Vrede wrote:To be fair, Boatrocker, I thought you were referring to Syria, too. Though I know the intel is still questionable, I was wondering where you got "purely fabricated intelligence" from.
Okay; my bad. I thought "purely fabricated intelligence" and "very bad decision" were clear enough references to the whole yellowcake clusterfuck and the intelligence community that had no real intelligence but fed the Bush administration what it had indicated it wanted to hear. Whole point being that I do not want the present administration to make the same idiot mistake.
As distasteful as it is to echo RWNJ talking points, I have to agree that it seems difficult to say, with any verifiable certainty, that there actually is a "good" side in the Syrian mess. I will shed no tears for Assad, but I am not willing to hump a bunch of money and weapons to the rebels (a la the Afghan mujahidin in the 70s/80s) only to have them possibly used against us at some later date. I just don't see any good guys over there, nor do I see any good outcome from mucking about in their mess.
Vrede wrote:Fortunately, they are longstanding progressive, anti-militarist and anti-imperialist talking points, too, and wouldn't be RWNJ talking points for many if Obama wasn't POTUS.
When anyone thinks that threats of bombing or other interference will ever make any difference in Syria or their neighbors, they need to look at a pic of kids throwing rocks at tanks. Makes no sense, has no chance of being successful, might get them killed over nothing, but they do it anyway. Getting killed can be considered a win.
Attachments
throwing-rocks-at-tanks.jpg (44.04 KiB) Viewed 1409 times
The proposal to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control has a great deal of merit, and unlike military attacks, actually would prevent chemical warfare in the future. I urge the President to avoid U.S. military involvement in the Syrian civil war, and pursue this constructive, peaceful outcome.
Join me.
OOPS! Putin just threw a Baby Ruth in the punch bowl. The catch is the US must take all possible military action off the table. I am not surprised this Grayson idiot thinks we can negotiate with these folks. I am not in favor of involvement in Syria under current circumstances, but the option cannot be removed.
Vrede wrote:According to Troll Patrol/Supalemgr, Grayson is an idiot because he urges "the President to avoid U.S. military involvement in the Syrian civil war". But, the "smarter" Troll PatrolSupalemgr is "not in favor of involvement in Syria under current circumstances".
:?: :?: :?:
He always was the ridiculously partisan, not very bright, hypocrisy champ.
Yup, IMHO his very first post at CPF highlighted that fact. It didn't matter which way the decision went, Obama was an idiot for both going to war and not going to war.
Vrede wrote:To be fair, we've armed terrorists for a long, long time and on every continent but Antarctica and Australia. Obama's just an American traditionalist and after 4 1/2 years of his foreign and military policy we should no longer be surprised by it.
It's funny that France is hawkish this time while the rightwingers that not long ago complained about France being too dovish just because it was correct about Iraq are now the doves.
Yep, it really makes you wonder.....
Our military budget including the spying on ourselves is gonna kill us.
Just when he was saved by a stroke of luck, he gives it all up by a stroke
of stupidity. Dumbass move, dude. I might have mentioned this before, but
Syria used to be French "territory." No doubt there's a little nostalgia for
the good old colonial days. Tres triste.
...That Syria's use of chemical weapons violated international law has been a major argument in favor of US intervention–and echoed in the media. Why did Obama draw the infamous "red line" in the first place? Because using chemical weapons is considered so abhorrent that the international community created a special treaty to outlaw them, and the administration argues that the US needs to make sure that law is upheld and enforced...
But if international law is so important in evaluating Syria's actions, then shouldn't it be equally important in evaluating the proposed US response? According to the UN Charter–which takes legal precedence over all other international treaties–only the Security Council can authorize the use of military force, except in the case of self-defense. In other words, without Security Council authorization, US military action against Syria would be illegal under international law...
So Vrede is in favor of letting the UN decide what is in the best interest of the USA. Being naive has no limits.
mama always said that if you do something mean and hurt someone, you have to apologize and the apology must be sincere before the damage can be repaired
1) apologize (over and over)
2) ask the UN to go in and try to stabilize things
3) agree to pay for all the damages and all costs associated with UN peacekeeping
4) return all profits and plunder from the war
5) send all the war criminals that lied us into their for profit war to Iraq and let the iraqi people determine their fate
this is all on us and we will continue to pay until the whole thing comes full circle, unless we come to terms with the horrors we perpetrated on those poor people in a genuine way
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”