The Watering Hole

charger — Sep 09, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1377977579/25#47 date=1378523390][quote author=charger link=1377977579/25#46 date=1378489743][quote author=Hookbender link=1377977579/25#45 date=1378476668]I would rather march against this war with hippies than stick my head in the sand and ignore the stupidity of it. At some point, our government should be help responsible for their actions.

And that point was in 2003. Yet not only did the American people support that war, some 66% of people, but they REELECTED Bush.  And you were one of them.  At some point our government needs to be held accountable for its actions?  How about, "At some point the guy I didn't vote for needs to be held accountable for actions that I fully would have supported if he was a guy I voted for."


Where the hell was this when we invaded Iraq? We could have used a little support then.  Syria has used chemical weapons in the last month!  Are they supposed to be held accountable for their actions?  Saddam hadn't used them in almost ten years when we invaded Iraq--yet we held him accountable for our terrible lack of intel and our lack of faith in the UN weapons inspectors.  

Republicans, the anti-war hippie party.  Great stuff!  Now, vote to defund the military, redistribute some cash to the poor, increase school funding, funding for the arts, and jack up the taxes on the rich, and you'll have something...  Obama's best move would be to start pushing against all his interests... the Pubs would have no choice but to switch sides because of their reflexive hatred.

2003, and 2013. The American people were lied too about wmds, and I'm one of those American people. If we did find WMD's, I wouldn't be bitching, now would I? I pretty much think, for example, that if the truth would have been available, like Bush was really pissed because Hussein tried to kill his DAD, that wouldn't have been a good enough reason for me to be for the war.

Are they suppose to be held accountable by whom? Americas military? America? People kill people over there. We can't stop it. We can't scare killing away from that part of the country. We only have the right to bomb another country if we are really threatened or attacked by another country, something like the Osama deal. Maybe to stop a insane person from having WMDs, maybe.



So, you have a situation here where the arguably insane, remarkably unpopular leader of a country in the middle of a bloody civil was not only has WMDs, but is using them actively, right now, to massacre his people.  You have verifiable proof of this, both on YouTube, in eyewitness accounts, and with weapons inspectors who have tested clothing, hair, and tissue from the dead.  What's your reaction to that?  What is it about this current WMD that is not the equivalent to you of the previous WMD?

By the way, the more I look at this, the more I think it was actually kind of a brilliant move.  That Obama really doesn't want to bomb Syria, and he knows that Congress can't pass a resolution to scratch their own fucking balls, so he said, "I really think we need to do this, so I'm going to ask Congress to support me."  I actually heard a Congressman today say "We as a Congress can hardly figure out how to walk and chew gum at the same time, and the president throws this decision to us?"

Clearly, the Syrian people are not our direct interests.  As long as he doesn't attack a US base, or ally, I think Assad can just keep on lobbing his Sarin gas missiles at Syrian opposition suburbs, once he sees we're not gonna be the police.  Truth is, it will probably end the civil war faster.  There's nothing as terrifying as biological or chemical warfare; that stuff seeps into the collective consciousness, and soon enough the Syrian opposition will lose hope and the will to resist.  


Well Russia is seemingly trying to make a deal right now where the weapons he has will be turned over. Maybe that will happen, maybe it won't.

And, the difference is the amount of debt we had then and the amount of debt we have now.

And we also know that people we think are insane over there, and they probably are, kinda hold things together in some horrible, "insane", evil kind of way. Looks what happened since Saddam has gone.

I don't pretend to have all the right answers, but I do know Syria is no threat to us and hasn't attacked us. We can't police the middle east with the same intentions we've always had, to make other countries like us. We took out Saddam and has anything changed there since? Except more killing, maybe? More wars and instability?

We don't fully understand those people, apparently. So, we need to keep out of it. Thinking we just fire off a couple hundred missiles to scare the dude isn't going to accomplish shit. Not to mention we will be killing there people as well. It's fucking stupid.

I guess America is simply to damn stupid to learn from it's mistakes, like Iraq. But no, we let the media drum up support and sympathy for the war by excessively talking about nothing but the victims of a chemical attack of some kind.

I hate that anyone has to die over there. Especially like this. Women and children, etc. But nothing we do will prevent killing over there. Nothing. We can't scare those people into submission. We can't stop it. No matter what we do. Let the U.N. deal with it. Let Russia deal with it. They know what happened to Saddam, it didn't stop them from doing it though, now did it?

Let Russia handle it?  You do know that Russia is supplying the Syrian government with arms, right?

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-says-accepted-russian-weapons-proposal-114743241.html

And Syria is Russia's last foreign military base.

Interesting turns so far...  Can they remove the chemz?  Iran, ya watchin'?  Speechingtonz?

CraigBert — Sep 10, 2013And Syria is Russia's last foreign military base.

Russia's knows wazzup, "Take them out!  We can restock later..."

Yeah...  "Go ahead, let them take the chemical weapons.  We'll give you something better to use on your citizens later."

Your speculating. And either way, if they decide to kill civilians later, they will. Nothing we can do about what "might" happen in the future. Let Russia get the chemicals out of Syria, and the U.S. concerns are taken care of for free. No need to bomb them. It would be an even bigger mistake to hit them now.

I'm telling you guys, this is a very simple decision. Just no need for us to get involved, especially now. If this is what Obama was hoping for, it was a brilliant tactic, no doubt. If not, it was still brilliant.

However, Russia still has to get the weapons. I'll believe it when i see it.

Seems like he wants to retain all of his planes/military.  Getting mucho chemz outta there would be a great thing...

Mainly his military. It seems that the U.S. would target mainly.... the military as a punishment. Makes me wonder if Obama would attempt to take out Russia military base as well. Probably not, just a thought. Huge potential for a complete disaster if we bomb Syria. Hell, Syria is fucking up their own country right now on their dime, we should watch and enjoy, or at least the pro war people should. I think it's horrible myself.

Where are our priorities anyway? So Syria gases it's own people and we're ready to bomb them right now, as we type. But Iran armed shit loads of people during the war in hopes of killing our troops. WTF???? Iran is a threat, Syria isn't. Iran indirectly attacked us and killed our people, Syria didn't do shit to us. How fucked up is that?? I hate our dumb ass government sometimes. Just fucking plain ass stupid.

Iran is watching what we do here.  They have already denounced the gassing (tho they may have been on "the rebels used the gas" tip), they were gassed by Iraq during the Reagan days when we were supporting Saddam and, at the least, did nothing about it...

By the way Charger, the last I read, 61% of Americans are against military action in Syria. I can't hardly believe this after all the pitty shit I've seen about the chemicals weapons attack and showing bodies everyday on the news channels. Maybe I give Americans to little credit after all.

BINGEWOOD — Sep 10, 2013Iran is watching what we do here.  They have already denounced the gassing (tho they may have been on "the rebels used the gas" tip), they were gassed by Iraq during the Reagan days when we were supporting Saddam and, at the least, did nothing about it...

Fuck Iran.  ;)

Hookbender — Sep 10, 2013By the way Charger, the last I read, 61% of Americans are against military action in Syria. I can't hardly believe this after all the pitty shit I've seen about the chemicals weapons attack and showing bodies everyday on the news channels. Maybe I give Americans to little credit after all.

How so?  Do think the polls being against going to war in Syria at this point, after 10+ years in war, with Bambam askin', are odd?  I don't know about credit...

Hookbender — Sep 10, 2013[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1377977579/50#60 date=1378843991]Iran is watching what we do here.  They have already denounced the gassing (tho they may have been on "the rebels used the gas" tip), they were gassed by Iraq during the Reagan days when we were supporting Saddam and, at the least, did nothing about it...

Fuck Iran.  ;)


Fuck their nook program.

Looks like an Obama masterstroke, doesn't it?  Threaten an attack, throw it to an unpredictable Congress, and suddenly Syria is ready to sign the international convention on chemical weapons, and Russia is ready to take responsibility for their chemical stockpile.  I'm frankly amazed.

Here's how the numbers break down, Hook.

30% are liberals and Democrats who were also against the last ten wars.  15% are people who are just tired of war.  And 15-20% are conservatives who oppose anything that Obama proposes.  There's 65-70% opposition, right there.  What aggravates me is the 15-20%... the people who would support this under a Romney, but hate Obama so much it colors every decision.

It is a lot harder to be in the 30% than it is to be in the 70%.  I was there.  I'll be against the next one, too, barring really extraordinary circumstances, regardless of who is president.  Will you?

Can't answer that Charger. Obviously it will depend on the circumstances, not the president.  

Those 20% that would support the war would be irrelevant in your example. Not to mention, they are dumb as a pile of horse shit. This is just an obvious, in your face, stupid thing to even consider.

Reminds me of my ex-business partner whose religion (an extreme Christian type that believes the earth is only 3,000-some years old) says that all Muslims should be killed...  ::)

Hookbender — Sep 11, 2013Can't answer that Charger. Obviously it will depend on the circumstances, not the president.  

Those 20% that would support the war would be irrelevant in your example. Not to mention, they are dumb as a pile of horse shit. This is just an obvious, in your face, stupid thing to even consider.

In January '03, opposition to the Iraq war was at 63%.  Congress passed a resolution to authorize the war in Iraq with 133 "no" votes.  5 of those were Republicans.  It's an interesting point to consider... opposition was even higher to that war than to Syria.  The war was also about... surprise... chemical weapons.  The exact same thing.  Only, at the time, Iraq wasn't engaged in a civil war, it was just sitting there, being pathetic.  So I'm not sure what "circumstances" you refer to... these are the same circumstances... only these are, seemingly, worse.  

Anyway, I do find it interesting that more people opposed the Iraq war (until it started, of course).

charger — Sep 11, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1377977579/50#66 date=1378870373]Can't answer that Charger. Obviously it will depend on the circumstances, not the president.  

Those 20% that would support the war would be irrelevant in your example. Not to mention, they are dumb as a pile of horse shit. This is just an obvious, in your face, stupid thing to even consider.

In January '03, opposition to the Iraq war was at 63%.  Congress passed a resolution to authorize the war in Iraq with 133 "no" votes.  5 of those were Republicans.  It's an interesting point to consider... opposition was even higher to that war than to Syria.  The war was also about... surprise... chemical weapons.  The exact same thing.  Only, at the time, Iraq wasn't engaged in a civil war, it was just sitting there, being pathetic.  So I'm not sure what "circumstances" you refer to... these are the same circumstances... only these are, seemingly, worse.  

Anyway, I do find it interesting that more people opposed the Iraq war (until it started, of course).

These aren't exactly the same circumstances. You know that. We had a cowboy for President, for one thing. Yeah, I voted for him twice, and by the way, I'd do the same thing today if the choices for President were the same.

If we were considering war, it would depend on the circumstances as to whether or not I would support it. I can't quite understand how you could be flat against a war in the future and not know what the circumstances of this future war were. I understand things a bit more now than I did then. So, the way I look at the "circumstances" would be way different now than they were back then. Just because I'm against this Syria thing doesn't mean I'm across the board against war period, as you seem to be.

Hookbender — Sep 11, 2013[quote author=charger link=1377977579/50#68 date=1378871642][quote author=Hookbender link=1377977579/50#66 date=1378870373]Can't answer that Charger. Obviously it will depend on the circumstances, not the president.  

Those 20% that would support the war would be irrelevant in your example. Not to mention, they are dumb as a pile of horse shit. This is just an obvious, in your face, stupid thing to even consider.

In January '03, opposition to the Iraq war was at 63%.  Congress passed a resolution to authorize the war in Iraq with 133 "no" votes.  5 of those were Republicans.  It's an interesting point to consider... opposition was even higher to that war than to Syria.  The war was also about... surprise... chemical weapons.  The exact same thing.  Only, at the time, Iraq wasn't engaged in a civil war, it was just sitting there, being pathetic.  So I'm not sure what "circumstances" you refer to... these are the same circumstances... only these are, seemingly, worse.  

Anyway, I do find it interesting that more people opposed the Iraq war (until it started, of course).

These aren't exactly the same circumstances. You know that. We had a cowboy for President, for one thing. Yeah, I voted for him twice, and by the way, I'd do the same thing today if the choices for President were the same.

If we were considering war, it would depend on the circumstances as to whether or not I would support it. I can't quite understand how you could be flat against a war in the future and not know what the circumstances of this future war were. I understand things a bit more now than I did then. So, the way I look at the "circumstances" would be way different now than they were back then. Just because I'm against this Syria thing doesn't mean I'm across the board against war period, as you seem to be.
Name a good war we have been involved in.  Probably the last worthwhile war was WWII.  Everything we've been involved in since then was bullshit, or a mess, and none of them came to anything good.  There is little to no chance of anything on the scale and intellectual justification of WWII happening again, is there?  So it's pretty easy to say I'm against us getting involved in any wars.

BTW, I can't help but read your whole post there, and think you are off your fucking rocker.  You'd vote for Bush again?  Then you learned nothing from his presidency.  Maybe you have some other justification which I can't determine, as fas as I can tell, it's because we can't afford it.  We can't afford a couple of thousand cruise missiles?  Seriously?  But we could afford eight years in Iraq and 12 years in Afghanistan, and hell yeah, you'd vote for that again?  

Could you be more transparent in your Obama hate?

charger — Sep 11, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1377977579/50#69 date=1378903508][quote author=charger link=1377977579/50#68 date=1378871642][quote author=Hookbender link=1377977579/50#66 date=1378870373]Can't answer that Charger. Obviously it will depend on the circumstances, not the president.  

Those 20% that would support the war would be irrelevant in your example. Not to mention, they are dumb as a pile of horse shit. This is just an obvious, in your face, stupid thing to even consider.

In January '03, opposition to the Iraq war was at 63%.  Congress passed a resolution to authorize the war in Iraq with 133 "no" votes.  5 of those were Republicans.  It's an interesting point to consider... opposition was even higher to that war than to Syria.  The war was also about... surprise... chemical weapons.  The exact same thing.  Only, at the time, Iraq wasn't engaged in a civil war, it was just sitting there, being pathetic.  So I'm not sure what "circumstances" you refer to... these are the same circumstances... only these are, seemingly, worse.  

Anyway, I do find it interesting that more people opposed the Iraq war (until it started, of course).

These aren't exactly the same circumstances. You know that. We had a cowboy for President, for one thing. Yeah, I voted for him twice, and by the way, I'd do the same thing today if the choices for President were the same.

If we were considering war, it would depend on the circumstances as to whether or not I would support it. I can't quite understand how you could be flat against a war in the future and not know what the circumstances of this future war were. I understand things a bit more now than I did then. So, the way I look at the "circumstances" would be way different now than they were back then. Just because I'm against this Syria thing doesn't mean I'm across the board against war period, as you seem to be.
Name a good war we have been involved in.  Probably the last worthwhile war was WWII.  Everything we've been involved in since then was bullshit, or a mess, and none of them came to anything good.  There is little to no chance of anything on the scale and intellectual justification of WWII happening again, is there?  So it's pretty easy to say I'm against us getting involved in any wars.

BTW, I can't help but read your whole post there, and think you are off your fucking rocker.  You'd vote for Bush again?  Then you learned nothing from his presidency.  Maybe you have some other justification which I can't determine, as fas as I can tell, it's because we can't afford it.  We can't afford a couple of thousand cruise missiles?  Seriously?  But we could afford eight years in Iraq and 12 years in Afghanistan, and hell yeah, you'd vote for that again?  

Could you be more transparent in your Obama hate?

I can't name a "GOOD" war we were involved in because I'm not sure what a good war is. However, It wouldn't make since to want to bomb Syria for gassing/killing a bunch of women and children knowing full well that we would kill MORE women and children plus people in the military plus destroying their country more than it is already and will be, plus we don't know the outcome/consequences of such bombing, plus we don't have the right to bomb them in the first place, and on and on and on the logical reasons are right before you.

I gave several reasons I'm against this war. Not just the one you mentioned and they are very reasonable and what I call, common sense.

You do realize that I'm on your side on this one, right? You can hold it against me forever if you like, the fact I voted for Bush twice, and would again..... as long as you want. I felt,  "at the time",  he was a better choice than Kerry and Gore. I'm actually, looking back at it, and would have to re-think Kerry, but Gore is dip shit crazy fucker.... that very rich. ;D


You spent all these years arguing with me when I was conservative and now that I've at least, become a tad more liberal, you want to argue still as if I were conservative. WTF???? Did you decide you'd rather me stay conservative? You should rejoice. You've swayed another voice and I actually think a little bit now. Rejoice I say. Devils advocate maybe? Just want to argue?

We can't afford it, right. In any way, shape, or form. Why? Because of the reasons I gave, to name just a few.

Getting closer. (Don't talk to those fucker"s,  bomb them. Pubs)  

http://news.yahoo.com/deal-reached-un-resolution-syria-weapons-221308298.html

Maybe we are own to something here. Maybe these people get the chance to state their case, and we actually listen, people may start respecting a country that respects others, and their country. (God damn, we may not get too go to war as much like this.)

;D