Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
We have the ability to do both. Money is not the issue. Politics is.
Reminds me of a few years back when we had two serious regional climactic tragedies at the same time. And some Congress people were saying that we didn't have the money to provide central relief for both. Of course we did.
The scale of HC costs and National Security are much larger, but our Federal Gov't is never limited by cash on hand unless the politics says so.
I never thought it was about the $$$, I simply don't believe we have the resources to go off half-cocked fighting unnecessary wars of choice around the world and provide the best defense we can for our own country.
Why should we be any more worried about Iran than North Korea? It's time we get out of the middle east and let the players sort things out for themselves.
Well we did cyberattack Iran with stuxnet and then gloated about it afterwards when we couldn't deny anymore that we did it.
Then clammed up when it got loose and is now affecting commercial sites.
Still blaming Bush, eh? Well, your boy is continuing Dubya's policies, and further destabilizing that region. So that makes him no better.
No better, This President is a thousand times worse then Bush ever was, in every stretch of the imagination. Bush was not a damn bully, arrogant, on the attack 24/7 to those who oppose him or his policies.
He did not have that thug style arrogant listen to me mentality, or else.
Did not play blame games either, which this President, needs to win a prize for.
This President has done everything he stated in 2008 he would not do, yes indeed i still have those damn tapes of him that we taped. He is a liar, everything he then stood for, he is not.
They fell in line to vote for the second Iraq war because the information given to them--supposedly by the people who should, beyond any doubt, be trusted to tell the truth to Congress and do the right thing for the American people--made up the intelligence to justify going to war. You can't blame anyone, democrat or republican, for a vote that was made based on fabricated information. The Bush administration lied to Congress, and to the American people.
The UN came out BEFORE and said to wait.
Nope, everyone said screw the UN and just wanted to go to war.
Wish somebody could explain exactly how Syria is a threat to our national security
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoD Guy
I'm sure the dim warmongers will shortly chime in with their logic...
Short answer: it isn't.
But, the "logic" behind the call for action seems to be that the use of unconventional weapons like chem, bio, or nukes is universally frowned upon and can't be allowed to happen w/o significant consequences.
Personally, I think the only WMD worthy of the title is a nuke. And a nuclear strike by anyone on anyone else would definitely call for a drastic response. With chem, it's not nearly so clear to me. A chem strike doesn't create nearly the destruction that a conventional artillery barrage would. While I can understand the reasoning behind the feeling that Assad's attack rates a military response, I don't think it can be done cleanly and w/o considerable cost to the USA. The reluctance of some of our allies to join in also causes me to doubt the wisdom of a strike.
While tin-horn dictators like Assad need to know that this kind of action on their part isn't acceptable, I think it's best left to an international organization (UN, Arab League, NATO, etc) to make that decision.
It was also smart of Obama to defer to Congress since by the time Congress returns to vote on it, we will be nearly two weeks out from the chemical weapon attack. Maybe people will be less likely to pull the trigger on an operation.
I don't think he wants to commit our military to another operation. I think he is doing what David Cameron did: Blow a lot of hot air on the subject, and then have his parliament shoot it down so he can keep his nose clean.
And maybe the threat will be enough:
"Analysts tracking the conflict say that an uptick in defections—which have helped to fuel the rebellion since it began—does seem to be underway. “The psychological impact of not actual strikes, but of suspected strikes, has been huge. And we’ve seen a large number of defections,” says Elizabeth O’Bagy, a senior Syria analyst for the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, DC, and the political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force, which lobbies the U.S. government on behalf of the Syrian opposition. “[News of the U.S. strikes] did to a certain degree change the calculations on the ground.”"
I never thought it was about the $$$, I simply don't believe we have the resources to go off half-cocked fighting unnecessary wars of choice around the world and provide the best defense we can for our own country.
AH, yes we are indeed limited by our physical, including labor resources. But not money per se.
All these dims yapping and still no answer to my original question.
Figures.
Please read post #62.
Get back to me if you need help comprehending its contents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.