09-20-2013 05:13 PM
368 ... 678910 ...
tools
  1. llamabreath's Avatar
    Add THIS to the latest news -

    They're now in the process of moving all their 'illegal' goodies, bad people, war equipment and troops into residential neighborhoods.

    Hmm... Maybe because not only has Obama procrastinated, dragged his feet, hemmed and stayed glued to the toilet bowl, he announced that basically he's not doing anything until the 9th (when Congress GETS BACK FROM VACATION).

    So now, besides doing very little (once he finally does something) the bad guys will be 1000% prepared by putting all their valuable everything in areas where WE will have to kill innocent people to get to the bad people.

    GREAT planning on our part. :thumbup:

    This is a common way of doing things on that side of the world. Place all the war equipment and bad people in residential areas, hospitals and schools. Our government couldn't see this coming? By the way, when's the last time WE were told when we could expect to be attacked?

    What kind of planning is this???

    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-02-2013 02:01 AM
  2. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Benghazzi and IRS investigations occur. They talk about it until they find information that it leads back to the whitehouse then say, the investigation is ongoing and we don't hear anything else out of it. IRS was targeting and they knew it. The head of the IRS met with obama in secret at the whitehouse during that time frame. Benghazzi, they aren't even upset that their own, americans, died there. They label these phony scandals. Again, they knew about these things and are covering them up. But what if they didn't know? If he is incompetent enough to not know what's going on inside the Whitehouse, he doesn't need to be president. Llama has it right. Obama has told them when, where, and what. He has given them time to do whatever they need to do. Move assets, strategize with their allies, plan retaliation scenarios. I don't like for any president to fail. It means bad things for our country and ALL of its people. His policies are failing. His agencies out of control. He handled this deal with Syria totally wrong. He is incompetent in the matters that relate to his duties.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-02-2013 08:05 AM
  3. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Riiight. Somehow, being on the national news and the front pages of every newspaper every day for a month is a 'little coverage'. Multiple investigations by congress that are ongoing isn't being held accountable. Neither is the high profile firings of those that were responsible for everything. Sure. No accountability or coverage at all.

    Or...back here in the real world, you just don't like Obama.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Who did they fire? Oh yeah, a few fall guys no one ever heard of.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-02-2013 08:09 AM
  4. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Who did they fire? Oh yeah, a few fall guys no one ever heard of.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    They never see jail time. They get set up with other jobs. It's became sickening.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-02-2013 08:13 AM
  5. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    They never see jail time. They get set up with other jobs. It's became sickening.
    Exactly...I wasn't a fan of Bush either but you have to admit, he would have been impeached long before now.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    09-02-2013 08:17 AM
  6. JHBThree's Avatar
    Who did they fire? Oh yeah, a few fall guys no one ever heard of.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Yeah, the head of the IRS and the head of one unit of the IRS are 'fall guys no one ever heard of'. Right. I'll reiterate again that not being in the US marginalizes your opinion on this.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    09-02-2013 05:06 PM
  7. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Yeah, the head of the IRS and the head of one unit of the IRS are 'fall guys no one ever heard of'. Right. I'll reiterate again that not being in the US marginalizes your opinion on this.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    SCAPEGOATS.....Uh...I'm in the US. I've seen the coverage. Still, no one in the administration has to answer for anything. The stand down order that was given that allowed Benghazi to happen could have only been ordered by one person. The POTUS. The only reason they didn't throw Hillary under the bus is because she's their candidate for president

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-02-2013 05:29 PM
  8. llamabreath's Avatar
    So what do you Obama backers think he's going to accomplish by tossing a few missiles? They're suddenly going to say, "Hey, wish we hadn't used that Sarin gas. We'll never do that again, no no no."

    Is that the result you're looking for? 'Cause it ain't happening. Hate to burst your bubbles.

    The more likely result is guess what -

    We'll be blamed for killing more innocent women & children!

    Sound familiar??

    If we keep pushing button A and B happens, we have to stop pushing button A and actually come up with a new idea.

    09-02-2013 06:30 PM
  9. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    So what do you Obama backers think he's going to accomplish by tossing a few missiles? They're suddenly going to say, "Hey, wish we hadn't used that Sarin gas. We'll never do that again, no no no."

    Is that the result you're looking for? 'Cause it ain't happening. Hate to burst your bubbles.

    The more likely result is guess what -

    We'll be blamed for killing more innocent women & children!

    Sound familiar??

    If we keep pushing button A and B happens, we have to stop pushing button A and actually come up with a new idea.

    Exactly right. There is no scenario where a favorable outcome can be achieved by attacking Syria.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-02-2013 07:10 PM
  10. Fairclough's Avatar
    - There are now predicted two million who have fled Syria.
    - Without action, this number is expected to increase.
    - So are you guys going to continue to say that there shouldn't be any action because their fear for their life is less than your fear of bad pr?
    09-03-2013 06:17 AM
  11. llamabreath's Avatar
    So are you guys going to continue to say that there shouldn't be any action because their fear for their life is less than your fear of bad pr?
    Still waiting for an answer to posts 137 and 183

    09-03-2013 07:17 AM
  12. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    - There are now predicted two million who have fled Syria.
    - Without action, this number is expected to increase.
    - So are you guys going to continue to say that there shouldn't be any action because their fear for their life is less than your fear of bad pr?
    Still, the possibility of igniting a world war is of no concern? How many people do you think will flee or die when this happens? Syria and Iran both of missles aimed at Israel. They will launch as soon as we attack them. Israel will respond and I'm telling you Damascus will cease to exist. Israel is surrounded by a lot of countries that hate them and they will defend themselves. Even still I've heard no reason for the US to get involved. There are refugees in a lot of places. US intervention will make it worse. I've never been worried about bad PR.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-03-2013 07:34 AM
  13. Fairclough's Avatar
    So what do you Obama backers think he's going to accomplish by tossing a few missiles? They're suddenly going to say, "Hey, wish we hadn't used that Sarin gas. We'll never do that again, no no no." Is that the result you're looking for? 'Cause it ain't happening. Hate to burst your bubbles.The more likely result is guess what - We'll be blamed for killing more innocent women & children! Sound familiar?? If we keep pushing button A and B happens, we have to stop pushing button A and actually come up with a new idea.

    The action doesn't necessary have to be via missiles - but that could be an effective measure without boots on the ground. I wouldn't say Obama backers, but more those who want to remedy the Syrian Crisis. They hope to weaken the the military ability that the parties involved have, if their lets say stock piles, transportation are all limited their potential to do more damage is significantly reduced. Take Pearl Harbour, the idea was to eliminate the navy - obviously there were ships not in the port but if that was done, the US would have very limited defences and attacking ability by sea. The same idea goes, you take out lets say their air bases, their manufacturing facilities, their stock they are very limited it what they can do. Yes it is a big IF that you could manage to do all of it, but a little hindrance is better than none. The aim is to stop their ability to continue with it. Secondly, action might nit make them go in your words 'no no no' but it would give them a second thought if they have the facilities again to do so. Thirdly, strong action - will show as an example of what would occur if someone does do it again thus being a deterrent. Hitler (who also used Sirin) was quoted saying something along the lines no one would remember or take action against his camps because no one remembered the Armenian's. Maybe if their was action on the Armenians, it wouldn't of deterred him, maybe if we didn't stand back initially - like we are doing now - he wouldn't have gotten the strength. The policy of appeasement is what killed us when the treaty of Versailles was broken. Hitler said his most worrying night was when he put tanks in the rhinelands which was restricted as if he was stopped than he thought he would be gone - we as decided we will let him do it and no action was taken... guess what happened. He continued and continued. If no action is taken, you allow parties like Syria to continue on as they view the rest of the world does not care what they do and will find it acceptable. If you referring to Iraq, pushing A was bots on the ground, B right now is a missile strike. You can get war's without a bad reputation for the children - PNG is one example, our soldiers are loved their (although our goverments aren't on best ground due to airport search and charges laid on their deputy prime minister) in the community by the children who a) protecting them and b) interacting with them between shifts c) the soldiers actually enjoy coming back to see the progress after the civil war. PNG is Papua New Guinine, its been in conflict with Indonesia and after the world war it was put as Australian territory was given back - however we lay troops their to make sure of stability now and than.

    People need to take into account all of the circumstances. First of all, we have no confirmation of who actually did this. Then you have to realize that the Syrian rebels are Al queda. Not much of a choice in who you want to support. Demented syrian leader or demented syrian rebels who eat the hearts out of people. Israel is sitting on the edge of their seats because if obama does this then syria and iran will attack them. Russia and China both have a presence there and have stated that it would be perceived as an act of war. What kind of a death toll do you think that will lead to? Do you think a war in that region will be good for anyone in that region, including children. This is a no win situation. As they say, things can always get worse.
    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    As I said before, we do from the messages which they did detail who was responsible for the attack. Unfortunately, war isn't always a black and white case - and often it results in another government instituting a 3rd party leader. Right now if the majority is in charge, the minority suffers and vice versa. Now, it still has to be shown that if international agreements are broken their has to be ramifications. Secondly, I think the most would hope that the politician system could have an over haul if it is placed under pressure. China is not taking it as an act of war, you are reading things wrong - they are interested in a diplomatic scenario. They hold the belief that political resolution is only realistic way, unlike some they are actually trying to work to a solution but not in the conventional method of military action. I love how all the American's have this big fear of China, in our experiences they have been nothing but pleasant being our largest trading partner, offering to help resolute political issues with NK for us and offering a asia treaty which has to be decline due to one with states and so forth would be broken by doing so.

    Still, the possibility of igniting a world war is of no concern? How many people do you think will flee or die when this happens? Syria and Iran both of missles aimed at Israel. They will launch as soon as we attack them. Israel will respond and I'm telling you Damascus will cease to exist. Israel is surrounded by a lot of countries that hate them and they will defend themselves. Even still I've heard no reason for the US to get involved. There are refugees in a lot of places. US intervention will make it worse. I've never been worried about bad PR.
    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    War might not be the answer, but right now it is a better answer than your putting forward. I highly doubt it would turn to world war over this, particularly when there are so many nations neutral in the matter. There is always the risk of a large war, but i view its heavy inflated at the moment to what your making it out to be. Right now 2 million is a significant number, showing there is actually a need for action soon rather than later. Yeah there are refugees in a lot of places, but an extra 2 million is a large number and YES ALL REFUGEES SHOULD BE HELPED! they shouldn't not counted as life or something - which by the sounds of it your making it out that they don't matter.

    I think if 2 million fled the states you would be asking questions. You have heard of plenty of reasons why the US and other countries, my opinion isn't strictly on the states, should be involved. A) There are millions in potential harm B) international law has been broken C) Chemical Warfare has been used D) Lack of action history shows us leads to catastrophic events. E) its in best interest of everyone to create long term stability. You have been worried about bad PR you've had a rant about the lies of the government for doing this x and y, not sacking enough people to show seriousness about the issue etc. that is PR, that is their public image. The corporation's basic functions won't change by changing people just their image and that is PR.


    What is your solution since obviously since Potential war or diplomatic negotiation is off the cards for you?
    msndrstood likes this.
    09-03-2013 08:07 AM
  14. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    The action doesn't necessary have to be via missiles - but that could be an effective measure without boots on the ground. I wouldn't say Obama backers, but more those who want to remedy the Syrian Crisis. They hope to weaken the the military ability that the parties involved have, if their lets say stock piles, transportation are all limited their potential to do more damage is significantly reduced. Take Pearl Harbour, the idea was to eliminate the navy - obviously there were ships not in the port but if that was done, the US would have very limited defences and attacking ability by sea. The same idea goes, you take out lets say their air bases, their manufacturing facilities, their stock they are very limited it what they can do. Yes it is a big IF that you could manage to do all of it, but a little hindrance is better than none. The aim is to stop their ability to continue with it. Secondly, action might nit make them go in your words 'no no no' but it would give them a second thought if they have the facilities again to do so. Thirdly, strong action - will show as an example of what would occur if someone does do it again thus being a deterrent. Hitler (who also used Sirin) was quoted saying something along the lines no one would remember or take action against his camps because no one remembered the Armenian's. Maybe if their was action on the Armenians, it wouldn't of deterred him, maybe if we didn't stand back initially - like we are doing now - he wouldn't have gotten the strength. The policy of appeasement is what killed us when the treaty of Versailles was broken. Hitler said his most worrying night was when he put tanks in the rhinelands which was restricted as if he was stopped than he thought he would be gone - we as decided we will let him do it and no action was taken... guess what happened. He continued and continued. If no action is taken, you allow parties like Syria to continue on as they view the rest of the world does not care what they do and will find it acceptable. If you referring to Iraq, pushing A was bots on the ground, B right now is a missile strike. You can get war's without a bad reputation for the children - PNG is one example, our soldiers are loved their (although our goverments aren't on best ground due to airport search and charges laid on their deputy prime minister) in the community by the children who a) protecting them and b) interacting with them between shifts c) the soldiers actually enjoy coming back to see the progress after the civil war. PNG is Papua New Guinine, its been in conflict with Indonesia and after the world war it was put as Australian territory was given back - however we lay troops their to make sure of stability now and than.


    As I said before, we do from the messages which they did detail who was responsible for the attack. Unfortunately, war isn't always a black and white case - and often it results in another government instituting a 3rd party leader. Right now if the majority is in charge, the minority suffers and vice versa. Now, it still has to be shown that if international agreements are broken their has to be ramifications. Secondly, I think the most would hope that the politician system could have an over haul if it is placed under pressure. China is not taking it as an act of war, you are reading things wrong - they are interested in a diplomatic scenario. They hold the belief that political resolution is only realistic way, unlike some they are actually trying to work to a solution but not in the conventional method of military action. I love how all the American's have this big fear of China, in our experiences they have been nothing but pleasant being our largest trading partner, offering to help resolute political issues with NK for us and offering a asia treaty which has to be decline due to one with states and so forth would be broken by doing so.


    War might not be the answer, but right now it is a better answer than your putting forward. I highly doubt it would turn to world war over this, particularly when there are so many nations neutral in the matter. There is always the risk of a large war, but i view its heavy inflated at the moment to what your making it out to be. Right now 2 million is a significant number, showing there is actually a need for action soon rather than later. Yeah there are refugees in a lot of places, but an extra 2 million is a large number and YES ALL REFUGEES SHOULD BE HELPED! they shouldn't not counted as life or something - which by the sounds of it your making it out that they don't matter.

    I think if 2 million fled the states you would be asking questions. You have heard of plenty of reasons why the US and other countries, my opinion isn't strictly on the states, should be involved. A) There are millions in potential harm B) international law has been broken C) Chemical Warfare has been used D) Lack of action history shows us leads to catastrophic events. E) its in best interest of everyone to create long term stability. You have been worried about bad PR you've had a rant about the lies of the government for doing this x and y, not sacking enough people to show seriousness about the issue etc. that is PR, that is their public image. The corporation's basic functions won't change by changing people just their image and that is PR.


    What is your solution since obviously since Potential war or diplomatic negotiation is off the cards for you?
    In this case, taking action will lead to catastrophic events. This place is on the other side of the world, right up under several countries that could do something, if they had the intestinal fortitude to do so. If you aren't going to put boots on the ground, you won't accomplish anything. We don't need boots on the ground, we always lead here in the US. Theres no support for this. Someone else in the region needs to MAN UP. But reguardless of who does what, when Israel is attacked, they will retaliate. And then the number of deaths will skyrocket. 1, 400 people killed this way, 1, 000, 000 killed because of war. Either way 1, 000, 000 is more than 1, 400.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-03-2013 08:44 AM
  15. Fairclough's Avatar
    Taking no action leads to catastrophic events if you would read my above post - where war criminals used the lack of sanctions and enforceability of law to their advantage.Globalisation has meant, the other side of the world, is basically our backyard. Its not longer the clan over the over hill any more. There is support for it, if there wasn't there wouldn't be a discussion - you are seeing most leaders are calling for an action of some sort (just their cabinates lack the spine for military worried about the loss of seats). 1,400 was 1 attack, how many more will have to suffer because this isn't stopped? and to be honest if it isn't it will continue - it most likely won't sort it self out. Both wars invasion or not, there is currently war there. If everyone one deflects the responsibility no one does it, my own nation's government (although soon to be out of power this weekend) as expressed support if military action goes a head while also supporting a diplomatic effort. France has expressed interest to join in, unfortunately the UK's parliament lacked backbone unlike Cameron. PS: the conflict has already killed 100,000

    Wars have been won in the past from missile strikes alone
    msndrstood likes this.
    09-03-2013 08:59 AM
  16. llamabreath's Avatar
    Which ones?

    And by them having ALL this time to prepare (because we're so considerate) we will have to kill innocents to get any of their assets. This will make things WORSE and will not stop any bad guy from doing what they want.

    As i said a few pages back; we have to think outside the room that the box is in and stop going down the same paths to failure.

    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-03-2013 09:07 AM
  17. SteveISU's Avatar
    Stay out of it, it's a civil war and there isn't a faction in Syria that would turn to be allies with the US. The Islamic rebels come from the same cloth as those who attacked our consulate in Benghazi. We're gonna oust Assad to put Jihadists in power? Makes a ton of sense.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-03-2013 09:37 AM
  18. SteveISU's Avatar
    I'll tell ya what, why doesn't another country take the lead in the "international response". Let some of these other countries take a few 747's to their buildings when these groups seek retribution.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-03-2013 09:48 AM
  19. Wiley_11's Avatar
    09-03-2013 10:31 AM
  20. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    When you look at the big picture, as has been said many times in this thread, US involvement is a lose lose situation. Weigh the options. Before an attack, extremists are in power. After an attack, extremists are in power. Either way instability and people who hate us are still in power. Theres no progress that can be made from this. And as I stated in my last post, some other country on that side of the world needs to MAN UP. The mere mention of US to people on that side of the world antagonizes them. The US should not be involved unless one of our allies are attacked. Period. You are dealing with people on both sides in Syria who will not respond to reason. Its been tried for years and it always reverts back to extremism and hate for the west.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-03-2013 10:47 AM
  21. SteveISU's Avatar
    It's not whether we should or shouldn't strike Syria ( for what goal is really questionable) but the fact that the President of the United States got on national TV, with the world watching and bluffed, blustered, puffed his chest out, threatened, acted macho and drew a red line that was challenged and crossed at least twice by Syria with ZERO response on his part. When he has the authority to act ( under the war powers act) he falters, stumbles, mumbles, retreats, acts totally confused, and once again is trying to lead from behind by pushing Congress in front of him for protection. In most circles that is not called leading.... it's called cowardice. He should have NEVER opened his yap unless he was willing to commit and act. That is the only reason we'll see a strike, it's not to evoke change or start a war, but because our ***** leader opened his mouth and now we have to somehow save face by blowing up an aspirin factory.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-03-2013 10:53 AM
  22. llamabreath's Avatar
    It's not whether we should or shouldn't strike Syria ( for what goal is really questionable) but the fact that the President of the United States got on national TV, with the world watching and bluffed, blustered, puffed his chest out, threatened, acted macho and drew a red line that was challenged and crossed at least twice by Syria with ZERO response on his part. When he has the authority to act ( under the war powers act) he falters, stumbles, mumbles, retreats, acts totally confused, and once again is trying to lead from behind by pushing Congress in front of him for protection. In most circles that is not called leading.... it's called cowardice. He should have NEVER opened his yap unless he was willing to commit and act. That is the only reason we'll see a strike, it's not to evoke change or start a war, but because our ***** leader opened his mouth and now we have to somehow save face by blowing up an aspirin factory.


    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-03-2013 11:14 AM
  23. cdmjlt369's Avatar


    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-03-2013 11:22 AM
  24. llamabreath's Avatar


    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Talk about a blast from the past :thumbup:

    09-03-2013 11:46 AM
  25. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Talk about a blast from the past :thumbup:

    Yep... the good old days!

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-03-2013 01:17 PM
368 ... 678910 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD