- Messages
- 9,533
- Reactions
- 5,069
Agit prop
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
WAR is comming soon in Syria. with Russia later.
- Thread Starter erudne
- Start date
- Status
Agit prop
- Messages
- 9,533
- Reactions
- 5,069
And jewdeo zionism, false christianity. I say this as a Christian
- Messages
- 1,568
- Reactions
- 3,292
Of course Russia and Iran doesn't want this, Assad gets removed, some extremist Islamic group moves in. One form of oppression only replaced by a more extreme form of oppression.
I'll take a dictator over Islam anyday.
I'll take a dictator over Islam anyday.
- Messages
- 9,766
- Reactions
- 13,152
The U.S. Military Does Not Want To Fight For Al-Qaeda Christian Killers In Syria
Well one thing is for sure. The puppet has clearly stated that we are going to go fight alongside ruthless terrorists to fight the Syrian government despite 'the people' being totally against it.
Why are the people against it? Because this is the first act of aggression that threatens the status quo HERE. But it is damned if we do damned if we don't.
Now if I was completely heartless .. I would say we have little choice but to attack Syria (nothing more than a proxy war for us to get into a war with Iran).
Because if we do not, these nations will be free to trade outside the Ponzi Petro dollar. It will then cascade from there and the dollar will no longer be the reserve currency.
When that happens, the US and its economy will go third world and the ponzi will be over.
What it boils down to is either heartless, criminal murder/genocide or the end to the prosperity debt bubble in the USA. No more jobs, no more two cars, no more McMansions, no more 70" LED TVs. Only a basket on our heads or clubbing a rat for dinner and that is no joke. Without the Petro Dollar ponzi, the USA is the caboose of the world economy, dead last. The key word is dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk
Well one thing is for sure. The puppet has clearly stated that we are going to go fight alongside ruthless terrorists to fight the Syrian government despite 'the people' being totally against it.
Why are the people against it? Because this is the first act of aggression that threatens the status quo HERE. But it is damned if we do damned if we don't.
Now if I was completely heartless .. I would say we have little choice but to attack Syria (nothing more than a proxy war for us to get into a war with Iran).
Because if we do not, these nations will be free to trade outside the Ponzi Petro dollar. It will then cascade from there and the dollar will no longer be the reserve currency.
When that happens, the US and its economy will go third world and the ponzi will be over.
What it boils down to is either heartless, criminal murder/genocide or the end to the prosperity debt bubble in the USA. No more jobs, no more two cars, no more McMansions, no more 70" LED TVs. Only a basket on our heads or clubbing a rat for dinner and that is no joke. Without the Petro Dollar ponzi, the USA is the caboose of the world economy, dead last. The key word is dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk
- Messages
- 8,275
- Reactions
- 18,061
How screwed up is this? How 'bout the Arabs send their own people to be slaughtered?...
Peter
The House?s Syria hearing: Live updates
Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion
Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday's hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes," Kerry said. "They have. That offer is on the table."
Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.
"In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we've done it previously in other places, they'll carry that cost," Kerry said. "That's how dedicated they are at this. That's not in the cards, and nobody's talking about it, but they're talking in serious ways about getting this done.
Peter
The House?s Syria hearing: Live updates
Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion
Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday's hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes," Kerry said. "They have. That offer is on the table."
Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.
"In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we've done it previously in other places, they'll carry that cost," Kerry said. "That's how dedicated they are at this. That's not in the cards, and nobody's talking about it, but they're talking in serious ways about getting this done.
- Messages
- 9,766
- Reactions
- 13,152
<broken link removed>
- Messages
- 1,010
- Reactions
- 1,639
I feel this is an attempt for Obunghole to stay in power. Obunghole needs more time, as he is meetiing resistance to his communist /socialist agenda. Start a war, suspend elections till the war is over and America will be fundamentally destroyed.
- Messages
- 6,244
- Reactions
- 7,103
- Thread Starter
- #89
I agree, though I believe the plan for Obama was written decades ago. It was necessary to have a Black Prezzie so the "the race card" could be played to it's ultimate end, race war as one of the means of destroying the USA.
As for Barry, I believe that he is a certified Megalomaniac Sociopath and sees himself as the 12th Iman who will create a World Caliphate which his masters believe they can manipulate into a NWO because Islam and Fabian Socialism are so close in their particulars.
I have been reading up on the history of Hitler, he started as a Communist but they would not let him rise to power so he infiltrated the National Socialists. His first Coup against the German Republic failed and he spent a year in jail but eventualy the Nazis infiltrated the German Republic's legislature and after a 12 year struggle Hitler was in power.
In 6 months over 40 Concentration camps had been filled, The private army, called the SA, had 460,000 men in arms they kidnapped, tortured and murdered at will, they even shot down protestors in the streets, some 40-60,000 died. The German People saw Goering's Gestapo, another Private, paramilitary as saviors. After The Night Of The Long Knives the Gestapo reigned unchecked and the Republic was dead.
I believe this is the road America is on.
- Messages
- 8,275
- Reactions
- 18,061
- Messages
- 8,275
- Reactions
- 18,061
Making Sense of Syria - Peggy Noonan's Blog - WSJ
This is what I think we're seeing:
The president has backed away from a military strike in Syria. But he can't acknowledge this or act as if it is true. He is acting and talking as if he's coolly, analytically, even warily contemplating the Russian proposal and the Syrian response. The proposal, he must know, is absurd. Bashar Assad isn't going to give up all his hidden weapons in wartime, in the middle of a conflict so bitter and severe that his forces this morning reportedly bombed parts of Damascus, the city in which he lives. In such conditions his weapons could not be fully accounted for, packed up, transported or relinquished, even if he wanted to. But it will take time—weeks, months—for the absurdity to become obvious. And it is time the president wants. Because with time, with a series of statements, negotiations, ultimatums, promises and proposals, the Syria crisis can pass. It can dissipate into the air, like gas.
The president will keep the possibility of force on the table, but really he's lunging for a lifeline he was lucky to be thrown.
Why is he backing off? Because he knows he doesn't have the American people and isn't going to get them. The polls, embarrassingly, show the more people hear the less they support it. The president's problem with his own base was probably startling to him, and sobering. He knows he was going to lose Congress, not only the House but very possibly—likely, I'd say—the Senate. The momentum was all against him. And he never solved—it was not solvable—his own Goldilocks problem: A strike too small is an embarrassment, a strike too big could topple the Assad regime and leave Obama responsible for a complete and cutthroat civil war involving terrorists, foreign operatives, nihilists, jihadists, underemployed young men, and some really nice, smart people. Obama didn't want to own that, or the fires that could engulf the region once Syria went up.
His plan was never good. The choices were never good. In any case he was going to lose either in terms of domestic prestige, the foreign result or both. Likely both.
He got himself into it and now Vladimir Putin, who opposes U.S. policy in Syria and repeatedly opposed a strike, is getting him out. This would be coldly satisfying for Putin and no doubt personally galling for Obama—another reason he can't look as if he's lunging.
A serious foreign-policy intellectual said recently that Putin's problem is that he's a Russian leader in search of a Nixon, a U.S. president he can really negotiate with, a stone player who can talk grand strategy and the needs of his nation, someone with whom he can thrash it through and work it out. Instead he has Obama, a self-besotted charismatic who can't tell the difference between showbiz and strategy, and who enjoys unburdening himself of moral insights to his peers.
But Putin has no reason to want a Syrian conflagration. He is perhaps amused to have a stray comment by John Kerry be the basis for a resolution of the crisis. The hidden rebuke: It means that when Putin met with Obama at the G-20 last week Obama, due to his lack of competence, got nothing. But a stray comment by the Secretary of State? Sure, why not rub Obama's face in it.
* * *
All this, if it is roughly correct, is going to make the president's speech tonight quite remarkable. It will be a White House address in which a president argues for an endeavor he is abandoning. It will be a president appealing for public support for an action he intends not to take.
We've never had a presidential speech like that!
So what will he say? Some guesses.
He will not really be trying to "convince the public." He will be trying to move the needle a little, which will comfort those who want to say he retains a matchless ability to move the masses. It will make him feel better. And it will send the world the message: Hey, this isn't a complete disaster. The U.S. president still has some juice, and that juice can still allow him to surprise you, so watch it.
He will attempt to be morally compelling and rhetorically memorable. He will probably, like Susan Rice yesterday, attempt to paint a graphic portrait of what chemical weapons do—the children in their shrouds, the suffering parents, what such deaths look like and are. This is not meaningless: the world must be reminded what weapons of mass destruction are, and what the indifference of the world foretells.
He will claim the moral high ground. He will temporarily reserve the use of force and welcome recent diplomatic efforts. He will suggest it was his threat of force that forced a possible diplomatic solution. His people will be all over the airwaves saying it was his deft leadership and steely-eyed threat to use force that allowed for a diplomatic break.
The real purpose of the speech will be to lay the predicate for a retrospective judgment of journalists and, later, historians. He was the president who warned the world and almost went—but didn't go—to war to make a point that needed making.
Before or after the speech there will be some quiet leaking to the press that yes, frankly, the president, with so many difficult domestic issues facing him and Congress in the fall, wanted, sympathetically, to let lawmakers off the hook. They never wanted to vote on this.
Once that was true, they didn't. But now, having seen the polls and heard from their constituents, a lot of them are raring to go, especially Republicans. It is Democrats who were caught in the crosshairs between an antiwar base and a suddenly hawkish president. But again, a Democratic White House can't admit it put its people in a fix like that.
In any case it's good for America that we've dodged either bad outcome: Congress votes no and the president moves anyway, or Congress votes no and he doesn't. Both possibilities contained dangers for future presidents.
The president will assert that as a lover of peace he welcomes the Russian move and reports of the positive Syrian reaction, that he will closely monitor the situation, set deadlines. He will speak of how he understands the American people, after the past 12 years, after previous and painful mistakes by their leaders, would feel so reluctant for any military engagement. He not only understands this reluctance, he shares it. He knows he was elected, in part, because he would not think of war as the first, or even second or third, option. But he has a higher responsibility now, and it is to attempt to warn the world of the moral disaster of the use of weapons of mass destruction. If we don't move in the firmest opposition our children will face a darker future.
The speech will end. Polls will be taken. Maybe a mild uptick, maybe a flatline. Probably more or less the latter—people have made up their mind. They sense the crisis has passed or is passing. They're not keen for more presidential rhetoric.
* * *
Then get ready for the spin job of all spin jobs. It's already begun: the White House is beginning to repeat that a diplomatic solution only came because the president threatened force. That is going to be followed by something that will grate on Republicans, conservatives, and foreign-policy journalists and professionals. But many Democrats will find it sweet, and some in the political press will go for it, if for no other reason than it's a new story line.
It is that Syria was not a self-made mess, an example of historic incompetence. It was Obama's Cuban Missile Crisis—high-stakes, eyeball-to-eyeball, with weapons of mass destruction and an implacable foe. The steady waiting it out, the inner anguish, the idea that crosses the Telex that seems to soften the situation. A cool, calibrated, chancy decision to go with the idea, to make a measured diplomatic concession. In the end it got us through the crisis.
Really, they're going to say this. And only in part because this White House is full of people who know nothing—really nothing—about history. They've only seen movies.
The only question is who plays Bobby. Get ready for a leak war between Kerry's staff and Hillary Clinton's
An important thing. The president will be tempted, in his embarrassment, to show a certain dry and contemplative distance from Putin. The Obama White House should go lightly here: Putin could always, in his pique, decide to make things worse, not better. It would be good for Obama to show graciousness and appreciation. Yes, this will leave Putin looking and feeling good. But that's not the worst thing that ever happened. And Putin has played this pretty well.
This is what I think we're seeing:
The president has backed away from a military strike in Syria. But he can't acknowledge this or act as if it is true. He is acting and talking as if he's coolly, analytically, even warily contemplating the Russian proposal and the Syrian response. The proposal, he must know, is absurd. Bashar Assad isn't going to give up all his hidden weapons in wartime, in the middle of a conflict so bitter and severe that his forces this morning reportedly bombed parts of Damascus, the city in which he lives. In such conditions his weapons could not be fully accounted for, packed up, transported or relinquished, even if he wanted to. But it will take time—weeks, months—for the absurdity to become obvious. And it is time the president wants. Because with time, with a series of statements, negotiations, ultimatums, promises and proposals, the Syria crisis can pass. It can dissipate into the air, like gas.
The president will keep the possibility of force on the table, but really he's lunging for a lifeline he was lucky to be thrown.
Why is he backing off? Because he knows he doesn't have the American people and isn't going to get them. The polls, embarrassingly, show the more people hear the less they support it. The president's problem with his own base was probably startling to him, and sobering. He knows he was going to lose Congress, not only the House but very possibly—likely, I'd say—the Senate. The momentum was all against him. And he never solved—it was not solvable—his own Goldilocks problem: A strike too small is an embarrassment, a strike too big could topple the Assad regime and leave Obama responsible for a complete and cutthroat civil war involving terrorists, foreign operatives, nihilists, jihadists, underemployed young men, and some really nice, smart people. Obama didn't want to own that, or the fires that could engulf the region once Syria went up.
His plan was never good. The choices were never good. In any case he was going to lose either in terms of domestic prestige, the foreign result or both. Likely both.
He got himself into it and now Vladimir Putin, who opposes U.S. policy in Syria and repeatedly opposed a strike, is getting him out. This would be coldly satisfying for Putin and no doubt personally galling for Obama—another reason he can't look as if he's lunging.
A serious foreign-policy intellectual said recently that Putin's problem is that he's a Russian leader in search of a Nixon, a U.S. president he can really negotiate with, a stone player who can talk grand strategy and the needs of his nation, someone with whom he can thrash it through and work it out. Instead he has Obama, a self-besotted charismatic who can't tell the difference between showbiz and strategy, and who enjoys unburdening himself of moral insights to his peers.
But Putin has no reason to want a Syrian conflagration. He is perhaps amused to have a stray comment by John Kerry be the basis for a resolution of the crisis. The hidden rebuke: It means that when Putin met with Obama at the G-20 last week Obama, due to his lack of competence, got nothing. But a stray comment by the Secretary of State? Sure, why not rub Obama's face in it.
* * *
All this, if it is roughly correct, is going to make the president's speech tonight quite remarkable. It will be a White House address in which a president argues for an endeavor he is abandoning. It will be a president appealing for public support for an action he intends not to take.
We've never had a presidential speech like that!
So what will he say? Some guesses.
He will not really be trying to "convince the public." He will be trying to move the needle a little, which will comfort those who want to say he retains a matchless ability to move the masses. It will make him feel better. And it will send the world the message: Hey, this isn't a complete disaster. The U.S. president still has some juice, and that juice can still allow him to surprise you, so watch it.
He will attempt to be morally compelling and rhetorically memorable. He will probably, like Susan Rice yesterday, attempt to paint a graphic portrait of what chemical weapons do—the children in their shrouds, the suffering parents, what such deaths look like and are. This is not meaningless: the world must be reminded what weapons of mass destruction are, and what the indifference of the world foretells.
He will claim the moral high ground. He will temporarily reserve the use of force and welcome recent diplomatic efforts. He will suggest it was his threat of force that forced a possible diplomatic solution. His people will be all over the airwaves saying it was his deft leadership and steely-eyed threat to use force that allowed for a diplomatic break.
The real purpose of the speech will be to lay the predicate for a retrospective judgment of journalists and, later, historians. He was the president who warned the world and almost went—but didn't go—to war to make a point that needed making.
Before or after the speech there will be some quiet leaking to the press that yes, frankly, the president, with so many difficult domestic issues facing him and Congress in the fall, wanted, sympathetically, to let lawmakers off the hook. They never wanted to vote on this.
Once that was true, they didn't. But now, having seen the polls and heard from their constituents, a lot of them are raring to go, especially Republicans. It is Democrats who were caught in the crosshairs between an antiwar base and a suddenly hawkish president. But again, a Democratic White House can't admit it put its people in a fix like that.
In any case it's good for America that we've dodged either bad outcome: Congress votes no and the president moves anyway, or Congress votes no and he doesn't. Both possibilities contained dangers for future presidents.
The president will assert that as a lover of peace he welcomes the Russian move and reports of the positive Syrian reaction, that he will closely monitor the situation, set deadlines. He will speak of how he understands the American people, after the past 12 years, after previous and painful mistakes by their leaders, would feel so reluctant for any military engagement. He not only understands this reluctance, he shares it. He knows he was elected, in part, because he would not think of war as the first, or even second or third, option. But he has a higher responsibility now, and it is to attempt to warn the world of the moral disaster of the use of weapons of mass destruction. If we don't move in the firmest opposition our children will face a darker future.
The speech will end. Polls will be taken. Maybe a mild uptick, maybe a flatline. Probably more or less the latter—people have made up their mind. They sense the crisis has passed or is passing. They're not keen for more presidential rhetoric.
* * *
Then get ready for the spin job of all spin jobs. It's already begun: the White House is beginning to repeat that a diplomatic solution only came because the president threatened force. That is going to be followed by something that will grate on Republicans, conservatives, and foreign-policy journalists and professionals. But many Democrats will find it sweet, and some in the political press will go for it, if for no other reason than it's a new story line.
It is that Syria was not a self-made mess, an example of historic incompetence. It was Obama's Cuban Missile Crisis—high-stakes, eyeball-to-eyeball, with weapons of mass destruction and an implacable foe. The steady waiting it out, the inner anguish, the idea that crosses the Telex that seems to soften the situation. A cool, calibrated, chancy decision to go with the idea, to make a measured diplomatic concession. In the end it got us through the crisis.
Really, they're going to say this. And only in part because this White House is full of people who know nothing—really nothing—about history. They've only seen movies.
The only question is who plays Bobby. Get ready for a leak war between Kerry's staff and Hillary Clinton's
An important thing. The president will be tempted, in his embarrassment, to show a certain dry and contemplative distance from Putin. The Obama White House should go lightly here: Putin could always, in his pique, decide to make things worse, not better. It would be good for Obama to show graciousness and appreciation. Yes, this will leave Putin looking and feeling good. But that's not the worst thing that ever happened. And Putin has played this pretty well.
- Messages
- 9,766
- Reactions
- 13,152
Tomorrow is 9/11; maybe they will have a FF up their sleeve to get things started. I wouldn't put it past them. Nothing would get idiot America more riled up and ready to 'defend our freedoms.'
- Messages
- 934
- Reactions
- 325
A far more analytical approach would show that we have a wise President who did the right thing in the right way at the right time.
- Messages
- 1,837
- Reactions
- 4,348
- Messages
- 1,837
- Reactions
- 4,348
Isn't it Illegal to use the word Wise and President in the same breath if not should be.
- Messages
- 934
- Reactions
- 325
Godwin. Game over.
- Messages
- 9,766
- Reactions
- 13,152
Oh they are not stupid by any means. Sock puppets are very well compensated.
GWB's lavish spread in Paraguay for example. Solar, fresh water, self-sustaining and secure paradise. He will be sitting pretty while you are clubbing a rat for dinner. All he had to do is shut up and look/act stupid and let the handlers take the reins. No consequence for the murder of millions based on now admitted deliberate lies. War criminal courts are apparently only for 95 year old Nazi camp guards.
I am sure Obummer's future is very bright also. He's already done more for the int'l banksters than any past President, even Wilson.
- Messages
- 6,244
- Reactions
- 7,103
- Thread Starter
- #98
Obama's personal mini-nation is in Brazil
- Messages
- 9,766
- Reactions
- 13,152
They will be sitting pretty when this Titanic sinks.
So, again, stupid they are not.
So, again, stupid they are not.
- Messages
- 8,275
- Reactions
- 18,061
U.S.-funded weapons have begun flowing to Syrian rebels, a U.S. official tells CNN.
The official confirmed details first reported by the Washington Post.
"That is something we are not going to dispute but we are not going to publicly speak to it," the official said.
The weapons are not American-made but are funded and organized by the CIA, the source said. They started to reach rebels in the last two weeks, according to the source. This is in addition to non-lethal aid that the United States has been providing.
Follow complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile. Read the full story here.
The official confirmed details first reported by the Washington Post.
"That is something we are not going to dispute but we are not going to publicly speak to it," the official said.
The weapons are not American-made but are funded and organized by the CIA, the source said. They started to reach rebels in the last two weeks, according to the source. This is in addition to non-lethal aid that the United States has been providing.
Follow complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile. Read the full story here.
- Status
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
CTC Illuminated Riflescope 4-16x50mm NIB- Started by Hoosier65
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
For Sale Winchester Model 94 Chambered in 30 WCF Scarce Post World War II Era Production- Started by WestcoastWes
- Replies: 0