On September 01 2013 03:17 beg wrote: ok, guys, clarify this for me, please...
if you wanna attack another country, is it strategically ok to declare this publicly? i mean, the enemy can prepare. he will know you want to attack. he will have several days to prepare.
are governments really doing it this way? i have such a hard time believing it.
Welcome to the social media world where you see stupidity at its finest.
what are you trying to say?
it's actually a smart question and not stupid. i'm sorry if you can't see that. questions are hardly ever stupid. thinking about what's being shown to you couldnt ever be stupid.
so i feel a little insulted by your contentless response. all you did was insult me. you know what that's called? stupid.
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
The problem with you fine folks is that you perceive a true problem and you give it faulty origins. It's true that some trajectories remain the same when presidencies change but this is due to multiple things.
-For one, the president is by no means all powerful, his hands are tied in many, many, many ways, even though it's possible to maneuver around certain restrictions. -A bunch of laws and other constructs from previous governments are difficult to strike down once you're engaged into them, this is basically "path dependence". -Many influential people stick around when presidencies change. Powerful lobbies, high ranked civil servants, and just plain ole' congress, etc. There is no big conspiracy. There are many proper explanations for why big organizations, like the government of the US, have trouble changing.
There's no puppeteer here, just a big inefficient machine that has gotten so big and complex, it has trouble adapting and changing itself because people are pulling in every direction.
On September 01 2013 03:17 beg wrote: ok, guys, clarify this for me, please...
if you wanna attack another country, is it strategically ok to declare this publicly? i mean, the enemy can prepare. he will know you want to attack. he will have several days to prepare.
are governments really doing it this way? i have such a hard time believing it.
this guy says something interesting about that situation
On September 01 2013 03:24 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 31 2013 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:
On August 31 2013 22:31 maybenexttime wrote:
On August 31 2013 20:33 Lonyo wrote: This thread was started in March 2011. In August 2013 the UK has a vote about actually taking action, and it fails.
We didn't feel a need to do anything for the last 2+ years, is the potential use of chemical weapons suddenly making the whole thing so much worse than the last 2 years of violence? You can't sit by for 2 years and act like it's fine until someone uses a particular type of weapon, and suddenly it's a really big and bad situation.
The US and France are being massive hypocrites, the Brits are doing what they have done for the last 2 years, which is sit back and do nothing.
None of the three can claim they have any right to say anything, because all of them spent 2 years doing nothing.
This isn't about the chemical attack. Chemical weapons have been used on several occasions during this conflict, from what I've read, nobody gave a damn about that until recently. This has to be about something else.
No. No they do not have to be about anything else. This time they CW attack was on a larger scale and with more evidence regarding the type of chemicals and the culprits. They literally shot the CW shells a few miles from where the UN team to assess PREVIOUS CW attacks was housed. Had the UN team found evidence of prior CW use, the same problem (for the IC) would have arisen (it was just very unlikely). Also Obama's red line on CW use is currently very salient.
We don't give a flying fuck about CWs or not. We just want a "valid" excuse to attack them, something we've failed to gain over the past 2 years. After we killed millions of Viet civilians with chemical weapons (which had an insane backlash in the US during the Vietnam war) and other gruesome forms of warfare, I guess the govt. expected everyone to be in an uproar about Assad using them against the Islamists.
Don't argue based on your own (uneducated) opinions. Contribute actual input from credible sources. Your "flying fuck" theory holds no water based on what literally everyone in the diplomatic community is saying.
Christopher Busby, an expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation and Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, said it was important to make the distinction that defoliants such as Agent Orange are not anti-personnel weapons designed to kill or deform people, and are thus “not quite the same as using a nerve gas or something that is intended against personnel.”
Don't be foolish with a silly high-horse mentality. Many countries oppose an attack, and your opinion holds no water considering the Syrian civil war is only gaining tons and tons of publicity ever since the news of chemical warfare, so yes, everyone in the diplomatic community is starting to take notice with this news of chemical weapons. Didn't you notice that until recently, we had no justified validity to do anything to Syria until now? Then again, you live in a Russian satellite, how much do you know of what's going on in US politics?
We did nothing to Syria in the past 2 years. We're only beating the war drums now a lot harder than we ever have ever since this news of chemical weapons, because this sort of thing gets people's attention. You see? We needed something that gets people's attention to legitimize our war drum beating. The bloodshed from conventional weapons has been magnitudes higher than anything chemical, but you didn't see Obama and Cameron going apeshit back then.
For one, Agent Orange wasn't the only chemical and/or incendiary we used or had in the War. Secondly, the Agent Orange, since it was ridiculously mass produced, was made in a cheaper and faster way that actually made it toxic. Hence the tons of deformity and murder that was caused just by Agent Orange, probably the most gruesome pictures being the terribly deformed stillborns.
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
On September 01 2013 03:17 beg wrote: ok, guys, clarify this for me, please...
if you wanna attack another country, is it strategically ok to declare this publicly? i mean, the enemy can prepare. he will know you want to attack. he will have several days to prepare.
are governments really doing it this way? i have such a hard time believing it.
this guy says something interesting about that situation
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
Yes, but that's more because he slaughtered the fund raising campaign in 2008. He almost doubled McCain. He basically had a huge backing by the public and then he also had backing from corporations like McCain.
Edit: Nvm he actually did double McCain Edit#2: "The campaign raised much of its cash in small donations over the internet, with about half of its intake coming in increments of less than $200" from thedailybeast
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
Edit: And US invading yet another country in the Middle-East is simply ridiculous. The USD has already strengthened and oil prices went up just from the mention, I wonder what's the goal for US here? Must be the sympathy for the oppressed...
On September 01 2013 03:17 beg wrote: ok, guys, clarify this for me, please...
if you wanna attack another country, is it strategically ok to declare this publicly? i mean, the enemy can prepare. he will know you want to attack. he will have several days to prepare.
are governments really doing it this way? i have such a hard time believing it.
Welcome to the social media world where you see stupidity at its finest.
This is so true it hurts.
On September 01 2013 03:33 DragoonPK wrote: So it's: I decided to attack, I can attack, but I will wait and let the Congress decide in 2 weeks.
Real question is: What does that really tell us about Obama?
It tell us that he doesn't want to get into this war (if he wanted he would attack anyways without the congress approval), and that the British gave them the idea that the congress (opposition) can get him out of his misery by voting no to the attack, so he will have an excuse to avoid getting into the war/invasion/attack/wherever.
It is pretty clever tbh, using the congress to avoid doing something you are forced to because you fucked up earlier, or at least that's the way i read it.
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
On September 01 2013 03:17 beg wrote: ok, guys, clarify this for me, please...
if you wanna attack another country, is it strategically ok to declare this publicly? i mean, the enemy can prepare. he will know you want to attack. he will have several days to prepare.
are governments really doing it this way? i have such a hard time believing it.
Welcome to the social media world where you see stupidity at its finest.
This is so true it hurts.
i'm not sure what this guy was trying to tell me. care to explain? is he saying my question was stupid? what was so stupid about it?
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim.
What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things.
On September 01 2013 03:17 beg wrote: ok, guys, clarify this for me, please...
if you wanna attack another country, is it strategically ok to declare this publicly? i mean, the enemy can prepare. he will know you want to attack. he will have several days to prepare.
are governments really doing it this way? i have such a hard time believing it.
Welcome to the social media world where you see stupidity at its finest.
This is so true it hurts.
i'm not sure what this guy was trying to tell me. care to explain? is he saying my question was stupid? what was so stupid about it?
That they SHOULD be doing all this in private as you said, but they are too greedy to even think about it since they can get a slightly better PR by not keeping it private because that way they can make the role of the hero against the forces of evil, but the funny thing is that since they are retarded they don't go the full transparency route either which would make it more credible, instead as i said they go the halfass transparency route which gives them a small margin to make mistakes but also makes them look shady as fuck, since we get just parts of what is actually happening, and from these parts we need to build a scheme of how the countries are acting and what are they doing and how are they planing to do so.
EPT
