Printable View
Interesting video. But it's true that the current borders were arbitrarily determined mostly by the British after the World Wars. In fact, one woman literally drew Iraq onto the map - Gertrude Bell. And much of the current strife is a direct result of how those borders were drawn, IMHO.
Te world is sick and tired of these wars. They don't settle a **** thing. If congress does not give him a resounding OK and he proceeds anyway. impeach and remove him from office.This moral light of the world ******** has gone far enough. Don't believe me? look up SAVAK, Project X in Guatemala, US renditions.theres more, contrary to what some folks think, I love this country, but I don't like snow jobs.
[QUOTE=kygorski;520840]Te world is sick and tired of these wars. They don't settle a **** thing. If congress does not give him a resounding OK and he proceeds anyway. impeach and remove him from office.This moral light of the world ******** has gone far enough. Don't believe me? look up SAVAK, Project X in Guatemala, US renditions.theres more, contrary to what some folks think, I love this country, but I don't like snow jobs.[/QUOTE]
I have to say, politically, Pres. Obama is amazing. He is in a win-win situation.
Congress says yes, we do our dirty work, works out great, all win.
Congress says yes, we do our dirty work, and is a failure, well, it was a joint decision, not just me.
Congress says no, things to to cra# in Syria, Obama gets to blame Congress.
Congress says no, it's a short-term PR setback, but if things improve in Syria, Obama can claim it's because of his deliberate, patient style.
[QUOTE=jcb;520842]I have to say, politically, Pres. Obama is amazing. He is in a win-win situation.
Congress says yes, we do our dirty work, works out great, all win.
Congress says yes, we do our dirty work, and is a failure, well, it was a joint decision, not just me.
Congress says no, things to to cra# in Syria, Obama gets to blame Congress.
Congress says no, it's a short-term PR setback, but if things improve in Syria, Obama can claim it's because of his deliberate, patient style.[/QUOTE]
Yep the man is a master at the political game and make no mistake that's all it is....a game. It's all about who wins and has power and the money they get from taxes is what they play with...house money. I CANNOT stand anything about Obama....if he does something great I still remember all his lies, faults and lies (oh I already said that) but I will and have always gave him credit for his mastery at manipulation and playing the game. I dare to say he is the best that ever held office. I can see a college course at some über liberal college called Obama 101.:p
[QUOTE=jcb;520842]I have to say, politically, Pres. Obama is amazing. He is in a win-win situation.
Congress says yes, we do our dirty work, works out great, all win.
Congress says yes, we do our dirty work, and is a failure, well, it was a joint decision, not just me.
Congress says no, things to to cra# in Syria, Obama gets to blame Congress.
Congress says no, it's a short-term PR setback, but if things improve in Syria, Obama can claim it's because of his deliberate, patient style.[/QUOTE]
I disagree completely. The American people are very divided on this issue, and, he's having to do a hard sell on this, so if we go in and it's a disaster (the most likely outcome, IMO), it'll also be a political disaster for him. Of course he's a lame duck, so it might not matter so much, but whatever legacy he might have had is even further tarnished if that happens.
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;520724]I really want an answer from the naysayers here.WHEN is it OK to use force. WHAT is the "red line".Personally I think chemical weapons in the hands of bad guys is evidence enough. When the WRONG bad guys get them, people we know MAY be killed with them,People I KNEW personally were killed in 9/11. I have great interest in never allowing that to occur again.Complacency is what gave us 9/11 in the first place. Later,Geo[/QUOTE]Tell you what George, you send your daughter over there first and then the rest of us will see if we want our kids going over there. If you want boots on the ground, why don't you put your boots on the ground over there.
y late wifes grandson is in the service! He has had two tours in afganistan one in Iraq, and is now in northern japan. His tour will be over in japan at the end of the year. His father draws a small disability check from viet nam service. A lot of us are sick and tired of un-conclusive results, and paying damages like we lost those wars. ENOUGH.
y late wifes grandson is in the service! He has had two tours in afganistan one in Iraq, and is now in northern japan. His tour will be over in japan at the end of the year. His father draws a small disability check from viet nam service. A lot of us are sick and tired of un-conclusive results, and paying damages like we lost those wars. ENOUGH.
[QUOTE=RoadToad;520848]I disagree completely. The American people are very divided on this issue, and, he's having to do a hard sell on this, so if we go in and it's a disaster (the most likely outcome, IMO), it'll also be a political disaster for him. Of course he's a lame duck, so it might not matter so much, but whatever legacy he might have had is even further tarnished if that happens.[/QUOTE]
You might be right. But I think the most likely outcome is, we don't go and it's a disaster. I'm already reading rumors of a possible exit strategy.
We must be doing something right. Since 9/11, no attacks on our soil. I don't think we need any boots on the ground. I still say all we need do is pound them from the air and with Cruise missiles, and hit the places they make and store the stuff.
I'd love to see the day when not one US soldier or airman, or sailor had to go in harms way. But the simple fact of this hostile world is that if you don't take the fight to the enemy on his soil, he will bring it to you on yours.
In this case, I'd rather we export the violence, then warmly receive it.
[QUOTE=Tim_T;520849]Tell you what George, you send your daughter over there first and then the rest of us will see if we want our kids going over there. If you want boots on the ground, why don't you put your boots on the ground over there.[/QUOTE]
Well said and I agree, the one's with the least to lose are those most willing to let others have the most to lose. Besides, what really cracks me up are the folks who have never had a family member in harms way, or have never been in harms way themselves, that profess letting others do the dirty work for them while they sit all comfy at home.
[QUOTE=Moveon;520815]I too like the content of the post. The UN and the Brits did create these middle east countries after the World Wars. They didn't take into consideration the ethnicity or people when they created these artificial boarders.
Didn't the entire middle east come out of the Ottoman Empire or the Persian Empire?[/QUOTE]
Yes, For the most part. The middle east is the miserable place it's been since the Ottomans.
In the late 1940's, the Brits under UN auspices got a resolution passed that 'reformatted' the region. Under the resolution Palestine would include Israel. Part of that UN resolution also said 'We (the British) recognize a hopeless situation when we see it, and we're gettin' the hell out of here immediately after this passes'. Ben Gurion and Israel accepted the resolution, the Arabs rejected it, and war broke out. The English skeedaddled, Israel prevailed against some long odds, and the region has evolved (devolved?) into what we have today.
That little synopsis is vastly oversimplified, and not completely accurate, but you get the idea.