We can all agree on 1 thing!

Darla said:
Actually I don't. I could shock the shit out of people here, but choose not to. I was joking. Seriously. I know sometimes I am too goofy, but I don't do that stuff.
Click to expand...

I will consider your groan as acknowledgement that you are indeed not funny.
 
some day you people will need to face that you have all been wrong and Im right yet again.


look the fuck out when I am on a side you don't like.

It likely means you abandoned the facts
 
evince said:
You cant just call them liars for your political stances.
Click to expand...

No one is calling them liars, Desh. Defectors generally are people that have some dislike for the government from whom they've defected. Thus, they have reason to make false claims about the actions of that government in an effort to have that government toppled so that the defectors can return home. Intelligence from defectors shoudl be verified through independent channels before being acted upon.
 
Some interesting observations on Syria, the committee appearances of Hagel and Kerry. Undoubtedly skewed right, but on Syria I'm not so sure there is a right and left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

It's many different authors, not all posts will be on topic, but I think many will find things of interest. This caught my eye, keeping in mind that this is a civil war and both sides would use any weapons they can get. Both sides will and have used civilians:

Let’s Not Repeat Key Iraq Mistakes
By David French
September 4, 2013 3:00 PM


American leaders always seem to underestimate the savagery and ferocity of our Middle Eastern enemies. One of the worst (and bloodiest) mistakes in the Iraq War was not understanding the difficulty of replacing a brutal tyrant with a functioning, reasonably humane government. Even with more than 120,000 troops on the ground, we spent years struggling to contain not just an anti-American insurgency but also a sectarian conflict so vicious that it was tough to determine who was more bloody-minded: al Qaeda or its Shiite militia opponents.

The result was exceedingly grim. By 2007, Diyala Province (my unit’s area of operations) was so dominated by al Qaeda they named it the “Islamic Caliphate of Iraq,” and the region was arguably worse off than it had been under Saddam. It took almost a year of hard fighting to largely (though not entirely) purge al-Qaeda from the province. In fact, had we left Iraq when many on the left (including President Obama) urged us to, we’d likely face a strategic nightmare with al-Qaeda holding vast sections of strategically vital territory, possessing large stocks of conventional military weaponry, and with its main Shiite opposition so radical as to be essentially an eastern adjunct of Hezbollah. As flawed as Iraq’s current regime is, it’s far preferable to both Saddam Hussein’s or the radical alternatives we fought in the Surge.

It would be prudent for us to remember that the alternatives to brutal dictatorship are not always what we’d like — especially as jihadists gain strength in the Syrian opposition, including some of the same vicious jihadists we fought in Iraq. Air strikes may alter the balance of power in the Syrian civil war, but they won’t endear us to al-Qaeda or any other Sunni radicals fighting Assad. I fully recognize that I’m not privy to classified information regarding the nature and makeup of the Syrian rebels, but history demonstrates that we consistently approach the Middle East with rose-colored glasses, and a central question Congress should be asking is this: If we “degrade” Assad who do we empower?

If it’s al-Qaeda or any of its allies, then it’s not “isolationist” to oppose military action, it’s common sense.
Click to expand...
 
Annie said:
Some interesting observations on Syria, the committee appearances of Hagel and Kerry. Undoubtedly skewed right, but on Syria I'm not so sure there is a right and left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

It's many different authors, not all posts will be on topic, but I think many will find things of interest. This caught my eye, keeping in mind that this is a civil war and both sides would use any weapons they can get. Both sides will and have used civilians:
Click to expand...




http://aclj.org/Writers/david-french


who cares what a con thinks
 
you can determine if someone was really a leading scientist or an actual defense secretary that way huh?
 
These defectors are who they say they are.


you cant deny that.


They have evidence they are about to show you.


will you call them lairs out of spite?
 
evince said:
Are only the facts you like real?
Click to expand...

Has anyone actually called them liars?

I think it's more just trying to learn from the past and from lessons like the one Curveball provided. All intel isn't sound intel- corroboration is needed, and sometimes further proof.
 
evince said:
These defectors are who they say they are. you cant deny that. They have evidence they are about to show you. will you call them lairs out of spite?
Click to expand...

Why would I call them "lairs"?

Can you explain how you already know what they are "about to show"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top