# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  I must really be a simpleton...

## Johns

I don't know why I can't understand this, but here's the way I see it:

A bunch ( a very large number) of people, mainly women and children, are gassed/killed in a faraway country that's in the middle of a civil war.  There is no absolute proof as to who actually did the killing.

So, the response is for another faraway country (the US)  to punish the perpetrators (even though they don't know who they are), by bombing the country in which the original bunch of people were killed.

This will


A. Kill more people ?
B. Cost the US a lot more money?
C. Upset a lot more people?
D. Involve the US in another useless war?
E. All of the above.

I just don't get it.  I come up with the answer "E".  And if they were going to do it, which I wish they wouldn't, why are they waiting so long, and telling the world what they are going to do?  

This must really be some complex stuff, because it's way over my head...

----------


## Steve Machol

E, and on this issue I think the country is as united as it has been in a long time.

----------


## Wes

Interesting how the administration was clueless (or lying-I think lying) as to what happened in Benghazi for weeks and blamed it all on a youtube video, even though our people were there and sending reports and calling for help, yet they're CERTAIN about the facts in Syria?  I assume they're just lying again.  I work elbow to elbow with the military, and I don't know a single one who thinks this is a good idea.

----------


## Johns

> E, and on this issue I think the country is as united as it has been in a long time.


The country being the citizens, but why are so many politicians, of both parties, so set on jumping into this mess?

----------


## braheem24

Here's what confuses me...

weapons of mass destruction have been used (Gas) and People have been Killed (Mostly innocent).

Saddam the scumbag, Did not have a WMD and killed no one with a WMD, yet somehow the architects of the Saddam war are the opposers of this one.

My question is at some point do these politicians that voted for the Saddam war and are the opposers of the chemical weapon war ever ashamed of themselves when they stand up and give speeches from the bottom of their partisan hearts?

----------


## Johns

> Saddam the scumbag, Did not have a WMD and killed no one with a WMD, yet somehow the architects of the Saddam war are the opposers of this one.


Are they opposing it?  McCain seems to be rallying for it...Boehner seems to be gung-ho for it, unless he's changed his mind since the last sound bit I heard.

----------


## braheem24

McCain is just senile since he lost, He's been begging for any attention for the past 4 years; I'm expecting to see him on a reality show soon.

Boehner has to play the leader of the republican party which never backs down from conflict, never cuts military spending and never raises taxes.

It's not passing the house even though the house is the stronghold of the Iraqi war supports.

----------


## Wes

> Here's what confuses me...
> 
> weapons of mass destruction have been used (Gas) and People have been Killed (Mostly innocent).
> 
> Saddam the scumbag, Did not have a WMD and killed no one with a WMD, yet somehow the architects of the Saddam war are the opposers of this one.
> 
> My question is at some point do these politicians that voted for the Saddam war and are the opposers of the chemical weapon war ever ashamed of themselves when they stand up and give speeches from the bottom of their partisan hearts?


  But do we know who is really behind the attacks?  Highly doubtful.  I find it hard to believe that Assad (the Ophthalmologist) is stupid enough to use gas considering The US and Israel would love to attack him as that would likely bring Iran into the fight and Iran was likely the real target all along.  
My read on these "rebels" is they're likely Mercenaries funded and supplied by parties hoping for war.  War is a great debt generator for big banks, and very profitable for weapons suppliers. Most wars have been justified based off of false flag attacks and lies, and I don't think this one is any different.  
Also, Saddam the scumbag did indeed have and use gas on the Kurds, he just didn't have nukes.  FWIW, I was against that war as well, and left the Army at the first opportunity rather than fight it. 
The most vocal Republican politicians opposing the war are Paul and Cruz, and they weren't in office in 2003.  Most of the rest do seem to be going along, as are CNN and Fox.  They are hawking like mad for war.  I think it's insane.  
Kerry says its a guarantee that Assad will use chemical weapons again if we don't do "something".  I think what he means is he guarantees Assad will continue to be framed until the war hawks get what they want.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Most wars in history, going back hundreds of years have had other reasons than than the ones they were named for.

----------


## Judy Canty

War is never the answer.

However:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4304853.stm

----------


## Wes

Right, Judy.  And the WMD case for invasion was made, oh, 15 years later?  But not based on the gas attacks, which there was ample evidence for, but for nukes that never existed.  Lies lies and more lies.  No politician in this country achieves serious power without selling out.  Sure, the local guys may be for real, but the ones like Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Bush, Cheney, Romney, McCain, Graham, and Boehner sold their services to the banksters and the corporatocracy to get where they are.  I trust none of them.

----------


## Judy Canty

The case for war was not made based on the 1988 attacks on the Kurds.  The case for war was made following the 9/11 attacks, I believe, by VP Cheney who saw an opportunity for his various companies to profit from the mass hysteria.  Cheneys' companies continue to profit from the no-bid contracts let during the run-up.

Do I believe that our political system and our politicians have been corrupted by outside influences? Absolutely.  The real cause for my concern is the corruption of the Supreme Court.   And that's the end of my commentary on the subject.

----------


## Wes

> Right, Judy.  And the WMD case for invasion was made, oh, 15 years later?  But not based on the gas attacks, which there was ample evidence for, but for nukes that never existed.  Lies lies and more lies.  No politician in this country achieves serious power without selling out.  Sure, the local guys may be for real, but the ones like Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Bush, Cheney, Romney, McCain, Graham, and Boehner sold their services to the banksters and the corporatocracy to get where they are.  I trust none of them.





> The case for war was not made based on the 1988 attacks on the Kurds.  The case for war was made following the 9/11 attacks, I believe, by VP Cheney who saw an opportunity for his various companies to profit from the mass hysteria.  Cheneys' companies continue to profit from the no-bid contracts let during the run-up.
> 
> Do I believe that our political system and our politicians have been corrupted by outside influences? Absolutely.  The real cause for my concern is the corruption of the Supreme Court.   And that's the end of my commentary on the subject.


So with the exception of the spot on comment about the Court, we just said the same thing.  :Biggrin:

----------


## fjpod

I get the idea that sometimes there are bad guys and bad governments that you just have to wipe out...Hitler comes to mind, but wiping out the government of Syria will do nothing to help the people of Syria...AND...it will expose the US to increased terrorism.  

This is a lose-really big lose situation.  I'll take the normal loss.

Send humanitarian aid to those hurt by the violence...if you can find somebody who isn't killing somebody else.

----------


## Uncle Fester

Having read Kissingers' book "Diplomacy" I think this is about sending a message to Iran and others and keeping the scale of the balance of power tilted towards the west.

Let's see where the missiles and bombs land and if the same guy who hit the Chinese embassy in the Bosnia conflict is in charge of aiming these.

Bashir is a figurehead who would so much rather be practicing ophthalmology in London. His older brother who died years ago in a plane crash was supposed to take over. Bashir is controlled by his uncles and mother. 

We probably have cell phone communication from one of them ordering the attack.

A close friend from Aleppo who has many family members there says the power vacuum has produced a war in his city that is 25% sectarian rebels 25% Salafist jihadists and 50% thugs who filled the vacuum and run the city like Chicago in the heyday of the gangsters.

From Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" written over 2500 years ago-
*There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.*

----------


## SeaU2020

Totally agree with you Johns! The thing is, as kids if we get hit, we may hit back immediately, without thinking. But even a Kindergartener knows that the more you contemplate the revenge strike, the worse the idea IS.

----------


## Wes

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-assads-regi/

----------


## Judy Canty

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-weapons-weeks

----------


## Wes

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/Emer..._29750001.html

I've been trained in chemical weapons decontamination.  I haven't researched the timeline for when those bodies were moved , but the decontamination precautions recommended for Sarin don't appear to have been followed.  It makes me wonder if it was even sarin.

----------


## Steve Machol

Frankly, I have a healthy skepticism of any news reports these day. I still remember the false 'news' regarding Iraq WMDs. What I do know is that we have enough problems in this country that need our attention, and bombing Syria isn't going to solve a single one of them. It will even make them worse, both because we will pass the cost onto future generations, as President Bush did by starting two wars and putting them 'off the books' so his budget would look better, and because no matter what we do we will end up making more enemies.

----------


## Wes

The US seems to be constantly engaged in small pointless wars, morstly in the Middle East.  I suppose for the sake of the economy they have to perpetuate the hegemony of the petrodollar.  Still, I'm tired of the lies and sick of the deaths, ours and theirs.

----------


## Steve Machol

> The US seems to be constantly engaged in small pointless wars, morstly in the Middle East.  I suppose for the sake of the economy they have to perpetuate the hegemony of the petrodollar.  Still, I'm tired of the lies and sick of the deaths, ours and theirs.


On that we agree. President Eisenhower warned us abut the growing influence and power of the Military Industrial Complex and ever since then our leaders have done the exact opposite. There is a limit to what we can accomplish with missiles, bombs and drones - and any ground war would be disastrous. We need to stop being the World's cop.

Besides there is almost no chance that we can control who takes over if Assad is deposed. It it far more likely that we would see a fundamentalist Islamic regime than we would a 'shining beacon of Democracy'.

----------


## rbaker

> http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/Emer..._29750001.html
> 
> I've been trained in chemical weapons decontamination.  I haven't researched the timeline for when those bodies were moved , but the decontamination precautions recommended for Sarin don't appear to have been followed.  It makes me wonder if it was even sarin.


My thought exactly and my ABC training goes way back to the early sixties. I would have expected to see row after row of containment bags.

----------


## Wes

They called it NBC (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological) when I went through it.  Now it's CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and high- yield Explosives)

----------


## Uncle Fester

A letter to the editor had a good idea.

Instead of millions of dollars of missiles and bombs we parachute in millions of gas masks.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> On Monday the French government released a declassified report summarizing the evidence that it has gathered about three separate chemical weapons attacks on civilian populations in Syria. The report concluded that the two earlier attacks were basically practice runs as the Syrian regimes adjusted its tactics and objectives away from battlefield objectives and towards raining terror on civilian populations.


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-attack-syria/

I don't believe we should be "punishing" Assad. Our goal should be to make it easier for the opposition to kill him, reducing the chance that the civil war will spill into Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel, into a war between nations.

----------


## Wes

> A letter to the editor had a good idea.
> 
> Instead of millions of dollars of missiles and bombs we parachute in millions of gas masks.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...er-a-year.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...masks/2726299/
The comments are priceless.

----------


## Judy Canty

I wonder who the real source is?  These two are quoting each other.

----------


## Wes

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri...-to-gas-masks/

http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-oba...masks-to-syria
MSN seems to think it's an unconfirmed rumor...

----------


## Johns

From an AP News report:



_"The U.S. administration says its evidence is classified and is only  sharing details in closed-door briefings with members of Congress and  key allies.
_
_The assessment, also based on accounts by Syrian  activists and hundreds of YouTube videos of the attack's aftermath, has  confounded many experts who cannot fathom what might have motivated  Assad to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his own people —  especially while U.N. experts were nearby and at a time when his troops  had the upper hand on the ground._

_Rebels  who accuse Assad of the attack have suggested he had learned of  fighters' plans to advance on Damascus, his seat of power, and ordered  the gassing to prevent that._
_"We can't get our heads around this —  why would any commander agree to rocketing a suburb of Damascus with  chemical weapons for only a very short-term tactical gain for what is a  long-term disaster," said Charles Heyman, a former British military  officer who edits The Armed Forces of the U.K., an authoritative  bi-annual review of British forces._
_Inconsistencies over the death toll and other details related to the attack also have fueled doubts among skeptics."
_


This has been the source of my confusion.  Why would a guy that is obviously winning the war, turn on his own people, in the town where he had his strongest support?

----------


## optical24/7

I'm torn on all of this. Maybe it was a rouge general who chemed his own people. But whom is ultimately responsible? Similar to the nurse who recently threw away a donor kidney mistaking it for medical waste, her employer, the hospital is held accountable. If the chemicals were from Syrian stockpiles Assad is ultimately responsible for failing to adequately secure them.

 But I'm tired of the U.S. taking the role of world police. Without support from (many) other countries, I wouldn't want to see us go it alone once again. And at the same time, where do we, as a world community *draw* that line? Use of hideous weapons banned from use years ago. What kind of signal does inaction send to other rouge leaders? Just exactly how far will one have to go till the civilized world says "enough"?

 Syria is truly a loose, loose situation for the west. Many rebel fighters there are aligned with al qaeda whom with the fall of Assad could take control of the country. Leaving Assad in power endangers the region and the good people of Syria with the possibility of more chem attacks. I for one am at a loss as to how to proceed today...

----------


## rbaker

Thar be snakes and scorpions there. Be vewwy vewwy careful sayeth Elmer Fudd, particularly when following a fool.

----------


## braheem24

> I'm torn on all of this. Maybe it was a rouge general who chemed his own people. But whom is ultimately responsible? Similar to the nurse who recently threw away a donor kidney mistaking it for medical waste, her employer, the hospital is held accountable. If the chemicals were from Syrian stockpiles Assad is ultimately responsible for failing to adequately secure them.
> 
>  But I'm tired of the U.S. taking the role of world police. Without support from (many) other countries, I wouldn't want to see us go it alone once again. And at the same time, where do we, as a world community *draw* that line? Use of hideous weapons banned from use years ago. What kind of signal does inaction send to other rouge leaders? Just exactly how far will one have to go till the civilized world says "enough"?
> 
>  Syria is truly a loose, loose situation for the west. Many rebel fighters there are aligned with al qaeda whom with the fall of Assad could take control of the country. Leaving Assad in power endangers the region and the good people of Syria with the possibility of more chem attacks. I for one am at a loss as to how to proceed today...


Well said.

----------


## Wes

I don't see how leaving Assad in power endangers anyone if he wasn't responsible for the chemical attacks (I don't believe he is). 
If you believe he should be removed because Syrian "rebels" (who most likely aren't Syrians, or rebels, but mercenaries) launched the gas attacks, then you've confused the heck out of me.
I believe Assad should be supported as the legitimate head of state until unbiased and incontrovertible evidence against him is demonstrated to the world.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> This has been the source of my confusion.  Why would a guy that is obviously winning the war, turn on his own people, in the town where he had his strongest support?


Urban warfare can be a ***** (room by room fighting with snipers- see Stalingrad). A little sarin can go a long way towards clearing out a ten block area filled with the opposition. After all, Syria has one of the world's largest supply of chemical weapons, and Assad has been known to kill civilians by the tens of thousands at a time (see Hama 1982). 

I think stalemate better describes the present status of the civil war.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomeg...rias-civil-war

----------


## Wes

Bashar al-Assad was 16 years old when that happened, Robert.  That was Hafez al-Assad.

----------


## Wes

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/

----------


## Robert Martellaro

The Syrians only know Hama, and Assad. He should get his family out of Syria before it's too late.

----------


## Wes

Are you suggesting the Syrians can't tell one Assad from another?  That's akin to suggesting Americans can't tell one Bush from another.  Hmmm, wait; nevermind.  Bad analogy.

----------


## Steve Machol

> Are you suggesting the Syrians can't tell one Assad from another?  That's akin to suggesting Americans can't tell one Bush from another.  Hmmm, wait; nevermind.  Bad analogy.


 :Bounce:

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Are you suggesting the Syrians can't tell one Assad from another?


No, but if they could reanimate the father, the majority of Syrians would kill him again, along with his son.




> That's akin to suggesting Americans can't tell one Bush from another.  Hmmm, wait; nevermind.  Bad analogy.


A better analogy would be the Kim's of North Korea.

----------


## Johns

Lately, I've been going straight to the comment section of the news, rather than reading the entire articles.

Regarding the Russians giving our president an exit strategy out of the mess he created, one poster wrote:

"Putin plays chess, Obama plays golf"

(Insert any recent president)

----------


## Uncle Fester

So Kerrys' off the cuff remark may give Washington wiggle room to get out of this.

When  early on Congress said it wanted a say in what I'm sure they felt would  by now be a fait accompli it has become to them a case of "Be careful  what you wish for"!

----------


## MikeAurelius

Looks like there will be a UN hearing on Russia's attempts to have Syria turn over its chemical weapons.

That's a good thing, I hope.

<SARC>
Of course, he can still drop napalm on his citizens, but what the heck, right? They aren't CHEMICAL weapons!
</SARC>

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Lately, I've been going straight to the comment section of the news, rather than reading the entire articles.
> 
> Regarding the Russians giving our president an exit strategy out of the mess he created, one poster wrote:
> 
> "Putin plays chess, Obama plays golf"
> 
> (Insert any recent president)


It's the carrot and the stick. I don't don't see Assad giving it up, so watch for the stick. In chess terms, Assad will lose a pawn or two. 

Here are the likely primary targets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Syria

Hopefully we can get it done before he lines the runways with kindergarteners.

----------


## Uncle Fester

This just in...

Assad will surrender all his chemical weapons to the UN...


On an unrelated note- Monsanto Corp. has just received  one of the largest orders ever from the agriculture department of the Assad regime for a shipment of all purpose insecticide...

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> This just in...
> 
> Assad will surrender all his chemical weapons to the UN...
> 
> 
> On an unrelated note- Monsanto Corp. has just received  one of the largest orders ever from the agriculture department of the Assad regime for a shipment of all purpose insecticide...


A chance to take a deep breath, drink a few, and refresh the target list.

DAMASCUSCiting the ongoing international debate over his alleged use of chemical weapons, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad reportedly subjected himself to a small dosage of sarin gas Sunday just to see what it feels like. I figured it wouldnt hurt to try a tiny little bitbut holy ****, was I wrong, said Assad, who gingerly inhaled from a tube containing the lethal nerve agent and then proceeded to vomit into a nearby sink; experience severe eye pain, confusion, and partial paralysis; and then briefly lose consciousness. I mustve sniffed that stuff for, like, three seconds tops, but any more and I probably would have lost control of my entire central nervous system. I mean, can you imagine what a high dose of sarin would do to someone? Especially a child? Jesus. Assad then abruptly told reporters he needed to end the interview before collapsing to the ground and convulsing uncontrollably.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/bas...on-self,33800/

----------


## MasterCrafter

It's George W. Bush's fault !!

----------


## Uncle Fester

> It's George W. Bush's fault !!


True that!

----------


## MikeAurelius

> A chance to take a deep breath, drink a few, and refresh the target list.
> 
> DAMASCUS—Citing the ongoing international debate over his alleged use of chemical weapons, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad reportedly subjected himself to a small dosage of sarin gas Sunday “just to see what it feels like.” “I figured it wouldn’t hurt to try a tiny little bit—but holy ****, was I wrong,” said Assad, who gingerly inhaled from a tube containing the lethal nerve agent and then proceeded to vomit into a nearby sink; experience severe eye pain, confusion, and partial paralysis; and then briefly lose consciousness. “I must’ve sniffed that stuff for, like, three seconds tops, but any more and I probably would have lost control of my entire central nervous system. I mean, can you imagine what a high dose of sarin would do to someone? Especially a child? Jesus.” Assad then abruptly told reporters he needed to end the interview before collapsing to the ground and convulsing uncontrollably.
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/bas...on-self,33800/


the inital flavor is harsh, with a hint of almond. After that, the taste buds go numb.

----------


## braheem24

> It's George W. Bush's fault !!


The part where George Bush Sr sold the chemical weapons to Saddam or the part where Saddam hid them from George Bush jr. by moving the into Syria before the Iraq invasion?

 :Tongue:

----------


## jonadonis

Over my head too, but the correct answer is F, none of the above.  Sabre rattling is cheap and effective. All the rats are running straight to their own holes.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> The part where George Bush Sr sold the chemical weapons to Saddam or the part where Saddam hid them from George Bush jr. by moving the into Syria before the Iraq invasion?


Everything and all of the above.

If there is something wrong in the world.... i bet a Bush was involved....hurricanes, earthquakes, people starving in Africa, ect, ect.

He is even to blame for all of Obama's great foreign policy failures. 

When Hillary is President.... all of her failures are going to be Bush's fault as well

Dam Busheys

----------


## braheem24

The U.S. does not get a reset button every 4 years.

The U.S. electorate seems to have the shortest term memory when it comes to politics out of any developed country.

The Syrian issue is not as simple as gassing innocent, there's been a power struggle since 1953 with operation Ajax and it's support by Eisenhower.

The issue was again brought up in 1979 when khomeini came into power.

Since 1979 the U.S. has allied itself with the enemies of Iran including Saddam Hussein and Saudi Arabia that does not allow women to drive or even travel without a male chaperon.

To counter the balance of power the Middle east has almost perfectly divided itself into 2 powers supporters of the predominantly shiite Iran and Sunni countries.  

Iran has the backing of Syria and Lebanon.  Because of the U.S. embargo Iran's ties China and Russia for natural gas and oil has been even stronger.

Bush may not be the devil but he is a part of the process that has escalated this into the reaction it is today.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> Bush may not be the devil but he is a part of the process that has escalated this into the reaction it is today.


I know, it has nothing to do with radical terrorist's and the regimes that support them. It is all the US fault.

With the exception of Jimmy Carter - he was great

Bill Clinton - he was so awesome, if only he could have stayed forever

Then Obama, he projects such strength.... the middle east fears him, he has such an awesome foreign policy

----------


## braheem24

> I know, it has nothing to do with radical terrorist's and the regimes that support them.


... and the regimes that support them, Which ones?

Saddam? 

Taliban?

Saudi Arabia? (Saud Family) 

in case you don't realize Saudi Arabia is borderline an apartheid state, but their family gets to fly on 9-11 when the rest of our country was devastated by the work of their countrymen.

Those are the 3 groups that oppress more then any other in the "middle east".

Ask yourself who supported these regimes when they were repressing their people.

Try not to reply with sarcasm, name calling or fox news rhetoric this is not a Liberal vs. Conservative issue.

----------


## Wes

It seems pretty obvious that Braheem knows what he's talking about regarding the Middle East.  The only thing he left out is Israel and their American lobbies' role in the issue.
I'm not sure what his position is regarding the gassing, but I think it's not Assad, but the mercenaries (oops, I mean rebels).

----------


## MasterCrafter

> ... and the regimes that support them, Which ones?
> 
> Saddam? 
> 
> Taliban?
> 
> Saudi Arabia? (Saud Family) 
> 
> in case you don't realize Saudi Arabia is borderline an apartheid state, but their family gets to fly on 9-11 when the rest of our country was devastated by the work of their countrymen.


Exactly!!

So what does Obama do in January?

He lifts restrictions on the Saudi's getting visa's coming into this country. He fast tracks them giving them "trusted" status.

But I do not blame him...it's Bush's fault!! He made him do it

----------


## Wes

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3923483

----------


## braheem24

> Exactly!!
> 
> So what does Obama do in January?
> 
> He lifts restrictions on the Saudi's getting visa's coming into this country. He fast tracks them giving them "trusted" status.
> 
> But I do not blame him...it's Bush's fault!! He made him do it


You can't help yourself, there's no debate in you if it's not the left's fault  :Rolleyes: 

He did force Obama to do it by not investing in alternative energy.

What do you expect from an oil man and his father? 20 years total between presidency and VP between the 2 of them you would think they could have improved the U.S. addiction to foreign oil. instead they decided to cultivate their crack addiction by sleeping with the dealers to get a free hit now and then.

----------


## Steve Machol

This has gone way off course. Please stick to the original post and stop the bickering. It's clear that no one is going to change anyone's mind so what's the point of arguing and belittling each other?

----------


## Uncle Fester

> I don't know why I can't understand this, but here's the way I see it:
> 
> A bunch ( a very large number) of people, mainly women and children, are gassed/killed in a faraway country that's in the middle of a civil war.  There is no absolute proof as to who actually did the killing.
> 
> So, the response is for another faraway country (the US)  to punish the perpetrators (even though they don't know who they are), by bombing the country in which the original bunch of people were killed.
> 
> This will
> 
> 
> ...


Iran and Sauidi Arabia hold the keys.

I'm looking forward to Iran's new leader Rowhani (a western educated lawyer) and his chief of staff (a GWU PhD in economics) dragging the countries ruling theocracy to the negotiating table to rewrite the playbook of the Levants recent politics.

I fear the Saudi's are more than willing to export their countries malcontents to fight in other countries but will they come to see the business benefit$ to peace?

Where's Suleiman the Magnificent when you need him- or is that a wish even a Genie can't grant?

----------


## MasterCrafter

> This has gone way off course. Please stick to the original post and stop the bickering. It's clear that no one is going to change anyone's mind so what's the point of arguing and belittling each other?


Stop bickering?

If we all thought the same thing...what point would a forum be here for?

Now I could see if we were in one of the optical threads...but in the just conversation thread we should have a little more leeway to "bicker"

And Braheem, we have enough oil here in the US, we do not need anyone elses oil, but you see everything from the left so you cant see that.

----------


## fjpod

> ...
> And Braheem, we have enough oil here in the US, we do not need anyone elses oil, but you see everything from the left so you cant see that.


So why do we keep buying oil from the middle east?

----------


## Uncle Fester

> So why do we keep buying oil from the middle east?


Because they keep buying planes and weapons from us?

----------


## MasterCrafter

> So why do we keep buying oil from the middle east?


Because there is such hostility towards "big oil" coming from the left in this country....they try and block everything to do with gasoline. If we used our oil here, we wouldnt have to import...we could actually export alot too. 

Then in 10, 20 years or so when we can actually have a viable alternative we could stop using it. Because of this resistance we see huge inflation of food and just about everything else. 

Ethanol is driving up the cost of beef, chicken, ect and causing under developed nations people to starve

----------


## Uncle Fester

Gas will never drop below $3.00 a gallon again.

It's a commodity and will be sold to the highest bidder which means places like China and India are going to keep the price of a barrel north of a hundred bucks from now on. Or are you suggesting we nationalize our oil indus... never-mind.   :Giggle: 

Believe it or not our food is relatively cheap with Big Agri getting a lot of taxpayer welfare and putting small farmers into bankruptcy.

----------


## Steve Machol

> Stop bickering?
> 
> If we all thought the same thing...what point would a forum be here for?
> 
> Now I could see if we were in one of the optical threads...but in the just conversation thread we should have a little more leeway to "bicker"
> 
> And Braheem, we have enough oil here in the US, we do not need anyone elses oil, but you see everything from the left so you cant see that.


Yes, bickering.

Screen Shot 2013-09-16 at 2.44.05 PM.jpg

The point is are you able to have a respectful conversation with someone you disagree with or not? All I'm doing is reminding people to be respectful. I have no desire or need to apologize for that.

If you want to insult and rant and rage at people you disagree with, then there are certainly many places where that can be done. OptiBoard, however, is not one of them.

----------


## Johns

> Gas will never drop below $3.00 a gallon again.


I paid $2.96 in Montana (yes, at a gas station) last week.  Granted, it was probably a higher ethanol content, but it was below three.  I paid around $3.21 going through most of Iowa, and this morning, I paid $3.19 at the Flying J (my favorite stop) I paid $3.19.  I think it will definitely go below $3.00, and probably stay there for awhile.  Ohio saw sub $3.00 gas a few times in late 2012.

----------


## MikeAurelius

Actually, let's blame Henry Ford and his refusal to consider anything other than gasoline for his vehicles. And Detroit for not coming out with a working diesel engine for automobiles and the electric industry for not solving the automobile battery problem.

Then again, if oil had never been discovered in the first place, we'd have nothing to worry about.

----------


## Johns

> Actually, let's blame Henry Ford and his refusal to consider anything other than gasoline for his vehicles.


Yeah, old Hank really dropped the ball by not buying into the hydrogen craze.  He passed on rubber band power as well...

----------


## Johns

Regardless of what we are burning to propel us along... my point to this thread is that it's ridiculous  the US (gov't) feels the need to punish other countries by doing exactly to them what we are punishing them for doing.

----------


## Stan Tabor

My thoughts:

When we consider getting the military involved, one of the questions I ask myself is would I send one of my sons off to fight in this war?  No way.  Would Syria send their sons to the US to die to save me?  

The regional hatred in this region goes back centuries.  We are not going to change it.  This kind of change has to come from within.  

Over the past two decades, tens of thousands of people have been slaughtered in Africa and nobody cares since it is not on the news and we do not import oil from eastern Africa.  

Citizens in the US who think we should be the world's policeman need a history lesson.  Historically, the US stayed out of other countries troubles and this strategy served us well.  We entered WW1 when the war was 80% over.  We entered WW2 only after we were attacked.  At this point, Hitler had conquered US allies including France and dominated mainland Europe.  We sat by and watched.  Since WW2, we have tried to be the world's policeman, the results have not been ideal.  Think Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.  

We may have won the war in Iraq, but this "country" is headed for a civil war. Afghanistan will fall into full chaos and revert to the stone age when we leave.  We know absolutely nothing about nation building in the middle east.  

That's my rant.

----------


## Stan Tabor

> I paid $2.96 in Montana (yes, at a gas station) last week.  Granted, it was probably a higher ethanol content, but it was below three.  I paid around $3.21 going through most of Iowa, and this morning, I paid $3.19 at the Flying J (my favorite stop) I paid $3.19.  I think it will definitely go below $3.00, and probably stay there for awhile.  Ohio saw sub $3.00 gas a few times in late 2012.


You may be right and I hope you are, but I doubt it will fall much below $3.00.  My understanding is the oil coming out of the ground now has higher lifting costs, greater transportation costs (until pipelines are built in the central US and Canada) and is more costly to refine.  But I still say we need to drill and quit exporting our cash to the middle east and keep it here or in Canada.

----------


## braheem24

> The regional hatred in this region goes back centuries.  We are not going to change it.  This kind of change has to come from within.


The regional division in the middle east has been in the past century with the fall of the Ottoman empire brought on by WWI which divided the Ottoman empire between the Arabs (sided with England and the allies to earn their freedom from the Turks) and the Ottoman empire (Turkey, which sided with Germany).

Unfortunately when England was done winning the war, they decided they did not owe the Arabs a place on the table to decided how the land would be divided which has caused instability in the region since.

Divide and conquer was perfected in the middle east.

----------


## braheem24

> Ethanol is driving up the cost of beef, chicken, ect and causing under developed nations people to starve


Ethanol is derived from Corn, If under developed countries are starving it's because of education not corn shortage.

If you can grow corn, you can grow beans which do not require being fed corn to grow.

Beans do not cause heart attacks.
Beans do not cause strokes.
Beans do not cause cancer.
Beans do not cause hormone imbalances.

Beans have more protein then corn.
Beans are lower in simple sugars then corn.
Beans contain more fiber then corn.

No one is dying from lack of meat they're dying from it, look around you.

Don't take my work for it, Do some research, look what happened to the life expectancy in this country during the great depression.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0928172530.htm

----------


## fjpod

> Because there is such hostility towards "big oil" coming from the left in this country....they try and block everything to do with gasoline. If we used our oil here, we wouldnt have to import...we could actually export alot too. 
> 
> Then in 10, 20 years or so when we can actually have a viable alternative we could stop using it. Because of this resistance we see huge inflation of food and just about everything else. 
> 
> Ethanol is driving up the cost of beef, chicken, ect and causing under developed nations people to starve


C'mon, you don't really believe that.   We import or oil from the middle east because originally it wasa lot cheaper and easier to extract from the ground.   IOW, it was easier for big oil to make a buck.   Now, however,  we have to sacrifice American soldiers to keep the oil flowing.  That price is too high. So back in the states we try to promote conservation, alternative f fuels, etc , and you think it is some communist plot?

----------


## Johns

> Ethanol is driving up the cost of beef, chicken, ect and causing under developed nations people to starve


I really hope that was an attempt at humor (which would be a good sign).

It is usually the fault of local governments and warlords that cause people in under-developed nations to starve. Billions upon billions of dollars are poured into Haiti and Africa with little or nothing to show for it.  

Ethanol?  Really?  
(Incidentally, I try to avoid Ethanol, as it heats up the engine faster, breaks down the viscosity of the oil, and reduces you MPG)

----------


## MikeAurelius

> So back in the states we try to promote conservation, alternative f fuels, etc , and you think it is some communist plot?


According to MC, it is not a communist plot, it is a left-wing socialist plot. Get it straight!!

----------


## Wes

Re: the price of gas.
I was in Korea ten years ago, and it was 2,800 Won or roughly $2.50 per liter at the exchange rate at the time.  That's almost $10 a gallon.  Gas prices are lower in the US than almost anywhere else in the world, other than major oil exporters.  Venezuela come to mind as being cheaper.
Has it occurred to anyone that it's intelligent policy to buy all "their" oil while conserving "ours" for when "they" run out?

Again, Braheem offers good insight into the middle east issues.

Johns is correct in his position that food shortages in Africa and Haiti have more to do with warlords than ethanol driving up meat prices (although it does drive them up here).  The US has gone into Haiti to build and rebuild their infrastructure four times in that nation's 200+ year history as a self governing entity, but they don't maintain it.  That's all I'll say on that subject because I'm not looking to get Watsoned.

----------


## Wes

> According to MC, it is not a communist plot, it is a left-wing socialist plot. Get it straight!!


Same thing.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> According to MC, it is not a communist plot, it is a left-wing socialist plot. Get it straight!!





> Same thing.


Tea Party, Mitt Romney--- same thing...

(sorry Steve! and Johns)

----------


## Wes

> Tea Party, Mitt Romney--- same thing...
> 
> (sorry Steve!)


Not originally, but by 2012, close enough.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> Yes, bickering.
> 
> Attachment 10238
> 
> The point is are you able to have a respectful conversation with someone you disagree with or not? All I'm doing is reminding people to be respectful. I have no desire or need to apologize for that.
> 
> If you want to insult and rant and rage at people you disagree with, then there are certainly many places where that can be done. OptiBoard, however, is not one of them.


I can have a respectful conversation

But look at all the posts after your comment, do these guys show respect?

This board is dying and becoming very boring because of heavy handed Admins.... if leftists argue and belittle people on here it's always ok... if an argument comes from the "right" you get all upset Steve. We know that you slant left, but why stop debate?

If you only want 1 point of view , once again , what is the point? if everybody agrees where is the debate?

This in a nutshell shows what is wrong with America today, The left always wants to shut down debate and declare they are right no disagreements.

Point out where I disrespected somebody


Braheem....do some research yourself.....if you did you would have known that even AL Bore has said first generation of bio-fuels was a mistake....first gen bio-fuels = ethanol... Bore himself said it was causing people to starve... so please in the future do research from multiple sources and stop reading left wing blogs

----------


## Wes

Biofuels are a fools game, but what does that have to do with Braheems point about the food issue?

----------


## MikeAurelius

> I can have a respectful conversation
> 
> But look at all the posts after your comment, do these guys show respect?
> 
> This board is dying and becoming very boring because of heavy handed Admins.... if leftists argue and belittle people on here it's always ok... if an argument comes from the "right" you get all upset Steve. We know that you slant left, but why stop debate?
> 
> If you only want 1 point of view , once again , what is the point? if everybody agrees where is the debate?
> 
> This in a nutshell shows what is wrong with America today, The left always wants to shut down debate and declare they are right no disagreements.
> ...


With respect sir, any time a discussion starts, you weigh in with the viewpoint of the "right", and declare yourself to be absolutely correct, to the point of being close to verbal abuse. I've been on the receiving end of your rants several times, and quite honestly, sir, you are part of the "problem".

Politics aside, can you have a discussion without inserting politics and especially right-wing politics?

----------


## Wes

What we need to do is harness as much energy as we can from as many sources as we can and conserve fossil fuels as much as possible, for future uses where they cannot be replicated easily.  Wave and wind power are there for the taking.  Solar needs development.  Geothermal is easily harnessed and there's enough for thousands of years.  Electric cars/battery technology needs development.  Fusion seriously needs to be researched.  That's the power of the future, the power that will take us to the stars.
The left pushes disastrous social policy.  Both push disastrous foreign policy.  The right tends to reject science.  The left manipulates science.  Traditional Religion infects the rights thinking process, while cultural Marxism infects the left.  Both sides drive me bonkers.

----------


## Wes

> With respect sir, any time a discussion starts, you weigh in with the viewpoint of the "right", and declare yourself to be absolutely correct, to the point of being close to verbal abuse. I've been on the receiving end of your rants several times, and quite honestly, sir, you are part of the "problem".
> 
> Politics aside, can you have a discussion without inserting politics and especially right-wing politics?


The right wing is not always wrong about everything, and neither is the left.  Both wings are wrong far more often than they are correct, mostly because they're both woefully uninformed (or lying) about what's really going on in the world.  Americans are some of the most ignorant people in the world; almost completely controlled by political propaganda.

----------


## braheem24

> Braheem....do some research yourself.....if you did you would have known that even AL Bore has said first generation of bio-fuels was a mistake....first gen bio-fuels = ethanol... Bore himself said it was causing people to starve... so please in the future do research from multiple sources and stop reading left wing blogs



I have my own opinion opinion, Al gore's opinion is as credible to me as yours. 

Please try to respond to MY opinion not Al's and please try to respond with your opinion not Boehener's.  

Al can have his own conversation with you.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> The right wing is not always wrong about everything, and neither is the left.  Both wings are wrong far more often than they are correct, mostly because they're both woefully uninformed (or lying) about what's really going on in the world.  Americans are some of the most ignorant people in the world; almost completely controlled by political propaganda.


I agree, Wes.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> The right wing is not always wrong about everything, and neither is the left.  Both wings are wrong far more often than they are correct, mostly because they're both woefully uninformed (or lying) about what's really going on in the world.  Americans are some of the most ignorant people in the world; almost completely controlled by political propaganda.


Like Mike I agree and would however venture 10% of voters are influenced by propaganda.

That's why pollsters can often tell you what district/precint will determine an election in a toss-up state. And control of Statehouses drawing congressional lines after a census is so important to both parties.

----------


## Uncle Fester

So Wes does the recently released UN report sway your opinion that this attack could have been done by others than the Assad government?

Braheem- Where do you see the weapons going now? I was thinking Iran or most likely to Hezbollah in the Bakkah Valley but that may be a problem if he is overthrown and retreats to the Alawite controlled coast. So maybe, just maybe, it may be in his best interest to give them up after all. We can hope...

----------


## Steve Machol

> I can have a respectful conversation
> 
> But look at all the posts after your comment, do these guys show respect?


Exactly my point.




> This board is dying and becoming very boring because of heavy handed Admins....


 Really? What 'heavy-handed' actions have I or anyone taken? Please be specific. I would really like to know what you are talking about. 




> ...if leftists argue and belittle people on here it's always ok... if an argument comes from the "right" you get all upset Steve. We know that you slant left, but why stop debate?


Again what is your proof of this? Generally over that past few years I have kept my personal opinions out of OptiBoard. Please provide evidence of your accusations. And to be honest, I usually avoid even reading political threads because of people liek you who believe they are always right and that the there is a massive left-wing conspiracy directed against them.




> If you only want 1 point of view , once again , what is the point? if everybody agrees where is the debate?


When did I say that exactly? How did you end up interpreting a relatively polite request to behave in a respectful manner into a desire to only see '1 point of view'? Again please provide evidence of your accusations.




> Point out where I disrespected somebody


I never said you did. YOU were the one that decided to attack me and OptiBoard just because I asked EVERYONE to try and be respectful of each other. That post was not directed at you but nonetheless YOU were the only one that decided to turn such an innocuous request into an attempt on my part to 'slant left' as you put it.

Honestly I am a lot more in agreement with the so-called 'right-wingers' in this debate than you think. However I do not use this board to advance my own political agenda. Can you say the same?

----------


## fjpod

> I can have a respectful conversation
> 
> But look at all the posts after your comment, do these guys show respect?
> 
> This board is dying and becoming very boring because of heavy handed Admins.... if leftists argue and belittle people on here it's always ok... if an argument comes from the "right" you get all upset Steve. We know that you slant left, but why stop debate?
> 
> If you only want 1 point of view , once again , what is the point? if everybody agrees where is the debate?
> 
> This in a nutshell shows what is wrong with America today, The left always wants to shut down debate and declare they are right no disagreements.
> ...


C'mon, we're having a discussion.  There is usually more than one side to a discussion.  But automatically blaming everything on the left or the right...Bush vs Obama is just axe grinding.

----------


## Johns

As the original poster, I couldn't agree with Steve any more.  I almost didn't post this thread because of all the "wingers" that might pile on.

The subject was about bombing people in another country, to punish them for something they may, or may not have done.  Like Steve, I find myself more in agreement with those I once opposed, because it's not a "right/left" thing...it's an American people thing.  My identity is not with the political party that I do or don't vote for, and I've never gotten the impression that it was with Steve either.

I have often thought about how cool it would be to own a forum like Optiboard.  The main reason I would never want to is because of all the crap I see Steve putting up with.  He practices restraint like I would never be able to do.  If I owned this forum, you would see the word "Banned" next to a lot more names than you see now.

----------


## Steve Machol

> C'mon, we're having a discussion.  There is usually more than one side to a discussion.  But automatically blaming everything on the left or the right...Bush vs Obama is just axe grinding.





> As the original poster, I couldn't agree with Steve any more.  I almost didn't post this thread because of all the "wingers" that might pile on.
> 
> The subject was about bombing people in another country, to punish them for something they may, or may not have done.  Like Steve, I find myself more in agreement with those I once opposed, because it's not a "right/left" thing...it's an American people thing.  My identity is not with the political party that I do or don't vote for, and I've never gotten the impression that it was with Steve either.
> 
> I have often thought about how cool it would be to own a forum like Optiboard.  The main reason I would never want to is because of all the crap I see Steve putting up with.  He practices restraint like I would never be able to do.  If I owned this forum, you would see the word "Banned" next to a lot more names than you see now.


Thanks guys. The sad thing is that I really would like to see some intelligent and thoughtful discussion of the issues. However some people simply cannot engage in such discussions without turning them into political rants and those people are the ones that ruin it for everyone else. I think this is part of the anonymity afforded by the Internet and the lack of face-to-face contact with people.

----------


## Fezz

> This board is dying and becoming very boring because of heavy handed Admins.... if leftists argue and belittle people on here it's always ok... if an argument comes from the "right" you get all upset Steve. We know that you slant left, but why stop debate?




Can you provide examples of "heavy handed admins"?

If this place is so boring, why do you continue to come here and post your political viewpoints, slants, rants, and rhetoric? There are many other sites out there devoted to such nonsense! I seriously doubt that you are going to change any minds on here. 

Steve has done a very fair job at allowing members to express their viewpoints. I would not be as generous. If you don't like it...........find another sandbox! Simple!

----------


## fjpod

I agree with Fezz (and Steve) that there is not a heavy handed censorship on this forum.  It is primarily for the edification of optical professionals, and a chance to discuss the ways of the world from time to time.  

I, particularly don't like when individuals begin to spout rhetoric, whether religious, sexist, political or whatever, and have been known to call out people for it.  Mastercrafter, I don't mean to direct this at you in particular, but if you are going to throw irons into the fire, you have to expect some pushback.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> *snipped for clarity* I think this is part of the anonymity afforded by the Internet and the lack of face-to-face contact with people.


There is a solution to that.

Require every member to use their real name and use a verification system to ensure that the people signing up are actually who they say they are. I know of a couple of forums that do this, and the amount of baloney dropped significantly when people had to use their real names on posts. This isn't a porn forum where you want to hide your identity, it is a professional forum where you should be proud of the content you post.

Those that will not use their real names can be removed from posting activities. I know some will claim that their business doesn't allow them to post on-line with their real names, but that is a baloney argument. Perhaps if your signature line gave your employers name and your position that might be true, but for discussions involving the general practice and art of optometry, it is nothing but baloney. (Oscar Meyer, if you must know.)

----------


## Wes

> So Wes does the recently released UN report sway your opinion that this attack could have been done by others than the Assad government?
> 
> Braheem- Where do you see the weapons going now? I was thinking Iran or most likely to Hezbollah in the Bakkah Valley but that may be a problem if he is overthrown and retreats to the Alawite controlled coast. So maybe, just maybe, it may be in his best interest to give them up after all. We can hope...


I haven't seen it yet.  Do you have a link to the report you're talking about?  I want to make sure we're talking apples to apples here.

----------


## Wes

> There is a solution to that.
> 
> Require every member to use their real name and use a verification system to ensure that the people signing up are actually who they say they are. I know of a couple of forums that do this, and the amount of baloney dropped significantly when people had to use their real names on posts. This isn't a porn forum where you want to hide your identity, it is a professional forum where you should be proud of the content you post.
> 
> Those that will not use their real names can be removed from posting activities. I know some will claim that their business doesn't allow them to post on-line with their real names, but that is a baloney argument. Perhaps if your signature line gave your employers name and your position that might be true, but for discussions involving the general practice and art of optometry, it is nothing but baloney. (Oscar Meyer, if you must know.)


As someone who uses their real name, and is slowly becoming a semi-public figure, I have to disagree.  It is not a baloney argument because it will stifle truthful discussion for many.  The chains troll these forums looking for any employees who may be speaking uncomfortable truths (and lies, which is the real problem)about them.  You must realize this.

----------


## Steve Machol

> I haven't seen it yet.  Do you have a link to the report you're talking about?  I want to make sure we're talking apples to apples here.


Here's a link to the PDF of the UN report: http://www.un.org/disarmament/conten...estigation.pdf




> As someone who uses their real name, and is slowly becoming a semi-public figure, I have to disagree.  It is not a baloney argument because it will stifle truthful discussion for many.  The chains troll these forums looking for any employees who may be speaking uncomfortable truths (and lies, which is the real problem)about them.  You must realize this.


I am not about to require people use their real names for exactly those reasons. I only mentioned it as one of the factors which exasperate the level of vitriol exhibited by some individuals.

----------


## Wes

Thanks Steve.  I just found this link right before you posted.  http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...=#.UjiJT9G3Mb0
So it looks like Sarin for sure, but still doesn't identify who was responsible.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> As someone who uses their real name, and is slowly becoming a semi-public figure, I have to disagree.  It is not a baloney argument because it will stifle truthful discussion for many.  The chains troll these forums looking for any employees who may be speaking uncomfortable truths (and lies, which is the real problem)about them.  You must realize this.


I'm not getting where real names would stifle "truthful" discussion. 

If you own what you write by using your real name instead of hiding behind a psuedonym, then you can be held accountable for what you put online. How does that stifle any worthwhile discussion?

As far as "chains trolling these forums", perhaps, but so what? If they are telling truths, even if uncomfortable, what's the problem? And if they are lying, then they don't belong on this forum. I just don't see the downside to this.

It's a moot point anyway, but I'm curious what you base your dissension on.

----------


## Steve Machol

Here are the results of the latest Pew Research Poll: *Public Backs Diplomatic Approach in Syria, But Distrusts Syria and Russia*

Unlike so many other issues, all sides are very skeptical of any U.S. military involvement. This is one of the few things that both the non-pundit left and right agree on.

----------


## Wes

Mike, if you can't figure it out for yourself, I won't be able to explain it to you.

----------


## Johns

I don't use my real name, but I try to post as if I did.

----------


## fjpod

> Here's a link to the PDF of the UN report: http://www.un.org/disarmament/conten...estigation.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I am not about to require people use their real names for exactly those reasons. I only mentioned it as one of the factors which exasperate the level of vitriol exhibited by some individuals.


I am also a member of another "optical" forum where it is required for participants to use their real names and offer proof of who they are.  The bickering and personal attacks there make Optiboard look like a sandbox. (no disrespect intended).  I won't even participate in that forum anymore.  Many of the hot issues are fanned by the owner/administrator of that board, for whatever his reasons are (IMHO, he does it to boost traffic on the site).  I don't think using real names will have much effect.

----------


## MakeOptics

I am not a fan of using real names and have seen the downside to it many times.  I for one am against.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> I haven't seen it yet.  Do you have a link to the report you're talking about?  I want to make sure we're talking apples to apples here.


An expert was talking this morning about how the UN team was able to collect tissue samples maintaining a chain of custody so they could not be tampered with. They also got shell fragments with some bearing numbers on them that may let them be traced. The kicker was his discussion of their ability to calculate trajectory and that to be effective they needed a highly trained gun crew with a battery of 16 or 17 shells fired in a ripple effect in 8 seconds. The trajectories had them coming from government controlled areas.

Hats off to those brave people. The time allowed, area of operation and circumstances where who would know if they came under fire which side the snipers were on made it a very dangerous mission. 

I don't know how quickly or if it will be posted but it was broadcast on WBUR 90.9 Boston about 8:45 this morning.

----------


## Steve Machol

> Mike, if you can't figure it out for yourself, I won't be able to explain it to you.


Well I fully understand Mike's point. However I have actual experience with this issue. Many companies are aggressively monitoring their employees online accounts to make sure they do not reflect badly on their company. I have had many members ask me to change their names because their employers told them to stop posting on this board. This seems to be an issue with companies that start with the letters 'E' and 'L' in particular. Several people even reported to me that they received official 'warnings' from their employers over something they posted on the board.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Mike, if you can't figure it out for yourself, I won't be able to explain it to you.


Oh, come on. Sarcasm? Really? I asked for YOUR basis for dissension, not what the issue was. It seems that every time I ask you a hard question, you deflect with sarcasm along the lines that I wouldn't understand. Passive-aggressive sarcasm isn't called for or wanted. Just a brain dump so I can try to understand where you are coming from.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> An expert was talking this morning about how the UN team was able to collect tissue samples maintaining a chain of custody so they could not be tampered with. They also got shell fragments with some bearing numbers on them that may let them be traced. The kicker was his discussion of their ability to calculate trajectory and that to be effective they needed a highly trained gun crew with a battery of 16 or 17 shells fired in a ripple effect in 8 seconds. The trajectories had them coming from government controlled areas.
> 
> Hats off to those brave people. The time allowed, area of operation and circumstances where who would know if they came under fire which side the snipers were on made it a very dangerous mission. 
> 
> I don't know how quickly or if it will be posted but it was broadcast on WBUR 90.9 Boston about 8:45 this morning.


And those are precisely the reasons that mercenaries or rebels (or whatever you want to call them) DID NOT do this.

----------


## Wes

> The chains troll these forums looking for any employees who may be speaking uncomfortable truths (and lies, which is the real problem)about them.  You must realize this.





> ...I have actual experience with this issue. Many companies are aggressively monitoring their employees online accounts to make sure they do not reflect badly on their company. I have had many members ask me to change their names because their employers told them to stop posting on this board. This seems to be an issue with companies that start with the letters 'E' and 'L' in particular. Several people even reported to me that they received official 'warnings' from their employers over something they posted on the board.


Why do you have to have it spelled out for you Mike?  Do you want me to spend all day sharing anecdotal evidence and hearsay from others?  Some have already chimed in.  I use my name, and made it clear the basis for my dissent was the effect it has on others. You're obviously playing dumb in an effort to start yet another argument.

----------


## MikeAurelius

I'm just calling you out on your behavior. Every time I ask you a question in these threads you deflect and refuse to answer.

If you don't want to answer, just say so and be done with it. There's no need for passive-aggressive answers at all. I am just interested in some of the reasons why people don't want to use their real names. You chimed in, but didn't provide anything except vague comments. So I asked again.

And, no, I'm not trying to start an argument, just wondering why you keep trolling bait at me.

----------


## Wes

> I'm just calling you out on your behavior. Every time I ask you a question in these threads you deflect and refuse to answer.
> 
> If you don't want to answer, just say so and be done with it. There's no need for passive-aggressive answers at all. I am just interested in some of the reasons why people don't want to use their real names. You chimed in, but didn't provide anything except vague comments. So I asked again.
> 
> And, no, I'm not trying to start an argument, just wondering why you keep trolling bait at me.


Every time?  Really?
Mike, you like to play the game of a million questions constantly asking, never satisfied, until the other person misspeaks or commits a typo and then you jump on it like a rabid dog.  I'm just not playing your game.
If you couldn't understand my original meaning, I couldn't help you.  If you wouldn't, I couldn't help you.  If you were lying for the sake of playing a game, I wouldn't help you.  Now go play your game with someone else.

----------


## MikeAurelius

*laughing*

I appear to be one of those few, amazing people who learn by asking questions.

Thanks for outing yourself, Wes.

----------


## braheem24

Please dont get this thread closed.

----------


## Wes

I'm just putting him on ignore.  It's not worth wasting time on him.  Funny, it took a while to figure out how to do that.  I've never ignored anyone before; not even Chip.

----------


## Steve Machol

After looking at what has happened in this thread, is it really that difficult to understand why moderating OptiBoard can be so challenging? I guarantee that no matter what I do, someone is going to get bent out of shape about it.

Thanks for making the 10th anniversary of my daughter's death so wonderful. I'm sure you are all VERY proud of yourselves.

----------


## Wes

Apologies, Steve.  Back to topic.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/18...cil-syria.html

I'm hoping the UN can sort this out.  The US should not act unilaterally, especially since the UN is not yet confident who is responsible for the attacks, only that Sarin was indeed used.  I don't trust the US media or their experts at all; I was in the Army when they helped lie us into Iraq.  

"The Syrian government has said insurgents carried out the attack, in which hundreds of civilians were killed by exposure to sarin, a chemical nerve agent. Russia has supported the Syrian government’s assertion, arguing that it is illogical that Syrian forces could have been responsible.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who called the report a chilling document that described a war crime, declined at a United Nations news conference on Tuesday to ascribe responsibility for that attack, a position he has consistently held.

But Mr. Ban expressed hope that the Russia-United States agreement reached Saturday, negotiated by Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia and Secretary of State John Kerry, had set in motion a diplomatic process that would overcome the divisions that have deadlocked the Security Council over Syria since the conflict there began 30 months ago.

“What is encouraging is that the two foreign ministers agreed on a framework agreement, how to deal with all these chemical weapons,” Mr. Ban said. “I hope that spirit of very friendly negotiations, on the basis of good rapport, will help forge a unity among the Security Council.”

He also expressed hope that any Security Council resolution on Syria “can really be an enforceable one.”

The Russia-United States agreement specifies that if Syria fails to comply with its obligations under the chemical weapons treaty, the Security Council should impose measures under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which allows for coercive steps, including the use of military force."

This absolutely needs to be decided by the UN.

----------


## Wes

Also, it is my opinion that it is the proliferation of the online community that is behind the massive American public backlash against another war.  The American media can not so easily lie us into wars anymore.  For that matter, more than half of Americans are now questioning the official 911 story.

----------


## Wes

And here is why I don't trust the media and other experts Fester:  last night on Fox, O'Reilly, after pretending not to know what Ban Ki Moon's name was (in an effort to appeal to the lowbrow crowd), he insisted that Ban claimed it had to be the Syrian government, when that's exactly what Ban and the UN didn't say.  The news doesn't have to tell us the truth, and they don't.

----------


## Wes

Oh, and Piers Morgan was claiming it was an AR-15 shotgun that was used in the Navy Yard shooting. Most other news outlets were claiming it was an AR -15, but it was a plain old shotgun (like Joe Biden said to buy!) These guys don't know anything of which they speak, but they're speaking anyway.  They aren't qualified to weigh in on the subject.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> And here is why I don't trust the media and other experts Fester:  last night on Fox, O'Reilly, after pretending not to know what Ban Ki Moon's name was (in an effort to appeal to the lowbrow crowd), he insisted that Ban claimed it had to be the Syrian government, when that's exactly what Ban and the UN didn't say.  The news doesn't have to tell us the truth, and they don't.


But Moon has to play politics with his answers to questions.

I still don't see how 16 or 17 howitzers and their support could move through government controlled areas without somebody noticing.

That said we still don't know how many fighters were killed in the attack. If you know the enemy will not attack civilian ares then it only makes sense to put your forces amongst them. And surely Assad considers anyone in a rebel held area an insurgent or sympathizer the way the US did the viet cong in Vietnam.

This whole Arab Spring is a classic case of being careful what you wish for and the unrest is at its root a battle for the future of Islam which ironically translates to peace.

----------


## MikeAurelius

Paying attention to what the Faux News "pundits" have to say is like saying the US bribed bin Laden to find 19 guys to fly airplanes into the Twin Towers and help blow them up with previously placed explosives.

Alex Jones, where are you?

----------


## CCGREEN

> Oh, and Piers Morgan was claiming it was an AR-15 shotgun that was used in the Navy Yard shooting. Most other news outlets were claiming it was an AR -15, but it was a plain old shotgun (like Joe Biden said to buy!) These guys don't know anything of which they speak, but they're speaking anyway. They aren't qualified to weigh in on the subject.


IMHO any "rifle" used in any type of assault is going to qualify as a Assault Rifel...aka AR. (use what ever number you want now) 
Of course Assault Rifle sounds better then Assault Shotgun. Use a pistol now you can call it a AP. Assault pistol. Now that sounds awful. I can hear the media now calling it a AP-9 or a AP-22 or a AP-38. How much increase in the viewer ratings do you think there will be?

Point being made here is the media is going to call it what is common and what will drive ratings regardless of what was used or what really happened.

----------


## Wes

The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that developed the design.  Language is important and the definition of things don't change because the media want them to.
Also, shotguns aren't rifles.

----------


## Wes

It's an interesting thing, the news.  They all lie, it's just a matter of what things they lie about. I try to get a dose of all the news channels to see what lies are being fed to the public on any given day.  It's important to know this, because it makes it easier to counter the lies when you know exactly where they are coming from. A more informed public is less likely to be dragged into a BS war, and less likely to give up more of their rights.  Thank you internet.

----------


## fjpod

Well here we are a few weeks later...and I think this fickle American has changed his mind a bit.  Obama is right.  Government leaders should not be using poison gas on its civilians...even if they happen to be in an area dominated by government insurgents.  World opinion should bring forces to bear to stop this and punish those that did it.

So a seemingly bumbling John Kerry makes the ridiculous suggestion that Assad turn over his gas weapons.  The Russians jump to attention and seize the opportunity to either avert an imminent American strike on one of their allies...or maybe they just want to make themselves look good...but really they look bad since they are the ones that gave Assad the means to use gas weapons in the first place.  ...let them work their magic...

So now the UN goes in, and it looks more convincing that it was in fact the Syrian government that used the gas...but it really doesn't matter.  If they manage to dismantle and destroy the weapons, everybody (almost) is happy and the regular civil war, without an American surgical strike, goes on.  If the attempt fails, now world opinion will be more against the Assad regime, and a military strike would more likely be supported by the international community, because after all, Obama showed restraint and tried to get a diplomatic solution.

Brilliant...at least from the perspective of not risking American soldiers, and potentially our civilians, from future terrorist attacks for attacking yet another Muslim country.  

Let's hope it works out.  We should all be pulling for our President, even if at times it seems like he is weak or he doesn't know what he is doing.  It ain't over til it's over.

----------


## fjpod

> It's an interesting thing, the news.  They all lie, it's just a matter of what things they lie about. I try to get a dose of all the news channels to see what lies are being fed to the public on any given day.  It's important to know this, because it makes it easier to counter the lies when you know exactly where they are coming from. A more informed public is less likely to be dragged into a BS war, and less likely to give up more of their rights.  Thank you internet.


Hmmm...everything in the papers or on television is all lies???...but the internet is all truth???  Hmmm...I'm going to have to think about that one.

A bit of humor here if there can be...I read this in the news, so we can't be sure it is true...but Assad is an ophthalmologist, so the other two Os should watch who they align themselves with.

----------


## Wes

...  forget all that.  I'm done posting here.

----------


## Uncle Fester

A bit of recent history on the use of chemical weapons that much of the Middle East knows about but is much less known by Americans-

When Iraqi was fighting a proxy border war* against Iran for America in the 80's (remember the picture of Saddam shaking hands with a smiling Rumsfeld and Cheney?) they used devastating rocket and artillery barrages to stop the attacking Iranian troops. To counter, the Iranians forced young boys to lead the attack which turned them into cannon fodder but the better trained troops that followed were able to advance on the Iraqi positions forcing them to retreat and lose ground.

To counter we reportedly supplied the Iraqis with sarin to stop the initial wave of kids allowing the artillery to concentrate on the better equipped and trained troops.

Of course we had fresh memories of the embassy takeover and the ensuing hostage crisis so the drive by media let it slide. (There was no Fox news then.) And much of the country really didn't care if Sunni slaughtered Shiite and vice-versa. Hmm maybe we still don't.

*I believe it was about a million Iraqis that died and this was why Saddam felt double crossed when he went to claim is war prize- Kuwait when the war ended in a stalemate. Enter Operation Desert Storm and a chance to get oil from Kuwait to Turkey and Europe by a pipeline...

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> A bit of recent history on the use of chemical weapons that much of the Middle East knows about but is much less known by Americans-
> 
> When Iraqi was fighting a proxy border war* against Iran for America in the 80's (remember the picture of Saddam shaking hands with a smiling Rumsfeld and Cheney?) they used devastating rocket and artillery barrages to stop the attacking Iranian troops. To counter, the Iranians forced young boys to lead the attack which turned them into cannon fodder but the better trained troops that followed were able to advance on the Iraqi positions forcing them to retreat and lose ground.
> 
> To counter we reportedly supplied the Iraqis with sarin to stop the initial wave of kids allowing the artillery to concentrate on the better equipped and trained troops.


Yeah, Saddam was our guy. But I don't believe we provided him with anything more than tactical intelligence, knowing that chemical weapons (produced by the Iraqis) were being used, and that that intelligence may have been used to coordinate chemical weapon attacks. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_c...eapons_program




> Of course we had fresh memories of the embassy takeover and the ensuing hostage crisis so the drive by media let it slide. (There was no Fox news then.) And much of the country really didn't care if Sunni slaughtered Shiite and vice-versa. Hmm maybe we still don't.


We don't, as long as there is enough stability to keep oil and gas flowing to prevent a world depression, and/or the existence of friendly nations are not at risk.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> A bit of recent history on the use of chemical weapons that much of the Middle East knows about but is much less known by Americans-


Yea , like the time Saddam gassed and killed thousands of Kurds....the same gas that was moved into Syria after the UN said he had them.  In 2006, former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who served under Saddam  wrote a comprehensive book detailing how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria, before the US-led action to eliminate Saddam Husseins WMD threat, by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed



> When Iraqi was fighting a proxy border war* against Iran for America in the 80's (remember the picture of Saddam shaking hands with a smiling Rumsfeld and Cheney?) they used devastating rocket and artillery barrages to stop the attacking Iranian troops. To counter, the Iranians forced young boys to lead the attack which turned them into cannon fodder but the better trained troops that followed were able to advance on the Iraqi positions forcing them to retreat and lose ground.


Remember all those pictures of Obama bowing down to the Saudi Prince and the Chinese Premier?



> To counter we reportedly supplied the Iraqis with sarin to stop the initial wave of kids allowing the artillery to  concentrate on the better equipped and trained troops.


Really Fester, the US supplied Iraq with Sarin gas? Prove it



> Of course we had fresh memories of the embassy takeover and the ensuing hostage crisis so the drive by media let it  slide. (There was no Fox news then.) And much of the country really didn't care if Sunni slaughtered Shiite and vice-versa. Hmm maybe we still don't.


You have Fox News derrangment syndrome?  lol



> *I believe it was about a million Iraqis that died and this was why Saddam felt double crossed when he went to claim  is war prize- Kuwait when the war ended in a stalemate. Enter Operation Desert Storm and a chance to get oil from Kuwait to Turkey and Europe by a pipeline...


 You guys crack me up...in the first Gulf war Bush #1 had the UN on his side giving resolutions and a 34Country coalition. The second gulf war Bush #2 had the UN on his side and a 36 country coalition....What kind of Coalition has Obama got? I thought he was gonna be the great foreign policy President?

----------


## braheem24

> What kind of Coalition has Obama got? I thought he was gonna be the great foreign policy President?


He has Iran and Russia doing what GW would be doing with American money and blood.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> He has Iran and Russia doing what GW would be doing with American money and blood.


He was embarrassed by Putin. It was amateur hour on full display. He should have never drawn a red line to begin with. This is a man who will want to talk to terrorist state leaders but refuses to talk to the GOP.

----------


## braheem24

I would be embarrassed to quote Donald trump's "Embarrassed by Putin"

I'm still hoping you'll enlighten us with a thought instead of a quote.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> I would be embarrassed to quote Donald trump's "Embarrassed by Putin"
> 
> I'm still hoping you'll enlighten us with a thought instead of a quote.


WoW

Im glad your keeping track of Donald Trump quotes because Im not!!

Braheem, do you have a book of quotes you write down or do you remember all those Trump quotes?

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> He was embarrassed by Putin. It was amateur hour on full display. He should have never drawn a red line to begin with. This is a man who will want to talk to terrorist state leaders but refuses to talk to the GOP.


Diplomacy looks confusing and hard to read in a 24 hour news cycle; there's so much we don't know that's going on behind-the-scenes. IMO Putin has the most to lose here, and whether that was smart maneuvering by advice from the President's advisors or dumb luck will be clearer in the weeks, months, and years to come.

----------


## braheem24

> WoW
> 
> Im glad your keeping track of Donald Trump quotes because Im not!!
> 
> Braheem, do you have a book of quotes you write down or do you remember all those Trump quotes?


I honestly had no idea what you meant by "embarrassed by Putin" so I googled it and got nothing but pages of Trump talking about himself and fox-news repeating it like a parrot, the rest of the world didn't notice or care.

If you know me, you would know I enjoy learning; I especially believe meaningful debating is a fast track process of learning an issue.

If you know me, you would know that when someone stumps me on an issue you'll see a huge smile on my face because I enjoy learning something new even if I was wrong.

I enjoy talking more with people who disagree with me  then people who agree, Recycled rhetoric is not a conversation.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> I honestly had no idea what you meant by "embarrassed by Putin" so I googled it and got nothing but pages of Trump talking about himself and fox-news repeating it like a parrot, the rest of the world didn't notice or care.


If you think the rest of the world "didnt notice or care" you are either being dishonest or are naive




> If you know me, you would know I enjoy learning; I especially believe meaningful debating is a fast track process of learning an issue.
> 
> If you know me, you would know that when someone stumps me on an issue you'll see a huge smile on my face because I enjoy learning something new even if I was wrong.


The thing is I do not know you. But it seems you want the other person your debating to say what YOU want




> I enjoy talking more with people who disagree with me  then people who agree, Recycled rhetoric is not a conversation.


Everytime you post about political issues it's the same talking points the left uses. It's this same constant drone you hear on CNN,MSNBC,ABC,CBS, NY Times, Just like every other lefty on here you bring up Fox News. What is it with Fox News that gets you guys all hot and bothered? The "right " cant have one so called outlet? Name one other news agency that is fair to the Right. Thats where the "Fair and Balanced" in Fox News slogan comes from..... Fair to the right!! Since every other news agency are obviously to the left.

----------


## braheem24

> If you think the rest of the world "didn't notice or care" you are either being dishonest or are naive


I based my interpretation on 2 pages Google results, no one cares!






> Everytime you post about political issues it's the same talking points the left uses. It's this same constant drone you hear on CNN,MSNBC,ABC,CBS, NY Times, Just like every other lefty on here you bring up Fox News. What is it with Fox News that gets you guys all hot and bothered? The "right " cant have one so called outlet? Name one other news agency that is fair to the Right. Thats where the "Fair and Balanced" in Fox News slogan comes from..... Fair to the right!! Since every other news agency are obviously to the left.


Please convince me to agree with facts not fear or accusations.

I killed the Fox's corn fairy-tale and you accused me of quoting a lefty blog instead of appreciating my original idea.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> I enjoy talking more with people who disagree with me then people who agree, Recycled rhetoric is not a conversation.


Precisely.

+1

----------


## MasterCrafter

> I based my interpretation on 2 pages Google results, no one cares!


You must not understand foriegn policy... Other nations see Obama's weakness...do you really think Iran fears Obama or the UN? I bet they dont, they will keep building thier nukes because they know how to play him. The carrot and stick method Obama always talks about does not work.





> I killed the Fox's corn fairy-tale and you accused me of quoting a lefty blog instead of appreciating my original idea.


All news outlets have corny fairy tale storys. But I guess there is nothing to see with the Benghazi story, IRS scandal, fast and furious, those are all Fox News / vast right wing conspiracy fairy tales. But ask Brian Terry's family and the over 300 Mexican people who were slaughtered by those guns he gave to the drug cartels...and the 4 Americans killed in Benghazi and thier familys...i bet they have a different feeling... Just like the Democrats walking out on the familys of the Benghazi victims right before thier testimonys. Its like spitting on the victims graves...how insulting





> I enjoy talking more with people who disagree with me then people who agree,


I will finally agree with you on a partial sentence you had , i made a slight correction to reflect that part... I to feel a good debate needs opposite points of view. But it's hard to debate somebody who always throws out the "recycled rhetoric" argument... in a way everything we all say has at one time been said before.

----------


## braheem24

> You must not understand foriegn policy... Other nations see Obama's weakness...do you really think Iran fears Obama or the UN? I bet they dont, they will keep building thier nukes because they know how to play him. The carrot and stick method Obama always talks about does not work.


Iran is not scared because they're too big to bomb and too smart to push around.

Iran's weakness is a glamorous outside world craved for by their younger and more liberal population. (PS, liberal is not a bad word in this context you may like them folks)  

The only way to facilitate change in Iran is for us not to be the common enemy that bonds them together, as shown by their recent elections.

Keep in mind, Iran elects crazies because in 1953 their democratically elected president was overthrown by the west to install a puppet organized through the U.S. embassy in Tehran. (Ever wonder why they took U.S. hostages in 1980 when they overthrew the puppet again?)

Lifting of some sanctions to allow the innocent people to prosper which will in turn bring more level headed people into office.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> Iran is not scared because they're too big to bomb and too smart to push around.
> 
> Iran's weakness is a glamorous outside world craved for by their younger and more liberal population. (PS, liberal is not a bad word in this context you may like them folks)


Yea, but the radicals there will never be overthrown. They will never let that happen again




> The only way to facilitate change in Iran is for us not to be the common enemy that bonds them together, as shown by their recent elections.


Hassad Rouhni is no moderate. He is just a puppet for Khamenei, once again the Ayatollah has gained himself more time to develop nukes playing the world leaders like a fiddle. Are you one of those people that actually believe that anyone but the Ayatollah is calling the shots?




> Keep in mind, Iran elects crazies because in 1953 their democratically elected president was overthrown by the west to install a puppet organized through the U.S. embassy in Tehran. (Ever wonder why they took U.S. hostages in 1980 when they overthrew the puppet again?)


Once again you blame the US. There is alot more to it then blaming the US.. World War 2, the Nazi's attacking Russia, alot more to it. Thats always the easy out, blaming the US for all the worlds ills....I do not agree with alot of what FDR did, I believe if it weren't for the US, this world would be speakin German right now. Sprechen sie Deustch?




> Lifting of some sanctions to allow the innocent people to prosper which will in turn bring more level headed people into office.


Carrot and stick method huh?  The only thing that part of the world understands loud and clear is brute force............

Oh and using the Carrot and stick term I admit to recycling that from Obama

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Once again you blame the US. There is alot more to it then blaming the US.. World War 2, the Nazi's attacking Russia, alot more to it.


Oh Baloney.

Please provide sources for your claims that it was World War II and the Nazi's attacking Russia that lead to the overthrow. What history books do you read? The fake history books used to teach children in Texas?

Fact: The US was a major player in the overthow of the democratically elected president in Iran to be replaced with a despotic, corrupt, and tyrannical monarch. Who, in many ways, was worse for the people of Iran than the current mob that is running things there now.

But, if history is your thing, lets go back even further and blame the Brits for the overthow of the Ottoman Empire.

Or the various Popes for the Crusades.

Or, heck, the Jews who killed Jesus.

----------


## braheem24

> The only thing that part of the world understands loud and clear is brute force............


You base that on the history or blind faith?

----------


## optical24/7

> The fake history books used to teach children in Texas?


 Mike, being from Texas I resent that comment. I'll have you know those were_ real_ books!

Now, back to partisan bickering on how bad Obama is....

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Mike, being from Texas I resent that comment. I'll have you know those were_ real_ books!


*snort*

----------


## MasterCrafter

> You base that on the history or blind faith?


I base that on history and personal experience. 

If you show them kindness they take that as a weakness. 

In a new poll those countrys hate us more now than under W.
http://news.yahoo.com/muslim-world-h...070000727.html

How did Saddam basicly keep terrorism out of his country? Brute force!!

----------


## braheem24

Do you take into account the author's bias?

You ever lived in "those countrys"

You realize how the question is asked changes the reply, Does she speak the language?

What makes you believe "they" resort to terrorism by default?

So you believe Saddam was good for us?  You ready for the U.S. govt to do his job now that he's gone?

----------


## CCGREEN

A bit of humor here if there can be...I read this in the news, so we can't be sure it is true...but Assad is an ophthalmologist, so the other two Os should watch who they align themselves with.[/QUOTE]

LOL fjpod. I like that one.  :Frown: 

But seriously here. This thread has gone on and on. I have to wonder who is retired and is just sitting in here debating politics because they can only cut the grass only so many times in a week. And who is at the office trying to make a buck. If you are at the office it must be a slow day for the most of you.

----------


## fjpod

I don't care what Bush or Eisenhower did while they were president.  Whatever wrongs or rights we may have perpetrated on the middleeast in the past, we have to do what is right today.  Gamesmanship (which is what all good politicians engage in) is part of the job when you are president.  Sometimes it pays to seem indecisive.  You can get away with that when you have the power to wipe a country like Syria off the map in a few hours...err...which is what Assad was trying to do with his enemies.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> I don't care what Bush or Eisenhower did while they were president. Whatever wrongs or rights we may have perpetrated on the middleeast in the past, we have to do what is right today. Gamesmanship (which is what all good politicians engage in) is part of the job when you are president. Sometimes it pays to seem indecisive. You can get away with that when you have the power to wipe a country like Syria off the map in a few hours...err...which is what Assad was trying to do with his enemies.



Clever Fjpod, I noticed you left FDR off that and replaced it with Eisenhower. Im thinking FDR had alot more to do with why people hate us today than any other President. 

Mike, those history books you talk about being wrong... you ever notice how wrong they are about FDR?

----------


## fjpod

> Clever Fjpod, I noticed you left FDR off that and replaced it with Eisenhower. Im thinking FDR had alot more to do with why people hate us today than any other President. 
> 
> Mike, those history books you talk about being wrong... you ever notice how wrong they are about FDR?


There you go again...criticizing me for not looking at history the same way you do.  I could care less what political party a past president had.  The key word here is PAST.  I'm really not trying to be clever.  I am trying to keep my country out of war TODAY and TOMORROW.  Certainly a review of the past is important, but I don't look at everything as right and left the way you do.

But as long as you want to make everything partisan...how come the right is so hawkish and quick to go to war except when Barack Obama wants to do it?

----------


## fjpod

So, Winston Churchill, apparently your idol, was also reported to have said the following when he was asked by a friend what to do about the fact that he was afraid his wife was trying to poison him.  Churchill said something like, "Sir, I know your wife.  Take the poison." 

Sure, I'd follow that guy into battle.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> There you go again...criticizing me for not looking at history the same way you do. I could care less what political party a past president had. The key word here is PAST. I'm really not trying to be clever. I am trying to keep my country out of war TODAY and TOMORROW. Certainly a review of the past is important, but I don't look at everything as right and left the way you do.
> 
> But as long as you want to make everything partisan...how come the right is so hawkish and quick to go to war except when Barack Obama wants to do it?


Not all of the right wants to go to war... If it's McCain or Graham you refer too, those two are war mongers

Even though Teddy Roosevelt was a Repub he was a Progressive....So I dont agree with alot of what Teddy did or said, but his statement "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick" type of diplomacy works for certain Nations

But when the left went in on WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, the right really didnt want too. 

When it was the the first Gulf War both sides were on board and the UN plus a 30 something coalition.

The second Gulf War the Dems voted for it _before they voted against it_... Remember? Plus the UN was onboard and W had a 36 Nation Coalition..do I believe we should have attacked iraq? Heck to the naw... Afghanistan? absolutely

This time it seems both sides are saying NO... Except for hypocrits like Nancy Peolosi... and people like McCain and Graham...those guys will vote for any war...as long as they are pulling the strings





> So, Winston Churchill, apparently your idol, was also reported to have said the following when he was asked by a friend what to do about the fact that he was afraid his wife was trying to poison him.  Churchill said something like, "Sir, I know your wife.  Take the poison." 
> 
> Sure, I'd follow that guy into battle.


I idol nobody... Admire maybe more appropriate.

Your right!! Churchill was rather a smart A** , but he also had a great sense of humor....You have to admit what you quoted him saying was brilliantly funny, and are you trying to imply that Churchill was not a Great Man and Historical figure? A man that will be studied for generations? 

We all should be grateful that men did follow Churchill into battle. Because he was the right man at the right time.

Instead of dealing with Churchill , FDR decided to be best friends with Stalin. They are the ones who carved up the World deciding on who gets what. Yea they thru Churchill a bone but FDR's decison to let Stalin in backfired big time...it's too bad he didnt live long enough to see what he created .

----------

