quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

He wasn't defending racism. Do you honestly think no one can read that quote and see you are full of shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

From the "truth is often stranger than fiction" files:

Reporter to (White House spokesman) Earnest: Does (Obama bombing ISIS) Mean ISIS Is No Longer Considered A "JV" Team?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/08/reporter_to_earnest_does_this_mean_isis_is_no_longer_considered_a_jv_team.html

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/acosta-to-wh-does-obama-still-think-isil-is-a-jv-team/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Odd that Barack is bombing them since its just "some terrorist prick mouthing off on web cam"

Oh look - Britain might join Barack in bombing Iraq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Odd that Barack is bombing them since its just "some terrorist prick mouthing off on web cam"

Oh look - Britain might join Barack in bombing Iraq

quote:

In Britain, following an emergency Cobra meeting, Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, announced plans for a UK air drop of provisions for those displaced by the violence, and an £8 million emergency aid package. He said Britain would assist America with surveillance.

-- and --

A source said: “We are concerned we could be about to witness genocide. In that kind of scenario, we are not ruling things out.”
The Prime Minister, who has come under pressure from senior MPs to announce military action, has not yet spoken to Mr Obama about the developing crisis.

quote:

Britain considers air strikes to avert genocide in Iraq


UK could join America in launching military strikes against Islamist extremists in Iraq should the situation descend into genocide

Britain could join America in launching military strikes against Islamist extremists in Iraq should the situation descend into genocide, government sources said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

"could . . . should the situation descend into genocide."

You're not good with qualifiers. Hurts your comprehension.

quote:

Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq

WASHINGTON — In sending warplanes back into the skies over Iraq, President Obama on Thursday night found himself exactly where he did not want to be. Hoping to end the war in Iraq, Mr. Obama became the fourth president in a row to order military action in that graveyard of American ambition.

The mandate he gave to the armed forces was more limited than that of his predecessors, focused mainly on dropping food and water. But he also authorized targeted airstrikes “if necessary” against Islamic radicals advancing on the Kurdish capital of Erbil and others threatening to wipe out thousands of non-Muslims stranded on a remote mountaintop.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/a-return-to-action.html?_r=0

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

Obama Weighs Airstrikes or Aid to Help Trapped Iraqis

WASHINGTON — President Obama is considering airstrikes or airdrops of food and medicine to address a humanitarian crisis among as many as 40,000 members of religious minorities in Iraq, who have been dying of heat and thirst on a mountaintop where they took shelter after death threats from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, administration officials said on Thursday...

Or he may go golfing

Whatever he does it will be better than you or any other nutsacker can do.

In fact, had Obama not drawn a red line in Syria and then failed to enforce it, he would have far more cred than he has today (still very little IMO, but far more than the laughingstock he is). In this case, doing absolutely nothing (not drawing a red line in the first place, which any of us "nutsackers" could have done) would have been a far superior strategy to what Obama actually did. There are other cases, too, most of them involving his trope "there will be consequences" and then ... well ... showing that the consequences apparently involve his golfing. All such utterances have a negative expected value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

Obama Weighs Airstrikes or Aid to Help Trapped Iraqis

WASHINGTON — President Obama is considering airstrikes or airdrops of food and medicine to address a humanitarian crisis among as many as 40,000 members of religious minorities in Iraq, who have been dying of heat and thirst on a mountaintop where they took shelter after death threats from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, administration officials said on Thursday...

Or he may go golfing

Whatever he does it will be better than you or any other nutsacker can do.

In fact, had Obama not drawn a red line in Syria and then failed to enforce it, he would have far more cred than he has today (still very little IMO, but far more than the laughingstock he is). In this case, doing absolutely nothing (not drawing a red line in the first place, which any of us "nutsackers" could have done) would have been a far superior strategy to what Obama actually did. There are other cases, too, most of them involving his trope "there will be consequences" and then ... well ... showing that the consequences apparently involve his golfing. All such utterances have a negative expected value.

The bipartisan US policy in the region was in tatters and ruins long before the infamous red line in the sands of Syria. I have been posting this claim here for a few years now. If you really insist on putting a date on it,(not a productive line to adopt IMHO) the day Obama caved in to the Zionist lobby is one candidate. Or his shameful abject speech to the UN is another. The date of the second invasion of Iraq is another, tho' that precedes Obama's office.

Lets face it, if the US is unwilling to use all the powers of persuasion it has at its disposal to get its "closest ally" in the region to stop committing war crimes and expanding the colonies/settlements, who in the region is going to pay much attention? The region's leaders will continue to line up with their hands out for US $ in 'aid' (read: bribes or arms sales) and then ignore the US's policy demands. Indeed why should they pay any attention to the US Govt when its clear that the US is not going to sanction any one who contravenes its policies.

The people of the region are all very well aware that US policy is designed in Jerusalem with Israeli interests paramount. The US's interests come a distant second. The region's population remembers incidents like the USS Liberty attack, even if the US and Isreal would prefer such incidents forgotten. Why would any national leader with a brain pay attention to people who place others interests above their own who have subcontracted policy to a bunch of foreigners?

What is needed is not finger pointing and blame shifting, what is needed is an entirely new approach towards the region, and a new policy that puts US interests above all others while recognising the legitimate interests of the vast (>95%) majority of the region's inhabitants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Just to clarify my previous posts as I don't recall you being around at the time: My posts argued that US policy in the region was the laughing stock of the region, not that a specific event would occur in Syria.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

He wasn't defending racism. Do you honestly think no one can read that quote and see you are full of shit.

Only those defending racism.

I happily note you have been unable to find any place part of the song has been posted, except on a white supremecist web site. You are a fucking hypocrite, because if the song had been about a dead gay person, you wouldnt be defending it in any way shape or form.