Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Obama inherited the wars and promised to end them during his elections. Instead he has spent more money in 6 years then W. Bush did in 8 (adjusted for inflation) on the military and sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan then George W. Bush did.

He also has started assassinating American citizens and innocent civilians with robot assassin drones.

Obama speaks like he wants peace, but if you look at his actions he is hungrier for war then George W. Bush.


The cost of drone strikes is not the problem! I would be in favor of sending robot airplanes instead of American citizens to war if it was actually effective.

IT'S HOW HE USES THE DRONES. HE KILLS THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS AND HAS TARGETED AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR ASSASSINATION WITHOUT GIVING THEM FAIR TRIAL, WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE CONSTITUTION.

You can claim it is not only Obama making these decisions, and excuse him for the deaths, he is the one with the final say. Obama is directly responsible for those killed by drone strike under his command. How are these drone strikes murdering innocent civilians any different from Al Quaeda murdering all those innocent civilians on September 11?[/QUOTE]
- election promises.

- again, he inherited the wars. if the situation called for more troops, the situation called for more troops. i doubt that anyone here is capable of assessing what was enough and what wasn't.

- "assassination." what are the reasons for the "assassinations?" because they're redskins fans and he's a bears fan? and i already covered collateral damage. once again, it's tragic no doubt, but it happens in war. that doesn't excuse it, but it makes it at least comprehensible. because in any war, people die, and usually lots of good ones. war is tragic.

- he is obviously not hungrier for war than junior. if you honestly conclude that, then you have issues and i'm probably foolish for even responding or saying that.

- i agree with you that obama has to bear much of the blame, as the POTUS should.

- how are the tactical strikes different from 9/11? were the towers filled with terrorists and suspected terrorists, then?

- please take down or resize your img that screws up the formatting on the page. i'm at max rez on my laptop, 1366 x 768, and it still doesn't help.


EDIT: how many 'liberals' are applauding the war effort? i sure don't know any. and cowboy-religios tend to disagree for political reasons before common sense. if you don't see that, you're blind. and no, the 'other side' is definitely not as bad when it comes to that.

@nick young,
how old are you, anyway?

you come across as this crazy, above-average mix of information and partial information, with highly erratic ability to reconcile it in a rational way.

how old are you?

[QUOTE=gigantes]@nick young,
how old are you, anyway?

you come across as this crazy, above-average mix of information and partial information, with highly erratic ability to reconcile it in a rational way.

how old are you?[/QUOTE]
No, I just see things for what they are, and don't mince my words.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]No, I just see things for what they are, and don't mince my words.[/QUOTE]
nobody sees things for what they are. nobody. it can only ever be an aim, even for those with the finest vision in the world. you have to entertain falsifiability if you want to take that next step in reasoning ability.

[QUOTE=gigantes]- election promises.

- again, he inherited the wars. if the situation called for more troops, the situation called for more troops. i doubt that anyone here is capable of assessing what was enough and what wasn't.
[B]
- "assassination." what are the reasons for the "assassinations?" because they're redskins fans and he's a bears fan? and i already covered collateral damage. once again, it's tragic no doubt, but it happens in war. that doesn't excuse it, but it makes it at least comprehensible. because in any war, people die, and usually lots of good ones. war is tragic.
[/B]
- he is obviously not hungrier for war than junior. if you honestly conclude that, then you have issues and i'm probably foolish for even responding or saying that.

- i agree with you that obama has to bear much of the blame, as the POTUS should.

- how are the tactical strikes different from 9/11? were the towers filled with terrorists and suspected terrorists, then?

- please take down or resize your img that screws up the formatting on the page. i'm at max rez on my laptop, 1366 x 768, and it still doesn't help.


EDIT: how many 'liberals' are applauding the war effort? i sure don't know any. and cowboy-religios tend to disagree for political reasons before common sense. if you don't see that, you're blind. and no, the 'other side' is definitely not as bad when it comes to that.[/QUOTE]


The reasons for the assassinations are they are targetted at terrorists. Many of these terrorists have been American citizens. Many of these Americans targeted for robot assassination were not given free trial. Obama has no constitutional right to order their deaths.

The "collateral damage" IE deaths of innocent civilians is excessive, and they would not have needed to die if Obama sent in ground troops to bring the terrorists to justice instead of carpet bomb a huge area with flying death robots.

The Obama drones are "aimed at terrorists" and yet they have lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians. It doesn't matter what you call it, or what obama's "intent" was. The facts are these drones are causing terror and death to thousands of innocent civilians. How are these drone attacks not an act of state sponsored terrorism?


What if the Pakistani government was sending these drones to farmers in Kansas, aimed at "terrorists" but killed thousands of US civillians in the process?

Would that not be an act of state sponsored terrorism? How is what Obama's doing any different?

[QUOTE=gigantes]nobody sees things for what they are. nobody. it can only ever be an aim, even for those with the finest vision in the world. you have to entertain falsifiability if you want to take that next step in reasoning ability.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you.

I guess what I mean is I try to see things for what they actually are, rather then whichever way the politicians are trying to sell it to us. Of course I am probably biased myself. For the record I grew up supporting democrats it a very liberal household but once I became voting age and started actually researching the two parties myself I realized I disagree with both of the two sides and don't really try to lean towards either.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]The reasons for the assassinations are they are targetted at terrorists. Many of these terrorists have been American citizens. Many of these Americans targeted for robot assassination were not given free trial. Obama has no constitutional right to order their deaths.

The "collateral damage" IE deaths of innocent civilians is excessive, and they would not have needed to die if Obama sent in ground troops to bring the terrorists to justice instead of carpet bomb a huge area with flying death robots.

The Obama drones are "aimed at terrorists" and yet they have lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians. It doesn't matter what you call it, or what obama's "intent" was. The facts are these drones are causing terror and death to thousands of innocent civilians. How are these drone attacks not an act of state sponsored terrorism?

What if the Pakistani government was sending these drones to farmers in Kansas, aimed at "terrorists" but killed thousands of US civillians in the process?

Would that not be an act of state sponsored terrorism? How is what Obama's doing any different?[/QUOTE]
i think it's possible that a certain line of good sense got crossed. what you say seems very reasonable, if so.

the question is, did that line get crossed? i have no utterly idea. i respect your opinion but would also like to hear from others on that.



[QUOTE=Nick Young]... I guess what I mean is I try to see things for what they actually are, rather then whichever way the politicians are trying to sell it to us. Of course I am probably biased myself. For the record I grew up supporting democrats it a very liberal household but once I became voting age and started actually researching the two parties myself I realized I disagree with both of the two sides and don't really try to lean towards either.[/QUOTE]
okay, cheers to that. i would just hope you can continue to refine that process... maybe entertain some different opinions to help round out your view sometimes. like i said, your understanding of world issues is superior to most IMO.

i think that maybe the biggest problem with the political is that we expect politicians to do a lot of the work that we ourselves should be doing. the problem with the two-party system fades to irrelevance in that light. of course that's a long, different topic.

[QUOTE=gigantes]interesting take. i'd like to see what one of our known political watchers has to say in response.

couple things pop in to my mind-- obammers inherited the current wars, so that has to play in to the equation. also, drone strikes killing people are not the same thing as coalition troops needlessly dying. the difference is that the innocent victims are the civilians caught in the vicinity of the terrorist strikes as opposed to our innocent young people sent off to war. and the cost of drone strikes would be far less than standard military operations, i would guess.

also, AFAIK obama has acted far more in line with the UN and partner nations than bush ever did. to call him a bigger warmonger than bush seems pretty far out.

no, obama was not my choice for prez, but i'm not going to lump him with junior just yet.[/QUOTE]

The deaths increased under Obama is true only if you count Afghanistan and do not count Iraq.

As for the Obama is a pacifist, the people who say that have not been listening to Obama. Since at least 2007 he talked about focusing more on Afghanistan than Iraq
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/22/barack-obama/obama-proposed-more-troops-in-07/[/url]

In 2009, he said he would add surge troops to Afghanistan and then draw down in 2011. In 2010 [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/asia/11military.html?_r=0"]the end date was shifted [/URL]to 2014 because they said the Non-Taliban Afghan forces would be killed by the Taliban.

Part of Nick Young's worldview is the fact he never changes him opinion. NEVER. If he called you the wrong name it's not a mistake, it's that you were meant to have that name and you are wrong to have your current one.

[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]The fact that Obama hasn't already ordered some type of strike on the dipshits proves he has no balls. The bombs should have been hitting this place long ago. I know we can't go in a wipe them out because of the innocent civilians but we need to make a statement that we can kill anyone of them at any moment. They know Obama has no nuts so they're not the slightest bit worried about repercussions of their actions. If the UN was fired at it should be an automatic declaration of war and shit should be hitting the fan.

Fact of the matter is that our military has made the russian military look like child's play for the past 10-15 years with our wargames. The Russian's can't handle our military and they know it. Putin is not getting involved if it could in turn bring US attention against them. None of the world powers want WW3 and for Russia to either send troops or aid to the Syrian's could easily start WW3. Once the bombs start flying Putin may make a few statements but you better believe he isn't starting WW3. Obama is weaker than Carta and Bubba.[/QUOTE]

:biggums:

Yemen and Pakistan are getting thrashed with drones. Obama escalated the Afghanistan war and sent in 30k more troops. Libya waves hello. Obama signed the NDAA that made it legal to assassinate American citizens without a trial. We are selling Saudi Arabia and Israel a shit ton of weapons. We just opened a military base in Chile and are opening up 7 more in Colombia. He continued rendition, extended the Patriot Act, and supported PRISM. Let's not forget who ordered the kill on OBL in Pakistan.

Obama is a lot of things, but a weak milquetoast wuss on defense he is not.

why would assad use gas when they have been warned not to do it........makes no sense, i dont belive this bullshit.............even if true, gas is no worse then the other shit the rebels do..........eating peoples hearts and other crazy shit

[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]The fact that Obama hasn't already ordered some type of strike on the dipshits proves he has no balls. The bombs should have been hitting this place long ago. I know we can't go in a wipe them out because of the innocent civilians but we need to [SIZE="4"]make a statement that we can kill anyone of them at any moment.[/SIZE] They know Obama has no nuts so they're not the slightest bit worried about repercussions of their actions. If the UN was fired at it should be an automatic declaration of war and shit should be hitting the fan.

Fact of the matter is that our military has made the russian military look like child's play for the past 10-15 years with our wargames. The Russian's can't handle our military and they know it. Putin is not getting involved if it could in turn bring US attention against them. None of the world powers want WW3 and for Russia to either send troops or aid to the Syrian's could easily start WW3. Once the bombs start flying Putin may make a few statements but you better believe he isn't starting WW3. Obama is weaker than Carta and Bubba.[/QUOTE]

kill who ? you do know the rebels are islamic extremists right ?

[QUOTE=tomtucker]why would assad use gas when they have been warned not to do it........makes no sense, i dont belive this bullshit.............even if true, gas is no worse then the other shit the rebels do..........eating peoples hearts and other crazy shit[/QUOTE]
i dunno about the last part but this is what i came in to say


just a few months ago, the assad/syria conflict jumped to the top of every media radar in the world.... for the suspected use of sarin gas that apparently hospitalized like three people. that's when obama drew his supposed red line.

since then, and actually since months prior to that, government forces were pushing rebels steadily back. they continue to hold 15 of 16 provincial capitals. they control the major transport routes. they won the bloody battle for that strategic town a little north of damascus.

and now they're going to test international resolve... by blatantly attacking and probably killing over a thousand people, not particularly far from where the UN probe for the minor sarin gas attack from a few months ago is currently stationed.

it makes no sense. the typical argument i've found is all embedded in the "now we can get away with it" logic. sometimes it appeals to American weakness. other times it appeals to russian/iranian strength. even appeals to the egyptian crackdown, like they can do it so why can't i, which is an argument that takes fantastic ignorance of the region.


the other side of the coin is that rebels haven't yet taken control of any chemical weapons stocks... question is, had that happened, would the government be compelled to publicize it to implicate the rebels in any pending attack... or keep it quiet because it might make the regime look weak?

either way, there is a lot of plausibility in the idea that weapons were smuggled out and the rebels got hold of them. the rebels have about 100x the reason to use chemical weapons compared with the government.

it's all just very strange.

[QUOTE=tomtucker]why would assad use gas when they have been warned not to do it........makes no sense, i dont belive this bullshit.............even if true, gas is no worse then the other shit the rebels do..........eating peoples hearts and other crazy shit[/QUOTE]

A. The "rebels" are not a unified group, they are pretty diverse.

B. Assad would use gas if it felt that

i. he wouldn't pay a price for it
ii. he has nothing else to lose anyway.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]i dunno about the last part but this is what i came in to say


just a few months ago, the assad/syria conflict jumped to the top of every media radar in the world.... for the suspected use of sarin gas that apparently hospitalized like three people. that's when obama drew his supposed red line.

since then, and actually since months prior to that, government forces were pushing rebels steadily back. they continue to hold 15 of 16 provincial capitals. they control the major transport routes. they won the bloody battle for that strategic town a little north of damascus.

and now they're going to test international resolve... by blatantly attacking and probably killing over a thousand people, not particularly far from where the UN probe for the minor sarin gas attack from a few months ago is currently stationed.

it makes no sense. the typical argument i've found is all embedded in the "now we can get away with it" logic. sometimes it appeals to American weakness. other times it appeals to russian/iranian strength. even appeals to the egyptian crackdown, like they can do it so why can't i, which is an argument that takes fantastic ignorance of the region.


the other side of the coin is that rebels haven't yet taken control of any chemical weapons stocks... question is, had that happened, would the government be compelled to publicize it to implicate the rebels in any pending attack... or keep it quiet because it might make the regime look weak?

either way, there is a lot of plausibility in the idea that weapons were smuggled out and the rebels got hold of them. the rebels have about 100x the reason to use chemical weapons compared with the government.

it's all just very strange.[/QUOTE]

yeah i agree, it must be a lie..........regarding my comments on gas , why is gas worse then killing with bombs/bullets ?