Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

All of PACEDOG'S Syria threads merged into one

+7
Wordslinger
Markle
ZVUGKTUBM
Sal
Joanimaroni
knothead
boards of FL
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 6]

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
. wrote:Im fine staying out of it. They can kill themselves off if they wish.

What I do not like about it is that the American preisident said he would act if a red line was crossed. That line has been crossed. It concerns me because inaction at this point basically has lead to the rest of the world veiwing us as indesisive and inept. That I dislike.
Which is one reason it wasy sooooo easy to draw people into the idea of war on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not at all. You confuse the two.

People in this country were very angry about 9:11 when we were sold war with iraq and afgan. We were actually united as a nation going into those wars.

This war doesnt really effect us, ecept oil prices may increase at a time when our economy sucks do to a inept and indecisive president. Wink 

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Oil prices may temporarily surge if really bad news comes out of Syria, but not for long. The U.S. is weaning itself off of the Middle Eastern oil tit as more and more shale oil is discovered and produced in the Continental United States. The U.S. will once again become the world's top oil producer by 2020. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia becomes a net oil importer by 2030, as their fields are rapidly depleting. I wonder how these events are going to affect geopolitics?

China becomes the world's biggest oil importer by the end of this year, and they are heavily dependent on imports from OPEC and the Middle East. Let them worry about the Muslims fighting amongst themselves. Israel will be fine; afterall, they have a large not-so-secret nuclear arsenal.

The bottom line is: Why should we give a flip about Syria, really?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

or any other ass backwards quasi country in that region... screw em all. We'll talk to them when or if they have something to offer us... the days of influence pedaling (aid etc) must end. There is very little benefit to us in the results I see.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

. wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
. wrote:Im fine staying out of it. They can kill themselves off if they wish.

What I do not like about it is that the American preisident said he would act if a red line was crossed. That line has been crossed. It concerns me because inaction at this point basically has lead to the rest of the world veiwing us as indesisive and inept. That I dislike.
Which is one reason it wasy sooooo easy to draw people into the idea of war on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not at all. You confuse the two.

People in this country were very angry about 9:11 when we were sold war with iraq and afgan. We were actually united as a nation going into those wars.

This war doesnt really effect us, ecept oil prices may increase at a time when our economy sucks do to a inept and indecisive president. Wink 
No...WE were not "united as a nation going into those wars". There was plenty of dissent, but the Bush/Cheney administration pushed their agenda by lying about 9/11. And someone connected to Ft. Dietrich mailed anthrax to certain members of Congress and the press...attributed to a fall guy who "committed suicide" named Bruce Ivins.

Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota was one of the most vocal opponents of going to war in Iraq...RIP Senator Wellstone.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/21/sen-paul-wellstone-more-proof-of-assassination/

------------------------

And our economy sucks because of the atrocious policies of the Bush administration...the cost of wars and the obliteration of financial regulations.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Oil prices may temporarily surge if really bad news comes out of Syria, but not for long. The U.S. is weaning itself off of the Middle Eastern oil tit as more and more shale oil is discovered and produced in the Continental United States. The U.S. will once again become the world's top oil producer by 2020. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia becomes a net oil importer by 2030, as their fields are rapidly depleting. I wonder how these events are going to affect geopolitics?

China becomes the world's biggest oil importer by the end of this year, and they are heavily dependent on imports from OPEC and the Middle East. Let them worry about the Muslims fighting amongst themselves. Israel will be fine; afterall, they have a large not-so-secret nuclear arsenal.

The bottom line is: Why should we give a flip about Syria, really?
Economically, it doesn't matter much, but I feel horribly sorry for the people caught in the middle of "geopolitical" interests and religious dogma...the Syrian civilians.

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger, for the same reason we got into WWII we should take Assad's regime down. He is exterminating his own people.

Guest


Guest

Boards, you're pretty arrogant and ignorant at the same time. The COWH finds himself in this spot because he's drawn that line and it got crossed. The entire Mid East, which prides itself on negotiating from a position of strength, sees Obama writing checks his ass isn't willing to cash with his smack talk. It's embarrassing as a nation to see our leader pretty much blown off even by the Hugo Chavez types of the world.

Guest


Guest

Boards, you're pretty arrogant and ignorant at the same time. The COWH finds himself in this spot because he's drawn that line and it got crossed. The entire Mid East, which prides itself on negotiating from a position of strength, sees Obama writing checks his ass isn't willing to cash with his smack talk. It's embarrassing as a nation to see our leader pretty much blown off even by the Hugo Chavez types of the world.

Sal

Sal

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Wordslinger, for the same reason we got into WWII we should take Assad's regime down. He is exterminating his own people.


lol

Guest


Guest

....and Sal can't express an opinion as usual

boards of FL

boards of FL


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
. wrote:Im fine staying out of it. They can kill themselves off if they wish.

What I do not like about it is that the American preisident said he would act if a red line was crossed. That line has been crossed. It concerns me because inaction at this point basically has lead to the rest of the world veiwing us as indesisive and inept. That I dislike.
Which is one reason it wasy sooooo easy to draw people into the idea of war on Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you recall it was President Barack Hussein Obama who strongly stated that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line and that there would be dire consequences.

Meanwhile Vice President Biden dusted off the Campaign Bus for President Obama to campaign for lower college costs.

President Obama is known around the world as...

All of PACEDOG'S Syria threads merged into one  - Page 3 WimpObama-1

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
. wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
. wrote:Im fine staying out of it. They can kill themselves off if they wish.

What I do not like about it is that the American preisident said he would act if a red line was crossed. That line has been crossed. It concerns me because inaction at this point basically has lead to the rest of the world veiwing us as indesisive and inept. That I dislike.
Which is one reason it wasy sooooo easy to draw people into the idea of war on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not at all. You confuse the two.

People in this country were very angry about 9:11 when we were sold war with iraq and afgan. We were actually united as a nation going into those wars.

This war doesnt really effect us, ecept oil prices may increase at a time when our economy sucks do to a inept and indecisive president. Wink 
No...WE were not "united as a nation going into those wars".  There was plenty of dissent, but the Bush/Cheney administration pushed their agenda by lying about 9/11.  And someone connected to Ft. Dietrich mailed anthrax to certain members of Congress and the press...attributed to a fall guy who "committed suicide" named Bruce Ivins.  

Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota was one of the most vocal opponents of going to war in Iraq...RIP Senator Wellstone.  

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/21/sen-paul-wellstone-more-proof-of-assassination/

------------------------

And our economy sucks because of the atrocious policies of the Bush administration...the cost of wars and the obliteration of financial regulations.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.

"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.

He praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,000 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:Why would any rational person have expected coherent foreign policy?


Pre-Obama foreign policy was coherent? I really don't think you want to defend that position . . .


Bush could make a decision. The COWH cannot. Right or wrong with Bush, the COWH waffles more than William Jefferson Clinton. The inability of the COWH to make a decision when he draws a line in the sand is "empty suitedness" to the max.

Guest


Guest

So what's the COWH gonna do??? His line in the sand was crossed and has been confirmed.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-concerned-syria-cautious-costs-105448248.html

There's a 156,000,000 freakin' ways to confirm this as true. All it takes is some inspectors to walk through the area and the evidence, if there, will be found. No, I will not elaborate on how it can be done.

knothead

knothead

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
knothead wrote:Why would any rational person have expected coherent foreign policy?


Pre-Obama foreign policy was coherent? I really don't think you want to defend that position . . .

Bush could make a decision. The COWH cannot. Right or wrong with Bush, the COWH waffles more than William Jefferson Clinton. The inability of the COWH to make a decision when he draws a line in the sand is "empty suitedness" to the max.
********************************************************

No PD, as usual, we disagree. Your willingness to measure any President on making decisions, right or wrong, is the marker we seek in a Commander-in-Chief is not appropriate. As a nation we have a history of jumping into other nation's business and those decisions, both Dem/Rep POTUS, have a history of being disastrous decisions and right now the American people want our nation to proceed with caution before bowing before the neocons who are chawing at the bit to send in our military.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

You started a thread on Syria already, and several of us already posted on that. Why do we need a new Syria thread from you?

It must be really boring in Las Vegas. You should go learn how to play blackjack or something....

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Here ya go dog this will make you happy.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-24-07-37-32

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

doubtingthomas wrote:Here ya go dog this will make you happy.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-24-07-37-32
Ole PeeDog will be really stroking himself if Obama takes military action against Syria.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Did you say the same thing to the other person who started a Syria thread after mine?

Guest


Guest

Knot head,
If the COWH wanted to lessen dependence on foreign ME oil we'd be drilling on the federal lands he cut off and closed and allowing the Keystone pipeline to be approved.

Guest


Guest

And now don't arbitrarily jump into other folks business unless it is of national interest .

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Knot head,
If the COWH wanted to lessen dependence on foreign ME oil we'd be drilling on the federal lands he cut off and closed and allowing the Keystone pipeline to be approved.
The federal lands you refer to are mainly in the Gulf of Mexico and up in ANWR--very sensitive areas that both Republicans and Democrats are politically sensitive toward, so that is a red herring.

No, I am talking about tight shale formations in the Lower 48, like the Bakken Shale in North Dakota, the Eagle Ford Shale in east Texas, the Monterrey Shale in California (bigger than both the Bakken and Eagle Ford), the Wolfcamp shale in the Texas Permain Basin (bigger than Saudi Arabia's Ghawar oil field). Then there is the Utica, Niobrara, Cline, and many others. Let's not forget the Marcellus Shale up in NY and Pennsylvania, and the Haynseville in LA for gas. These formations were not commercially developable until breakthrough technology was perfected before about 2008 or so. 

Keystone XL might not be built any time soon, but this will not stop the Canadians from recovering all 175 billion barrels of bitumen from the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta--that stuff will continue making its way south to refineries in Oklahoma, in California, and elsewhere by rail.

Let the Muslims eat sand and fight amongst themselves. The U.S. and Canada will soon be the new OPEC. We will be exporting U.S. shale gas (on LPG ships) to China soon at quadruple the price of what it is sold for here. Payback for them undercutting U.S. manufacturing jobs.

The COWH is doing nothing to hold back U.S. oil and gas production, which has grown every year he has been in office, and is slated to continue growing to at least 10 million barrels per day; and maybe more than that. One thing the Obama-haters cannot do, with credibility, is blame him for holding back U.S. petroleum development. No truth in that at all; a plain fact.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Z,
All well and good to get off ME oil, but we have economic partners that cannot.

Guest


Guest

Oh, and the COWH has blocked expansion of oil drilling on federal lands and in the Gulf Of Mexico.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum