Re: Syria - hype or war?
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:24 am
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/ ... ng-rebels/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Gee..... I wonder if some of the weapons they are transferring are the same weapons the State Department would not allow to be re-imported to the U.S........
It is something more, it's controlling the ability of China and India to get oil from the ME. it's about hegemony.ghostrider wrote:Its got to be more than just oil.
:-)
The largest foreign supplier of oil to America is Canada:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8950" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So, if China, with international approval, struck the US in the same way, as a punitive action, it wouldn't be an act of war against the US? Baloney. We have no special international rights to punish other countries. Furthermore, the Japanese attacked after a long oil embargo, and to push us and the British out of Asia, so the US was not some innocent bystander. Roosevelt had been using the US Navy in support of Britain before the Japanese attack and before we declared war on Germany. While I think WW2 was a war we needed to fight, the fact is there was virtually no public support for the US to enter another war in Europe until after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor...which FDR deliberately left vulnerable to attack for that very reason. Back in those days, the Republican party still contained a few men with integrity who stood up in the Senate and said so.Superman wrote:Yes, meme's are fun aren't they, I've seen that on facebook too. Too bad it's an inaccurate simile. Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack. It was done as a pre-emptive strike in order to pull us into the war. It was no doubt an act of war. The kind of strike that is being considered by us now is a punitive strike. It is in response to an internationally recognized illegal action. They are not the same.SlickTX wrote:Haven't you heard, it's not going to be a war . . . just a quick bombardment from the air and no boots on the ground. You know, like Pearl Harbor.
AND he did it with our full knowledge, and even some intel support. It was ok then, because we wanted him to defeat Iran. It only became bad later on when we were looking for pretexts to attack iraq.philip964 wrote:A Fox news commentator made an error on their broadcast this morning. He said Assad was the only person to kill people with nerve gas since Hitler.
I found no method to contact Fox news so they could set the record straight.
Terrible that they would allow such a factual error to be made on their network. Maybe its part of being balanced, they have to promote lies with the truth.
Saddam Hussein (remember him) used nerve gas repeatedly in Iraq against his own people the Kurds and in the Iraq/Iran war. He piled up a much higher body count than 1400. I believe Assad or the rebels got all of his nerve gas from Saddam just before we invaded.
Oh and yeah and our current president was against taking any action against him.
Beat me to it. I was going to post this story this morning....philip964 wrote:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/17/2 ... jm70D9JaKY
Case you had any doubts on which side the rebels were on.
and he who would allow the accrual of any positive perception of Mr. Putin in western society due to a regurgitation of views, that emanate from said society, to its detriment?The Annoyed Man wrote:but only a fool would discount 100% of what he says, just because we don't like him.
No, Mr. Putin is cunning, devious and brutal. That's how he attained his "office". Had he exhibited true intelligence under the Soviet regime, he would have entered a scientific studies track. That he didn't and instead was trained as a KGB officer, where said cunning and brutality are an asset, demonstrates that to me and anyone who has studied the Soviet era in Russia.I don't think Putin is some kind of elder statesman, but neither does someone get to his office without being very intelligent.
No, Mr. Putin advances his own interests, to the detriment of the Russian people, Exactly like Mr. Obama. That inexperienced Western observers conflate Mr. Putin’s interests with those of Russia provides him with the cover he needs to exploit public opinion in the West via his PR firm Ketchum*.But there is one thing that I will give Putin, he absolutely advances Russia's interests at all times.....unlike Obama and the U.S.'s interests.
Here we can agree, as long as it’s understood that Mr. Putin’s interests are not the same as Russia’s.And sometimes, Russia's interests ought to be our own.
No , you made the point that Russia and the U.S. have mutual interests, with that I agree. Mr. Putin does not equate Russia.I can think of other examples where their interests and ours cross, if you'd like, but I think I've made my point.
If we’re speaking truth better to shade your statement thus “There isn’t a single thing that is attributed to Putin in those two paragraphs that isn’t absolutely true.” Do a little research on Ketchum.There isn't a single thing that Putin wrote in those two paragraphs that isn't absolutely true.