I gotta admit is was kinda nice to see Obama's arrogance put front and center for everyone to see....I give credit where credit is due, even to an ass like Putin.
Putin Op-Ed NYT: Putin's Plea Of Caution
- Thread starter Annie
- Start date
I gotta admit is was kinda nice to see Obama's arrogance put front and center for everyone to see....I give credit where credit is due, even to an ass like Putin.
well said.
Thing is I disagree a bit, in that "American exceptionalism"as used by Putin here is our meddling in foreign wars/affairs.
It has many meanings - most of them worthwhile -but to Putin, and the rest of the world, it DOES mean interference/meddling/ warring.
a more nuanced look:
http://www.aei.org/module/1/american-exceptionalism
Thank you, I was mostly thinking, tongue in check, on the Nobel Peace prize, most think it is a distinction with very little meaning since Obama's nomination has apparently made a mockery of it in their opinions.
I do not trust Putin, but I guess I am thankful that this has played out, that for now, the US will not be dropping bombs.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
:0) You must be joking.
Any idea who the top arms dealer is throughout the world EVERY YEAR .. BY FAR?
If you'd care to debate the Georgia conflict, be my guest brother .. but be warned, it won't look good for your side.
What is intellectually dishonest is your claim that I'm trying to make some kind of hero of Putin .. which by the way is a popular democratic dodge from truth .. which is not to suggest you're a democrat.
IF, as I am, as the VAST majority of the world is, you're glad that Obama is not bombing Syria into the stone age, as he did in Libya .. then why are you upset that Putin is given any credit? Without Putin, Obama most likely would be murdering innocent people right now as he has dome throughout his entire stay in the WH.
Many of you see the world through the prism of the very 'exceptionalism' that is destroying this nation.
Obama and the US taking sides in this civil war is another blunder....arming the rebels, which is the same as arming AQ, our undeniable enemy, while the world watches them
murder Christian men, women and children is totally wrong........Obama got himself in a hole and now the fool keeps digging,,,
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Whoever thought OBOMBA would make people miss George Bush and Dick Cheney?
We wouldn't be in this mess if Bush and Cheney were running things. Syria wouldn't have been emboldened because Egypt would not have been allowed to fall into chaos. OBOMBA is inept and a fool. He thinks because he "got Bin Laden" and a "Nobel Peace Prize" that he is all knowing. He is a bumbling idiot and we are all paying the price.
We wouldn't be in this mess if Bush and Cheney were running things. Syria wouldn't have been emboldened because Egypt would not have been allowed to fall into chaos. OBOMBA is inept and a fool. He thinks because he "got Bin Laden" and a "Nobel Peace Prize" that he is all knowing. He is a bumbling idiot and we are all paying the price.
Still opening your mouth to remove all doubt that you are a idiot.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I'm sorry, 'hero worship' is bullshit.
There is no worship of anything going on other than the worship of the US is not mass-murdering people again.
Many of those using the 'hero worship' meme claimed the same thing when Obama was bombing Libya back into the Stone Age, and claimed those against that horror were 'worshiping Gaddafi like a hero.'
That's bullshit.
There are no heroes in this, not Putin, not Obama, Not Assad, not Kerry. This isn't about heroes, it's about failed US foreign policy.
There is no worship of anything going on other than the worship of the US is not mass-murdering people again.
Many of those using the 'hero worship' meme claimed the same thing when Obama was bombing Libya back into the Stone Age, and claimed those against that horror were 'worshiping Gaddafi like a hero.'
That's bullshit.
There are no heroes in this, not Putin, not Obama, Not Assad, not Kerry. This isn't about heroes, it's about failed US foreign policy.
I am not defending him, I just agree with some of his statements.
Very good post bac.....
The US is selling arms from bullets to missiles to years with no clue where they eventually end up....
and this statement of yours "What is intellectually dishonest is your claim that I'm trying to make some kind of hero of Putin .. which by the way is a popular democratic dodge from truth"....is right on target....
as a matter of fact, just go back a few posts and see it in action from both Rana and Darla, they did exactly what you claim.
Putin may be the worlds biggest hypocrite and asshole in general, but in this instance, he outshines Obama.
The US is selling arms from bullets to missiles to years with no clue where they eventually end up....
and this statement of yours "What is intellectually dishonest is your claim that I'm trying to make some kind of hero of Putin .. which by the way is a popular democratic dodge from truth"....is right on target....
as a matter of fact, just go back a few posts and see it in action from both Rana and Darla, they did exactly what you claim.
Putin may be the worlds biggest hypocrite and asshole in general, but in this instance, he outshines Obama.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Looking for heroes .. WHICH SIDE IS BACKING AL QAEDA TERRORISTS?
WHICH SIDE FUCKING CREATED AL QAEDA?
WHICH SIDE FUCKING CREATED AL QAEDA?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Which post was that?
Please show us the post where Darla and I claim Putin is a hero, thanks.
Vanilla once again showing the forum what a drooling idiot he is.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
If I may .. another bit of grossly over-looked reality ..
What Will Military Intervention In Syria Cost U.S. Taxpayers?
excerpts
A limited cruise missile strike: hundreds of millions.
While Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has estimated that an operation would cost “tens of millions” of dollars, the price tag could be much higher. The action the administration is talking about taking would be a limited strike, which would likely be similar to the NATO operation in Libya in 2011, although there isn’t talk of implementing a no-fly zone as there was in Libya, which is costly. But this sort of action could still cost hundreds of millions in weapons. The first few weeks of the operation in Libya cost about $600 million, $340 million of which went to munitions. Each Tomahawk Land Attack Missile costs $1.4 million.
Meanwhile, the Navy’s USS Nimitz and other vessels were scheduled to return home from deployment, but they have now been ordered to remain within striking distance of the country at an estimated cost of $25 million per week. If the U.S. fires missiles and those ships engage in combat, it’ll cost an additional $30 million per week.
Refueling tankers would also likely be needed, which cost $9.3 million in the Libya operation for more than 800 hours of flight. There are also potential costs associated with safety and rescue teams if anything goes awry.
If it escalates to troops on the ground: billions.
Although the administration has been adamant that any action will be very limited, in July Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warned, “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.” One path could be to train the rebels, which would cost $500 million a year and “several thousand” troops, he estimated. Another, a no-fly zone, would cost $1 billion a month.
If the administration ends up deciding the end goal should be to oust Assad, the Brookings Institution has estimated that such a move could lead to an all-out invasion, costing up to $300 billion a year and requiring 200,000 to 300,000 troops. But so far no one has called for anything close to this move.
Impact on the markets: potentially higher oil prices.
The increasing likelihood of military action in Syria is roiling oil markets. But the country produces very little oil, only half a percent of world production. As Brad Plumer at Wonkblog explains, traders are nervous not because of the impact on Syria itself but what it might mean for the region. If war spreads, it could impact oil-rich neighbors such as Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, plus the Turkish city of Ceyhan which is a crucial pipeline terminal, disrupting production.
These potential reductions in supply weigh heavily on traders because there is little spare capacity. Because of all of this, the International Energy Agency estimates that recent conflicts in Syria and elsewhere have increased the price of oil by about $9 a barrel, which typically means a 22 cent increase in the price of gasoline here at home. These jitters in the oil markets may also be impacting the stock market, which have been volatile as action is awaited.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/10/2596911/military-intervention-syria-cost-taxpayers/
In the midst of a financial crisis that has this country teetering on the edge of economic disaster, it somehow seems to always come up with money for needless wars .. something democrats USED to talk about when they were pretending to be antiwar.
What Will Military Intervention In Syria Cost U.S. Taxpayers?
excerpts
A limited cruise missile strike: hundreds of millions.
While Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has estimated that an operation would cost “tens of millions” of dollars, the price tag could be much higher. The action the administration is talking about taking would be a limited strike, which would likely be similar to the NATO operation in Libya in 2011, although there isn’t talk of implementing a no-fly zone as there was in Libya, which is costly. But this sort of action could still cost hundreds of millions in weapons. The first few weeks of the operation in Libya cost about $600 million, $340 million of which went to munitions. Each Tomahawk Land Attack Missile costs $1.4 million.
Meanwhile, the Navy’s USS Nimitz and other vessels were scheduled to return home from deployment, but they have now been ordered to remain within striking distance of the country at an estimated cost of $25 million per week. If the U.S. fires missiles and those ships engage in combat, it’ll cost an additional $30 million per week.
Refueling tankers would also likely be needed, which cost $9.3 million in the Libya operation for more than 800 hours of flight. There are also potential costs associated with safety and rescue teams if anything goes awry.
If it escalates to troops on the ground: billions.
Although the administration has been adamant that any action will be very limited, in July Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warned, “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.” One path could be to train the rebels, which would cost $500 million a year and “several thousand” troops, he estimated. Another, a no-fly zone, would cost $1 billion a month.
If the administration ends up deciding the end goal should be to oust Assad, the Brookings Institution has estimated that such a move could lead to an all-out invasion, costing up to $300 billion a year and requiring 200,000 to 300,000 troops. But so far no one has called for anything close to this move.
Impact on the markets: potentially higher oil prices.
The increasing likelihood of military action in Syria is roiling oil markets. But the country produces very little oil, only half a percent of world production. As Brad Plumer at Wonkblog explains, traders are nervous not because of the impact on Syria itself but what it might mean for the region. If war spreads, it could impact oil-rich neighbors such as Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, plus the Turkish city of Ceyhan which is a crucial pipeline terminal, disrupting production.
These potential reductions in supply weigh heavily on traders because there is little spare capacity. Because of all of this, the International Energy Agency estimates that recent conflicts in Syria and elsewhere have increased the price of oil by about $9 a barrel, which typically means a 22 cent increase in the price of gasoline here at home. These jitters in the oil markets may also be impacting the stock market, which have been volatile as action is awaited.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/10/2596911/military-intervention-syria-cost-taxpayers/
In the midst of a financial crisis that has this country teetering on the edge of economic disaster, it somehow seems to always come up with money for needless wars .. something democrats USED to talk about when they were pretending to be antiwar.
The only thing missing from the 'thinkprogress' website is...."its all Bush's fault".....that can't be far behind.
Socrtease
Verified User
When the US was doing this very same thing when George W. Bush was president those of you on the right were tonguing his asshole and cleaning his fucking nutsack!
This is what bothers me most about this current "anti war" movement. All of the sudden the Right wing is the dove party? You mutherfuckers could not WAIT to go to war in Iraq in 2003. You all creamed your fucking GWB work jeans when he said "yer fer us or agin us". You cheered as we overthrew the anti-jihadist leader of Iraq. Was Saddam a son of bitch? Fuck yes, but he was a secular son of bitch. I sit and read every day how the right is lauding the comments of some other anti war spokesperson, with today's spokesman d'jour being Vladimir fucking Putin. With the exception of a few, if George W. Bush was running the show now and wanted to help the Syrian rebels those on the right would be four square against him. Those on the left would be calling for his head, and only a select few would see this intervention as being as stupid and mindless as the invasion of Iraq to get all those "mobile chemical labs".
What pisses me off the most is that in pointing the rights hypocrisy I get lumped in with the likes of Desh who supports the massacre of innocent bystanders because this time it is HER son of bitch that is in charge and not the right's. I hate this president, not the virulent right wing fox news fed hate, but the hate of someone that voted for him the first time because he said he was going to undue what Bush did and then proceeded to serve out two more Bush terms on war and foreign policy.
Those of you on the right would find something wrong with President Obama if he stopped the rape of a child. Under his watch Bin Laden was killed and the right said so what. If Bush had gotten Bin Laden you fucktards would still be talking about it. Partisan politics has ruined this country. Few on either side give two shits if something is good for the country. If the guy you hate supports it, yer agin it.
Differences in political opinions are as unavoidable as, to a certain point, they may perhaps be necessary; but it is exceedingly to be regretted that subjects cannot be discussed with temper on the one hand, or decisions submitted to without having the motives, which led to them, improperly implicated on the other; and this regret borders on chagrin when we find that men of abilities, zealous patriots, having the same general objects in view, and the same upright intentions to prosecute them, will not exercise more charity in deciding on the opinions and actions of one another.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Alexander Hamilton, Aug. 26, 1792
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
First, my position is the exact same position I had when Bush, Clinton, Carter, Bush, Reagan, or anybody else was in office.
Republicans have never been antiwar .. but democrats pretended to be. The hypocrites here are democrats.
Secondly, perhaps you're not seeing the dynamics of a Republican Party metamorphosis surrounding the explosion of antiwar libertarians who are now taking root within the party.
What's most interesting is the Putin hate being expressed over his peace initiative and that tells us only one thing. The US is angry that it could be denied it's war. Or at least that it's propagandists will have to work a lot harder to justify war. The first job is now to try to discredit Putin when his initiative has elevated him so greatly in the eyes of the world.
And here's a preview of what's going to come from the UN inspections:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...will_finger_assad_for_massive_chemical_attack
Take special note of how the headlines are contradictory to the main message in the body of the article.
"The inspection team, which is expected on Monday to present U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon with a highly anticipated report on a suspected Aug. 21 nerve agent attack in the suburbs of Damascus, will not directly accuse the Syrian regime of gassing its own people, according to three U.N.-based diplomats familiar with the investigation."
It's still obvious that the US won't be deterred but it's going to take a lot more work. It's just too obvious now that the socalled evidence jthat implicates Assad's regime just doesn't exist.
Carla Del Ponte is still essentially right.
And here's a preview of what's going to come from the UN inspections:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...will_finger_assad_for_massive_chemical_attack
Take special note of how the headlines are contradictory to the main message in the body of the article.
"The inspection team, which is expected on Monday to present U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon with a highly anticipated report on a suspected Aug. 21 nerve agent attack in the suburbs of Damascus, will not directly accuse the Syrian regime of gassing its own people, according to three U.N.-based diplomats familiar with the investigation."
It's still obvious that the US won't be deterred but it's going to take a lot more work. It's just too obvious now that the socalled evidence jthat implicates Assad's regime just doesn't exist.
Carla Del Ponte is still essentially right.