the world doesn't believe when he makes a line in the sand?

The UN leads it? Whatever happened to America leading?

cutthemdown
04-26-2013, 06:58 PM
Hear is Obama!

"Given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to WMD, it's very important that we are able to establish this with certainty and that we are able to provide information that is airtight ... to underpin all of our decision-making," the official said. "That is, I think, the threshold that is demanded given how serious this issue is."

houghtam
04-26-2013, 07:04 PM
So even if Obama said use chemcial weapons and that is a "Game Changer" we will not tolerate WMD bla blah blah. You would want him to not follow through even if they use chemical weapons? That's amazing to me he's your friggin president you want him to be someone the world doesn't believe when he makes a line in the sand?

The UN leads it? Whatever happened to America leading?

Not at all. That's what I would do. Obama made the mistake of painting himself into a corner. If you make a threat or a promise, you have to follow through. I would have simply said we will answer each individual threat with a measured response based on the situation.

As far as America leading, I am not interested in playing global policeman. Because this is a potential human rights situation, our hands may be tied and we may have to assist. Doesn't mean the US has to play point man and commit an already beleaguered military to its third major offensive action in just over a decade against a foe who is much better able to defend itself than Iraq or Afghanistan.

elsid13
04-26-2013, 07:13 PM
Action is required, and I have faith that Obama will take it. The use of chemical weapons on women and children is unacceptable and we as country should punish those that use them.

cutthemdown
04-26-2013, 10:13 PM
Not at all. That's what I would do. Obama made the mistake of painting himself into a corner. If you make a threat or a promise, you have to follow through. I would have simply said we will answer each individual threat with a measured response based on the situation.

As far as America leading, I am not interested in playing global policeman. Because this is a potential human rights situation, our hands may be tied and we may have to assist. Doesn't mean the US has to play point man and commit an already beleaguered military to its third major offensive action in just over a decade against a foe who is much better able to defend itself than Iraq or Afghanistan.

See I am different. I only want intervention if the President tells me this is needed for global stability, or because its vital to our economy. Does Syria rise to the same level conflicts in the Gulf would? Or Asia with N/S Korea Japan, China etc?

He's killed 100's of thousands now why would how he kills them make so much of a difference to obama. What a tank blowing kids up ok, but a shell with sarin we have to step in? Because Saddam used plenty of that on his people on you would have never supported it just for that. Now you say a human rights situation we have to assist?

Why not just gear up to say no war unless we or our allies are attacked? Why set a precedent for civil wars?

Now if the president says kick ass then hell yeah lets get it done. Send the full force of our military and send a message to other countries we still got it. Maybe we could finally use those f-22 we have sitting around unproven in battle. Hell send in the air force and I'm sure the rebels would win in a couple months. Of course those rebels hate us but that doesn't seem to matter.

houghtam
04-27-2013, 11:17 AM
See I am different. I only want intervention if the President tells me this is needed for global stability, or because its vital to our economy. Does Syria rise to the same level conflicts in the Gulf would? Or Asia with N/S Korea Japan, China etc?

He's killed 100's of thousands now why would how he kills them make so much of a difference to obama. What a tank blowing kids up ok, but a shell with sarin we have to step in? Because Saddam used plenty of that on his people on you would have never supported it just for that. Now you say a human rights situation we have to assist?

Why not just gear up to say no war unless we or our allies are attacked? Why set a precedent for civil wars?

Now if the president says kick ass then hell yeah lets get it done. Send the full force of our military and send a message to other countries we still got it. Maybe we could finally use those f-22 we have sitting around unproven in battle. Hell send in the air force and I'm sure the rebels would win in a couple months. Of course those rebels hate us but that doesn't seem to matter.

You're referring to a president who has a hawkish policy on using drones to kill people, which many times results in the death of children. I don't think he cares as much about the little children as you think he does.

As far as saying no war unless we're attacked, that's more or less what I advocate, although the use of chemical and nuclear weapons is something that draws ire from the global community, and requires action. I say act because we have to, but let someone else lead the way.

SoCalBronco
04-27-2013, 12:13 PM
No thanks.....unless we can ensure a friendly secular govt is the replacement and can't be overthrown by lslamists.

peacepipe
04-27-2013, 12:22 PM
No thanks.....unless we can ensure a friendly secular govt is the replacement and can't be overthrown by lslamists.

In other words,if we go in,go in to establish a dictatorship.

SoCalBronco
04-27-2013, 12:45 PM
In other words,if we go in,go in to establish a dictatorship.

Go in to preserve stability...and US security interests.

Right now...it appears the brotherhood would fill the vacuum...I'd rather have Assad...warts and all.

houghtam
04-27-2013, 12:49 PM
Our batting average isn't high enough on installing governments that operate in our interests, particularly in that region. I'd rather stay out entirely if we can.

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 01:09 PM
Obamas hands off because we can't really ever tell the mid east leaders what to do is a bad plan Houghtam. When Obama leaves he is going to leave a foreign policy mess for the next President. His plan is to do nothing with Iran, let Egypt, Libya, Syria all install govts that are unfriendly to American interests.

Also his stupid healthcare won't completely blow up until after he leaves. He's one of those QBS that polticial scientists will say was a train wreck for the USA.

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 01:10 PM
Go in to preserve stability...and US security interests.

Right now...it appears the brotherhood would fill the vacuum...I'd rather have Assad...warts and all.

What a mess.

Rohirrim
04-27-2013, 02:20 PM
Action is required, and I have faith that Obama will take it. The use of chemical weapons on women and children is unacceptable and we as country should punish those that use them.

Yep. Unfortunate, but true.

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 02:28 PM
Action is required, and I have faith that Obama will take it. The use of chemical weapons on women and children is unacceptable and we as country should punish those that use them.

punish or remove from power?

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 02:31 PM
Syria has a lot to lose using sarin. Are we sure its not a trick to get us to attack?

houghtam
04-27-2013, 03:02 PM
Syria has a lot to lose using sarin. Are we sure its not a trick to get us to attack?

This is why Obama is requesting further evidence. It's also what the administration is referring to when they release a statement speaking of past intelligence failures that have led to war.

Let the UN verify it, if it turns out to be true, they can organize the intervention. I'm sure we'll be involved, but I would not like our troops leading the charge again.

Never happen. Of course we're going to get involved. Of course we're going to lead it. Add another few hundred or so American deaths to the rolls, all in the name of "stability" in a region that has never had any stability, no matter who was president, D or R.

elsid13
04-27-2013, 03:08 PM
punish or remove from power?

In this case it will one and the same. First, crimes against humanity charges should filed in the Hague, second limited military strikes on current Syrian Air Bases, finally enforcement of no-fly zone.

baja
04-27-2013, 04:13 PM
Listen to you arrogant bastards...... No wonder the rest of the world hates America.


Stay the hell out of other countries it's the UN's job to deal with these things.

Meck77
04-27-2013, 04:31 PM
So our our government says they can't afford to adequately run our airports anymore yet "we" can afford to attack Syria? Come on...........

Let's let our little "buddy" Israel waste billions and their own precious blood in their region.

mhgaffney
04-27-2013, 07:09 PM
Action is required, and I have faith that Obama will take it. The use of chemical weapons on women and children is unacceptable and we as country should punish those that use them.

Syria is denying it.


Chemical Weapons Claims a 'Barefaced Lie,' says Syrian Minister

By RT

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34744.htm

April 27, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"RT" - Without hard evidence, American accusations of chemical weapons use in Syria fall short of UN proof standards, says a UN chemical inspector. And in the way proposed, a probe would only result in an Iraqi scenario, the Syrian information minister told RT.

The anti-Assad lobby in the UN is using the chemical weapons scare as a new way to exert political and economic pressure on the Syrian government, the country's information minister Omran Ahed al-Zouabi told RT.

“First of all, I want to confirm that statements by the US Secretary of State and British government are inconsistent with reality and a barefaced lie,” he told RT. “I want to stress one more time that Syria would never use it - not only because of its adherence to the international law and rules of leading war, but because of humanitarian and moral issues.”

Syria itself made the official request to the UN to investigate the incident in Khan al-Assal, which is an “important and brave step,” al-Zouabi stressed.

“It proves once again that the whole policy of the Syrian government is targeted against use of any kind of weapons of mass destruction by anybody: terrorists, Israel or any other neighboring state,” he said.

The United States pretends that there are no terrorists acting on Syrian territory at the same time being a country “involved in the biggest terror acts in the world,” the minister claimed. “The US is concealing that Qatar is financing terrorists, supply weapons to them. Thus, the US is basically involved in what is happening in Syria.”

‘Iraqi scheme of inspections’

In all their “absurdity and deceitfulness,” al-Zouabi explained, such statements by some Western governments are made in pursuit of basic goals.

“Their aim is, first, to cover those who are really behind use of chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal, and secondly, to repeat Iraq’s scenario, to pave the way for other investigation inspections. To provide, based on their results, maps, photos of rockets and other fabricated materials to the UN, which as we know, opened the way to the occupation of Iraq.”

Russian foreign ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich meanwhile said that the UN Secretary-General's initial positive reaction to Syria's appeal for an investigation“underwent a drastic change under the influence of a number of states.”

“The management of the UN Secretariat demanded that Damascus agree to the establishment of a permanent mechanism for inspection throughout Syrian territory with unlimited access to everywhere,” Lukashevich explained.

“The proposed scheme of inspections is similar to those used at the end of the last century in Iraq, which, unlike Syria, was under UN sanctions.” After months of silence, the UN is now referring to information from France and Britain about other cases of alleged use of chemical weapons last year, which Lukashevich believes demonstrates a highly politicized approach.

“It's difficult to understand why leaders of the UN Secretariat preferred to follow those who are concerned not about exact steps towards the suppression of use of chemical weapons in the Syrian crisis, but about changing the ruling regime of a sovereign state.”

Inspectors on standby

The United Nations again pushed on Thursday for unconditional and unfettered access for its team of investigators, which has been on standby in Cyprus since Syria refused it access nearly three weeks ago.

“We do not trust the American and British experts from a political point of view,” al-Zouab explained. “We also do not trust their qualifications. Their aim is to juggle with facts.”

“We won’t mind if Russians would be among the experts, quite the contrary, we only welcome this idea. We are quite sure in their high qualification and ability to clearly see into such matters.”

Experts from Russia and China however were not included in the team to ensure it wasn’t biased, according to the United Nations.

At the time Russian EU envoy Vitaly Churkin criticized “this kind of logic,” saying in that case he “would recommend excluding all NATO countries too.” Syrian officials maintain that they are ready to accept “a neutral and honest technical team to visit the village of Khan al-Assal” in the province of Aleppo.

The Syrian opposition meanwhile is also dead set against the inclusion of Russian and Chinese experts in the investigation team.

“The Russian side has no status allowing it to conduct a fair and impartial criminal investigation,” the Syrian National Council said in a statement, because Russia “is a major supplier of conventional and strategic weapons to the Syrian regime, as well as the main political guarantor of it staying in power.”

“The UN needs to immediately investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria,” an anonymous member of the council told AFP. “Should it find the regime used such weapons, it must act immediately, at least by imposing a no-fly zone.”

No samples whatsoever

Whether or not illegal chemical agents were used by either side during the Syrian conflict can only be determined by analyzing samples collected at the scenes of alleged attacks, said the Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which despite not being a United Nations body, collaborates with the UN on such inspections.

None of the governments and intelligence agencies accusing Damascus of using chemical weapons have presented any of the evidence that would be required for a clear analysis, such as soil, blood, urine or tissue samples, said Michael Luhan, a spokesman for OPCW.

But even if samples were provided, the OPCW would never get involved in testing something that its own inspectors did not “gather in the field” because of the need to “maintain a chain of custody of samples from the field to the lab to ensure their integrity,” said Luhan.

“This is the only basis on which the OPCW would provide a formal assessment of whether chemical weapons have been used.”

Meanwhile, waiting for a green light to enter Syria, members of the UN team “have been collating and analyzing the evidence and information that is available to date from outside,” Martin Nesirky, a spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said on Friday.

‘US retains the ability to act unilaterally’

“With varying degrees of confidence” the American intelligence community has determined that “the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons,” US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on Thursday.

Giving the statement added significance, early afternoon on Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney announced that the Obama administration has a number of options in regards to handling such reports - including direct use of military force - and that United States retains the ability to ‘act unilaterally’ in choosing one.

Just hours later, President Obama himself said, "horrific as it is…to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law.” His remarks came after a meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah in the Oval Office, amid mass demonstrations against deployment of US troops on Jordanian border with Syria.

W*GS
04-27-2013, 08:14 PM
Of course gaffe takes Assad's spewage as truth.

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 08:42 PM
In this case it will one and the same. First, crimes against humanity charges should filed in the Hague, second limited military strikes on current Syrian Air Bases, finally enforcement of no-fly zone.

What about when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Would have you supported taking him out then? is it just Bush jr waited too long for you to support that? Because he killed just as many Kurds as assad killing civilians now. Also in Africa we have tons of civilians killed in civil wars. Why are liberals so easily brought along for Syria?

Also Syria is winning why would they risk using chemcial weapons? Aren't you worried its just a ploy by al queda to get us into the war?

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 08:45 PM
This is why Obama is requesting further evidence. It's also what the administration is referring to when they release a statement speaking of past intelligence failures that have led to war.

Let the UN verify it, if it turns out to be true, they can organize the intervention. I'm sure we'll be involved, but I would not like our troops leading the charge again.

Never happen. Of course we're going to get involved. Of course we're going to lead it. Add another few hundred or so American deaths to the rolls, all in the name of "stability" in a region that has never had any stability, no matter who was president, D or R.

Until we can control who comes into power we should sit it out no matter what. Then if we go in we go in full force and we decide how the govt transitions. Not AlQueda. So liberals better make sure they know what they are supporting and not just give up their beliefs because its going to be Obama pulling the trigger.

W*GS
04-27-2013, 08:54 PM
Until we can control who comes into power we should sit it out no matter what.

Jesus ****ing Christ.

We are not, nor should we be, the global ****ing dictator.

You're an idiot.

Rohirrim
04-27-2013, 09:20 PM
It's ridiculous to assume the U.S. is just going to go off into Syria without verification. Cheney is no longer in the WH. The UN, and the US, are going to wait for undeniable proof that convinces the entire international community, including Russia, before they do anything.

baja
04-27-2013, 09:20 PM
Jesus ****ing Christ.

We are not, nor should we be, the global ****ing dictator.

You're an idiot.

Hey finally we agree on something.

defenseman
04-27-2013, 10:35 PM
Hey finally we agree on something.

So let them die a horrible death?....how manly of you....no need to worry about the rest of humanity as their lungs and nerve functions are destroyed in seconds by chemical agents. You need to apply for a UN job. They seem to be cut from the same cloth.

baja
04-27-2013, 10:41 PM
So let them die a horrible death?....how manly of you....no need to worry about the rest of humanity as their lungs and nerve functions are destroyed in seconds by chemical agents. You need to apply for a UN job. They seem to be cut from the same cloth.

Go crawl back in your hole. You have made your entire career on the blood of others. You are not in a position to preach humanity.

defenseman
04-27-2013, 10:48 PM
Go crawl back in your hole. You have made your entire career on the blood of others. You are not in a position to preach humanity.

Someone has to have the sack to rid the world of dictators. Funny when things get all messy, the libs run and hide like a scared school girl. Then when the bad guy comes after them suddenly they want protection. Syrian leadership deserves a lead infusion. And, humanity continues to exist because there are guys just like me.....you continue to have a voice....give the dems enough time....you won't have one anymore.

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 11:04 PM
Listening to libs try and say the UN should do it is pretty funny. Anything but have to take responsibility for crappy foreign policy descisions.

elsid13
04-28-2013, 04:31 AM
What about when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Would have you supported taking him out then? is it just Bush jr waited too long for you to support that? Because he killed just as many Kurds as assad killing civilians now. Also in Africa we have tons of civilians killed in civil wars. Why are liberals so easily brought along for Syria?

Also Syria is winning why would they risk using chemcial weapons? Aren't you worried its just a ploy by al queda to get us into the war?

If Bush senior acted when the Kurds were gassed, yes it would hve be justified. W, Cheney, Rumsfieldand the rest of cronies made **** up to invaded.

No I am not worried Al-Queda is attempting to "lure" the US in, that plan make no sense and they are not the evil geniuses from a Hollywood movie.

As for Africa, you are not paying attention to the fact that US and its allies are deeply involved in attempting to stabilize that area through military and diplomatic support/aid.

cutthemdown
04-28-2013, 05:01 AM
If Bush senior acted when the Kurds were gassed, yes it would hve be justified. W, Cheney, Rumsfieldand the rest of cronies made **** up to invaded.

No I am not worried Al-Queda is attempting to "lure" the US in, that plan make no sense and they are not the evil geniuses from a Hollywood movie.

As for Africa, you are not paying attention to the fact that US and its allies are deeply involved in attempting to stabilize that area through military and diplomatic support/aid.

Bush did more for Africa then any other President ever. In fact it's said he may have save 10 million lives. Aids drugs dropped from 4000 a yr to 125 a yr under Bush. What pisses me off is liberals paint him to be not just stupid, but not a good person and its BS. Thats why its so funny when liberals want us to give Obama a break, give him some slack.

cutthemdown
04-28-2013, 05:05 AM
If Bush senior acted when the Kurds were gassed, yes it would hve be justified. W, Cheney, Rumsfieldand the rest of cronies made **** up to invaded.

No I am not worried Al-Queda is attempting to "lure" the US in, that plan make no sense and they are not the evil geniuses from a Hollywood movie.

As for Africa, you are not paying attention to the fact that US and its allies are deeply involved in attempting to stabilize that area through military and diplomatic support/aid.

No way in hell you want the precedent going forward to anytime civilians get killed by their govt in huge number we step in. What about the millions of prisoners worked to death in N Korea. Do they not deserve a rescue attempt for humanitarian purposes?

elsid13
04-28-2013, 05:15 AM
No way in hell you want the precedent going forward to anytime civilians get killed by their govt in huge number we step in. What about the millions of prisoners worked to death in N Korea. Do they not deserve a rescue attempt for humanitarian purposes?

They do and the US should be attempting to destabilize that regime. And "stepping in" doesn't always means of putting boots on the ground. That is just one option, in Africa the US has provide military advisers, humanitarian aid, and intelligence to help.

Watching evil go unchecked is not acceptable.

Rohirrim
04-28-2013, 06:56 AM
I don't approve of the US fighting wars to protect oil markets. That's utter bull****. Using technology to reduce our need is the way to go first, on that score. Had we spent the trillion we spent on Iraq on energy technology here at home, we'd have come out ten times better. The US fighting wars for corporate interests is criminal. But when it comes to stopping atrocities, I think we owe it to the concept of civilization to get involved. Every country has that same responsibility if they wish to be counted among the civilized.

baja
04-28-2013, 08:06 AM
Someone has to have the sack to rid the world of dictators. Funny when things get all messy, the libs run and hide like a scared school girl. Then when the bad guy comes after them suddenly they want protection. Syrian leadership deserves a lead infusion. And, humanity continues to exist because there are guys just like me.....you continue to have a voice....give the dems enough time....you won't have one anymore.

First of all I am not a dumb ass liberal.

It's arrogant entitled fools like you that think it is your job to rid the world of tyrants but interestingly it's only the tyrants that are sitting on vast oil fields (or affect them) that seem to bother you. So add hypocrite to your list of qualities.

baja
04-28-2013, 08:15 AM
They do and the US should be attempting to destabilize that regime. And "stepping in" doesn't always means of putting boots on the ground. That is just one option, in Africa the US has provide military advisers, humanitarian aid, and intelligence to help.

Watching evil go unchecked is not acceptable.

Really, what about these brutal dictators of non oil rich countries?

http://brainz.org/10-most-evil-dictators-on-earth/

Meck77
04-28-2013, 08:26 AM
Someone has to have the sack to rid the world of dictators.

Why not let Israel take care of them? Or is it the same old excuse. Israel can't get their hands dirty because it will escalate things. Better to have America entangle herself and plunge herself further in debt?

What's the point of paying an ally BILLIONS every year then have to spend billions more policing their own back yard?

cutthemdown
04-28-2013, 12:48 PM
They do and the US should be attempting to destabilize that regime. And "stepping in" doesn't always means of putting boots on the ground. That is just one option, in Africa the US has provide military advisers, humanitarian aid, and intelligence to help.

Watching evil go unchecked is not acceptable.

Only Bush JR did much to help Africa. He's a hero there ya know!

mhgaffney
04-29-2013, 08:35 AM
Only Bush JR did much to help Africa. He's a hero there ya know!

You are joking, right?

cutthemdown
04-29-2013, 10:57 AM
You are joking, right?

No i'm not he poured money for aids and has a really high approval rating with Africans. Some Aids experts and activists claim Bush Jr saved over 10 million lives and dropped the price of Aids drugs and their availability to Africans. Even Sir Elton John has said Bush JR did more for aids care then any other world leader in history.

mhgaffney
04-29-2013, 11:26 AM
No i'm not he poured money for aids and has a really high approval rating with Africans. Some Aids experts and activists claim Bush Jr saved over 10 million lives and dropped the price of Aids drugs and their availability to Africans. Even Sir Elton John has said Bush JR did more for aids care then any other world leader in history.

What a bunch of BS.

I suggest you read Paul O'Neill's account of the Bush administration. It will force to open your eyes about Bush.

O'neill was Bush's first Treasury Secretary. He traveled to Africa and became enthusiastic about helping the Africans help themselves.

O'Neill crunched the numbers and found that for a pittance the US could install wells & pumps and provide clean water to every African village -- dramatically raising the living standard across the continent.

Bush sneered at the idea.

The lack of clean drinking water continues to be one of Africa's biggest problems. Thanks to Bush.

Check it out. Oh I forgot -- you don't read.

MHG

The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill

by Ron Suskind

Rohirrim
04-29-2013, 11:36 AM
What a bunch of BS.

I suggest you read Paul O'Neill's account of the Bush administration. It will force to open your eyes about Bush.

O'neill was Bush's first Treasury Secretary. He traveled to Africa and became enthusiastic about helping the Africans help themselves.

O'Neill crunched the numbers and found that for a pittance the US could install wells & pumps and provide clean water to every African village -- dramatically raising the living standard across the continent.

Bush sneered at the idea.

The lack of clean drinking water continues to be one of Africa's biggest problems. Thanks to Bush.

Check it out. Oh I forgot -- you don't read.

MHG

The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill

by Ron Suskind

That was a good book. I have it lying around here somewhere. It also details how the entire Bush administration, under the control of Cheney, operated on a policy of ideology over facts, at every turn ignoring and attacking any facts that contradicted their dogma. It also tells how Greenspan turned his back on everything he believed in and sold out in order to stay on the Bush gravy train.

cutthemdown
04-29-2013, 10:06 PM
BUSH jr PEPFAR did more for Africa then probably any leader in the world ever did. Even liberals like Matt Damon admit it and praise him for it.

cutthemdown
04-29-2013, 10:12 PM
Liberals = talk a lot about helping people
Conservatives = do a lot to help people

barryr
04-30-2013, 11:41 AM
Liberals = talk a lot about helping people
Conservatives = do a lot to help people

So true. The liberals believe in helping, but with other people's money. They like to bad mouth Christianity and churches at every chance, but they do far more to help others than they ever even think of doing. Just the other day a local church helped clean up a home of a man who had just died and there was no one else around to do it apparently, but they offered to help the family despite not even being church members. Good luck ever getting any liberal group to do such a thing, for free at least.

Rohirrim
04-30-2013, 11:57 AM
BUSH jr PEPFAR did more for Africa then probably any leader in the world ever did. Even liberals like Matt Damon admit it and praise him for it.

What a shame that he was simultaneously destroying America. ;D

TonyR
04-30-2013, 12:29 PM
...Syria is an immensely complex sectarian civil war, just like the one George W. Bush kick-started in neighboring Iraq that is once again gathering steam after the rank failure of the “surge” to do anything but get us out of there.

We do not have a clue what we are doing. It’s their country and we involve ourselves at our peril. Once we directly intervene in defense of one nebulous faction, we will deeply alienate another. We will be injecting the US into a brutal religious and ethnic civil war. If there is one guarantee that will bring more Jihadism to America, it will be another intervention in a complex Muslim country. The idea that we can win favor in that region by intervening is insane... http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/04/30/what-would-war-with-syria-accomplish/

TonyR
04-30-2013, 12:30 PM
Some analysts apparently believe that starting America’s third war in a Muslim country in a dozen years would enhance the nation’s reputation in the Middle East. Wrote Princeton’s Anne-Marie Slaughter, a failure to act means Barack Obama “will be remembered as a president who proclaimed a new beginning with the Muslim world but presided over a deadly chapter in the same old story.” Actually, the war in Iraq was supposed to make Muslims the world over love the U.S. Unfortunately, something went wrong along the way. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/syria-only-red-line-should-be-stay-out?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recen t+Op-eds%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

cutthemdown
04-30-2013, 04:48 PM
What a shame that he was simultaneously destroying America. ;D

Bush's big failuers were medicare plan B and no child left behind. But both those programs illustrate how much he actually cared about people. The aids work in Africa also illustrates that.

And he removed the biggest enemy we had in the mideast. Sure don't hear much about iraqs govt or military ****ing with anyone huh? Hell best they can do is blow each other up every once in awhile.

peacepipe
04-30-2013, 05:56 PM
Bush's big failuers were medicare plan B and no child left behind. But both those programs illustrate how much he actually cared about people. The aids work in Africa also illustrates that.

And he removed the biggest enemy we had in the mideast. Sure don't hear much about iraqs govt or military ****ing with anyone huh? Hell best they can do is blow each other up every once in awhile.

Don't forget his other failures,tax cuts and Iraq.

cutthemdown
04-30-2013, 08:28 PM
Iraq was a war he won. Then Obama ****ed it all up by leaving and letting Iran fill the vacume. Meanwhile Obama has completely lost Afghanistan but no one cares. Obama made the biggest mistake any commander can make. He set a date for ending the war regardless of if it was won or not. I'm pretty sure that isn't in the art of war.

Tax cuts a failure? it's never wrong to let Americans have more of their own money. Obama has wasted so much of your tax dollars on failed green energy that money would have been better spent by the private sector.

cutthemdown
04-30-2013, 08:29 PM
Taliban will fomenting terrorism and keeping our drones from Pakistan in a few more years. When we leave they will eventually take Kabul again and control the whole shabang. Taliban probably stronger then ever right now and the poppy harvests keep getting bigger and bigger.

Rohirrim
04-30-2013, 09:32 PM
Iraq was a war he won. Then Obama ****ed it all up by leaving and letting Iran fill the vacume. Meanwhile Obama has completely lost Afghanistan but no one cares. Obama made the biggest mistake any commander can make. He set a date for ending the war regardless of if it was won or not. I'm pretty sure that isn't in the art of war.

Tax cuts a failure? it's never wrong to let Americans have more of their own money. Obama has wasted so much of your tax dollars on failed green energy that money would have been better spent by the private sector.

Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq based on the timetable set by Bush and Rumsfeld. The Status of Forces Agreement that the Bush Administration signed with the Iraq government specified that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. It was Bush that set the date. Not Obama.

And, as Edward Koch put it, "We left because Iraq would not allow us to remain there indefinitely and insisted that if we did remain on at all, American troops would be subject to Iraqi law and Iraqi courts for all of their military actions, which the U.S. would not agree to because it would have exposed American soldiers to personal liability in Iraqi courts."

When will you Righties get tired of mangling history?

cutthemdown
05-01-2013, 02:09 AM
Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq based on the timetable set by Bush and Rumsfeld. The Status of Forces Agreement that the Bush Administration signed with the Iraq government specified that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. It was Bush that set the date. Not Obama.

And, as Edward Koch put it, "We left because Iraq would not allow us to remain there indefinitely and insisted that if we did remain on at all, American troops would be subject to Iraqi law and Iraqi courts for all of their military actions, which the U.S. would not agree to because it would have exposed American soldiers to personal liability in Iraqi courts."

When will you Righties get tired of mangling history?


The White Houses failure to force iraq to accepting an armed forces agreement that keeps our boys out of their courts would not have been that hard. They just used that for the excuse to leave and it was a huge huge blunder. Does iran care they don't have an agreement as they fly weapons to Syria? hell they probably have been flying them the best in surface to air missiles hoping to make some hits once we do a no fly zone. It was a foreign policy loss for Obama any way you shake it. Either he wanted to leave no forces their which is a mistake, or he failed to get Iraq to agree on an agreement. Also a loss. Either way not a good move by our king.

peacepipe
05-01-2013, 06:28 AM
Iraq was a war he won. Then Obama ****ed it all up by leaving and letting Iran fill the vacume. Meanwhile Obama has completely lost Afghanistan but no one cares. Obama made the biggest mistake any commander can make. He set a date for ending the war regardless of if it was won or not. I'm pretty sure that isn't in the art of war.

Tax cuts a failure? it's never wrong to let Americans have more of their own money. Obama has wasted so much of your tax dollars on failed green energy that money would have been better spent by the private sector.

Iraq was a war we had no business being in. A ****ing blunder born out of incompetence & lies.

peacepipe
05-01-2013, 06:35 AM
The White Houses failure to force iraq to accepting an armed forces agreement that keeps our boys out of their courts would not have been that hard. They just used that for the excuse to leave and it was a huge huge blunder. Does iran care they don't have an agreement as they fly weapons to Syria? hell they probably have been flying them the best in surface to air missiles hoping to make some hits once we do a no fly zone. It was a foreign policy loss for Obama any way you shake it. Either he wanted to leave no forces their which is a mistake, or he failed to get Iraq to agree on an agreement. Also a loss. Either way not a good move by our king.

You and your damn conspiracy theories.

houghtam
05-01-2013, 06:56 AM
The White Houses failure to force iraq to accepting an armed forces agreement that keeps our boys out of their courts would not have been that hard. They just used that for the excuse to leave and it was a huge huge blunder. Does iran care they don't have an agreement as they fly weapons to Syria? hell they probably have been flying them the best in surface to air missiles hoping to make some hits once we do a no fly zone. It was a foreign policy loss for Obama any way you shake it. Either he wanted to leave no forces their which is a mistake, or he failed to get Iraq to agree on an agreement. Also a loss. Either way not a good move by our king.

LOL

What a ****ing tool.

Okay so lets take score. Bush leads us into a war through fabrication of evidence and its a great policy decision. Obama is...wait for it...unable to convince a leader of a sovereign nation to keep our troops in his nation because we want then to be exempt from their laws...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a policy failure.

There you have it, folks. A Meisterwerk. A magnum opus, if you will. From the guy who told us the police would need all the help they can get from armed citizens during a terrorist attack.

Ladies and germs, we have reached a new level of dumb on this forum.

Dumber than a brain dead lonestar...!
Crazier than the knuckle-dragging txtebow...!
Able to leap obstacles to logic in a single bound...!

It's a bird! It's a plane!

It's....

Oh, it's just him.

peacepipe
05-01-2013, 08:23 AM
LOL

What a ****ing tool.

Okay so lets take score. Bush leads us into a war through fabrication of evidence and its a great policy decision. Obama is...wait for it...unable to convince a leader of a sovereign nation to keep our troops in his nation because we want then to be exempt from their laws...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a policy failure.

There you have it, folks. A Meisterwerk. A magnum opus, if you will. From the guy who told us the police would need all the help they can get from armed citizens during a terrorist attack.

Ladies and germs, we have reached a new level of dumb on this forum.

Dumber than a brain dead lonestar...!
Crazier than the knuckle-dragging txtebow...!
Able to leap obstacles to logic in a single bound...!

It's a bird! It's a plane!

It's....

Oh, it's just him.
Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!

TonyR
05-01-2013, 08:33 AM
LOL

What a ****ing tool.


Right?!? Some of the dumbest posts I've ever seen in the WRP. But it's free, unintentional comedy. So at least there's that!

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 08:39 AM
If Assad is using Sarin gas on innocent people, I think it's the world's responsibility, Russia included, to stop him. It's not just the responsibility of the U.S.

And as far as Afganistan goes, nobody "wins" in Afghanistan. The Russians learned that. The English learned it. If there is one lesson of history that should have been pounded into peoples' brains by now, it's the fact that nobody "wins" in Afghanistan. It's like attacking Russia in the winter. You don't do it. The U.S. target and goals in Afghanistan should have been extremely limited: Take out Al Queda. Once we killed bin Laden, we should have immediately pulled out.

So why stay in Afghanistan? Or Korea? Or Germany? Or all the other places where we spend billions of dollars to keep a military presence?
http://money.msn.com/investing/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war

mhgaffney
05-01-2013, 11:02 AM
If Assad is using Sarin gas on innocent people, I think it's the world's responsibility, Russia included, to stop him. It's not just the responsibility of the U.S.

And as far as Afganistan goes, nobody "wins" in Afghanistan. The Russians learned that. The English learned it. If there is one lesson of history that should have been pounded into peoples' brains by now, it's the fact that nobody "wins" in Afghanistan. It's like attacking Russia in the winter. You don't do it. The U.S. target and goals in Afghanistan should have been extremely limited: Take out Al Queda. Once we killed bin Laden, we should have immediately pulled out.

So why stay in Afghanistan? Or Korea? Or Germany? Or all the other places where we spend billions of dollars to keep a military presence?
http://money.msn.com/investing/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war

It's the heroin, stupid.

Which is why this is the longest war in US history.

mhgaffney
05-01-2013, 11:03 AM
LOL

What a ****ing tool.

Okay so lets take score. Bush leads us into a war through fabrication of evidence and its a great policy decision. Obama is...wait for it...unable to convince a leader of a sovereign nation to keep our troops in his nation because we want then to be exempt from their laws...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a policy failure.

There you have it, folks. A Meisterwerk. A magnum opus, if you will. From the guy who told us the police would need all the help they can get from armed citizens during a terrorist attack.

Ladies and germs, we have reached a new level of dumb on this forum.

Dumber than a brain dead lonestar...!
Crazier than the knuckle-dragging txtebow...!
Able to leap obstacles to logic in a single bound...!

It's a bird! It's a plane!

It's....

Oh, it's just him.

Which sovereign nation are you referring to?

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 11:42 AM
It's the heroin, stupid.

Which is why this is the longest war in US history.

Please explain.

cutthemdown
05-01-2013, 03:25 PM
Please explain.

Hes saying the CIA likes to sell herion so we make the war really long. That way its a cover for our harvest of herion we sell all over the world to make money for our hidden and covert illegal wars.

cutthemdown
05-01-2013, 03:30 PM
Obama lost his war, gave back iraq, crushed our economy and the liberals want to give him an award.

You people can say what you want but when you are fighting a war you don't set a date for your withdraw until you win. Where is that iraqi army? Saddam, his sons? Dead. Where is the Taliban leader who let us get attacked by Bin Laden? Re-taking Afghanistan making every solider that died there die for nothing. Why Because Obama wanted to leave before it was done. All people do is make informal falacies in the WRP. Saying someone is an idiot doesn't make you right. You can spin it all you want but Bush was vicotrious in Iraq and Obama losing everywhere.

W*GS
05-01-2013, 03:34 PM
Obama lost his war, gave back iraq, crushed our economy and the liberals want to give him an award.

You people can say what you want but when you are fighting a war you don't set a date for your withdraw until you win. Where is that iraqi army? Saddam, his sons? Dead. Where is the Taliban leader who let us get attacked by Bin Laden? Re-taking Afghanistan making every solider that died there die for nothing. Why Because Obama wanted to leave before it was done. All people do is make informal falacies in the WRP. Saying someone is an idiot doesn't make you right. You can spin it all you want but Bush was vicotrious in Iraq and Obama losing everywhere.

Time to stop boozing.

Jeezus.

cutthemdown
05-01-2013, 03:43 PM
Time to stop boozing.

Jeezus.

So then you think when fighting a way its a good idea to announce what day you will quit by regardless of the situation on the ground?

Go ask 1000 generals if they agree with you.

houghtam
05-01-2013, 03:43 PM
Obama lost his war, gave back iraq, crushed our economy and the liberals want to give him an award.

You people can say what you want but when you are fighting a war you don't set a date for your withdraw until you win. Where is that iraqi army? Saddam, his sons? Dead. Where is the Taliban leader who let us get attacked by Bin Laden? Re-taking Afghanistan making every solider that died there die for nothing. Why Because Obama wanted to leave before it was done. All people do is make informal falacies in the WRP. Saying someone is an idiot doesn't make you right. You can spin it all you want but Bush was vicotrious in Iraq and Obama losing everywhere.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

cutthemdown
05-01-2013, 04:16 PM
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Meh Saddam used more chemical weapons then Assad has and liberals ready to support the kings invasion! It just depends, if a liberal is President all the sudden patriot act not a big deal, cameras are cool, wars are ok because they weren't started by Bush.

houghtam
05-01-2013, 04:18 PM
Meh Saddam used more chemical weapons then Assad has and liberals ready to support the kings invasion! It just depends, if a liberal is President all the sudden patriot act not a big deal, cameras are cool, wars are ok because they weren't started by Bush.

More **** flowing backward from the toilet. WTF are you talking about? Did you have one of those mini-strokes?

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 04:22 PM
Meh Saddam used more chemical weapons then Assad has and liberals ready to support the kings invasion! It just depends, if a liberal is President all the sudden patriot act not a big deal, cameras are cool, wars are ok because they weren't started by Bush.

Have fun with this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/

W*GS
05-01-2013, 04:34 PM
http://theinsanityreport.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

cutthemdown
05-01-2013, 08:56 PM
So liberals agree then when you fight a war you should announce what day you will be sick of fighting and call that the withdraw date. Brilliant you should all teach at West Point.

cutthemdown
05-01-2013, 09:01 PM
Syria uses chemical weapons in a civil war = Attack and regime change!

Iraq invades Kuwait, pays terrosists to kill Jews, shoots missiles at our planes in no fly zone, gasses their own people, mines the gulf and commites environmental terrorism = Why did Bush doi that, illegal war illegal war they didn't find nukes! Bush and Cheney are Evil.

Saddam messed with the flow of oil to the world and paid for it like he should have. Assad he is just fighting a civil war. Not yet to the level of anything we need to intervene on but liberals are all ready to go now. I was for intervention until i read how radical the opposition is. When we do have to bomb I hope our CIA makes sure a couple misguided bombs hit the radical leadership where it hurts before war over.

Hell let it drag on the more radical that die the better. We should try and keep it going forever. I'm hoping that is Obamas plan and hes really a lot smarter then he seems.

houghtam
05-01-2013, 09:47 PM
Syria uses chemical weapons in a civil war = Attack and regime change!

Iraq invades Kuwait, pays terrosists to kill Jews, shoots missiles at our planes in no fly zone, gasses their own people, mines the gulf and commites environmental terrorism = Why did Bush doi that, illegal war illegal war they didn't find nukes! Bush and Cheney are Evil.

Saddam messed with the flow of oil to the world and paid for it like he should have. Assad he is just fighting a civil war. Not yet to the level of anything we need to intervene on but liberals are all ready to go now. I was for intervention until i read how radical the opposition is. When we do have to bomb I hope our CIA makes sure a couple misguided bombs hit the radical leadership where it hurts before war over.

Hell let it drag on the more radical that die the better. We should try and keep it going forever. I'm hoping that is Obamas plan and hes really a lot smarter then he seems.

You're missing the point. (Surprise!)

Bush didn't go to war for any of those reasons, according to Bush himself. They went in because they claimed there were wmds. There weren't. You can't go to war just to go to war. Bush knew the American people would not support a war for any of the reasons you gave, so his regime created a reason.

That you cannot or will not see this is not surprising. You have a long litany of stupid **** you've said, and much of it in like the last two weeks. I'd tell you to shut up, but as Tony alluded to, I actually quite enjoy coming here every day wondering what new gem you've come up with. Txtebow, Pony Boy and errand are pretty predictable because they're racists. You, on the other hand, are a loose cannon. A jack of no trades, master of even fewer. You post nonsense on such a wide variety of subjects that even your own people call you out for your lunacy. It truly is a joy to see what you'll come up with next.

TonyR
05-02-2013, 08:34 AM
Obama lost his war, gave back iraq, crushed our economy and the liberals want to give him an award.


The only way not to "lose the war" was to stay there forever which I don't think anyone wants. But the best strategy would have been to have never been in that war to begin with...

As for the economy, you do realize that it was in freefall well before Obama took office, right?

houghtam
05-02-2013, 09:35 AM
The only way not to "lose the war" was to stay there forever which I don't think anyone wants. But the best strategy would have been to have never been in that war to begin with...

As for the economy, you do realize that it was in freefall well before Obama took office, right?

Good God, don't bother. Did you miss this election season?

Cut is one of the guys who blamed the housing crisis on Clinton, you know, because it takes awhile for policy to affect the economy, but was angry that Obama tanked the economy because, you know, it...doesn't take awhile for policy to affect the economy?

- I want armed citizens helping police in a shootout
- Bush had every reason to go into Iraq, there was no coverup
- Bush had every reason to go into Iraq, regardless of whether or not there was a coverup
- Clinton caused the housing crisis 10 years after being out of office, but Obama caused the financial crisis the day he took office

Am I missing anything? I'm sure I am, but this is a litany of stupid right here. LOL

mhgaffney
05-02-2013, 12:12 PM
It was GW Bush who cut the deal to withdraw US troops from Iraq. Bush was outmaneuvered by the Iraqis.

Obama merely carried it out.

MHG

Rohirrim
05-02-2013, 03:17 PM
Now Hezbollah has come out in support of Assad. What a bizarre conflict this is. You've got the Muslim Brotherhood fighting with the rebels, and the Iranian backed Hezbollah fighting with Assad. No wonder the U.S. wants to stay the **** out of it. No matter who wins, we lose.

cutthemdown
05-04-2013, 07:43 PM
Now Hezbollah has come out in support of Assad. What a bizarre conflict this is. You've got the Muslim Brotherhood fighting with the rebels, and the Iranian backed Hezbollah fighting with Assad. No wonder the U.S. wants to stay the **** out of it. No matter who wins, we lose.

We win by making sure this thing drags on forever. A never ending Jihad in Syria that saps up the fighters who are willing to go abroad to fight for Allah. Hell we should sneak in and bomb both sides if we do have to set up a no fly zone. I guess if UN acts without us we have no choice but to sort of join in or we sort of weaken the UN which i guess would be a bad thing. Who knows UN sort of a joke nowdays.

Go in with a no fly zone then say ooops fog of war was that a rebel army we bombed. We thought that was Syrian army sorry about that. Oh we killed your top commander that is too bad.

cutthemdown
05-04-2013, 07:45 PM
It was GW Bush who cut the deal to withdraw US troops from Iraq. Bush was outmaneuvered by the Iraqis.

Obama merely carried it out.

MHG

Bush cut a deal and left it to Obama to negotiate the armed forced agreement which he didn't ever try to do. Its like how Obama raises tax by not renewing a tax cut. Then he can say i didn't raise taxes. The tax cut just expired.

Biden tried to make an agreement and he failed. That my fellow omaners is a political loss or it was the plan all along. Either way a foreign policy disaster for Obama.

TonyR
05-08-2013, 02:10 PM
Would U.S. intervention–no-fly zones, arms, aid to the opposition forces–make things better? It depends on what one means by better. It would certainly intensify the civil war. It would also make the regime of Bashar Assad more desperate. Perhaps Assad has already used chemical weapons; with his back against the wall, he might use them on a larger scale. As for external instability, Landis points out that if U.S. intervention tipped the balance against the Alawites, they might flee Syria into Lebanon, destabilizing that country for decades. Again, this pattern is not unprecedented. Large numbers on the losing side have fled wars in the Middle East, from Palestinians in 1948 to Iraq’s Sunnis in the past decade.

If the objective is actually to reduce the atrocities and minimize potential instability, the key will be a political settlement that gives each side an assurance that it has a place in the new Syria. That was never achieved in Iraq, which is why, despite U.S. troops and arms and influence, the situation turned into a violent free-for-all. If some kind of political pact can be reached, there’s hope for Syria. If it cannot, U.S. assistance to the rebels or even direct military intervention won’t change much: Syria will follow the pattern of Lebanon and Iraq–a long, bloody civil war. And America will be in the middle of it. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2142505,00.html#ixzz2SaRF6oNV

mhgaffney
05-08-2013, 08:37 PM
The US is already in Syria -- trying to bring down Assad. So is the UK.

Whatever happened to national sovereignty?
MHG

Leaked Memo Says US SOF in Syria
by Bryant Jordan

U.S. Special Operation Forces reportedly have been in Syria since December training groups to conduct guerrilla attacks and assassinations to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to a leaked Stratfor memo published by WikiLeaks.

But Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. James Gregory suggested the memo warranted being read skeptically.

“I would say that the [Stratfor] email — and I cannot comment on its authenticity due to the method in which [it was received] — seems to be pure conjecture,” Gregory said.

The claim of American Spec Ops Forces operating in Syria is made in an internal email dated Dec. 7, 2011, from an official at Stratfor, a Texas-based private intelligence-gathering company.

The writer — whose email reportedly belongs to the company’s director of analysis, Reva Bhalla — recounts a Pentagon meeting where officials “said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.”

An Air Force intelligence officer told him that there isn’t a viable “Free Syrian Army” to actually train right now, but that steps are being taken out of “prudence.”

“They have been told to prepare contingencies and be ready to act within 2-3 months, but they still stress that this is all being done as contingency planning, not as a move toward escalation,” the writer states. “I kept pressing on the question of what these SOF teams would be working toward, and whether this would lead to an eventual air camapign [sic] to give a Syrian rebel group cover. They pretty quickly distanced themselves from that idea, saying that the idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within. There wouldn’t be a need for air cover, and they wouldn’t expect these Syrian rebels to be marching in columns anyway.” (Alawite is a minority branch of Islam to which the Assad family belongs.)

This was originally posted at military.com

mhgaffney
05-08-2013, 08:38 PM
This was posted last January.

SYRIA: British Special Forces, CIA and MI6 Supporting Armed Insurgency.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-british-special-forces-cia-and-mi6-supporting-armed-insurgency-nato-intervention-contemplated/28529

cutthemdown
05-08-2013, 10:01 PM
hopefully they are there killing opposition leaders who organize armed jihads etc etc. This will be a grand chance to see a lot of militants leave the earth for their wives in heaven. Kill someone on the govt side, kill someone on the rebel side both = a good day.

Requiem
05-08-2013, 10:07 PM
Yeah and we have SOF in the Phillipines and SE Asia too. Not surprising.

cutthemdown
05-08-2013, 10:33 PM
We also have them in Africa and probably Colombia as well.

cutthemdown
05-08-2013, 10:34 PM
Why have Special Ops if we aren't going to let them sneak around everywhere? Thats what they are there for. I would imagine they gleen information you just can't get without boots on the ground. Then that in turn makes our regular soldiers safer if they do have to go in.

nyuk nyuk
05-08-2013, 10:48 PM
Now Hezbollah has come out in support of Assad. What a bizarre conflict this is. You've got the Muslim Brotherhood fighting with the rebels, and the Iranian backed Hezbollah fighting with Assad. No wonder the U.S. wants to stay the **** out of it. No matter who wins, we lose.

Hezbollah have always gotten support from Damascus. They're both Shia Muslims. The MB are Sunni as are apparently a lot of the rebels. These two groups of Muslims have hacked each other to pieces since the death of Muhammad. It actually makes a ton of sense. I'm sure Assad has done plenty of repression of Sunnis. The US has been actively supporting at least some of these Sunni rebels, quite possibly ones tied with the MB.

Israel is making some gusty moves in the chaos and weakened state of Assad to take care of some of the Hezbollah-bound weaponry, knowing Syria will do little to nothing. And they're right.

nyuk nyuk
05-08-2013, 11:36 PM
Txtebow, Pony Boy and errand are pretty predictable because they're racists.

Wow where did that come from?

mhgaffney
05-12-2013, 10:03 AM
Israel recently staged several aerial bombing raids in Syria. These were flagrant acts of war -- and were clearly opportunistic -- given Syria's ongoing civil war.

Some have plausibly speculated that the raids were prompted by recent victories by the Assad regime. It appears that Assad is gaining ground against the rebels.

Thus, Israel's raids may have been an attempt to provoke Syria into a response that could be used asa justification for direct western intervention.

Clearly, we are on the brink of a wider war.
MHG

“Syria to Respond immediately to any New Israeli Attack”: Syria deputy FM. Tel Aviv Supports Al Nusra Terrorists

http://www.globalresearch.ca/grandson-of-malcolm-x-malcolm-shabazzs-suspicious-death/5334654

DenverBrit
05-12-2013, 10:45 AM
Obama lost his war, gave back iraq, crushed our economy and the liberals want to give him an award.

You people can say what you want but when you are fighting a war you don't set a date for your withdraw until you win. Where is that iraqi army? Saddam, his sons? Dead. Where is the Taliban leader who let us get attacked by Bin Laden? Re-taking Afghanistan making every solider that died there die for nothing. Why Because Obama wanted to leave before it was done. All people do is make informal falacies in the WRP. Saying someone is an idiot doesn't make you right. You can spin it all you want but Bush was vicotrious in Iraq and Obama losing everywhere.

LOL

WTF are you reading?

DenverBrit
05-12-2013, 10:48 AM
Israel recently staged several aerial bombing raids in Syria. These were flagrant acts of war -- and were clearly opportunistic -- given Syria's ongoing civil war.

Some have plausibly speculated that the raids were prompted by recent victories by the Assad regime. It appears that Assad is gaining ground against the rebels.

Thus, Israel's raids may have been an attempt to provoke Syria into a response that could be used asa justification for direct western intervention.

Clearly, we are on the brink of a wider war.
MHG

“Syria to Respond immediately to any New Israeli Attack”: Syria deputy FM. Tel Aviv Supports Al Nusra Terrorists

http://www.globalresearch.ca/grandson-of-malcolm-x-malcolm-shabazzs-suspicious-death/5334654

How many times have you made this claim and for how many countries??

You're a war monger who salivates at the prospect of being right.....just once. :loopy:

houghtam
05-12-2013, 09:33 PM
How many times have you made this claim and for how many countries??

You're a war monger who salivates at the prospect of being right.....just once. :loopy:

Gaff isn't always wrong, he's just never right, yet.

TonyR
05-13-2013, 07:47 AM
WTF are you reading?

One would almost assume he can't read! Clearly he can, but I'm not sure he can really understand much that he reads above the grammar school level. If nothing else he's good for some laughs.

Smiling Assassin27
05-14-2013, 10:05 AM
Do we REALLY want to get involved in backing this kind of group? Stay the f-out of it:

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/p/951041/sp/95104100/embedIframeJs/uiconf_id/12056131/partner_id/951041?entry_id=1_cjstu6cc&playerId=kaltura_player_12056131&cache_st=12056131&autoembed=true&width=400&height=333"></script><br /><a href="http://www.ora.tv/newsbreaker/graphic-syrian-rebel-filmed-eating-heart-enemy-soldier-1_cjstu6cc">GRAPHIC: Syrian Rebel Filmed Eating Heart of Enemy Soldier</a>

cutthemdown
05-14-2013, 12:02 PM
We do need to be involved though. To make sure these militants don't win. I actually believe that israel is helping assad. The probably did bomb that convoy because it was going to the rebels. The rebels in all cases so far have been worst and more unfriendly then the govts they replaced. If Obama has not figured that out by now then cmon.

Obama did a good job by staying out of this one.

mhgaffney
05-17-2013, 06:30 PM
A new poll shows that public opinion in Syria has shifted back in favor of President Assad's government.

Why?

Well, probably because the Syrian people now understand that a proxy war is raging in their country -- and that outside forces (the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Europe and others) are trying to cause mayhem in Syria, that is, are trying to create another failed state, like Libya.

Assad is winning the war - which probably explains the recent Israeli attack. Probably it was intended to create a pretext for western intervention -- IF Syria responded to the attack.

MHG

WEEKEND EDITION MAY 17-19, 2013


UN General Assembly Vote Reflects Shift in Syrian Public Opinion

by FRANKLIN LAMB

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/17/un-general-assembly-vote-reflects-shift-in-syrian-public-opinion/

It’s not hard to find critics of the Assad government in the Governorate (Muhafazat) of Homs or for that matter, to varying degrees in Syria’s other thirteen Governorates according to Syrian analysts interviewed by this observer and reports from human rights groups including lawyers representing dissidents in Syria. However, after nearly 27 months of turmoil, the public opinion pendulum is markedly shifting back in support of the current regime.

One international political result was registered at the United Nations this past week when a US-Qatari-Saudi drafted General Assembly Resolution that was designed to increase pressure on the Assad government stumbled badly and fell far short of what the Saudi Ambassador to the UN and other US allies predicted would be an overwhelming vote in favor.

Effect of shift in popular opinion in Syria

Over the past four or five months it has become increasingly clear that public opinion in Syria is shifting for reasons that include, but are not limited to the following:

While inflation at the grocery stores in probably the most common complaint heard from a cross-section of society here, the population is adapting somewhat to higher prices and it appears to credit the government for efforts, some successful, to soften the impact of the illegal US-led sanctions that target this same Syrian population for purely political reasons to achieve regime change.

While Syrians demand dignity and freedom from oppressive security forces and an end to corruption, as all people do in this region and beyond, they are witnessing a return to near normalcy with respect to supplies of electricity, benzene, mazout fuel oil, bus schedules, schools, and a host of public services such as garbage collection, street sweeping, park maintenance, and sympathetic traffic cops who are rather understanding of short-cuts taken by drivers and pedestrians due to “the situation”.

In addition, public service announcement and even text messages demonstrate that the government is aware of the degree of suffering among the population, accept partial blame, and are focusing on remedial measure and crucially, ending the crisis with its horrific bloodshed. One observes here a definite trend of the pulling together of a high percentage of Syrians who share a very unique history and culture and who are deeply connected to their country and who are increasingly repelled by the continuing killing from all sides including the recent barbarisms of body mutilations and summary executions videotaped and broadcast on utube by jihadist elements. The latter who these days come from nearly three dozen countries, paid for and indoctrinated by enemies of Syria’s Arab nationalism and deep rooted pillar of resistance to the occupation of Palestine.

In addition, many among Syria’s 23 million citizens, who initially supported the uprising following government reaction to event in Deraa in March 2011, now have serious second thoughts about who exactly would replace the current government. Events in Syria are also making plain that the army is still loyal to the Assad government, and according to Jane’s Defense Weekly, is actually gaining experience and strength as well as the well-known fact that as western diplomats are admitting, the “opposition militias” are hopelessly fractured, turning one another, many essential mafia outfits, and beginning to resemble their fellow jihadists from Libya, Chechnya and in between.

Opinion in Damascus and surrounding areas visited this past week, confirms this observers experience the past five months of a sharp and fairly rapid shift in opinion that now strongly favors letting the Syrian people themselves decide, without outside interference, whether the Assad regime will stay, and indeed, whether, the Baathist party will continue to represent majority opinion, not through wanton violence but rather via next June’s election. Many express confidence in the run up to this critical vote, noting that the election will be closely monitored by the international community to assure fairness.

Perhaps aided by the current glorious May weather, a certain optimism, that was more scarce in the past, pervades many neighborhoods.

For different reasons, foreign powers, including the USA, Turkey, European Union, the UK Jordan and even the majority population of the six Gulf Cooperation Council family run countries, according to Pew Research, are shifting their earlier positions which were based in part of the US administration, NATO, and Israeli assurances that the Assad government would surely fall quickly, “A matter of days, not weeks” US President Obama promised. That was two years ago.

As noted above, this trend has accelerated since the UN General Assembly vote with last weeks which did not go as planned on the biased and politicized non-binding draft resolution on Syria.

The public reaction in Syria and across the Middle East is substantially that the “Friends of Syria” non-binding GA resolution contradicts the reality on the ground, backs terrorism in Syria and hinders the international efforts to help achieve a political solution to the crisis in this country. Only 107 states voted in favor of the resolution, 12 against while 59 countries, mostly from Africa and Latin America, abstained from voting.

One reason the vote fell short of the 130 favorable votes that the basically same resolution garnered the past two times is that it is widely viewed as ignoring the crimes and atrocities committed by the armed jihadist groups in Syria and the flow of thousands of international terrorists backed by the West, the Gulf states and Turkey who provide them with weapons and money. According to the Russian delegate, backed by several other speakers, “the resolutions ignores all the terrorists’ heinous crimes and denounces what it called the escalation of the attacks by the Syrian government”. Afterward one Latin American Permanent Representative told Inner City Press that the count would have been below 100 if not for some “last minute arm-twisting.” As it turned out, 15 countries didn’t vote at all, opting to “get coffee,” as one African Permanent Representative put it before the vote.

Syria’s Ambassador al-Jaafari exposes a hoax in the Gulf

Syria’s permanent Envoy to the UN Bashar al-Jaafari said his country regretted the adoption of a biased and unbalanced UN resolution, thanking the countries that rejected the resolution “for their responsible positions which support the UN principles and the international law articles”. He noted that the decrease in the number of countries that voted in favor and the increase of numbers of those who abstained from voting indicates the growing international understanding of the reality of what is happening in Syria due to the foreign interference, support of terrorism, the spread of extremism and incitement besides the refusal of dialogue.

“We rely on the UN and its member states to support Syria and its people against the culture of extremism and terrorism, and to encourage the comprehensive national dialogue to peacefully resolve the Syrian crisis.” he said. In a statement released after the vote on the UN draft resolution on Syria, al-Jaafari He said that the French delegation had foiled the issuance of a number of UN press releases to condemn the terrorist acts committed by al-Qaeda-linked armed groups in Syria which claimed the lives of thousands of Syrians as it foiled a UN release to condemn the attempt of assassination of the Syrian Premier.

After Qatar’s ambassador spoke in favor of the resolution his country drafted (and re-drafted several time), Ja’afari revealed that there existed an e-mail, from the representative of the Syrian opposition given to Syria’s embassy in Qatar, showing Qatar’s involvement in the kidnapping of UN peacekeepers by the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade. He read out a phone number from the e-mail as several Gulf diplomats grimaced or scowled, and three left the Chamber.

Visibly stunned, the UK Permanent Representative Lyall Grant called the whole matter “deeply confusing”. Another Permanent Representative, from a militia contributing country, said that if true, it’s “very problematic.” The reasons include the fact that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had just thanked Qatar for its roles in the release of the UN Peacekeepers the earlier kidnapping of whom the Qatari government may have planned, paid for and executed.

Meanwhile, Ban Ki-moon’s spokesperson Martin Nesirky said he would not disclose any more about the “negotiations to free the peacekeepers or who was behind the crime.”

Score a major diplomatic victory for Syria’s UN Ambassador as public opinion shifts in favor of the Assad government and pressure as well as certain optimism builds in the run-up to the Geneva II conference being organized by the White House and the Kremlin.

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and Lebanon and can be reached c/o fplamb@gmail.com

W*GS
05-18-2013, 05:57 PM
When was America at its apex, gaffe?

baja
05-18-2013, 06:02 PM
1952

peacepipe
05-18-2013, 06:20 PM
1952
LOL, probably one of the ugliest times,from segragation-the lynchings which part made it our apex?

baja
05-18-2013, 07:00 PM
More Americans had a higher quality of life. Jobs, good pay, security, retirement to look forward to, family. But mostly FREEDOM TO BE WHO YOU ARE.

How old are you anyway. I bet too young to remember America in the 50's. That would be the only explanation.

W*GS
05-18-2013, 07:16 PM
More Americans had a higher quality of life. Jobs, good pay, security, retirement to look forward to, family. But mostly FREEDOM TO BE WHO YOU ARE.

Except for women. And blacks. And Asians. And Latinos. And homosexuals. And Jews. And Catholics.

1952 was the apex for straight WASP men. Not for anyone else.

Try again, ****wad.

baja
05-18-2013, 07:22 PM
Except for women. And blacks. And Asians. And Latinos. And homosexuals. And Jews. And Catholics.

1952 was the apex for straight WASP men. Not for anyone else.

Try again, ****wad.


You should ask women and blacks and Latinos and Asians of the early 50's if they were better off then or now.

What is Freedom worth

peacepipe
05-18-2013, 08:07 PM
More Americans had a higher quality of life. Jobs, good pay, security, retirement to look forward to, family. But mostly FREEDOM TO BE WHO YOU ARE.

How old are you anyway. I bet too young to remember America in the 50's. That would be the only explanation.
I suppose if you were white, it was a great time. You could eat with your own kind,you could kill a black man & be found not guilty,but what do I know. I'm not white.

baja
05-18-2013, 08:11 PM
I suppose if you were white, it was a great time. You could eat with your own kind,you could kill a black man & be found not guilty,but what do I know. I'm not white.

Never said it was without problems. I said it was the best of times for the greater number of people.

baja
05-18-2013, 08:12 PM
You think the black man is thrilled with his quality of life today.

baja
05-18-2013, 08:19 PM
Young Blacks without jobs - 40%

There are almost 1 million blacks in jail today.

Yup things are really looking up for the black man....

W*GS
05-18-2013, 08:20 PM
You should ask women and blacks and Latinos and Asians of the early 50's if they were better off then or now.

I have a pretty good idea that they'd say they're better off now.

What is Freedom worth

Freedom for whom and for what?

baja
05-18-2013, 08:21 PM
1. While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States’ population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. The prison population grew by 700 percent from 1970 to 2005, a rate that is outpacing crime and population rates. The incarceration rates disproportionately impact men of color: 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men.

2. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. Individuals of color have a disproportionate number of encounters with law enforcement, indicating that racial profiling continues to be a problem. A report by the Department of Justice found that blacks and Hispanics were approximately three times more likely to be searchedduring a traffic stop than white motorists. African Americans were twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police.

3. Students of color face harsher punishments in school than their white peers, leading to a higher number of youth of color incarcerated. Black and Hispanic students represent more than 70 percent of those involved in school-related arrests or referrals to law enforcement. Currently, African Americans make up two-fifths and Hispanics one-fifth of confined youth today.

4. According to recent data by the Department of Education, African American students are arrested far more often than their white classmates. The data showed that 96,000 students were arrested and 242,000 referred to law enforcement by schools during the 2009-10 school year. Of those students, black and Hispanic students made up more than 70 percent of arrested or referred students. Harsh school punishments, from suspensions to arrests, have led to high numbers of youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile-justice system and at an earlier age.

5. African American youth have higher rates of juvenile incarceration and are more likely to be sentenced to adult prison. According to the Sentencing Project, even though African American juvenile youth are about 16 percent of the youth population, 37 percent of their cases are moved to criminal court and 58 percent of African American youth are sent to adult prisons.

6. As the number of women incarcerated has increased by 800 percentover the last three decades, women of color have been disproportionately represented. While the number of women incarcerated is relatively low, the racial and ethnic disparities are startling. African American women are three times more likely than white women to be incarcerated, while Hispanic women are 69 percent more likely than white women to be incarcerated.

7. The war on drugs has been waged primarily in communities of color where people of color are more likely to receive higher offenses.According to the Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have higher rate of arrests. African Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses. From 1980 to 2007 about one in three of the 25.4 million adults arrested for drugs was African American.

baja
05-18-2013, 08:24 PM
Yup life for the Black man is so much better now right Wags.


How about you answer your own question Wags. When was the zenith of America.

Please tell me we have not reached it yet so I can rest my case that you are a government shill.

peacepipe
05-18-2013, 08:29 PM
1. While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States’ population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. The prison population grew by 700 percent from 1970 to 2005, a rate that is outpacing crime and population rates. The incarceration rates disproportionately impact men of color: 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men.

2. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. Individuals of color have a disproportionate number of encounters with law enforcement, indicating that racial profiling continues to be a problem. A report by the Department of Justice found that blacks and Hispanics were approximately three times more likely to be searchedduring a traffic stop than white motorists. African Americans were twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police.

3. Students of color face harsher punishments in school than their white peers, leading to a higher number of youth of color incarcerated. Black and Hispanic students represent more than 70 percent of those involved in school-related arrests or referrals to law enforcement. Currently, African Americans make up two-fifths and Hispanics one-fifth of confined youth today.

4. According to recent data by the Department of Education, African American students are arrested far more often than their white classmates. The data showed that 96,000 students were arrested and 242,000 referred to law enforcement by schools during the 2009-10 school year. Of those students, black and Hispanic students made up more than 70 percent of arrested or referred students. Harsh school punishments, from suspensions to arrests, have led to high numbers of youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile-justice system and at an earlier age.

5. African American youth have higher rates of juvenile incarceration and are more likely to be sentenced to adult prison. According to the Sentencing Project, even though African American juvenile youth are about 16 percent of the youth population, 37 percent of their cases are moved to criminal court and 58 percent of African American youth are sent to adult prisons.

6. As the number of women incarcerated has increased by 800 percentover the last three decades, women of color have been disproportionately represented. While the number of women incarcerated is relatively low, the racial and ethnic disparities are startling. African American women are three times more likely than white women to be incarcerated, while Hispanic women are 69 percent more likely than white women to be incarcerated.

7. The war on drugs has been waged primarily in communities of color where people of color are more likely to receive higher offenses.According to the Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have higher rate of arrests. African Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses. From 1980 to 2007 about one in three of the 25.4 million adults arrested for drugs was African American.

All this proves is that we got more to go when it comes to racism in this country,damn,you're ignorant.

peacepipe
05-18-2013, 08:30 PM
Never said it was without problems. I said it was the best of times for the greater number of people.

Yeah,whites.

baja
05-18-2013, 08:33 PM
Things are swell and the future is rosy.


he Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced this morning that based on its monthly survey of establishments, in March 2013 on a seasonally adjusted basis:
U.S. employers added 88,000 non-farm jobs versus the 200,000 that were expected per the monthly WSJ survey of economists; this figure compares to February’s upward adjusted increase of 268,000 non-farm jobs (previously 236,000) and to January’s upward adjusted increase of 148,000 (previously 119,000).
The BLS unemployment rate declined to 7.6% from February’s rate of 7.7%.
There are now 11.7 million unemployed workers, based on BLS’s separate monthly survey of businesses.
However, as we note each month, BLS’s figures do not reflect Real Unemployment, since:
BLS counts only those workers who are actively looking for employment, which can vary fairly widely month-to-month due to workers voluntarily removing themselves from the labor force.
BLS does not include in the civilian labor force “marginally attached workers” (currently 2.3 mm workers) who, while wanting and available for jobs, have not searched for work in the past four weeks but have searched for work in the past 12 months. Included among marginally attached workers are 0.8 million “discouraged workers” who did not look for work specifically because “they believe there are no jobs available or none for which they would qualify.”
BLS does not include among unemployed workers the 10.0 million workers in total who are marginally attached or “part-time-of-necessity” (i.e., the so-called “underemployed” who are unable to find full-time jobs or who’ve had their hours cut back; now 7.6 mm workers).
In contrast, the Summary of Real Unemployment Numbers makes these adjustments to the civilian labor force and BLS’s determination of unemployed workers, and calculates the number of Real Unemployed Workers. In March 2013:
The number of Real Unemployed Workers decreased by 902,000 to 21.7 million (i.e., the 11.7 mm BLS Unemployed Workers plus the 10.0 mm workers who are marginally attached or part-time-of-necessity.
The Real Unemployment Rate declined by 0.5% to 13.8%.
Note #1: Since February 2010, when the number of Real Unemployed Workers was at its highest at 26.5 million, the number of Real Unemployed Workers has declined by 4.8 million workers despite the adjusted civilian labor force now being 1.1 million workers larger.
Note #2: In addition to the current 21.7 million Real Unemployed Workers, there are another 4.1 million workers who, while also saying they want jobs, have not looked for one in the past 12 months – if they are included, March’s Real Unemployment Rate of 13.8% increases to 16.0%.

W*GS
05-18-2013, 08:34 PM
Yup life for the Black man is so much better now right Wags.

Ask blacks if they'd prefer a return to segregation, which was rampant in 1952.

How about you answer your own question Wags. When was the zenith of America.

"Was"? Nope. Today.

Please tell me we have not reached it yet so I can rest my case that you are a government shill.

You're an insane paranoid racist putrid ****.

W*GS
05-18-2013, 08:35 PM
baja is just mad that he and his kind don't run the entire show - as his God intended.

baja
05-18-2013, 08:37 PM
All this proves is that we got more to go when it comes to racism in this country,damn,you're ignorant.


You think things are better for other groups.


There is one group doing well in todays America and they make up less that 1 % of the population. You think the problem is racism and you call me ignorant. Dude I hardly even know what to say to you.

baja
05-18-2013, 08:39 PM
baja is just mad that he and his kind don't run the entire show - as his God intended.


So I'm white now, I better go tell my mother about this she will be very surprised to learn this.

peacepipe
05-18-2013, 08:45 PM
You think things are better for other groups.


There is one group doing well in todays America and they make up less that 1 % of the population. You think the problem is racism and you call me ignorant. Dude I hardly even know what to say to you.

I agree with you on the 1% but to think things were better in the 1950s is foolish.

W*GS
05-18-2013, 08:48 PM
So I'm white now, I better go tell my mother about this she will be very surprised to learn this.

So, which bathroom do you think you should be allowed to use? White or Colored?

baja
05-18-2013, 08:54 PM
There was more opportunity in general. We were the world leader in manafacturing we had a huge trade surplus we were the largest lender nation by far. our GNP was enjoying healthy growth every year. Things remained good for many more years but our economical power was beginning to erode and took a huge hit when we went of the gold standard in 1973. Although the real watermark was in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was empowered. that was when this country's fate was sealed.

baja
05-18-2013, 08:55 PM
So, which bathroom do you think you should be allowed to use? White or Colored?


There is a God - We all can piss in the same place. Is there anything we can't accomplish?

W*GS
05-18-2013, 09:02 PM
You should have abandoned ship long ago, baja. Now you're just babbling incoherently.

W*GS
05-18-2013, 09:03 PM
There is a God - We all can piss in the same place. Is there anything we can't accomplish?

Which one? White or Colored?

baja
05-18-2013, 09:10 PM
Which one? White or Colored?


I piss off my front porch. I like the breeze on my balls.


Does the government pay you weekly or monthly or by the post.

W*GS
05-18-2013, 09:18 PM
She's a-headin' towards the bottom of the ocean and you're too stupid to leave, baja.

baja
05-18-2013, 09:28 PM
She's a-headin' towards the bottom of the ocean and you're too stupid to leave, baja.

leave what

W*GS
05-18-2013, 09:40 PM
leave what

Your shipwreck of a belief and an argument.

Go ahead, think of 1952 as America's zenith. The rest of us think you're full of ****.

baja
05-18-2013, 10:08 PM
Your shipwreck of a belief and an argument.

Go ahead, think of 1952 as America's zenith. The rest of us think you're full of ****.

when it comes to you wags there is no us

W*GS
05-19-2013, 08:38 AM
How many people actually believe in reptilians running things, baja?

When it comes to lunacy, you actually surpass gaffe. That's saying something.