Syria, Iran and WW3

oldsaw wrote: Time to get serious (again) about this crap; "Why America is Saying 'No'".

Nuff said?

N Sperlo wrote: Nuff said?

no, not nearly...i have no idea whats going on here...

Good thing the politicians can all rally behind intervening in other countries, but just can't seem to vote on domestic issues.

War makes money

4cylndrfury wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Nuff said?

no, not nearly...i have no idea whats going on here...

When cities are falling apart at home and money can't be spent to at least make the areas we work in safe to get in and out of, the last thing we need to be doing is interfering in the politics of other countries unless we are immediately or about to become immediately in harm's way.

I wonder if the thought is "if we keep America in lots of little wars continually, we'll avoid big wars after isolation."

I wonder how the theories of isolationism and non-intervention are in today far more globalized and connected world.

In reply to N Sperlo:

ahhh...gotcha. For whatever reason, I thought those 3 pics were more specifically linked, rather than just used as symbolism. But yeah, I can get behind sentiment like that.

Kinda like when I see those "Please donate your monies to save the starving children in Guanwahnda!" commercials, and Im sitting here like "what about the kids in Cleveland?"...

N Sperlo wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Nuff said?

no, not nearly...i have no idea whats going on here...

When cities are falling apart at home and money can't be spent to at least make the areas we work in safe to get in and out of, the last thing we need to be doing is interfering in the politics of other countries unless we are immediately or about to become immediately in harm's way.

How many times can I vote this comment up?

It's OK, though. We've got pah-lenty of money to spread around. And if by some remote chance we run out, we can always print more...or borrow it from some kind, generous, peace-loving country like China.

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

In reply to volvoclearinghouse:

No, we can't.

It's way past time to get the economy roiling again. After five years of this experiment , the unemployment rate has changed just .5%, economic growth languishes at about 2% and the work force participation rate is equal to what we had in 1978 - with a hundred million less people.

But, I'm anxiously waiting for the inevitable flounder responses of "It's Bush's Fault" and "It's Those Obstructionist Republicans' Fault".

In reply to N Sperlo:

I hate you. I hate you.

GD Sarah Mclaughlin. As if your songs aren't sad enough, you have to bring sad looking animals into the equation.

Excuse me while I get all 'Marley and Me' ending in a corner for a while.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to volvoclearinghouse: No, we can't. It's way past time to get the economy roiling again. After five years of this experiment , the unemployment rate has changed just .5%, economic growth languishes at about 2% and the work force participation rate is equal to what we had in 1978 - with a hundred million less people. But, I'm anxiously waiting for the inevitable flounder responses of "It's Bush's Fault" and "It's Those Obstructionist Republicans' Fault".

I think Volvo was being facetious.

This pretty much echoes exactly how I feel about the damned thing. Let's not risk one American life in the interest of "helping" a bunch of people who want to berkeleying murder us. Use chemical weapons, don't use chemical weapons, whatever. The more casualties the better, as long as it's not our boys.

The correct policy for American engagement in Syria is to root for injuries between the warring parties. Neither side is our friend. Neither side wishes to be our friend. When Middle Eastern tyrants are willing to pay us to take out the Assad regime and the rebels are butchering Syrians as badly as Assad — possibly with chemical weapons according to the United Nations — we should be staying out of it. We should be hoping both sides incapacitate each other. But Americans must now become mindful of the Baader-Meinhof Phenonmenon. The phenomenon describes when one encounters something obscure, like a previously unknown or little considered word, then encounters it repeatedly in the ensuing days. There’s a word we are already beginning to hear. Having only noticed it in passing in the last week’s talking points, it has become a steady drip, drip, dripping from the Obama administration and John McCain — “moderate”. You will now hear it constantly in conversations about the Syrian rebels. Press reports and intelligence confirm the Syrian rebels are brutal, allied to Al Qaeda, slaughtering Christians, and bent on imposing a fundamentalist regime in Syria. The supposed moderates are in the minority and, should Assad fall, will themselves fall to more savage zealots driven not by a desire to throw off a dictator, but by a more driving desire to impose themselves as dictators. It turns out the woman briefing John Kerry and John McCain is in the employ of the Syrian rebels. She is a spin artist for them. She has Kerry, McCain, and the rest describing the rebels as moderates. Like in a political campaign, they seek to define their side and the other side before that other side can do the defining. The rebels, through their lobbyists in Washington, are trying to sell Congress and us on their moderation. They are not moderate. They are not our friends. They would glady kill us if we were not now useful to them. We should be rooting for injuries in Syria, not rooting for the rebels.

Here's another good one. Chechens using Syria as on-the-job training...and probably hopin' to get some o' them sweet, sweet Obamabucks!

http://www.thenation.com/blog/175621/russias-stake-syrias-war#

Ahhh, come on! You don't want to help these guys: They are fighting to get religion back in the government!

Best way to get people "religioned" up is to shoot them in the back of the head apparently.

I wonder who gave them those sweet AKs.

I could not care less what those shiny happy people think of us. Our stature in their world couldn't possibly get any lower due to our support of Israel. They are going to hate and kill each other over mere trivialities no matter what we do or say, so let's save American lives and money.

I supported the Iraq invasion, over the years I have come to realize the invasion is easy to win but it's the after party that's a bitch. I'd just as soon avoid another entanglement unless we are being directly threatened.

I say let the little berkeleyers kill each other off, it'll save us the trouble. If the Russians want Syria so damn bad they can have it, same as they used to have Afghanistan. Now THERE is a lesson we should have learned from, but noooo....

Once Obama starts, you own own it. I remember watching CNN when you went into Iraq the first time. I thought that was the beginning of WW3. I hope he stays out of Syria, and quits sending billions in aid to countries. Look at America, help those at home.

In reply to N Sperlo:

No kidding. I wouldn't mind a couple of those. For, um, hunting.

spitfirebill wrote: My personal opinon is that if Iran drops a few Scuds (or worse) on Israel, they are not going to stand idly by and not retaliate like they did during Desert Storm. They are itching to take out Iran's nuclear program and this would be the opportunity.

They need our tanker aircraft to strike Iran though......

Curmudgeon wrote: Our stature in their world couldn't possibly get any lower due to our support of Israel. They are going to hate and kill each other over mere trivialities no matter what we do or say, so let's save American lives and money.

This makes sense.......hell, Israel has been making arial incursions into several of its neighbors lately, and nobody gives a flying berkeley.....

don't worry... now that it's clear that congress won't give him the go ahead, and now that he had all the leaders at their little party in Russia tell him that they want nothing to do with it, Barack is now saying that he never really wanted to do any sort of military action in the first place and that everyone has misquoted him and mischaracterized his statements on this subject when he was saying that he wanted to go in there..

so maybe now we can all start talking about that "Ben Gozzi" guy that everyone was talking about before...

Curmudgeon wrote: If the Russians want Syria so damn bad they can have it, same as they used to have Afghanistan.

They don't want Syria. They have some weapons to unload and a pipeline they do not want installed thru there. They have a balance they don't want upset.

aircooled wrote: Ahhh, come on! You don't want to help these guys: They are fighting to get religion back in the government! Best way to get people "religioned" up is to shoot them in the back of the head apparently.

Now we know why the Republicans are against it. They don't want to see the plan they designed for the U.S. fail

Well, this thread WAS going well...

Flight Service wrote:

aircooled wrote: Ahhh, come on! You don't want to help these guys: They are fighting to get religion back in the government! Best way to get people "religioned" up is to shoot them in the back of the head apparently.

Now we know why the Republicans are against it. They don't want to see the plan they designed for the U.S. fail

Your "crazy" emoticon suggests you know the level of lameness achieved in that post.

At least, I hope.