Syria, America and Putin's Bluff

[mendeleyev]

The debate isn't about whether or not Assad used them, it's whether or not should he be punished for it. USA presented evidence to the UN. No country is protesting very hard against the evidence. It's pretty clear who made the call to use chemical weapons and then bomb the area to get rid of that evidence.

Billy, a slight correction: The USA released photos and videos of the aftermath to the UN. However our Ambassador to the UN claimed that some evidence is classified and asked the UN to trust that it was conclusive.

Second, there are countries who don't believe our "evidence" is conclusive and it is not clear WHO used the chemicals. It is very odd that the gas attack just happened on the very day before UN inspectors were to arrive. I doubt that Assad would be that dumb, and if he did, don't you think he'd have made sure to frame the rebels while at it?

When Obama and Kerry speak of a majority of countries accepting Washington's "evidence" they are lying.

Additionally: when John the butcher McCain claims that he knows the Free Syrian Army and they are the "good guys" keep in mind that just yesterday Mr. McCain's buddies of the Free Syrian Army took credit for the murder of Christians in Maalula, calling them "Crusaders." http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-still-christian-town-maalula-084558304.html

[GQBlues]

...The question that is asked here is that according to Obama a red line is crossed when checmical weapons are used (unless Turkey uses them to stop demonstrations). So what is Obama going to do to the rebels if it becomes clear they were the ones using the weapons ?

Well, generally speaking through propaganda, the American people have been convinced that Assad used the weapons...there probably is no real evidence it was him...the 'rebels' could have made it look like him, which makes more sense to me..

I knew I never should've sat there and watched that 'speech', especially on the eve of the 12th anniversary of 911 and the first anniversary of Benghazi just to lay witness to another assault from this clown. Obama succeeds to constantly remind me why I honestly detest this moron.

1. Obama is fully aware of the War Powers Resolution Act. He can't possibly forget that as he just engaged himself into *4* regional incursions under that law. Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen and Libya. He even knowingly and intently violated that law by deflecting that the Libyan conflict had turned into a NATO offensive justifying leaving American troops on the ground beyond what the law affords him to do. Libyan civil war did not represent any direct threat to the US nor to Europe to justify NATO even being there. It is the same violation carried by Bill Clinton in Kosovo war when he continued to bombard Serbia beyond what the law afforded him to do, citing that Congressional funding authorization allowed him continued bombardment. That is a LIE since the law specifically state 'Congressional funding' is not to be use to justify going beyond the allowed 60 days of engagement.

2. To plea to the ignorant Americans, he paints himself as a 'war stopper' by taking credit to what had already been established by the previous administration with Iraq's leaders. He had nothing whatsoever to do with that other than the fact he presided over the presidency when the scheduled pull-out arrived. As a matter of fact, he *voted against the surge* that ultimately allowed the pull-out.

3. He continually lies to the gullible US public by implying that his administration, unlike that of the past decade, makes sure there is prior Congressional approval prior to engaging our military abroad. He should know better making stupid comments like since even his 2 Secretary of State, Clinton and Kerry, voted *for* both the Iraq and Afghanistan war and those wars were clearly authorized by *Congress*.

There were 2 Senate investigation conducted (mostly be Democrats) to determine if any impropriety and fraud took place to justify going to war in Iraq. Both investigation came up empty. TWICE. There were no deceit, no fraud or misrepresentation of the intelligence/presentation of whatever else that were used as evidence.

4. He seeks justification for a military strike in Syria under the morality flag saying the killing of innocent people by the use of chemical weapons is inexcusable. Overnight bombardment had been killing innocent civilians, including women and children, in Syria for 2 years now at far more than a thousand folds than the gassing incident.

This clown gave warning over a year ago warning Asaad he should never cross that red line by using WMD against his people or he'll suffer the wrath of *his* United States. Well, Syria delivered that silly speech right smack back unto his Pennsylvania doorsteps. So, now what?

Obama knows about the War Powers Resolution Act fairly well. He can very well be within the law to levy *unbelievably small time and effort* military strikes to back up his rant. He can't. So to make himself look good while looking stupid, he rushes to the war weary public and 'Congress' for authorization to use VERY LIMITED military strikes against Syria, an act which is well within the purview of the War Powers resolution Act since according to him, somehow, this was a threat to the security of the US. An act he so conveniently exercised the past 5 years of his presidency - knowing full well it will be nearly impossible for him to get passage for military engagement and he'll save face.

So if and when Congress votes 'NO' - this clown can then easily say, "Syria knew I meant what I said! Asaad better thanked the lawful democratic system of the United States of America that kept me from following with my threat."

A year ago he promised to deliver those who were responsible for the Benghazi attack. The person who claimed responsibility while sipping a nice cool glass of juice - is still waiting to be picked-up. He should busy himself delivering on that promise instead of making another stupid TV appearances. So far, on it's first anniversary, there's still no explanation nor anyone responsible apprehended and brought to justice.

#!@#! moron!

[Shadow]

Don't get upset. Not everyone against Assad is a rebel, some are terrorists. You're lumping all Syrians who simply want freedom and a peaceful life with murders, rapists, and terrorists. That is wrong and twists how you view the situation. I got news for you. In every American war, or any war in history for that matter, there are rapes, murder, and torture but a few people's actions doesn't dictate the goal of the war. Assad on the other hand is in charge and his military will do what he says whether to fight clean or dirty.
 
--- pro-American communist blah blah blah----

I got news for you. Assad prtected the Christians, the Jews and other religions from being 'purified' by the Muslims. Fat chance of that happening if the rebels take government.
More news. Assad has been elected in a presidential election with more real support as Obaman.But of course every election where the 'wrong' person wins is fraudulent and invalid.
Do not forget that Europe built your country. If it was not for our past division, we could break it just as simple.

[lordtiberius]

I knew I never should've sat there and watched that 'speech', especially on the eve of the 12th anniversary of 911 and the first anniversary of Benghazi just to lay witness to another assault from this clown. Obama succeeds to constantly remind me why I honestly detest this moron.

1. Obama is fully aware of the War Powers Resolution Act. He can't possibly forget that as he just engaged himself into *4* regional incursions under that law. Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen and Libya. He even knowingly and intently violated that law by deflecting that the Libyan conflict had turned into a NATO offensive justifying leaving American troops on the ground beyond what the law affords him to do. Libyan civil war did not represent any direct threat to the US nor to Europe to justify NATO even being there. It is the same violation carried by Bill Clinton in Kosovo war when he continued to bombard Serbia beyond what the law afforded him to do, citing that Congressional funding authorization allowed him continued bombardment. That is a LIE since the law specifically state 'Congressional funding' is not to be use to justify going beyond the allowed 60 days of engagement.

2. To plea to the ignorant Americans, he paints himself as a 'war stopper' by taking credit to what had already been established by the previous administration with Iraq's leaders. He had nothing whatsoever to do with that other than the fact he presided over the presidency when the scheduled pull-out arrived. As a matter of fact, he *voted against the surge* that ultimately allowed the pull-out.

3. He continually lies to the gullible US public by implying that his administration, unlike that of the past decade, makes sure there is prior Congressional approval prior to engaging our military abroad. He should know better making stupid comments like since even his 2 Secretary of State, Clinton and Kerry, voted *for* both the Iraq and Afghanistan war and those wars were clearly authorized by *Congress*.

There were 2 Senate investigation conducted (mostly be Democrats) to determine if any impropriety and fraud took place to justify going to war in Iraq. Both investigation came up empty. TWICE. There were no deceit, no fraud or misrepresentation of the intelligence/presentation of whatever else that were used as evidence.

4. He seeks justification for a military strike in Syria under the morality flag saying the killing of innocent people by the use of chemical weapons is inexcusable. Overnight bombardment had been killing innocent civilians, including women and children, in Syria for 2 years now at far more than a thousand folds than the gassing incident.

This clown gave warning over a year ago warning Asaad he should never cross that red line by using WMD against his people or he'll suffer the wrath of *his* United States. Well, Syria delivered that silly speech right smack back unto his Pennsylvania doorsteps. So, now what?

Obama knows about the War Powers Resolution Act fairly well. He can very well be within the law to levy *unbelievably small time and effort* military strikes to back up his rant. He can't. So to make himself look good while looking stupid, he rushes to the war weary public and 'Congress' for authorization to use VERY LIMITED military strikes against Syria, an act which is well within the purview of the War Powers resolution Act since according to him, somehow, this was a threat to the security of the US. An act he so conveniently exercised the past 5 years of his presidency - knowing full well it will be nearly impossible for him to get passage for military engagement and he'll save face.

So if and when Congress votes 'NO' - this clown can then easily say, "Syria knew I meant what I said! Asaad better thanked the lawful democratic system of the United States of America that kept me from following with my threat."

A year ago he promised to deliver those who were responsible for the Benghazi attack. The person who claimed responsibility while sipping a nice cool glass of juice - is still waiting to be picked-up. He should busy himself delivering on that promise instead of making another stupid TV appearances. So far, on it's first anniversary, there's still no explanation nor anyone responsible apprehended and brought to justice.

#!@#! moron!

+1  (Brilliant)

WSJ op-ed writer Elizabeth O’Bagy fired for resume lie
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/wall-street-journal-elizabeth-obagy-fired-96637.html#ixzz2ebjDkf7v
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/wall-street-journal-elizabeth-obagy-fired-96637.html

The Syria researcher whose Wall Street Journal op-piece was cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain during congressional hearings about the use of force has been fired from the Institute for the Study of War for lying about having a Ph.D., the group announced on Wednesday.

“The Institute for the Study of War has learned and confirmed that, contrary to her representations, Ms. Elizabeth O’Bagy does not in fact have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University,” the institute said in a statement. “ISW has accordingly terminated Ms. O’Bagy’s employment, effective immediately.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/wall-street-journal-elizabeth-obagy-fired-96637.html#ixzz2ebjOmss5

Poll: Obama Worse than Bush on Foreign Policy

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/11/Poll-Obama-Worse-than-Bush-on-Foreign-Policy

by Tony Lee  11 Sep 2013, 7:47 AM PDT 24 
 

A new poll has found a majority of Americans believe that President Barack Obama's handling of foreign policy is worse than or no better than President George W. Bush.

The poll also found that 74% of Americans believe military strikes against Syria would be "unwise," and nearly half of the country feels that Washington's permanent political class wants military action more than they do.

According to a Reason-Rupe poll, "64 percent of Americans, including 68 percent of independents and 41 percent of Democrats, believe President Obama" is as bad as or worse than Bush on foreign policy.

In addition, 47% of Americans said the "political establishment in Washington D.C.” is more likely to favor military intervention in Syria, with a majority of independents (57%) believing so. Meanwhile, only 17% of Americans said the permanent political class is less likely to favor military action than they are.

The poll was conducted from September 4-8, and its margin of error is +/-  3.7 percentage points.

[lordtiberius]

Billy, a slight correction: The USA released photos and videos of the aftermath to the UN. However our Ambassador to the UN claimed that some evidence is classified and asked the UN to trust that it was conclusive.

Second, there are countries who don't believe our "evidence" is conclusive and it is not clear WHO used the chemicals. It is very odd that the gas attack just happened on the very day before UN inspectors were to arrive. I doubt that Assad would be that dumb, and if he did, don't you think he'd have made sure to frame the rebels while at it?

When Obama and Kerry speak of a majority of countries accepting Washington's "evidence" they are lying.

Additionally: when John the butcher McCain claims that he knows the Free Syrian Army and they are the "good guys" keep in mind that just yesterday Mr. McCain's buddies of the Free Syrian Army took credit for the murder of Christians in Maalula, calling them "Crusaders." http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-still-christian-town-maalula-084558304.html

If we assume the position that Assad did use chemical weapons, Syria is not a party to treaties forbidding its use of chemical weapons is it?  Also, if the Qaddaffi precedent set, where by Rebels captured surrendering combatants then tortured and executed said surrendered combatants, who is holding them accountable?  Assad is way worse than Qaddaffi, yet John McCain and our President were 'ok' with Libyan rebels anally probing Qaddaffi with a Kalishnikov rifle and then killing him.  Given this precedent, wouldn't you use chemical weapons?

If there is not enough evidence linking our President to Benghazi, the IRS scandals and Fast and Furious, by that standard, there is not enough evidence that Assad ordered the attack. 

I am not a fan of Mendeleyev's "talking down my country" even though most of the country agrees with him.  I do support his efforts to hold this President accountable. 

My questions to Mendeleyev:

1) what should US policy be in Syria?

2) what are we going to do about Saudi Arabia?

3) why is Russia selling more guns and ammo to Syria and NOW IRAN?

4) What are Russia's interests in the region?

5) If Clinton was the Air Force for Saudi Arabia in Kosovo, isn't Putin the gun runner for Hezbollah, Assad and the Islamic Republic of Iran?

My opinion still remains that Assad needs to go, but those means should not have American paw prints on it.  We have to take care of our own.

[fathertime]

If we assume the position that Assad did use chemical weapons, Syria is not a party to treaties forbidding its use of chemical weapons is it?  Also, if the Qaddaffi precedent set, where by Rebels captured surrendering combatants then tortured and executed said surrendered combatants, who is holding them accountable?  Assad is way worse than Qaddaffi, yet John McCain and our President were 'ok' with Libyan rebels anally probing Qaddaffi with a Kalishnikov rifle and then killing him.  Given this precedent, wouldn't you use chemical weapons?

Essentially WE assassinated Quadaffy by killing all his guards with our planes...I guess it is OK for the USA to assassinate leaders of foreign countries now.   If our 'representatives' weren't having their feet held to the fire by the people, foreign nations, and congress, we would have already done the same thing with Assad.. I disagree with this new 'policy' we  have...nations need to find their own way..and we need to stay the fvck outta their internal issues..


Yeah, if I were Assad I'd do WHATEVER I had to avoid a fate like quadaffy had...but I I agree with Mendelev, and his logic...the rebels may have done this to set up Assad...it doesn't make much sense that Assad would use these weapons when he didn't have to...I trust our 'intelligence' as far as i can shot-put my refrigerator.  I hope the world continues to speak out against our horrid foreign policy of bombing, interference, and forcing regime changes.  We are not the world's boss, so we can stop acting like we are, the people around the world are fed up with our crap.


Fathertime! 

[Shadow]

LT, I will give my answers to the questions asked to Mendeleyev, he will certainly reply in his own as well.

1. What should the US policy be?
The US should be offering a platform for diplomatic solution between the rebels and the government, leading to stability and safety for the Syrian citizens regardless of their affiliation.


2) what are we going to do about Saudi Arabia?
Do you think the US will ever be so bold as to bite the hand that feeds them?

3) why is Russia selling more guns and ammo to Syria and NOW IRAN?
Because the US does not want to buy them ?
Seriously, with some parts of their market having been destroyed last year, Russia wants as much to make money from sales of weapons as the US.

4) What are Russia's interests in the region?
Apart from a large naval base in Syria, Russia has interest in delaying the gas pipeline that in planned to make Europe less depending on Russian gas.

5) If Clinton was the Air Force for Saudi Arabia in Kosovo, isn't Putin the gun runner for Hezbollah, Assad and the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Lets just hope he will not become their airforce. That would be a problem.

My opinion remains that Syrian people need to decide their own future without any open or concealed support from other countries. Whoever they choose freely should be allowed to govern, regardless of his name, affiliation or political views.

[lordtiberius]

fathertime, excellent response.  Thank you.

Essentially WE assassinated Quadaffy by killing all his guards with our planes

since no one wants to hold our President accountable, I personally will be holding John McCain responsible by not voting for him, advocating for candidates to replace him in the primary and spending money on his opponents.  Full disclosure: I interned for him 20 years ago.

Qaddaffi was a bad guy long time ago.  But we are America - allegedly Christian nation - forgive and forget.  I am embarrassed by his Mr. Qaddaffi's disposal.  They couldn't find a spot for him in a retirement home in Boca next to Mubarak and all the former Mexican presidents.  What kind of nation are we turning into?  There was not even elections.  There was a protest - then a hot war.  And we didn't offer to moderate a peace council for some kind of power sharing or partition.  Just protest and war and now we are redux-ing Libya in Syria and obtw, Syria's worse.

Yeah, if I were Assad I'd do WHATEVER I had to avoid a fate like quadaffy had...but I I agree with Mendelev, and his logic...the rebels may have done this to set up Assad...it doesn't make much sense that Assad would use these weapons when he didn't have to...I trust our 'intelligence' as far as i can shot-put my refrigerator.  I hope the world continues to speak out against our horrid foreign policy of bombing, interference, and forcing regime changes.  We are not the world's boss, so we can stop acting like we are, the people around the world are fed up with our crap.


Fathertime!

Assad and Iranian killed friends of mine in Iraq.  But I will soon be a husband and I don't know what I would do differently.

Re: our intell services, if we are Al Queda's Air Force (Thank you Mssrs Kucinich and Cruz) and Russia is Hezbollah's and Iran's (potentially).  Isn't our intelligence services' the PR group for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?  Haven't we mismanaged that relationship?

Re: the Syrian people.  If we leave it up to the Syrian people, then I think there will be more war.  Disagree?  Why can't we do what we did in Sudan which is set up a UN-commission to mediate a truce and set up de facto borders?  This war by proxy is a bit disgusting.  If the Saudis and Iranians want to go to war with each other, shouldn't they stop hiring mercenaries to fight their war for them and just be a man and fight amongst themselves?  Should we have a passive interest in these regional wars?

I don't know the right answer if you have a clue bat, come at me bro.  Thank you again

[lordtiberius]

LT, I will give my answers to the questions asked to Mendeleyev, he will certainly reply in his own as well.

1. What should the US policy be?
The US should be offering a platform for diplomatic solution between the rebels and the government, leading to stability and safety for the Syrian citizens regardless of their affiliation.

+1 agree
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.  (Sorry SuperNan)

2) what are we going to do about Saudi Arabia?
Do you think the US will ever be so bold as to bite the hand that feeds them?

certainly the political class is bank rolled by them.  But have you collect a check from these people?  I haven't.  A lot of my paycheck goes over there in the way of gas prices does though

Remember back in the day, when those rodents did what the (###) we wanted?  What happened to that?

3) why is Russia selling more guns and ammo to Syria and NOW IRAN?
Because the US does not want to buy them ?   
Seriously, with some parts of their market having been destroyed last year, Russia wants as much to make money from sales of weapons as the US.

I really think the best way to hurt Russia is for our economy to grow above 4% per year and to drive the price of gas down to just above $ 10 a barrel through fraking and domestic drilling.  Russia is an enemy at this point.  But the best thing to do is to coopt Russia through cultural, political and economic competition not by killing their boys.  Am I wrong?

4) What are Russia's interests in the region?
Apart from a large naval base in Syria, Russia has interest in delaying the gas pipeline that in planned to make Europe less depending on Russian gas.

+1
You're right.  Russia wants high gas prices as does Iran and Saudi Arabia.  Poland is experimenting with fraking and I am told Moldovia, Romania and Western Ukraine have oil.  is that true?  Couldn't this counter Russia's negative influence to peace?

5) If Clinton was the Air Force for Saudi Arabia in Kosovo, isn't Putin the gun runner for Hezbollah, Assad and the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Lets just hope he will not become their airforce. That would be a problem.

yes it would.  I don't want the movie Threads to be my future

My opinion remains that Syrian people need to decide their own future without any open or concealed support from other countries. Whoever they choose freely should be allowed to govern, regardless of his name, affiliation or political views.

Again, same question, I pointed to fathertime.  The fact is because our economy expands our influence in the world expands.  Our borders become larger.  I guess this is an extension of ML's question UT, shouldn't we have a passive interest in the outcomes of all regional struggles so that our allies win and our enemies' (Russia, China and Iran) allies loose.

[mendeleyev]

I'm hiring Shadow to be my new press secretary. Shadow did a great job and I don't have to "walk back anything that was said." 


LT, Russia is not our enemy. That misconception really frustrates me.

Russia and the USA have a lot in common and could work well together--we also share the problem of horribly bad leadership.

Russia really needs to continue democratic growth and the Navalny vote totals in the weekend's mayoral election, rattled the Kremlin cages. Good! They needed rattling. Nobody predicted that in a rigged muddled election he'd get almost 30% of the vote when only 30% of registered voters bothered to participate. It was a medium sized step in the right direction.

That 70% of the electorate didn't bother to show up is not something Mr. Putin wishes to fix, but as the older folk with Soviet memory cells die off, somebody at some point will have to fix it.

The fastest way to grow the Russian economy is to have the USA stop the overly protective environmental BS and become energy independent. Then if Mr. Putin wanted to stay in power he'd be forced to allow small and medium sized non-energy businesses to germinate and grow. That is to Russia's benefit long-term.

Take the huge amounts of investment going on in the Far East right now, and this is one thing that really chaps PM Medvedev: the Far East is in dire need of development, not only to secure the country's borders long-term, but for the benefit of the people who live there and to make their lives better with greater opportunity to grow middle class families. But Mr. Putin is so intent on limiting the players to the Kremlin inner circle, that other Russians who want to be a part of that development are frozen out. That slows down the process in addition to slamming the door on anyone not deemed worthy by the Kremlin.

I'd suggest he start with tourism as it can be done by smaller businesses, and add growth with new technology business ideas. Technology was a Medvedev project but Putin, the man who still has no cell phone or personal computer, can't relate to technology. His closest link to high tech is a wristwatch (and a mighty fine one at that). Heck, the security staff surrounding him has plenty of technology, and even his oldest dog wears a GPS collar!

More importantly however, Russia has raised a generation of young Russians who do understand it and Russia has some of the "best" hackers in the world. Instead of ceding the tech industry to nearby India, Putin needs to take the shackles off and allow technology to be developed by folks in their garages and small businesses. Why doesn't he allow that spigot to be opened wide? He is afraid of it because he believes that technology and social media fueled the various colour and spring revolutions and he hopes to delay the inevitable.

By building projects like the Keystone and developing our own wealth of energy resources the USA could send the Middle East back to the 11th century BC without firing a single shot.

[lordtiberius]

I'm hiring Shadow to be my new press secretary. Shadow did a great job and I don't have to "walk back anything that was said." 


LT, Russia is not our enemy. That misconception really frustrates me.

Russia and the USA have a lot in common and could work well together--we also share the problem of horribly bad leadership.

Russia really needs to continue democratic growth and the Navalny vote totals in the weekend's mayoral election, rattled the Kremlin cages. Good! They needed rattling. Nobody predicted that in a rigged muddled election he'd get almost 30% of the vote when only 30% of registered voters bothered to participate. It was a medium sized step in the right direction.

That 70% of the electorate didn't bother to show up is not something Mr. Putin wishes to fix, but as the older folk with Soviet memory cells die off, somebody at some point will have to fix it.

The fastest way to grow the Russian economy is to have the USA stop the overly protective environmental BS and become energy independent. Then if Mr. Putin wanted to stay in power he'd be forced to allow small and medium sized non-energy businesses to germinate and grow. That is to Russia's benefit long-term.

Take the huge amounts of investment going on in the Far East right now, and this is one thing that really chaps PM Medvedev: the Far East is in dire need of development, not only to secure the country's borders long-term, but for the benefit of the people who live there and to make their lives better with greater opportunity to grow middle class families. But Mr. Putin is so intent on limiting the players to the Kremlin inner circle, that other Russians who want to be a part of that development are frozen out. That slows down the process in addition to slamming the door on anyone not deemed worthy by the Kremlin.

I'd suggest he start with tourism as it can be done by smaller businesses, and add growth with new technology business ideas. Technology was a Medvedev project but Putin, the man who still has no cell phone or personal computer, can't relate to technology. His closest link to high tech is a wristwatch (and a mighty fine one at that). Heck, the security staff surrounding him has plenty of technology, and even his oldest dog wears a GPS collar!

More importantly however, Russia has raised a generation of young Russians who do understand it and Russia has some of the "best" hackers in the world. Instead of ceding the tech industry to nearby India, Putin needs to take the shackles off and allow technology to be developed by folks in their garages and small businesses. Why doesn't he allow that spigot to be opened wide? He is afraid of it because he believes that technology and social media fueled the various colour and spring revolutions and he hopes to delay the inevitable.

By building projects like the Keystone and developing our own wealth of energy resources the USA could send the Middle East back to the 11th century BC without firing a single shot.

When Russia arms Syria and Iran, how can you not consider Russia an enemy?  At least Putin is an enemy.  I like and respect him.  But he is no bueno for America

[mendeleyev]

I wish that Russia would sell arms to other guys but unfortunately the USA already has the rest of the market cornered.

[Shadow]

When Russia arms Syria and Iran, how can you not consider Russia an enemy?  At least Putin is an enemy.  I like and respect him.  But he is no bueno for America

If the last 25 years have taught anything than it is that the USA can not exist in peace without a credible enemy. Until dualistic thinking is removed from the culture (and there seems little chance of that) there must be a 'bad' to the 'good' the USA pretends to be. Russia seems to be the single country that can pose as credible enemy. Europe is too divided, China needed to privide cheap goods.

[GQBlues]

This is the 2012 Presidential debate between Beavis and Butthead specifically about Syria. This is why ignorant Americans really need to start paying closer attention to these debates to understand which is the lesser of the idiots they put to run our country...





Considering Al Qeada is one of the rebellious group in Syria, they keep saying there should a 'moderate' group to rule Syria post-Assad.

Notice what Butthead said about Khadaffi and how he needed to make sure he is dealt with accordingly. We all know what that 'accordingly' is today.

If that isn't regime change, I don't know what is. Libya's nation building project is definitely doing great, doesn't it?

[GQBlues]

If the last 25 years have taught anything than it is that the USA can not exist in peace without a credible enemy. Until dualistic thinking is removed from the culture (and there seems little chance of that) there must be a 'bad' to the 'good' the USA pretends to be. Russia seems to be the single country that can pose as credible enemy. Europe is too divided, China needed to privide cheap goods.

The last time, not too long ago either, the USA thumbed its nose into its own business, you Euros couldn't cry and scream loud enough to bail you folks out. Then bitched about it for so many freaking years after about how and why it took the US a long time before flexing it's muscle to save your collective butts from the evils you all created in your own world.

C'mon Shadow, the Dutch were part of that crying team.

The US will be just fine being what it is despite the absence of an enemy. It is the Europeans who can't manage things amongst themselves that got this eventual world we know today. The Middle East nor Africa's trouble today was NEVER America's fault. The trouble those regions are living with today are directly equal to the prosperity found in Europe.

You can humbly even start with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

As for Africa: You can watch this little tidbit of truth.


http://www.coop99.at/darwins-nightmare/darwin/html/startset.htm

Now that you folks had successfully dragged that once isolationist country called USA, you folks are the first to take a stand atop that silly pedestal of morality.

Very funny.

[SANDRO43]

We liberated China

BillyB, check your history . The US did NOT liberate China, they supported an anti-Japanese Chinese leader - Chang Kai-Shek - who was not much popular with most of his country's people, hence the greater popular support for someone like Mao Zedong who was perceived as having more of their interests in mind, and eventually acquired total power in China, forcing his US-supported rival to flee the mainland for Formosa (Taiwan) and eventually lose his privileged seat in the UN Assembly's Secutity Council in 1971.

Not the first time a Western power backed a non-Western loser, before or since .

[SANDRO43]

Qaddaffi was a bad guy long time ago.  But we are America - allegedly Christian nation - forgive and forget.

Is trying to kill him with a failed F-111 bombing raid an example of Christian forgive and forget policy ?

[SANDRO43]

USA presented evidence to the UN.

Not the first time :

[SANDRO43]

The last time, not too long ago either, the USA thumbed its nose into its own business, you Euros couldn't cry and scream loud enough to bail you folks out. Then bitched about it for so many freaking years after about how and why it took the US a long time before flexing it's muscle to save your collective butts from the evils you all created in your own world.

Are you referring to WWII? IIRC, FDR only 'forced' the US Congress into declaring war on the Axis powers after Pearl Harbour (December 7, 1941):

In the meantime (1940-1942), for 3 years Great Britain took the brunt of the fighting, being granted some 50 obsolete US 3-funnel destroyers in exchange for Caribbean bases, while the Chinese were being massacred and the Pacific overrun by the Rising Sun .

[lordtiberius]

I think ppl r unfair to the French.  The italian military record is so glossy.

[SANDRO43]

The italian military record is so glossy.

Not at all.

I remember asking my father why our most celebrated feats of arms in WWII were El Alamein in Egypt and the retreat from the Don front in Russia - granted that our troops there (our Folgore parachutists and our Alpine regiments, respectively) fought valiantly and put up a very stiff resistance to enemy attacks (also grudgingly acknowledged by our German allies) but those were both defeats. He was embarrassed at not being able to offer me a convincing reply or an example of a real Italian military victory.

Our 3rd Regiment of "Savoia Cavalleria" staged what was probably the last - and hopeless - cavalry charge of WWII at Isbuschenskij on 24th August, 1942:

Except for the navy, our forces were badly equipped for the fight (e.g. our artillery was mostly WWI relics, and our air force still had biplane aircraft): our Chiefs of Staff advised Mussolini that we would have needed at least a year to prepare decently for war. But he was eager to join the fight due to Hitler's successes, and was quoted to say that he needed a few thousand casualties to throw on the table of the eventual peace conference, so he declared war on France and Britain on 11th December, 1941. 

Our most successful achievements were mostly due to few individuals, like the sinking of RN capital ships in Gibraltar and Alexandria using maiali (pigs), i.e. the manned slow-running torpedoes that were later copied by the Brits:

 

[GQBlues]

Are you referring to WWII? IIRC, FDR only 'forced' the US Congress into declaring war on the Axis powers after Pearl Harbour (December 7, 1941):

In the meantime (1940-1942), for 3 years Great Britain took the brunt of the fighting, being granted some 50 obsolete US 3-funnel destroyers in exchange for Caribbean bases, while the Chinese were being massacred and the Pacific overrun by the Rising Sun .

Yup. WWII is exactly what I had in mind. Churchill had taken great strides to implicate the US into that silly war. Despite FDR's campaign to heed his fellow across the pond in their war effort against the Germans and its Axis allies, he was prohibited both by the law and the public.

Churchill, since 1939, had taken a total of 11 meetings with FDR in his desperation to bind the US into that war.

To circumvent the Johnson Act of 1939, which was the credit line given to countries' unpaid war debts as a result of their, again, first world war, the Lend Lease Act of 1941 came to fruition in March 1941 to 'supply' military aid to Great Britain, USSR and China.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/305497/Johnson-Act

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/LendLease

This wasn't good enough. So Churchill sought to improvise a scheme and convinced FDR to enter into an ill-advised agreement what is now commonly known as the 'Atlantic Charter', which was agreed upon on August 1941 between Churchill and FDR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter

This, as most historians note and believe, along with Japan's miscalculation that taming the US naval base in the Pacific region will allow them greater reach in its immediate sphere, is what propelled the Axis power to believe that the US had allied with Great Britain in the ongoing war and what eventually led to the day of infamy on the 7th day of December, 1941.

Churchill, and by extension, the rest of his allies, finally got what they hoped and wanted.

Drag the US into their silly stupid wars.

[SANDRO43]

This, as most historians note and believe, along with Japan's miscalculation that taming the US naval base in the Pacific region will allow them greater reach in its immediate sphere, is what propelled the Axis power to believe that the US had allied with Great Britain in the ongoing war and what eventually led to the day of infamy on the 7th day of December, 1941.

I don't know who your most historians are, but they seem at odds with all the other WWII historians I have read so far .

Japan had been on an 'expansive' mood since its invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and was heavily dependent on US oil exports for its efforts, which were being increasingly restricted. The attack on Pearl Harbour did give them free rein in the Pacific for almost a year, until Midway and Guadalcanal caused a pause in mid 1942 - the turning point of WWII was in 1943.

Drag the US into their silly stupid wars.

Of course second-guessing history is possibly a futile exercise, but what could have happened eventually to the US with Germany also invading Great Britain after the rest of Europe, and maybe expanding its influence to South America ?

[GQBlues]

I don't know who your most historians are, but they seem at odds with all the other WWII historians I have read so far .

Japan had been on an 'expansive' mood since its invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and was heavily dependent on US oil exports for its efforts, which were being increasingly restricted. The attack on Pearl Harbour did give them free rein in the Pacific for almost a year, until Midway and Guadalcanal caused a pause in mid 1942 - the turning point of WWII was in 1943.

Of course second-guessing history is possibly a futile exercise, but what could have happened eventually to the US with Germany also invading Great Britain after the rest of Europe, and maybe expanding its influence to South America ?

Yup, I'm sure Churchill's intent with the Charter was both benign and have little implication to drag the US into the war and further murk the waters in the Pacific region in light of the present activities between the US and the Japanese Empire.

The intent of the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"...The attack was intended as a preventive action in order to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from interfering with military actions the Empire of Japan was planning in Southeast Asia against overseas territories of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States. There were simultaneous Japanese attacks on the US-held Phillipines and on the British Empire in Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong...."

Events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"...In 1940, Japan invaded French Indochina in an effort to control supplies reaching China. The United States halted shipments of airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline to Japan; this was perceived by Japan as an unfriendly act. The U.S. did not stop oil exports to Japan at that time in part because prevailing sentiment in Washington was that such an action would be an extreme step, given Japanese dependence on U.S. oil, and likely to be considered a provocation by Japan.

Early in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii from its previous base in San Diego and ordered a military buildup in the Philippines in the hope of discouraging Japanese aggression in the Far East. Because the Japanese high command was (mistakenly) certain any attack on Britain's Southeast Asian colonies would bring the U.S. into the war, a devastating preventive strike appeared to be the only way to avoid U.S. naval interference. An invasion of the Philippines was also considered to be necessary by Japanese war planners. The U.S. War Plan Orange had envisioned defending the Philippines with a 40,000 man elite force. This was opposed by Douglas MacArthur, who felt that he would need a force ten times that size, and was never implemented. By 1941, U.S. planners anticipated abandonment of the Philippines at the outbreak of war and orders to that effect were given in late 1941 to Admiral Thomas Hart, commander of the Asiatic Fleet.

The U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan in July 1941, following Japanese expansion into French Indochina after the fall of France, in part because of new American restrictions on domestic oil consumption. This in turn caused the Japanese to proceed with plans to take the Dutch East Indies, an oil-rich territory. On 17 August Roosevelt warned Japan that the U.S. was prepared to take any and all steps against Japan if it attacked "neighboring countries". The Japanese were faced with the option of either withdrawing from China and losing face or seizing and securing new sources of raw materials in the resource-rich, European-controlled colonies of Southeast Asia.

Japan and the U.S. engaged in negotiations during the course of 1941 in an effort to improve relations. During these negotiations Japan offered to withdraw from most of China and Indochina when peace was made with the Nationalist government, adopt an independent interpretation of the Tripartite Pact, and to not discriminate in trade provided all other countries reciprocated. These proposals were rejected by Washington. Japan's final proposal, on 20 November, offered to withdraw their forces from southern Indochina and not to launch any attacks in southeast Asia provided that the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands ceased *aiding China and lifted their sanctions against Japan. The American counterproposal of 26 November (the Hull note) required Japan to evacuate all of China without conditions and conclude non-aggression pacts with Pacific powers......"

*see major recipients of the Lend Lease Act of 1941


Content and Analysis of the Atlantic Charter:

"...The Atlantic Charter acted as clarification that America was supporting Britain in the war. Both America and Britain wanted to present their unity, regarding their mutual principles and hopes for the post-war world and the policies they agreed to follow once the Nazis had been defeated. A fundamental aim was to focus on the peace that would follow, and not specific American involvement and war strategy, although American involvement appeared increasingly likely...."

Impact of the Atlantic Charter:

"...The Axis powers interpreted these diplomatic agreements as a potential alliance against them. In Tokyo, the Atlantic Charter rallied support for the militarists in the Japanese government, who pushed for a more aggressive approach against the U.S. and Britain...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter

"Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war.

[fathertime]

fathertime, excellent response.  Thank you.

since no one wants to hold our President accountable, I personally will be holding John McCain responsible by not voting for him, advocating for candidates to replace him in the primary and spending money on his opponents.  Full disclosure: I interned for him 20 years ago.

Qaddaffi was a bad guy long time ago.  But we are America - allegedly Christian nation - forgive and forget.  I am embarrassed by his Mr. Qaddaffi's disposal.  They couldn't find a spot for him in a retirement home in Boca next to Mubarak and all the former Mexican presidents.  What kind of nation are we turning into?  There was not even elections.  There was a protest - then a hot war.  And we didn't offer to moderate a peace council for some kind of power sharing or partition.  Just protest and war and now we are redux-ing Libya in Syria and obtw, Syria's worse.



Assad and Iranian killed friends of mine in Iraq.  But I will soon be a husband and I don't know what I would do differently.

Re: our intell services, if we are Al Queda's Air Force (Thank you Mssrs Kucinich and Cruz) and Russia is Hezbollah's and Iran's (potentially).  Isn't our intelligence services' the PR group for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?  Haven't we mismanaged that relationship?

Re: the Syrian people.  If we leave it up to the Syrian people, then I think there will be more war.  Disagree?  Why can't we do what we did in Sudan which is set up a UN-commission to mediate a truce and set up de facto borders?  This war by proxy is a bit disgusting.  If the Saudis and Iranians want to go to war with each other, shouldn't they stop hiring mercenaries to fight their war for them and just be a man and fight amongst themselves?  Should we have a passive interest in these regional wars?

I don't know the right answer if you have a clue bat, come at me bro.  Thank you again

Hey Lordtiberious,  I really don't have good answers to all your valid questions..I just don't think these issues in far away countries are our problem to deal with militarily...Sure if we can do some genuine peacekeeping every so often that would be great and create genuine good will which could be mutually beneficial...every time we start bombing or using 'pinprick strikes' to force regime change we create many more people who want to do harm to us...it just isn't worth it.


Fathertime!