RE: A Dilemna For Obama

RE: A Dilemna For Obama (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 10:04:53 PM)
quote: Maybe we should look to Sarah Palin for foreign policy guidance Funny you should mention that. ABC News: Sarah Palin on U.S. Decision on Syria: 'Let Allah Sort It Out'

TheHeretic -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/15/2013 11:29:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Of course we have military members in there. And you also can provide no proof, correct? I provided the information needed to sensibly reach the conclusion, but you left that out of your snip. Since we are lacking even that much logical evidence to work with, could you offer some proof that your posts on this aren't merely a badly executed troll?

popeye1250 -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 2:26:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u True And trust me,I was holding out no hope that my post would have any impact at all,I just feel that from time to time this point must be restated . If only to shame the fools who ,for whatever reason,refuse to show the office any respect. Mike, I have respect for the "office" just not for Richard Milhaus Obama. And of course we shouldn't be getting involved in foreign countries civil wars! And if those rebels are al qeada of course the Syrians should be using poison gas or chemical warfare on them.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 5:07:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Des, the 300 number comes from news articles from April, and I was wrong, it was only 200. So no, there is proof of my mis-statement, but no proof of American Soldiers within the borders of Syria. Unfortunately, with this pc cut and paste is not co-operating. but it was widely reported on April 18, 2013, you can take a look if you wish, but I have participated in the discussion on another board elsewhere, with that deployment being the topic. Mark, I'm not questioning your reported number. And, yes, that really is all we have to go on, until that time when "leaked" intel comes out. My point, however, is that you are completely dismissing the "unreported" troops. Obviously, we have no proof that they are there, and Michael may not have any "proof" he's allowed to give, either. Des, that is IF there is intel leaked and IF it's true, so therefore a declarative statement is still incorrect, and reeks of nothing more than baseless conspiracy rhetoric. Unreported troops would mean that somehow Congress is aware of those troops and not a single member leaked the information. We as a country don't normally deploy combat troops without Congressional input, we learned that lesson a long time ago, hence the war powers act. Now, perhaps there are operatives within Syria, but we do not have a good track record of infiltration within the rather closed Arab countries. Not to mention we would be able to see John McCain's hard on from throughout the United States! No one wants to go there any more than the old Maverick himself! So, you agree that there may be unreported troops in Syria. Thanks for that. I harbor no ill will towards McCain, nor do I hold any belief that there is enough Viagra in the world for him... No, but we could possibly agree to the definition of IF, after that we agree on nothing on this subject. I bet Ol' John has enough Viagra, for a short old guy, he has a great looking wife! Are you saying there is absolutely no way we have unreported troops in Syria? No possible way at all? Was it widely reported that Seal Team 6 was in Pakistan, prior to their getting bin Laden? I find that to be an incredibly, almost aggressively, naive point of view, Mark.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 5:17:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are you saying there is absolutely no way we have unreported troops in Syria? No possible way at all? Was it widely reported that Seal Team 6 was in Pakistan, prior to their getting bin Laden? I find that to be an incredibly, almost aggressively, naive point of view, Mark. The US Military is reknown for posting ALL of their battle plans, troop movements, deployments, and covert ops on a weekly basis to their website and CNN and Facebook #Army, #Navy, #Marines, etc. Also, the US has *never* had troops anywhere that weren't reported well in advance. Many of the "advisors" that Kennedy sent to Vietnam were Green Berets (President Kennedy had an affinity for the Berets and the fact that, at the time, they were worn in defiance of Army regs). Now, they were certainly trained in construction, and other skills (Green Berets were required to speak one language other than English, back then), some medical training, etc. But first and foremost, they were soldiers whose job it was to wage war. Also, by sending "advisors" to work with the indigenous population, you're already fighting *part* of a war (the winning of hearts and minds). Again, this was not really supposed to be a negative thread but, we're faced with another situation that presents an opportunity for us to make a choice that could affect our country for the next ten years. Peace and comfort, Michael

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 5:58:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I provided the information needed to sensibly reach the conclusion, but you left that out of your snip. Since we are lacking even that much logical evidence to work with, could you offer some proof that your posts on this aren't merely a badly executed troll? And again... as for now, nobody has provided proof that there are US troops in Syria. This is the baseline. And I mention it ONLY because some people where write as a fact, remarking that they "know it for a fact", that there are. And even insult people who could think otherwise. If they would simply say "I suppose that... " then I would not answer at all. Everybody is free to make its suppositions based on whatever they want. And they may be reasonable, and right... or not. This can be discussed. But when people say that it is a fact, that there is no doubt, that only an ignorant would think otherwise... then I ask if they have some proof. If you consider this trolling, then hide me. If you do not and continue trolling me then I will hide you. So I hope the explanation was enough. Best regards.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 6:35:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I provided the information needed to sensibly reach the conclusion, but you left that out of your snip. Since we are lacking even that much logical evidence to work with, could you offer some proof that your posts on this aren't merely a badly executed troll? And again... as for now, nobody has provided proof that there are US troops in Syria. This is the baseline. And I mention it ONLY because some people where write as a fact, remarking that they "know it for a fact", that there are. And even insult people who could think otherwise. If they would simply say "I suppose that... " then I would not answer at all. Everybody is free to make its suppositions based on whatever they want. And they may be reasonable, and right... or not. This can be discussed. But when people say that it is a fact, that there is no doubt, that only an ignorant would think otherwise... then I ask if they have some proof. If you consider this trolling, then hide me. If you do not and continue trolling me then I will hide you. So I hope the explanation was enough. Best regards. Is it possible that releasing details of how one knows would expose a soldier to having done something he/she wasn't supposed to do? Let's say we have a SEAL team involved in a covert op in Outer Slobovia who is in regular contact with his/her family. If that SEAL were to have purposely or inadvertently let on to where the team was in action, isn't it possible that releasing how that family member knows there are troops in Outer Slobovia would be a compromise that shouldn't be taken?

SilverMark -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 6:41:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Des, the 300 number comes from news articles from April, and I was wrong, it was only 200. So no, there is proof of my mis-statement, but no proof of American Soldiers within the borders of Syria. Unfortunately, with this pc cut and paste is not co-operating. but it was widely reported on April 18, 2013, you can take a look if you wish, but I have participated in the discussion on another board elsewhere, with that deployment being the topic. Mark, I'm not questioning your reported number. And, yes, that really is all we have to go on, until that time when "leaked" intel comes out. My point, however, is that you are completely dismissing the "unreported" troops. Obviously, we have no proof that they are there, and Michael may not have any "proof" he's allowed to give, either. Des, that is IF there is intel leaked and IF it's true, so therefore a declarative statement is still incorrect, and reeks of nothing more than baseless conspiracy rhetoric. Unreported troops would mean that somehow Congress is aware of those troops and not a single member leaked the information. We as a country don't normally deploy combat troops without Congressional input, we learned that lesson a long time ago, hence the war powers act. Now, perhaps there are operatives within Syria, but we do not have a good track record of infiltration within the rather closed Arab countries. Not to mention we would be able to see John McCain's hard on from throughout the United States! No one wants to go there any more than the old Maverick himself! So, you agree that there may be unreported troops in Syria. Thanks for that. I harbor no ill will towards McCain, nor do I hold any belief that there is enough Viagra in the world for him... No, but we could possibly agree to the definition of IF, after that we agree on nothing on this subject. I bet Ol' John has enough Viagra, for a short old guy, he has a great looking wife! Are you saying there is absolutely no way we have unreported troops in Syria? No possible way at all? Was it widely reported that Seal Team 6 was in Pakistan, prior to their getting bin Laden? I find that to be an incredibly, almost aggressively, naive point of view, Mark. I don't often use the term "never: but in this case, I do not believe that there are troops in Syria. There are far too many outside factors and Assad is tightly tied to those like Russia, that would make "troops" a no go at this time. If there are operatives as in the CIA, they aren't members of the armed services. Just because we could, doesn't mean we should, have or are directing troops within their borders.

SilverMark -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 6:42:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Maybe we should look to Sarah Palin for foreign policy guidance Funny you should mention that. ABC News: Sarah Palin on U.S. Decision on Syria: 'Let Allah Sort It Out' We only use Palin's foreign relations expertise on things she knows about, like finding Russia from Alaska[:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 6:58:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark I don't often use the term "never: but in this case, I do not believe that there are troops in Syria. There are far too many outside factors and Assad is tightly tied to those like Russia, that would make "troops" a no go at this time. If there are operatives as in the CIA, they aren't members of the armed services. Just because we could, doesn't mean we should, have or are directing troops within their borders. So, we agree that there are no reports of troops within Syria. I do take your "I do not believe" statement to mean that you don't think there are troops there, but it's possible there are. I am not saying we do or don't have troops there. I simply have no fucking clue. I will say that I'm more likely to believe we have covert ops there than to believe we don't. I wholeheartedly agree with you that just because we can do something with our military, doesn't mean we should be doing something there.

cloudboy -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 2:01:24 PM)
The commentators in the SUNDAY NYT came out against Obama's decision to arm the rebels. I have never traveled to the Middle East or studied the region or its languages. One NYT writer likened our involvement there to IRAQ, another suggested that Obama was caving into criticism from Bill Clinton, and no one was particularly supportive of the rebels or their ability to provide better governance than Assad. Taking sides also pits us against Russia and IRAN -- geopolitically.

cloudboy -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 2:03:58 PM)
Palin signed back up with Fox News. It's kind of like Steven Colbert signing up with CNN, only Palin doesn't know she's a bafoon.

MrRodgers -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 2:21:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic We should stay the hell out of it. All we can accomplish is to create even greater chaos and misery in place that already has too much. President Obama has already shown the incomptence of his judgement in balancing our safety against our ideals with the NSA revelations, in Syria I expect equal or greater incompetence in balancing our ideals against our safety. Of course, he was also the one claiming in his inaugural that such a choice was false anyway, so it shows just how woefully ignorant he was about this stuff from the start. Yea, just think, if this keeps up, he might even allow the pentagon to be attacked. He might outright lie about the chemical weapons or better yet...nukes in Syria. Oh, I am sorry, that's been done already.

MrRodgers -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 2:27:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark I don't often use the term "never: but in this case, I do not believe that there are troops in Syria. There are far too many outside factors and Assad is tightly tied to those like Russia, that would make "troops" a no go at this time. If there are operatives as in the CIA, they aren't members of the armed services. Just because we could, doesn't mean we should, have or are directing troops within their borders. So, we agree that there are no reports of troops within Syria. I do take your "I do not believe" statement to mean that you don't think there are troops there, but it's possible there are. I am not saying we do or don't have troops there. I simply have no fucking clue. I will say that I'm more likely to believe we have covert ops there than to believe we don't. I wholeheartedly agree with you that just because we can do something with our military, doesn't mean we should be doing something there. I believe we have covert ops anywhere where the CIA feels a need to keep eyes and ears on the ground and close to keep tabs on current events, political first...military second. I do believe that everyone of our foreign military bases (maybe domestic too) are all listening posts and are intercept everything they can get as we type.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 3:00:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark I don't often use the term "never: but in this case, I do not believe that there are troops in Syria. There are far too many outside factors and Assad is tightly tied to those like Russia, that would make "troops" a no go at this time. If there are operatives as in the CIA, they aren't members of the armed services. Just because we could, doesn't mean we should, have or are directing troops within their borders. So, we agree that there are no reports of troops within Syria. I do take your "I do not believe" statement to mean that you don't think there are troops there, but it's possible there are. I am not saying we do or don't have troops there. I simply have no fucking clue. I will say that I'm more likely to believe we have covert ops there than to believe we don't. I wholeheartedly agree with you that just because we can do something with our military, doesn't mean we should be doing something there. I believe we have covert ops anywhere where the CIA feels a need to keep eyes and ears on the ground and close to keep tabs on current events, political first...military second. I do believe that everyone of our foreign military bases (maybe domestic too) are all listening posts and are intercept everything they can get as we type. Understand that, just as SilverMark noted, we are talking about military personnel; troops.

SilverMark -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 7:22:33 PM)
Des, I guess a better question would be, why if we have a surrogate would we risk troops, especially when the President has hesitated to commit to even arming rebels until now? I think he is hoping for a Libya type answer, provide support not committing troops, knowing the American public is tired of troops being deployed. As a country, I don't believe we have the stomach for the risk involved in such actions,and the only ones I know that are harping on the issue are McCain, and his daughter, Lindsey Graham.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 7:51:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Des, I guess a better question would be, why if we have a surrogate would we risk troops, especially when the President has hesitated to commit to even arming rebels until now? I think he is hoping for a Libya type answer, provide support not committing troops, knowing the American public is tired of troops being deployed. As a country, I don't believe we have the stomach for the risk involved in such actions,and the only ones I know that are harping on the issue are McCain, and his daughter, Lindsey Graham. I fear the case is being made that we have to risk getting involved. There are enough blind followers of anything government to build support for any action government decides to take. And, that's a blanket statement, not just for this situation.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 10:06:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Is it possible that releasing details of how one knows would expose a soldier to having done something he/she wasn't supposed to do? Of course. It is also possible that Luxembourg has a top spy in the US Government and I am not giving proof because that would blow him up. But it does not change the point a tiny little bit, isn't it? "Nobody has provided proof that there are US troops in Syria." remains true. BTW if I really, really had proof of that and could not reveal it because I would put the troops in danger, I would absolutely NOT insist in public forums that there are. I wound instead not enter in such subjects at all in my private life, and let the people around me guess what they want. What did you tell me once...? Ah, yes, "STFU". Best regards.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/16/2013 10:09:57 PM)
(double)

DesideriScuri -> RE: A Dilemna For Obama (6/17/2013 2:28:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Is it possible that releasing details of how one knows would expose a soldier to having done something he/she wasn't supposed to do? Of course. It is also possible that Luxembourg has a top spy in the US Government and I am not giving proof because that would blow him up. But it does not change the point a tiny little bit, isn't it? "Nobody has provided proof that there are US troops in Syria." remains true. BTW if I really, really had proof of that and could not reveal it because I would put the troops in danger, I would absolutely NOT insist in public forums that there are. I wound instead not enter in such subjects at all in my private life, and let the people around me guess what they want. What did you tell me once...? Ah, yes, "STFU". Best regards. Boy, that sure did add... um... nothing to the thread. Thanks for that. Are you trying to gain a one-way ticket to Iggy Island? The odds of Luxembourg having a top spy in the US government is exponentially lower than our having troops in Syria. So, go ahead and make your claim. I think you will find that most people here won't give a fuck. But, thank you for acknowledging that it is possible that we could have unreported troops in Syria. Your choices remain your own, in regards to what you would or would not post. Accept that not everyone is going to make those same decisions (much like each person within the lifestyle isn't necessarily going to have the same kinks, or is going to express the same kinks exactly the same way as the next person).

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875