Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
73 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
inflict junior's brand of shock and awe on Iraq. Almost. 
Oh wait. We can claim "It's the 21st Century now and we can change things."
Naw, the Washington Villagers will never go for that.
Want proof?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/vp/52888896#52888896
See? If we let Syria use chemical weapons then Iran will go nuclear and we can't have THAT,....right?
The "American Way" would have corporate logos involved.
Cookie?
Any thoughts about using depleted uranium ammunition? How about you tell us again how great drone strikes are instead! I am sure family members of "collateral damage" would love to hear your thoughts on all of those subjects.
deny he'd changed his mind about their being any victims, no false flag BS from him like some of what we've heard from other media. you know, the ones who say no kids were killed in Newtown, etc.
The record is there from DWB, Syrian humanitarian groups, hospitals and there will be words for Turkey and Jordan, possibly. Alan may learn, if reports from the Guardian are correct, that Turkey does indeed claim to be under attack. Turkey has wanted Assad gone for years.
The 2012 article I posted sin a reply, said Turkey has complained that missiles from Syria during their civil war have overshot and landed on their soil, endangering their people. So it is not the older land invasion attack many envision, but they seem to find it intolerable. Just as Israel did with missiles coming from Gaza and there it goes, escalating, no matter who started what or what the initial grievance was.
AFAIK, the attacks have not risen to the level of an Article 5 action under the NATO charter, which mandates, exactly as Obama states in the clip, that we work together on this. One thing I learned reading up on NATO, which is bigger thing than most people realize, is that the different partners have assigned roles.
Turkey most likely does not have the weaponry the USA has, and they are calling on us to do the deed. If we don't 'just do it' the alliance collapses. What impact that would have, I don't know, It could lead to more bloodletting, economic collapses, or a major realignment of world powers, which Russia and China have been working on for years from what I've read, to isolate us and take over trade, etc. Whether the sources I've read or Russians I've talked to are correct, IDK. But they see themselves as the aggrieved party since WW2.
Obama is mainly going forward because of our treaty responsibilities as a member of NATO and Alan knows Turkey is a member. And it appears that 'tag you're it' has been our role for many years, like or not, and I don't like it. Isolationism has its costs, which may be what we're yearning for here. I always have, but the trade agreements have made that impossible. Since China has usually stepped in and some resources after the heavy fighting is over, I've entertained the rather outrageous notion that we go to war as part of our arrangement with them on the debt of the same.
That so many countries jumped up eagerly to finance Iraq by buying TBills or whatever constitutes a promissory note from the USA, and I don't believe that such sums are done out of love or sentiment, I feel that they had planned to get something worth more. We can't threaten to bomb a place and have them give us money. No, they expected something and they've gotten it; Some say we are carrying water for the Saudi royals. IDK, of course.
Alan appears to be honest about what he does and does not know. He will be meeting with the President this week to learn more. Both men are acting in good faith, line with their Constitutional duties that they are charged with by the American people.
Both are open minded and ready to hear other views, which is exactly what Obama has called for in this case. I feel this debate really needs to happen publicly and on the record in Congress. Not on the biased conservatively media outlets. American needs to continue on its change of path that has been embarked upon since 2009. It's going to be a wild ride, no matter what is decides. But we need to come to a decision. I think dis empowering the war machine is a good thing.
Do you feel when you mention 'history' that this is appeasement? That some forces or alliances are poised to do something very bad? Like a WW3 scenario? Because some see any action we take that close to the state of Israel as leading to that. You can bet the fundamentalists of all three of the Abrahanic religions have this in mind. For good or bad.
I like the idea of going to the Hague over the chemical attacks. But going to the Hague, IIRC, did not stop the ethnic cleansing in Serbia. I've heard from both sides on this. One have said it was all about the West hurting Russia and its allies, same as in Georgia. Some Russians think that we are always, always out to get them and that they have done nothing wrong.
There are some very nasty actors in the Middle East. I don't want to have anything to do with them. I think this a fallout from our previous energy policy and our being held hostage to tyrannical despots over there. But then, it may be just what Obama says it is when he speaks in terms of international law. There is more than one set of laws, and the Hague is something that happens when the hostilities have been ended. The Hague has no enforcement power AFAIK. They can't stop the slaughter. Sadly, that takes military actions when dealing with someone who will not negotiate with his own people, apparently.
This should have never happened, nor should there be a civil war. There is something going on behind the scenes, and we're not going to get the full picture, likely. Because people will get killed.
I'll send you a link in a PM to where I has posted on this, some articles and videos. Quite a lot of them. See you later.
The record is there from DWB, Syrian humanitarian groups, hospitals and there will be words for Turkey and Jordan, possibly. Alan may learn, if reports from the Guardian are correct, that Turkey does indeed claim to be under attack. Turkey has wanted Assad gone for years.
The 2012 article I posted sin a reply, said Turkey has complained that missiles from Syria during their civil war have overshot and landed on their soil, endangering their people. So it is not the older land invasion attack many envision, but they seem to find it intolerable. Just as Israel did with missiles coming from Gaza and there it goes, escalating, no matter who started what or what the initial grievance was.
AFAIK, the attacks have not risen to the level of an Article 5 action under the NATO charter, which mandates, exactly as Obama states in the clip, that we work together on this. One thing I learned reading up on NATO, which is bigger thing than most people realize, is that the different partners have assigned roles.
Turkey most likely does not have the weaponry the USA has, and they are calling on us to do the deed. If we don't 'just do it' the alliance collapses. What impact that would have, I don't know, It could lead to more bloodletting, economic collapses, or a major realignment of world powers, which Russia and China have been working on for years from what I've read, to isolate us and take over trade, etc. Whether the sources I've read or Russians I've talked to are correct, IDK. But they see themselves as the aggrieved party since WW2.
Obama is mainly going forward because of our treaty responsibilities as a member of NATO and Alan knows Turkey is a member. And it appears that 'tag you're it' has been our role for many years, like or not, and I don't like it. Isolationism has its costs, which may be what we're yearning for here. I always have, but the trade agreements have made that impossible. Since China has usually stepped in and some resources after the heavy fighting is over, I've entertained the rather outrageous notion that we go to war as part of our arrangement with them on the debt of the same.
That so many countries jumped up eagerly to finance Iraq by buying TBills or whatever constitutes a promissory note from the USA, and I don't believe that such sums are done out of love or sentiment, I feel that they had planned to get something worth more. We can't threaten to bomb a place and have them give us money. No, they expected something and they've gotten it; Some say we are carrying water for the Saudi royals. IDK, of course.
Alan appears to be honest about what he does and does not know. He will be meeting with the President this week to learn more. Both men are acting in good faith, line with their Constitutional duties that they are charged with by the American people.
Both are open minded and ready to hear other views, which is exactly what Obama has called for in this case. I feel this debate really needs to happen publicly and on the record in Congress. Not on the biased conservatively media outlets. American needs to continue on its change of path that has been embarked upon since 2009. It's going to be a wild ride, no matter what is decides. But we need to come to a decision. I think dis empowering the war machine is a good thing.
Do you feel when you mention 'history' that this is appeasement? That some forces or alliances are poised to do something very bad? Like a WW3 scenario? Because some see any action we take that close to the state of Israel as leading to that. You can bet the fundamentalists of all three of the Abrahanic religions have this in mind. For good or bad.
I like the idea of going to the Hague over the chemical attacks. But going to the Hague, IIRC, did not stop the ethnic cleansing in Serbia. I've heard from both sides on this. One have said it was all about the West hurting Russia and its allies, same as in Georgia. Some Russians think that we are always, always out to get them and that they have done nothing wrong.
There are some very nasty actors in the Middle East. I don't want to have anything to do with them. I think this a fallout from our previous energy policy and our being held hostage to tyrannical despots over there. But then, it may be just what Obama says it is when he speaks in terms of international law. There is more than one set of laws, and the Hague is something that happens when the hostilities have been ended. The Hague has no enforcement power AFAIK. They can't stop the slaughter. Sadly, that takes military actions when dealing with someone who will not negotiate with his own people, apparently.
This should have never happened, nor should there be a civil war. There is something going on behind the scenes, and we're not going to get the full picture, likely. Because people will get killed.
I'll send you a link in a PM to where I has posted on this, some articles and videos. Quite a lot of them. See you later.
"Dredd" and mistakenly thought they were watching a documentary on international diplomacy - or in the case of Obama, a very well produced instructional video on our countries responsibilities and duties as undisputed judge with final authority over all countries within our jurisdiction (our jurisdiction being clearly defined as all that can be seen by spy satellite).
The concept of world courts, international consensus, or the belief that there are laws that our country is bound by are all very quant and nostalgic, much like our Constitution, but are in the end relics of the past.
- We are the world's executioner because that's our last industry. Well, that and Ponzi schemes. But given our track record, we're the last ones who should be policing, judging or jurying anyone.
[font size=1]{Psssst: It might help if we're going to hold people accountable, that we start at home first.}[/font]
K&R
On the NSA, and now on Syria.
THANK YOU ALAN!! 
