MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Warmonger Obama (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/503509/warmonger-obama/)

 
turtle777 Aug 30, 2013 12:04 AM
Warmonger Obama
As ZH eloquently put it: "the looming prospect of yet another illegal war to be waged by the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient".

So, where is the outrage ?
And to all the Bush haters, do you hate Obama now as well ?

Even the British are smart enough to stay out of this mess, but oh no, our POTUS can't get involved fast enough.

Sure, there's going to be fabricated reasons and proof, but we have seen how that works out in the end.
WMD, anyone ?

-t
 
subego Aug 30, 2013 01:01 AM
It's in fashion to hate Obama now. You didn't get the memo?
 
BLAZE_MkIV Aug 30, 2013 01:07 AM
Did you/anyone really expect him to be any different?
 
subego Aug 30, 2013 01:18 AM
I thought there was potential the first time around. I also expected a different flavor of suck.
 
subego Aug 30, 2013 04:23 AM
However, I'm not sure I buy the Iraq comparison.

We're not preemptively knocking over a country. The country is knocking itself over and we have a direct interest in how everything lands.

We have this interest for many reasons, but I'd say the first and foremost is the Golan Heights.

If Syria starts to swing militant, Israel will invade. That would be very bad.


To be clear, I'm not saying we should invade them, I'm only pointing out how the situation is quite different.
 
BadKosh Aug 30, 2013 08:19 AM
Obama is falling into a trap. We attack Syria, they attack and destroy Israel. The Muslim Bro'hood will be so pleased.
 
osiris Aug 30, 2013 08:55 AM
According to CNN, Britain is backing out. And curiously enough, Obama will present 'evidence' today.
 
The Final Dakar Aug 30, 2013 09:12 AM
Airstrikes = Ground Invasion and occupation

Well done.
 
mattyb Aug 30, 2013 09:13 AM
If the Frogs say its OK, its OK.
 
mattyb Aug 30, 2013 09:15 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by BadKosh (Post 4244639)
Obama is falling into a trap. We attack Syria, they attack and destroy Israel. The Muslim Bro'hood will be so pleased.
I doubt that either Syria or Iran could destroy Israel without the Middle East ending up uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years. Still, they are stupid enough to try.
 
The Final Dakar Aug 30, 2013 09:23 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by turtle777 (Post 4244613)
Sure, there's going to be fabricated reasons and proof, but we have seen how that works out in the end.
WMD, anyone ?

-t
I missed this gem. So Syrians didn't get chemical weapons used against them?

Last I checked Obama was too gutless to do anything after the first time it happened.
 
osiris Aug 30, 2013 09:25 AM
Obama is walking on thin ice, but we all know how easy it is to fabricate evidence these days, with 3D printers and all.
 
Hawkeye_a Aug 30, 2013 09:36 AM
The amount of flack the US got after Afghanistan and Iraq was unprecedented. IMHO The 'cost' paid by the US was not only financial but political as well. Right now, the US cannot afford(financially or politically) another front, and that's what Syria/Iran are testing here. (The west's weakness in economic terms is indirectly empowering adversaries like Iran/China/Russia and their allies)

If other countries could sit back and 'take the moral high ground' during Afghanistan and Iraq, let them take the moral high ground this time around as well and back it up with actions of their own, instead of pushing the US to do it for them. Let the EU or other Arab states, etc....deal with Syria. IMHO
 
turtle777 Aug 30, 2013 10:33 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4244614)
It's in fashion to hate Obama now. You didn't get the memo?
Is there anything to love ?

Besides, few people understand that going AGAINST Assad is working SIDE BY SIDE with Al Qaeda, which is one of the driving forces behind the opposition / rebels.

That's really awesome, the US fighting side by side with one of its sworn enemies.

Bottom line: this is a huge f*cking lose-lose situation.

Therefore, why get involved ?

-t
 
BLAZE_MkIV Aug 30, 2013 10:37 AM
The only people who want us to do anything about it are the whiny western liberals.
 
The Final Dakar Aug 30, 2013 10:51 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by turtle777 (Post 4244676)
Besides, few people understand that going AGAINST Assad is working SIDE BY SIDE with Al Qaeda, which is one of the driving forces behind the opposition / rebels.
Well that's the funny thing. If Obama does do the airstrikes, it's not really in defense of the Syrian people. It's a reminder to the world that using chemical weapons in warfare will not be tolerated. If I was a Syrian I'd probably be infuriated by this. It's this bizarre big picture vs. little picture thing.


Quote, Originally Posted by turtle777 (Post 4244676)
Bottom line: this is a huge f*cking lose-lose situation.
Just like Iraq. But I agree.
 
turtle777 Aug 30, 2013 11:16 AM
 
besson3c Aug 30, 2013 11:28 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV (Post 4244677)
The only people who want us to do anything about it are the whiny western liberals.
There are a sizeable number of pro-war liberals?

War has never been in the wheelhouse of liberals. Not the "give peace a chance" types...
 
The Final Dakar Aug 30, 2013 11:29 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4244702)
There are a sizeable number of pro-war liberals?

War has never been in the wheelhouse of liberals. Not the "give peace a chance" types...
Things change when its seen as a humanitarian mission.
 
ebuddy Aug 30, 2013 11:40 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4244626)
However, I'm not sure I buy the Iraq comparison.
Well... for starters, Iraq had overwhelming, bipartisan Congressional support.

Quote
We're not preemptively knocking over a country. The country is knocking itself over and we have a direct interest in how everything lands.
It's knocking itself over because we helped supply the means of so-doing. We shouldn't have meddled in the first place.

Quote
We have this interest for many reasons, but I'd say the first and foremost is the Golan Heights.
With regard to comparison with Iraq, a unified effort to move away from the US dollar wouldn't have been devastating to US interests?

Quote
If Syria starts to swing militant, Israel will invade. That would be very bad.
That's just it, we have no idea which direction Syria will swing. The moderate sectarians in Syria are neither organized enough nor aggressive enough to front an effective attack against the Assad regime. The only factions capable of performing this feat are those we REALLY don't want around.

Quote
To be clear, I'm not saying we should invade them, I'm only pointing out how the situation is quite different.
They differ in many aspects, but I fail to see any differences that would even hint at a greater justification here.
 
ebuddy Aug 30, 2013 11:44 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4244679)
Well that's the funny thing. If Obama does do the airstrikes, it's not really in defense of the Syrian people. It's a reminder to the world that using chemical weapons in warfare will not be tolerated. If I was a Syrian I'd probably be infuriated by this. It's this bizarre big picture vs. little picture thing.


Just like Iraq. But I agree.
Iraq has a provisional constitution and were in about as good as shape as Syria, pre-meddling. Now we've supplied the insurgents with the means to create such a threat to Assad's regime that he's implementing drastic, atrocious measures. None of these sides are savory which is why, as painful as it is to see, we must defer to the Prime Directive.
 
The Final Dakar Aug 30, 2013 11:59 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4244721)
Iraq has a provisional constitution and were in about as good as shape as Syria, pre-meddling.
But we didn't gain anything, lost a bunch of lives (Our military and their civilians), and ****ed up thousands more (Our military and their civilians). That is not a "win" and the scale of our "losing" involvement in Syria won't even register as a blip in comparison to the best day of our invasion and occupation in Iraq.

Yes, I know. We gained not having Saddam in power. Who was incapable of doing shit to us to begin with.


Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4244721)
Now we've supplied the insurgents with the means to create such a threat to Assad's regime that he's implementing drastic, atrocious measures. None of these sides are savory which is why, as painful as it is to see, we must defer to the Prime Directive.
My only question for Obama is if the it turns out its the rebels using the chemical weapons, is he willing to perform airstrikes on them instead?
 
The Final Dakar Aug 30, 2013 12:30 PM
Looks like the gauntlet has been thrown down by Assad's 9 year-old son? (Not sure if fake)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...B1-blog480.png

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/464...-chicken-o.gif
 
OAW Aug 30, 2013 12:43 PM
My hope here is that President Obama is outmaneuvering his political opposition. Clearly he has been reluctant to get the US into another long-term military entanglement in the Middle East. Getting involved in the Syrian civil war is like picking a side between Lucifer and Satan. It's best just to stay out of it and let them weaken each other. But he erred with that "red line" comment. And now he's being pressed by neo-cons to intervene militarily in order to preserve US "credibility" in the region. As if there was much of that left to begin with given the Iraq War debacle and the general hypocrisy of US foreign policy in the region for decades. In any event, I don't think he really wants to go down that road. So as we started to hear the drums of war started then what happens? The executive branch starts beating them even harder! Word gets about about naval deployments. Timeline for attacks within days. Rampant speculation about Tomahawk cruise missiles. High-level Administration officials talking about how "certain" they were that the Syrian government was responsible … even when the UN chemical weapons inspection team was still in country conducting their investigation. The Administration is really playing up how the US has to "do something" to show that the use of chemical weapons can't be tolerated blah blah blah. All the while hedging by saying he hasn't made a final decision. And what happens? Congress and the US public start to freak out. We now have 80% of the public saying the POTUS should get Congressional approval before striking Syria. Which given the general war weariness among Dems and the House GOP's penchant for opposing anything he pushes for will likely never happen. So at the end of the day his hands may end up tied by Congress on all of this. And perhaps that's what he's been hoping for all along? :err:

OAW
 
OAW Aug 30, 2013 12:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4244727)
My only question for Obama is if the it turns out its the rebels using the chemical weapons, is he willing to perform airstrikes on them instead?
Exactly. Assad's forces are winning. At a minimum they have the upper hand in the stalemate. Clearly he is a brutal dictator but no one has ever accused the man of being irrational. Why on earth would he launch a chemical weapons attack that kills several hundred civilians … an end result with dubious military value … the day before a UN chemical weapons inspection team is set to arrive in country? For what logical purpose would he hand Western powers the pretext to intervene militarily in a civil war in which the rebel forces simply don't have the strength to topple him? Perhaps some lower level military commander did this on his own, but I just don't see this coming from the highest levels of the Assad government. Because it simply doesn't make any sense.

Now OTOH, the rebel forces are approximately 60% jihadist. Many of which are al-Qaeda. It is well-known that Al-Qaeda will set off car bombs in crowded market places filled with civilians, fly planes into buildings, and send suicide bombers to wreak havoc. Would they set off a chemical weapon in a civilian area if it served the purpose of duping the West to attack Assad? There's certainly no reason to think they wouldn't. And they have every incentive to do so. I'm just saying … :hmm:

OAW
 
ebuddy Aug 30, 2013 02:00 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4244727)
But we didn't gain anything, lost a bunch of lives (Our military and their civilians), and ****ed up thousands more (Our military and their civilians). That is not a "win" and the scale of our "losing" involvement in Syria won't even register as a blip in comparison to the best day of our invasion and occupation in Iraq.
I think this is an extremely premature thing to say. Its proximity to Israel and geopolitical importance in the ME is at least as profound as Iraq's, if not more. Humans rights atrocities? Check. Geopolitical importance? Check. Population and stakes? Syria - 20 million. Population of Iraq - 32 million. Lack of an exit strategy? Check. Definition of winning - Goal in Iraq: Provisional government with constitution and constitutionally-elected representatives? Done, Iraq - yes. Syria? No friggin' clue and no friggin' plan, we'll let the next, most organized Muslim Brotherhood/ Al Qaeda affiliated faction assume control. Unless they prove worse than the former guy we helped throw out of course... like in Egypt and we'll be supplying the next, most organized terrorist faction within two years.

Quote
Yes, I know. We gained not having Saddam in power. Who was incapable of doing shit to us to begin with.
Wait... and Assad is? :confused:

Quote
My only question for Obama is if the it turns out its the rebels using the chemical weapons, is he willing to perform airstrikes on them instead?
No. Per Kerry today, that decision has already been made.
 
The Final Dakar Aug 30, 2013 02:21 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4244755)
I think this is an extremely premature thing to say.
10 years out and I'm premature? Jesus. I guess I'll be allowed to judge when I'm dead. Or something good finally happens.


Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4244755)
Wait... and Assad is? :confused:
As far as I can tell this isn't about Assad (or Syria). I posted about that earlier.


Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4244755)
No. Per Kerry today, that decision has already been made.
Link to what you're talking about? I'm going to be very surprised if my theoretical was answered. Sounds more like they just confirmed what they already said they were gonna do.
 
Hawkeye_a Aug 30, 2013 02:32 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4244755)
I think this is an extremely premature thing to say. Its proximity to Israel and geopolitical importance in the ME is at least as profound as Iraq's, if not more. Humans rights atrocities? Check. Geopolitical importance? Check. Population and stakes? Syria - 20 million. Population of Iraq - 32 million. Lack of an exit strategy? Check. Definition of winning - Goal in Iraq: Provisional government with constitution and constitutionally-elected representatives? Done, Iraq - yes. Syria? No friggin' clue and no friggin' plan, we'll let the next, most organized Muslim Brotherhood/ Al Qaeda affiliated faction assume control. Unless they prove worse than the former guy we helped throw out of course... like in Egypt and we'll be supplying the next, most organized terrorist faction within two years.


Wait... and Assad is? :confused:


No. Per Kerry today, that decision has already been made.
I think the objective was/is to contain Iran's influence in the region.
 
Shaddim Aug 30, 2013 03:25 PM
FFS, we need to just get out of the whole region and let Israel do its thing. Sure, a lot of people will die and there'll be fallout (political and some literal), but it'll be a hell of a lot fewer than if it's allowed to string out over the next century. Enough is enough.
 
subego Aug 30, 2013 04:05 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4244718)
Well... for starters, Iraq had overwhelming, bipartisan Congressional support.


It's knocking itself over because we helped supply the means of so-doing. We shouldn't have meddled in the first place.


With regard to comparison with Iraq, a unified effort to move away from the US dollar wouldn't have been devastating to US interests?


That's just it, we have no idea which direction Syria will swing. The moderate sectarians in Syria are neither organized enough nor aggressive enough to front an effective attack against the Assad regime. The only factions capable of performing this feat are those we REALLY don't want around.


They differ in many aspects, but I fail to see any differences that would even hint at a greater justification here.
We shouldn't clean up the milk because we spilled it?

What on earth do the Golan Heights have to do with moving away from the US dollar?

That they differ in many aspects is that which is to be demonstrated.

This is like a post from space alien ebuddy. We're on different planets here.
 
ebuddy Aug 30, 2013 05:16 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a (Post 4244772)
I think the objective was/is to contain Iran's influence in the region.
Right. That's the geopolitical component of what I said above.
 
ebuddy Aug 30, 2013 05:26 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4244791)
We shouldn't clean up the milk because we spilled it?
We're not going to do this are we? I say something and you twist it into some bizarre gibberish? I think we should simply stop spilling milk.

The rebels and government were already mired in civil war, we just intervened. We can stop intervening. Will there still be civil war between the rebels and government? Yes. There is no "cleaning up" of jack. I mean... unless someone can give me some kind of definitive exit strategy that would look even remotely clean. I've not seen any suggestions here and I certainly didn't hear much from Obama or Kerry on that today, did you?

Quote
What on earth do the Golan Heights have to do with moving away from the US dollar?
Uh oh, stay with me here. We were talking about US interests right? You mentioned Golan Heights as, but one of several aspects of Syria action you were attempting to differentiate from Iraq action. Iraq action had US interests as well. Namely, Saddam selling oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars and coordinating efforts for other markets in the region to do the same.

Quote
This is like a post from space alien ebuddy. We're on different planets here.
I'm not sure about that. It seemed to me the problem was my attempt to land on your planet only to find out it may not support intelligent life. ;)
 
subego Aug 30, 2013 05:45 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4244805)
We're not going to do this are we? I say something and you twist it into some bizarre gibberish? I think we should simply stop spilling milk.

The rebels and government were already mired in civil war, we just intervened. We can stop intervening. Will there still be civil war between the rebels and government? Yes. There is no "cleaning up" of jack. I mean... unless someone can give me some kind of definitive exit strategy that would look even remotely clean. I've not seen any suggestions here and I certainly didn't hear much from Obama or Kerry on that today, did you?


Uh oh, stay with me here. We were talking about US interests right? You mentioned Golan Heights as, but one of several aspects of Syria action you were attempting to differentiate from Iraq action. Iraq action had US interests as well. Namely, Saddam selling oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars and coordinating efforts for other markets in the region to do the same.


I'm not sure about that. It seemed to me the problem was my attempt to land on your planet only to find out it may not support intelligent life. ;)
I apologize for insulting you. That wasn't my intent. Most of your post made absolutely no sense.

Take your assertion that how Saddam sold his oil is even remotely comparable to Syria and Israel getting in a hot war. Even after you explained it, my mind is still full of ****.
 
besson3c Aug 30, 2013 05:57 PM
There are so many things about war and many people in the US I still don't understand, even after all of my years living in this country:

1) Why does this chem attack pose a safety risk to the US? I get it that no nation is an island, so to speak, but why is it some sort of imperative for the US to make things "safe" for themselves or the world or both when few other nations feel this same imperative? I get it that the US has the strongest military, but there are all sorts of countries that could decimate Syria.

2) Why do many Americans seem to feel that this world police role is some sort of responsibility even though it often doesn't work out well?

3) As far as the humanitarian angle, why are many Americans comfortable with cherry picking which missions are worthy humanitarian missions? For example, the US did nothing about Darfur.

4) Why do many Americans tolerate this rhetoric about these efforts being necessary to "keep us safe"? Whatever safety is being referred to is very indirect at best, but I think that many Americans seem to feel this is meant literally and directly, as in, we are at risk of being attacked by chemical weapons by Syria if we don't attack them first.

5) There seem to be many people that support people like Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura. Why don't the non-interventionalist arguments get more play in the media?

6) Many Americans take a morality angle with the US needing to intervene. What about the morality angle of attacking when not being asked to do so (say by Syria's allies), and doing thorough assessments of the sort of collateral damage that could be involved?
 
OAW Aug 30, 2013 06:14 PM
If the US intervenes in Syria over chemical weapons usage it will be for one and only one reason. In order to perpetuate US hegemony one message must be sent loud and clear:

No country is allowed to use WMDs except the United States.

:err:

OAW
 
besson3c Aug 30, 2013 06:35 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OAW (Post 4244814)
If the US intervenes in Syria over chemical weapons usage it will be for one and only one reason. In order to perpetuate US hegemony one message must be sent loud and clear:

No country is allowed to use WMDs except the United States.

:err:

OAW

Do you think the US would attack China or Israel if it were to use a WMD? :)
 
subego Aug 30, 2013 07:04 PM
@besson

1) Though it may seem ironic, you actually need some basic rules for war. One of those rules is you don't cross the NBC line. If you break the rules of ****ing war, expect serious consequences.

2) If one is to have a world police, do you have a better alternative? Canada's too nice.

3) I'm not exactly comfortable with it, but I understand it from a realpolitik standpoint.

4) I don't tolerate it. Most of the people involved here have permanently lost my vote.

5) There's a significant split among libertarians when it comes to intervention. I'd say (though I could be wrong) the interventionists hold the majority, if only because the libertarians are too desperate for support to go throwing people out of the tent for it.

6) The idea collateral damage assessments aren't being made is daft.
 
subego Aug 30, 2013 07:09 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4244819)
Do you think the US would attack China or Israel if it were to use a WMD? :)
Unprovoked?

We wouldn't attack Israel, but we'd hang them out to dry, which is close to the same thing.

We'd attack China at some point, but we'd cut them slack if it was on Chinese people.

This isn't context dependent morality, it's practicality. China can hit back.
 
ebuddy Aug 30, 2013 07:12 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4244809)
I apologize for insulting you. That wasn't my intent. Most of your post made absolutely no sense.

Take your assertion that how Saddam sold his oil is even remotely comparable to Syria and Israel getting in a hot war. Even after you explained it, my mind is still full of ****.
Eesh. It's next to impossible to be diplomatic in the typed word. I'm not offended, just throwin' it back. For example, how on earth did I say "we shouldn't clean up the milk because we spilled it."? The reason my posts don't make sense is because you're reading more into them than of them.

And what good exactly, are we to Syria and Israel when the US dollar is no longer used as the standard for the world's greatest commodity and we're mired in a collapsing monetary system?
 
OAW Aug 30, 2013 07:30 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4244819)
Do you think the US would attack China or Israel if it were to use a WMD? :)
Perhaps I should have said "No country that is not already a nuclear power ..."

OAW
 
subego Aug 30, 2013 08:00 PM
@ebuddy

Gotcha. I honestly wasn't throwing, so getting "thrown back" struck me as coming out of nowhere. Absolutely no worries though. It's what's intended that matters, and you clearly weren't intending to sock me for being confused. :)

My spilled milk analogy was an attempt to understand what lesson we're supposed to learn from our meddling causing the problems in Syria. What is the lesson?

As for the impact of Saddam's shenannigans on our economy, he could have sucked a trillion dollars out of it and we'd still be where we are now. We're still plenty good to them, so how much more would Saddam had to have pulled before we actually weren't up to the task? Five times? Ten times? I'm not sure his master plan could have accomplished that.

I also want to say, I've never heard this economic rationale before, and I'm glad I haven't. I supported the war and still find that a horrible and callous rationale. Neo-imperialism is an easier sell for me.

Jesus. We're capitalists. When the market doesn't go our way we adapt, we don't put a cruise missle up its ass.
 
besson3c Aug 30, 2013 08:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4244821)
@besson

1) Though it may seem ironic, you actually need some basic rules for war. One of those rules is you don't cross the NBC line. If you break the rules of ****ing war, expect serious consequences.
Why does the US always have to be the punisher, and why via a direct military response?

Quote
2) If one is to have a world police, do you have a better alternative? Canada's too nice.
Do we need a world police?


Sorry, I don't mean to pick what you wrote apart, I suspect you are in part playing devil's advocate, I'm just hungry for answers :)
 
subego Aug 30, 2013 11:27 PM
When we aren't being world police, the world tends towards ripping itself to shreds.

See: World Wars I & II.
 
Shaddim Aug 31, 2013 01:09 AM
Pardon me while I let my inner Nietzsche out for a minute. The USA isn't the World Police, we're the World Firefighters. If we'd behave like police we'd be better off; clean up the mess and deal with the aftermath. The natural order of things is for the "fire" to continue, clearing out the old growth to make room for the new, but like the fire crews in California, we keep trying to stomp out the hot spots, leading to more fires later because we didn't allow the total clean burn to take place. Yeah, there are millions of lives at stake, but there's a degree of inevitable destruction in that area. As hard as it is, and as expensive as it could be, in the short term, we need to back off and let them be who they are. The longer we delay it, the worse it will be later.
 
subego Aug 31, 2013 01:25 AM
There's still a lot of innocent oil we need to "evacuate".
 
besson3c Aug 31, 2013 01:34 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4244846)
Pardon me while I let my inner Nietzsche out for a minute. The USA isn't the World Police, we're the World Firefighters. If we'd behave like police we'd be better off; clean up the mess and deal with the aftermath. The natural order of things is for the "fire" to continue, clearing out the old growth to make room for the new, but like the fire crews in California, we keep trying to stomp out the hot spots, leading to more fires later because we didn't allow the total clean burn to take place. Yeah, there are millions of lives at stake, but there's a degree of inevitable destruction in that area. As hard as it is, and as expensive as it could be, in the short term, we need to back off and let them be who they are. The longer we delay it, the worse it will be later.

Agreed, and often times our fire fighting is often more like throwing gasoline on the fire.
 
subego Aug 31, 2013 02:26 AM
How are you defining "often"?
 
besson3c Aug 31, 2013 02:32 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4244851)
How are you defining "often"?
Arguably Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam?
 
Shaddim Aug 31, 2013 02:40 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4244847)
There's still a lot of innocent oil we need to "evacuate".
That's why I mentioned expense. We only get 20% of our oil from the ME now, it would be much more devastating for the Russians and Chinese, in that respect.
 
turtle777 Aug 31, 2013 08:56 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4244854)
That's why I mentioned expense. We only get 20% of our oil from the ME now, it would be much more devastating for the Russians and Chinese, in that respect.
Wait a second, this is the best pro-war argument I have heard in the whole thread. ;)

-t
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2