So, Arm The Syrian Rebels, Or What? Poll

[Ibanez]

Wow. In no way did I compare a rebellion to the stock market crash. You clearly think we have no affect on the world and the world has none on us. All of your other points are moot since you think we exist in some isolationist world. If you can't see the connection then it's useless to discuss it.

Turn on the television, politically we are involved and are staking our policy. It's only a matter of time.

[Ibanez]

You really don't see the connection between events, continents away, and how they impact here? We aren't on some small island, untouched by the world. This is what you believe. After the controversay with Iraq, you think America will go it alone? Are you serious? America should have no part in it, I've agreed with you on this. But to think that we won't be affected in some way, good or bad, is just ridiculous. Take the blinders off and realize that this world is small. Civil unrest in Taiwan factories could be stalled production of Iphones and other Apple products therefore, affecting an American business. Libyan rebels destroying a pipelines or setting fire to oil fields, scares speculators on Wall Street, the price of oil per barrel increases and the price at the pump goes up. An archduke is killed in Sarejvo and 3 years later America is pulled into a world war. I would LOVE to see how you suggest that the United States stays 100% uninvolved and feels 0 effects.

[YoUDeeMan]

Wow. In no way did I compare a rebellion to the stock market crash.

Help me out...I'm looking for the Ibenez who posted the following:

I'm not going to give you a lecture on macroeconomics, i'm only referring to the emprical evidence of how civil unrest in a already unstable region, can have affect other parts of the world. Remember that stock market crash in 1929 and how Europe suffered alongside us. It's similiar to that.

When you find him, please let him know he shouldn't be posting under your screen name.

And, change your password to something other than "password"...it will save you some time and embarrassment.

[YoUDeeMan]

America should have no part in it, I've agreed with you on this.

No, you haven't...CLEARLY.

What about pee in Asads butt?

Seriously though, we should Arm them, only through Nato. We shouldn't go alone. Either the entire world acts or we don't.

You think we should get involved...as CLEARLY stated above. And then you went on some absurd tangent about a global conflict while reminding us of the start of WW1.

I hate to say it, but we have problems at home that we must fix, before we start helping others. Charity MUST start at home. Syria will have it's day and with Russia and China as her allies, this can quickly evovle into a global conflict. Remember folks, WW1 started b/c of a Bosnian-Serb assasssinating the Austrian Archduke and it was fought using German, Italian, American, French and British armies.

So, are you drinking again or are you just not willing to back up your whacked out posts earlier in this thread?

I'm trying to let you have an escape route with the mention of someone else posting on your account. You aren't making this any easier on yourself.

[YoUDeeMan]

You clearly think we have no affect on the world and the world has none on us. All of your other points are moot since you think we exist in some isolationist world. If you can't see the connection then it's useless to discuss it.

Turn on the television, politically we are involved and are staking our policy. It's only a matter of time.

Let's keep playing until we bring you back to reality.

Please post where I said, "...we have no affect on the world and the world has none on us" and where I indicated that, "we exist in some isolationist world." I'll be waiting.

Once you are done eating your words, perhaps we can bring my points back from your imagined exile on planet Moot and focus on your knee-jerk, uninformed, fear-based blatherings about potential world economic and military chaos if the U.S. doesn't get involved in Syria.

Name ONE thing that would happen if the U.S. did not get involved that would be worse than if the U.S. did get involved. All I'm asking is for one single bad thing...that shouldn't be too hard for a TV watching military historian such as yourself.

Go for it.

[YoUDeeMan]

You really don't see the connection between events, continents away, and how they impact here? We aren't on some small island, untouched by the world. This is what you believe.

Nope.

After the controversay with Iraq, you think America will go it alone? Are you serious? America should have no part in it, I've agreed with you on this. But to think that we won't be affected in some way, good or bad, is just ridiculous. Take the blinders off and realize that this world is small. Civil unrest in Taiwan factories could be stalled production of Iphones and other Apple products therefore, affecting an American business. Libyan rebels destroying a pipelines or setting fire to oil fields, scares speculators on Wall Street, the price of oil per barrel increases and the price at the pump goes up. An archduke is killed in Sarejvo and 3 years later America is pulled into a world war. I would LOVE to see how you suggest that the United States stays 100% uninvolved and feels 0 effects.

Good grief, I could go on cutting you to pieces all week...but let's get back to the basics. Name me one thing that would be different in a bad way if the U.S. simply said, "We're not getting involved in Syria."

One thing. Just one.

[CID1990]

You really don't see the connection between events, continents away, and how they impact here? We aren't on some small island, untouched by the world. This is what you believe.

Nope.

After the controversay with Iraq, you think America will go it alone? Are you serious? America should have no part in it, I've agreed with you on this. But to think that we won't be affected in some way, good or bad, is just ridiculous. Take the blinders off and realize that this world is small. Civil unrest in Taiwan factories could be stalled production of Iphones and other Apple products therefore, affecting an American business. Libyan rebels destroying a pipelines or setting fire to oil fields, scares speculators on Wall Street, the price of oil per barrel increases and the price at the pump goes up. An archduke is killed in Sarejvo and 3 years later America is pulled into a world war. I would LOVE to see how you suggest that the United States stays 100% uninvolved and feels 0 effects.

Good grief, I could go on cutting you to pieces all week...but let's get back to the basics. Name me one thing that would be different in a bad way if the U.S. simply said, "We're not getting involved in Syria."

One thing. Just one.

How about pee in the butt? That can be a bad thing.

[YoUDeeMan]

How about pee in the butt? That can be a bad thing.

I'd imagine so, but if it's between consenting butts, then it's none of my business.

[Bronco]

-
Here we Go


Report: Obama Planning “Aerial Blockade” On Syria

(Ynet) — The Pentagon is readying for the possibility of intervention in Syria, aiming to halt Syrian President Bashsar Assad’s violent crackdown on protesters, the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported Saturday, citing a US military offical.

According to the official, the intervention scenario calls for the establishment of a buffer zone on the Turkish border, in order to receive Syrian refugees. The Red Cross would then provide the civilians humanitarian aid, before NATO crews would arrive from Turkey and join the efforts.

The measure would pave the way for the US to declare an aerial blockade on Syria.

The intercession is to be modeled after NATO’s efforts in Kosovo, which brought an end to the Serbian control of the region. NATO’s plan of action included prolonged aerial shelling.

The US’ diplomatic efforts have yet to yield an effective international resolution that would stop the bloodshed. More than 100 protesters have died over the weekend alone, human rights activists said.

According to Asharq Al-Awsat, the Pentagon does not anticipate a change of heart on the part of China or Russia, who have opposed foreign intervention or sanctions against Syria. But the US expects the two nations to join the humanitarian aid efforts, support a ceasefire between the Syrian regime and rebels and send special UN envoys to investigate the developments in the country.

The next step in the reported US Department of Defense plan would be to appoint a team of UN observers to monitor the humanitarian aid, and enter Syria. They would need aerial protection, which would eventually lead to an aerial blockade.

The military official said in the interview that the plan is a cautious one, and takes into account the Syrian air force’s advanced capabilities.

[citdog]

And the English and the French wouldn't break that dammed blockade for us. Do syrians deserve their own country more than Southrons?

[Ibanez]

Wow. In no way did I compare a rebellion to the stock market crash.

Help me out...I'm looking for the Ibenez who posted the following:

I'm not going to give you a lecture on macroeconomics, i'm only referring to the emprical evidence of how civil unrest in a already unstable region, can have affect other parts of the world. Remember that stock market crash in 1929 and how Europe suffered alongside us. It's similiar to that.

When you find him, please let him know he shouldn't be posting under your screen name.

And, change your password to something other than "password"...it will save you some time and embarrassment.

I see no comparison of an armed rebellion to a stock market crash. You are comprehending basic reading.

[Ibanez]

You really don't see the connection between events, continents away, and how they impact here? We aren't on some small island, untouched by the world. This is what you believe.

Nope.

After the controversay with Iraq, you think America will go it alone? Are you serious? America should have no part in it, I've agreed with you on this. But to think that we won't be affected in some way, good or bad, is just ridiculous. Take the blinders off and realize that this world is small. Civil unrest in Taiwan factories could be stalled production of Iphones and other Apple products therefore, affecting an American business. Libyan rebels destroying a pipelines or setting fire to oil fields, scares speculators on Wall Street, the price of oil per barrel increases and the price at the pump goes up. An archduke is killed in Sarejvo and 3 years later America is pulled into a world war. I would LOVE to see how you suggest that the United States stays 100% uninvolved and feels 0 effects.

Good grief, I could go on cutting you to pieces all week...but let's get back to the basics. Name me one thing that would be different in a bad way if the U.S. simply said, "We're not getting involved in Syria."

One thing. Just one.

Who said the effect could be bad? Whatever answer I hive won't satisfy you because you think there is no action that crosses countries.

[Ibanez]

You clearly think we have no affect on the world and the world has none on us. All of your other points are moot since you think we exist in some isolationist world. If you can't see the connection then it's useless to discuss it.

Turn on the television, politically we are involved and are staking our policy. It's only a matter of time.

Let's keep playing until we bring you back to reality.

Please post where I said, "...we have no affect on the world and the world has none on us" and where I indicated that, "we exist in some isolationist world." I'll be waiting.

Once you are done eating your words, perhaps we can bring my points back from your imagined exile on planet Moot and focus on your knee-jerk, uninformed, fear-based blatherings about potential world economic and military chaos if the U.S. doesn't get involved in Syria.

Name ONE thing that would happen if the U.S. did not get involved that would be worse than if the U.S. did get involved. All I'm asking is for one single bad thing...that shouldn't be too hard for a TV watching military historian such as yourself.

Go for it.

talk about knee jerk, I didn't say or elude chaos.

[Ibanez]

America should have no part in it, I've agreed with you on this.

No, you haven't...CLEARLY.

What about pee in Asads butt?

Seriously though, we should Arm them, only through Nato. We shouldn't go alone. Either the entire world acts or we don't.

You think we should get involved...as CLEARLY stated above. And then you went on some absurd tangent about a global conflict while reminding us of the start of WW1.

I hate to say it, but we have problems at home that we must fix, before we start helping others. Charity MUST start at home. Syria will have it's day and with Russia and China as her allies, this can quickly evovle into a global conflict. Remember folks, WW1 started b/c of a Bosnian-Serb assasssinating the Austrian Archduke and it was fought using German, Italian, American, French and British armies.

So, are you drinking again or are you just not willing to back up your whacked out posts earlier in this thread?

I'm trying to let you have an escape route with the mention of someone else posting on your account. You aren't making this any easier on yourself.

you are so enraged. Let's start over shall we...

America should not arm the Syrian Rebels. If the UN votes to assist and we must abide by the rules, then The US must assist a UN effort. Like many times in history, the instability of the this region has affected us. Countries. Have been drawn into conflicts by merely having alliances (see WWI). Our policies in the Middle East are used as justification for Jihad. Therefore, I think that one way or another, the US will feel an impact. If the world arms these rebels, it will most likely be our weapons. If the world does not arm the rebels, I do t know what the impacts could be, other than outcry against us for not helping and creating more anti American feelings. I don't tell the fortune, I use history as a guide. Your posts have shown that you think we are not bothered by world events, which is simply false.

As for your bullshit comment about my expertise, go fuck yourself. When in a discussion, don't attack the person. Especially when you don't know their credentials.

[Ibanez]

Let me restate, the USA should NOT arm the rebels or the Syrian Government. However, the UN or NATO goes in, we must abide by our alliances and only intervene to protect innocent lives. Let them fight for thier freedom. If you tihnk this won't affect us, I have some ocean front property in Arizona that is priced to SELL!

here is the second post where I stated the US shouldn't get involved alone.

[Ibanez]

What about pee in Asads butt?

Seriously though, we should Arm them, only through Nato. We shouldn't go alone. Either the entire world acts or we don't. I hate to say it, but we have problems at home that we must fix, before we start helping others. Charity MUST start at home. Syria will have it's day and with Russia and China as her allies, this can quickly evovle into a global conflict. Remember folks, WW1 started b/c of a Bosnian-Serb assasssinating the Austrian Archduke and it was fought using German, Italian, American, French and British armies.

you got me there, I should've typed "UN" instead of NATO.

[YoUDeeMan]

talk about knee jerk, I didn't say or elude chaos.

You're right...you didn't use the word chaos, Chief. Instead, you said:

Seriously though, we should Arm them, only through Nato. We shouldn't go alone. Either the entire world acts or we don't. Syria will have it's day and with Russia and China as her allies, this can quickly evovle into a global conflict. Remember folks, WW1 started b/c of a Bosnian-Serb assasssinating the Austrian Archduke and it was fought using German, Italian, American, French and British armies.

"...global conflict"...your words...followed by a reference to the start of WWI. Obama and bush would have loved to have you as part of their communications teams.


Later on you brought up the stock market crash of 1929...all in a thread about whether the U.S. should get involved in Syria. And you responded that we should arm the rebels...because it would somehow involve us through some buttefly effect anyway.

So, if world events impact us anyway, then why should we arm the rebels? We'd be impacted either way...so why is your pronouncement that we should arm the rebels the correct response? Why did you make such a statement?

Again, I'll be waiting for something from you that makes any sense.

[Ibanez]

talk about knee jerk, I didn't say or elude chaos.

You're right...you didn't use the word chaos, Chief. Instead, you said:

Seriously though, we should Arm them, only through Nato. We shouldn't go alone. Either the entire world acts or we don't. Syria will have it's day and with Russia and China as her allies, this can quickly evovle into a global conflict. Remember folks, WW1 started b/c of a Bosnian-Serb assasssinating the Austrian Archduke and it was fought using German, Italian, American, French and British armies.

"...global conflict"...your words...followed by a reference to the start of WWI. Obama and bush would have loved to have you as part of their communications teams.


Later on you brought up the stock market crash of 1929...all in a thread about whether the U.S. should get involved in Syria. And you responded that we should arm the rebels...because it would somehow involve us through some buttefly effect anyway.

So, if world events impact us anyway, then why should we arm the rebels? We'd be impacted either way...so why is your pronouncement that we should arm the rebels the correct response? Why did you make such a statement?

Again, I'll be waiting for something from you that makes any sense.

How many times do I have to say it, we should not arm them. We should abide by the rules we follow in the UN but I think we should not arm them.

I spoke about global conflict in reference to the world wars, specially the Great War, because those started out as rebellious groups fighting against governments that eventually escalated to an arms race among countries like Germany and England( countries that had nothing to do with the Bosnian-Austrian problems).

I brought up the Stock Market Crash of 1929 to show that when something happened in America, the impact was felt worldwide.

Now I don't pretend I predict the future but

[YoUDeeMan]

Help me out...I'm looking for the Ibenez who posted the following:



When you find him, please let him know he shouldn't be posting under your screen name.

And, change your password to something other than "password"...it will save you some time and embarrassment.

I see no comparison of an armed rebellion to a stock market crash. You are comprehending basic reading.

Why, thank you...I am comprehending basic reading. You are not writing basic reading.

I aksed what would happen if we don't intervene in Syria and you came back with an example of civil unrest in an already unstable region affecting other parts of the world. You then used an example of the stock market crash and how it impacted Europe...and then said, and I quote, "It's similar to that."

You didn't give an example of Assad's goats getting nervous with the extra gunfire in the air...and those goats producing less milk. You used the Stock Market collapse of 1929 as a "similar" example of how civil unrest in one part of the world impacting other parts of the world...oh, and you've tossed in WW1, global conflict with Syria's "communist allies" and a whole host of other examples worthy of another 2012 movie.

When you engage in hyperbole, you'll get called on it. And when your FIRST post is that, "we should arm them"...it shouldn't be surprising that people ask you WHY you feel that way. So far, you haven't given any reason other than a knee-jerk, well, they are going to do it too, so there!

[YoUDeeMan]

you are so enraged. Let's start over shall we...

America should not arm the Syrian Rebels. If the UN votes to assist and we must abide by the rules, then The US must assist a UN effort. Like many times in history, the instability of the this region has affected us. Countries. Have been drawn into conflicts by merely having alliances (see WWI). Our policies in the Middle East are used as justification for Jihad. Therefore, I think that one way or another, the US will feel an impact. If the world arms these rebels, it will most likely be our weapons. If the world does not arm the rebels, I do t know what the impacts could be, other than outcry against us for not helping and creating more anti American feelings. I don't tell the fortune, I use history as a guide. Your posts have shown that you think we are not bothered by world events, which is simply false.

As for your bullshit comment about my expertise, go fuck yourself. When in a discussion, don't attack the person. Especially when you don't know their credentials.

Credentials are overrated...you could be the commander of the US forces in the area and you'd still be wrong. Heck, Obama has overuled his own commanders several times so far. In any case, I prefer to react to the facts and the ideas a person communicates...or in some cases, fails to communicate properly. Besides, Bush was President when he made the call to go into, and stay in, Iraq. I think President tops your credentials, but I would not say that helped him make the right decision.

As far as the U.N. going into the conflict...as stated, that won't happen over Chinese and Russian objections. And, yoo-hoo, if those two countries change their minds, we DO NOT have to contribute to any UN resolution to arm the rebels...unless, of course, you are going to tell me that every single country in the UN contributed to the first invasion of Iraq. What was the punishment of those who did not contribute? Let me know when you get done with that fact check.

However, that won't stop our cowboy President from getting his pound of flesh.

[Ibanez]

I see no comparison of an armed rebellion to a stock market crash. You are comprehending basic reading.

Why, thank you...I am comprehending basic reading. You are not writing basic reading.

I aksed what would happen if we don't intervene in Syria and you came back with an example of civil unrest in an already unstable region affecting other parts of the world. You then used an example of the stock market crash and how it impacted Europe...and then said, and I quote, "It's similar to that."

You didn't give an example of Assad's goats getting nervous with the extra gunfire in the air...and those goats producing less milk. You used the Stock Market collapse of 1929 as a "similar" example of how civil unrest in one part of the world impacting other parts of the world...oh, and you've tossed in WW1, global conflict with Syria's "communist allies" and a whole host of other examples worthy of another 2012 movie.

When you engage in hyperbole, you'll get called on it. And when your FIRST post is that, "we should arm them"...it shouldn't be surprising that people ask you WHY you feel that way. So far, you haven't given any reason other than a knee-jerk, well, they are going to do it too, so there!

I'm human and make mistakes, I didn't intend to directly compare Syria's problems to an economic depression.

Having said that, I have stated several times they shouldn't be armed and even was mature enough to recognize my typo.

To start, again, they shouldn't be armed, we shouldn't arm them. However, if the UN votes to support the rebels and we are obligated to assist, then we should assist.

Will arming them affect us? Possibly, they could turn on us in the future if they are successful.

Will Not arming the affect us? Possibly. They could be successful and hold a grudge against us and work with groups like Al Qeada. These counties and factions hold grudges.

I can't predict the future but I can look at the past and make an estimate from that.

[Ibanez]

you are so enraged. Let's start over shall we...

America should not arm the Syrian Rebels. If the UN votes to assist and we must abide by the rules, then The US must assist a UN effort. Like many times in history, the instability of the this region has affected us. Countries. Have been drawn into conflicts by merely having alliances (see WWI). Our policies in the Middle East are used as justification for Jihad. Therefore, I think that one way or another, the US will feel an impact. If the world arms these rebels, it will most likely be our weapons. If the world does not arm the rebels, I do t know what the impacts could be, other than outcry against us for not helping and creating more anti American feelings. I don't tell the fortune, I use history as a guide. Your posts have shown that you think we are not bothered by world events, which is simply false.

As for your bullshit comment about my expertise, go fuck yourself. When in a discussion, don't attack the person. Especially when you don't know their credentials.

Credentials are overrated...you could be the commander of the US forces in the area and you'd still be wrong. Heck, Obama has overuled his own commanders several times so far. In any case, I prefer to react to the facts and the ideas a person communicates...or in some cases, fails to communicate properly. Besides, Bush was President when he made the call to go into, and stay in, Iraq. I think President tops your credentials, but I would not say that helped him make the right decision.

As far as the U.N. going into the conflict...as stated, that won't happen over Chinese and Russian objections. And, yoo-hoo, if those two countries change their minds, we DO NOT have to contribute to any UN resolution to arm the rebels...unless, of course, you are going to tell me that every single country in the UN contributed to the first invasion of Iraq. What was the punishment of those who did not contribute? Let me know when you get done with that fact check.

However, that won't stop our cowboy President from getting his pound of flesh.

I'm quite clear on the operations of the UNSC and their operations.

You think Obama is a cowboy? Hmmm he seems so weak to me.

[HI54UNI]

[Ibanez]

I freely admit I don't always present my ideas clearly, but I am mature enough to calm down, an attempt to clear the air without getting personal.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm quite clear on the operations of the UNSC and their operations.

Excellent, then I am asking the right person.

What are the obligations? Be specific. And did every country assist in the invasion of Iraq? Does every country need to assist every UNSC operation? What is the punishment that has been put upon those countries that did not assist?