Starkiller Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Perhaps there are other possible reasons for the recent developments. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323595004579062811443943666.html More crackpot right wing bullshit... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Good on Russia for getting this done. No war is a win, even if we have a myriad economic reasons to do it (our buds at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are in tears). I'm surprised more of you "pro-business" folks haven't brought any of that up, because it's highly relevant. It's in Russia's interests to protect their ally as well as their only naval base in the region. But I'm all for them finally getting something positive done rather than vetoing everything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Ha! That's tough talk from somebody that just backed down from Iowa's challenge. Go do some toe curls and talk tough in the crossfit forum. #trolling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 In all honesty, I see this as a sign that Assad possibly really didn't order it and it was people under his "command" doing it anyway w/o permission. Then the US starts talking about a strike and he panics and does this. Works for me. End result is what we were after.. as long as it pans out. Honestly I don't think Assad, or a lot of dictators for that matter, have as much power as people really think. They have people under their command that are befitting from his reign and will fight to keep it going for that reason but how much actually power and influence he has over them remains to be seen. Same goes for countries like North Korea. If Kim doesn't do as expected then he's over thrown by his generals who want to remain in power. Very possible. Obama had an interview yesterday I heard where he didn't directly blame Assad by name the way he blamed the Syrian military. They probably have phone intercepts of military commanders behind it but not necessarily of Assad. And I agree that dictators only have power so long as they have the support/allegiance of the military. If the military turns on them, it's over. It's probably why Saddam kept killing off people in his military, to keep them in fear of him and help keep them in line. But Assad's family have been in power for decades, whatever the means. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Very possible. Obama had an interview yesterday I heard where he didn't directly blame Assad by name the way he blamed the Syrian military. They probably have phone intercepts of military commanders behind it but not necessarily of Assad. And I agree that dictators only have power so long as they have the support/allegiance of the military. If the military turns on them, it's over. It's probably why Saddam kept killing off people in his military, to keep them in fear of him and help keep them in line. But Assad's family have been in power for decades, whatever the means. I agree. I don't think this was really about Assad as much as people want to make it so. You blame Assad and punish him b/c he's in "control" but it's really about the regime. FiFY #trolling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 This is a tangent centered around the WSJ article. My apologies for getting off subject (as I spoke against earlier) but it seems necessary now. The article above is an interesting demonstration of the rightwing's inability to fixate on anything beyond Obama. This has to be attached to his sense of "otherness"--why else such a toxic inability to actually comment on Obama in a meaningful way? When Bush was President, the left was indignant about his apparent idiocy--revealed through his series of gaffes and miscues. Current deep/far-right conservatives, however, are schizophrenic about Obama. One second he's an idiot, the next a pseudo "too smart for us" intellectual. Why else all the trumped up birth certificate, socialist complaints? Conservative talk radio has created an entire media industry that panders to the far right that isn't even remotely subtle. It's just surprising to me because Obama has proved on many issues to be conservative or closer right time and again. He's been compared to Ronald Reagan by conservative analysts. So why is he such a pariah? Why have conservatives recoiled so hard? It obviously is, in part, due to his "otherness." I've yet to see a convincing or intelligent response to prove otherwise. This issue presents a perfect example. I'm sure you'd traditionally have a litany of pro-war in Syria support from conservatives because it fits their traditional narrative, both ideologically and economically. But conservatives are only concerned with seeing Obama fail. This has been stated openly by conservative politicians and is obvious through repeal after repeal attempt for the AHCA. And the constituents DON'T CARE. I find this baffling. No real governing is happening for their side, but if Obama fails it's somehow worth it? There are a lot of highly intelligent conservative responses to Obama out there somewhere, I'm assuming. I haven't seen many of them. Most of it is attacking a phantom, an idea of a man who doesn't even exist. It is so pervasive that I find myself cringing even as I agree with some conservatives. Academics are going to make careers writing about this: "Obama as Other." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 That article, I mean. Going back and really reading it, it's the equivalent of an insane person's scribbling on a piece of cardboard. Sigh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 There are a lot of highly intelligent conservative responses to Obama out there somewhere, I'm assuming. I haven't seen many of them. Most of it is attacking a phantom, an idea of a man who doesn't even exist. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-august-31-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---invisible-obama Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I guess the best thing I can say is that Bink is right and intellectuals will absolutely be discussing this for decades. People who never lift their heads up from the trough of team politics will ignore it, though, and pretend it's nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 First of all, again, it's not a war we are supporting. Secondly, I'm not the only one. How is launching 100s of cruise missiles and smart bombs is not a war? You keep repeating this stupid shit. It is pretty clear at this point that you are a complete moron, but even your pea-sized brain should realize that bombing the shit out of a country with cruise missiles and smart bombs is WAR. It is a modern warfare where people die and die in large numbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 even if we have a myriad economic reasons to do it (our buds at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are in tears). IMHO, it could've been a 0-sum game. Raytheon and LM would've benefited only if Congress would've authorized additional funds. Otherwise, DOD would've just moved the funds from one area to another, i.e. from researching new technologies (again $ from Raytheon, LM, and others) to purchasing new missiles from the same companies. That what was happening during the last years of Iraq war, when DoD was closing research programs left & right and moving funds to fight the actual war, since Congress was limiting the availability of funds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 So was it a war when Clinton hit Iraq with air strikes in 1998? http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/clinton-orders-air-attack-on-iraq Air strikes are absolutely warfare, but it is not necessarily a war. In this case, we are not talking about going to war with Syria, not the way we went to war with Iraq or Afghanistan in the last decade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 And you remain obsessed with me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Starkiller, you remain obsessed about my perceived obsession with you. You've repeated that 3 times in this thread. I really don't give a f&ck about you. You remind me of people with the Down Syndrome and I sometime feel sorry for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 So was it a war when Clinton hit Iraq with air strikes in 1998? http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/clinton-orders-air-attack-on-iraq Air strikes are absolutely warfare, but it is not necessarily a war. In this case, we are not talking about going to war with Syria, not the way we went to war with Iraq or Afghanistan in the last decade. Warfare is a way to fight a war. Ask Bink. Unlike you, he should know English. Of course, any air strike is an act of war. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.