Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

Tea Party... LOL!

 

I think Lincoln was saying you rise up against your legislators. I don't think he wanted all of us to make our own little countries. Remember that old black and white movie back in the 50's called "the mouse that roared"? Lincolns didn't want a few thousand little mice making their own countries.

BTW: The States seceded between January and June of 61. Six seceded before Lincoln and five after. So half and half. But what I refer to is a letter Lincoln supposedly wrote to the Governor of each of the 11 States telling them they could keep the slaves. He was trying to avert war no doubt, though clearly he said whites were superior to blacks.

 

If the purpose of the attack was to take out Assad's chemical weapons capabilities, then maybe I could see your point. In fact, if that was the mission, I would be in favor of an attack, since there is no party in that country, regardless of who wins their civil war, that I want to see with chemical weapons. However the administration has made clear the attack is not designed to go after his CW capabilities, attack him in his leadership position, or damage the Syrian military enough to make a decisive difference in the civil war. So... it's a mission that seems to have no military or political objective.

 

No, normal people have serious questions why ANYONE would be stupid enough to vote multiple times for a fraud who produces multible forged photoshopped images of a birth certificate rather than the real thing, why they're also stupid enough to vote for someone that spends millions to hide his documented past, and then are stupid enough to demand similar records from others competing for the same office.

People intelligent enough to wonder why those people are so *******ned stupid aren't bothered when the Low Information Voters then label them in scorn and pretend they are the source of reason and intelligence.

Since you're insisting on being ignorant of the issues surrounding the birth of King Obama and his ineligibility for US citizenship, the Mayor will honor the request of you to remain ignorant, as the Mayor has been doing for his inferiors throughout time.

 

Nope. You aren't very strong in logic are you? That's not what I'm saying. I fully understand that bullets are used to kill people. In combat circumstances when confronting an enemy with equivalent fire power, that's what you use. And if you walk into a house or mow innocent people down with guns you'll likely face a war crimes violation as well. You may be too young to recall My Lia during Viet Nam. However a bullet might kill one person. It won't kill 1400 people with one shot. To make this an equivalent situation we would have to arm everyone with CW. Is that what you suggest? Everyone on both sides tossing CW at each other? That's what a CW can do. You're attempting to compare apples and oranges and use that as your logical position which isn't logical at all. White Phosphorus and Depleted uranium should also be banned.

If that's the case then the US will need to financially support that effort. Are you good with that?

 

I think you've forgotten your original statement:

And as you've generously offered an ability to reject your reasons, I choose to exercise that option.

 

Could you please point out to me the wording in the US Constitution that allows the president to meddle without congressional approval? Is meddle your polite word for declaring war?

 

Outside of the Olympic Games that is the most amazing leap I have ever seen.

 

Why do you think we have any role to play?

 

Your thinking would be wrong. But it's been pretty cloudy throughout this conversation so that should come as no surprise.

I haven't. But for future reference, when you think that I have, it's best to post the contradiction rather than just make a false statement.

- - - Updated - - -

No. If you notice the word "meddle" is in quotes. It wasn't my word. It was the person's that I was responding to. If you paid more attention before you post, you'd have noticed that.

 

Because we're the United States and you can't claim to be the world leader and then abdicate that role at the same time. USA USA...We're #1 Rah Rah... I'm afraid that has a hollow ring to it. If you want to be the world leader than you need to illustrate that you maintain the moral high ground at all times. That's why people look to the US. We have the strength that others don't.

 

I'm afraid it is. That's the role we've taken on. Like it or not. If it weren't for the US the violence that you see today would be small change to what would be taking place. There'd by WMD everywhere, poison gas, nukes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and oppression everywhere, because that's the nature of human beings. We're a violent species that kill our own, not for food, or survival like other animals. We kill for the thrill of it and to dominate others and subjugate them.

 

That's a very odd fraction. Where'd you come up with 7/9ths? The truth is that the majority are not al-Qaeda affliliated, so I'd do a little more research on that. I don't see any reason to think that eliminating CW from the battlefield aid's AQ or anybody for that matter. If you remove the CW you level the playing, or should I say killing field. Introducing CW into the mix, tilts the scales in a horrible way. This isn't a zero sum game. Removing this weapon doesn't advantage the other side while disadvantaging Assad. Assad still has the superior weapons arsenal.

Two points. 1. Chemical Weapons are wrong in every situation, and they must never be tolerated by anyone. 2. None of the parties are a great choice, but clearly the al-Qaeda faction is the worst. However, I'm not advocating that we leverage the Civil War over there in favor of the Rebels. I'm simply saying that CW must be dealt with immediately or we will see our own troops subjected to it as well as our allies. That cannot be allowed to happen. If nothing is done, you should rest assured that Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran as well as Syria itself will know that they are available to be used, and we should understand that they will be employed. Assad said as much in his interview with Charlie Rose and threatened us with that very thing, saying that we should expect everything including another 9/11 type of incident if we act. Personally I don't take well to threats from a small time tyrant. If you find that acceptable then say so.

 

I don't think it matters much. I think the international law prevails whether they signed on to it or not. They are a member state of the UN and I'm pretty sure that they would have to abide by any treaty's that apply to the UN, and I'm sure that using WMD is part of the protocols.

- - - Updated - - -

I meant 5 million hacked to death, raped to death and cannibalized in the Congo

and 1.5 million killed in less than a year in Rwanda

where was concern there? where were red lines? where were airstrikes? where was world outrage?

but 1400 dead by Sarin gas somehow crosses the line?

1400 vs 6.5 million dead in Rwanda and Congo

no american response, not even proposals or any action.[/QUOTE]

So you approve of using poison gas on your own people, is that it? Why beat around the bush? Just say you're all for using Sarin on children. That's a Syrian thing right?

 

Of course you have. And now you're in denial. "I would really like you to explain his brilliant strategy then, since right now this looks like the most amateurish thing I've seen from a White House in my lifetime."
Completely over the top exaggeration. I've already pointed to the absurdity of the Bush years, as a counter example. That was a total fools errand that cost this country severely and poisoned the well for any future use of force.

Yeah you do. It shows in all your posts.

Of course you didn't. But you will. It fulfills your hate.

Actually you contradicted yourself and I was just pointing it out. So now you're saying that the constitution doesn't prohibit him from attacking Syria. Is that it?

Do you really not already know? Did you not see the news today? Obama had said that the use of Chemical Weapons would cross a Red Line and that would change the calculus with regard to our involvement, did he not? Those were just about his exact words. All the Republicans have been screaming about our not doing anything about Syria, so that's what he said. And low and behold, they did it. The Red Line wasn't Obama's. It was the worlds red line established after WWI. Obama was reminding everyone of that very thing. What happened? He and Kerry made announcements that we'd strike Syria with a missile attack right? And everyone was expecting the missiles to be launched about a week ago. Obama then went to Russia to attend the G20 meeting and he made his case to the people there. Guess who was hosting the meeting? Putin. Syria's number 1 ally. Here's the truth of the matter; Whatever Russia wants from Syria they will get. What did we hear today? Sec Kerry said that the only scenario that would prevent a strike would be the removal of the CW from Syria. Now...the Russians are offering a plan to have an international team take the Chemical weapons out of Syria and dismantle them. And guess who agreed? The Syrian Foreign Minister... within minutes. Now the Secretary General is taking that proposal to the UN and expects China to agree. That means the entire Security Council including us and the UK will all be in agreement. The use of force that Obama signaled was coming has forced a diplomatic solution. That is the very thing that will stop the missile strike. I'm quite certain that Obama and Putin talked. They were both there and this thing was hanging in the air and had to be resolved. I'm also quite certain that Putin would have told Obama that he needed time to make that happen. Obama returns and states that he's going to let congress take a position on this which of course is taking time...enough time for Putin to put the screws to Syria. Syria agrees and I'm confident that there will be no military strike. The question has been would Obama listen to congress or do it anyway. Nobody knew and the White House wouldn't say. So the tension was always in the air that this would happen. It's called Diplomacy, and it must be backed up by the threat of force. By taking the position of force, Obama has forced Diplomacy as the only solution outside of an attack.
That's how you get something done.

I just told you. There won't be a military strike. A Diplomatic Solution is now in the works, and it never would have been possible without the threat of a missile strike.

We don't have to. Kerry has said all along that the war won't be won through force. It will be a negotiated settlement. He's right. Nobody can win this with force. The rebels will never lay down and surrender, and Assad must fight for his life. The only solution is a diplomatic solution, and the Russian proposal brings diplomacy into the picture.

But Russia is and Russia is Syria's number one ally, and I can assure you that the Russians don't want the stench of CW weapons hanging around their neck. They can and will force Syria to abide by the conventions.

Of course the attack is designed to render his CW capability useless. What have you been listening to. What do you think the purpose was? Actually the purpose of the attack was a threat that will now be avoided. Syria will give up it's stockpile of CW and the door is open to the world of negotiation.

Do you just pull these statements out of your butt? This is what I said; "However it was completely outlined by the Sec of State and the Sec of Defense in the hearings last week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Relations Committee. They might actually know something about it. Perhaps you missed it. BTW...I don't "fetch" for you or anybody.", and your response is that I lied?? What is there in that comment of mine that illustrates a lie? Is it what Kerry and Hegel said, or the part where I said that I don't "fetch"?? You're terribly bad at this kind of thing. You make statements with no back reference that indicates what on earth you're referring to and then assume some obtuse position of claims of Lying or claiming a contradiction where non exist. So now after I re-state my comment, you say this: "So you lied and really don't have anything. That's what I thought." Actually you didn't think, and that's your problem. You don't think. you don't use your brain. You don't read your own writing. You ask ridiculous questions that have been answered in hearing before committees and expect me or somebody else to reprint them for your education, which nobody is going to bother with since they're available for anybody to see. I'll say this, you live up to the picture you use to identify yourself. You come across as a petulant little twerp. That's just and observation. I'm sure you think it's quite cute.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Why do you think we have any role to play?"

Simplifying your answer: We do not have a role to play.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, we do not have a role to play.

 

Chemical weapons are relatively easy for states and others to make. Have you considered their value as deterrents? Plus they add spice to our conversations on boards like Political Forum.

 

Our role seems to be of father, in the drivers seat of the station wagon, threatening to stop the car if the children in the back seat don't play nicely. For the last few days, I've started to think that Obama, McCain et al are actually doing the right thing...threatening to unleash the dogs of war unless some rules are followed. Maybe it was all a bit for show? Obama meets with Putin at the G20, they work out a little good cop, bad cop and boom, a week later, the Russians and Syria have a deal.

 

If you believe that the Unites States has no major role in the world to play, that we are NOT the leader in both a military, and economic sense, as well as the moral leader then you'd be right to your opinion, and lets face it...that's all it is, and doesn't stand up to reality. If you feel that we would have had no position on the Holocaust for example, and simply say, it's none of our business, then you're right. Granted we didn't even know about it until we had invaded Germany, but do you think we'd have turned our back on that abomination if we'd known and simply said, "it's not our business"? If you believe in isolationism and are someone that subscribes to the Woodrow Wilson idea that the US is an isolated entity where whatever happens in the rest of the world is not our concern, you'd be right in your view. We'd become more like China and ignore atrocities at home and abroad, and just make certain that they don't interrupt the flow of commerce, then fine. That would be the Economic Reductionist viewpoint. Like Marx, and China's Mao, you would hold that that the clue to history, even to the history of ideas, is to be found in the development of the relations between man and his natural environment, the material world; that is to say, in his economic life, and not in his spiritual life. You would hold as you do that the claim that the economic organization of society, the organization of our exchange of matter with nature, is fundamental for all social institutions and especially for their historical development. It's the view that our policy decisions should ultimately be based upon their expected economic consequences. It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. The most obvious proponents of economism are economic reductionists,
who believe that all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms—or, in other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist. Marx is probably the best-known proponent of this view, and the prevalence of economism in contemporary thought is undoubtedly due to his influence. But people like yourself, and the Paul Ryans and Rand Pauls of the Republican party are proponents of Economism (Economic Reductionism) as well.

What is at issue here is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a matter of priority, or what comes first. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable—whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its
end.

Along with this, you'd have to also accept that Israel is on her own, and let the chips fall as they may and that treaty's and alliances don't matter...then fine. BUT...you would be among a tiny minority of views in this country, and be little more than a tiny voice shouting an absurdity that isn't ever going to happen.

 

So you don't have a response when confronted with your own statement other than to insult me and call me a liar. I'll take that for the victory that it is, however I would also like for you to either show where I've made a false statement or apologize.

PS, this video was made for you!

[video=youtube;z-sdO6pwVHQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ[/video]

 

Chemical weapons require the raw materials which these parties don't have. They have to get them from the US or England or some other place. They should not even be made available. It's not as easy as you may think to come up with this (*)(*)(*)(*). That's why the rebels don't have them. Any small group that does, got them from some state that already has them and is willing to provide them to the parties they support. The labs that produce this (*)(*)(*)(*) are expensive and small terrorist groups don't have those luxuries. Do they have value as deterrents? Not really, if you use them you'll be facing international outrage like what we're seeing today and threats of bombing with missiles and even worse. So having them means you might use them once, but that'll be the end for you. Besides, having nukes are also considered a deterrent. Should we allow nukes to be developed using that rationale? They do add spice to Political Forums like this...but...hehe, I don't think that's a credible excuse.

 

No, I don't hate Obama, and if I do and it "shows in all my posts" you should be able to actually point out a post I've made that is obviously dripping for hate with the man. You can't of course, any more than you can point to one where I called for his impeachment. And after saying that I called for his impeachment, not being able to find proof of it, and then saying that I will, well, honestly, all that means is that you lied about my statements and your defense is that I will say it one day.

Sheesh you're doing it again! I didnt' contradict myself because I never said the constitution prohibits him from attacking Syria. Please post the statement where I said that.

You're a regular Baghdad Bob huh? Of course it was Obama's red line. The world didn't make that red line. Syria wasn't a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Surely you've noticed that the administration has used the term "international norms" not "international law" correct?

It's funny you think that Obama is the one who manevered Putin. The rest of the world seems to look at that quite differently.

I've been waiting for you to show me when the administration said it was attacking Assad's CW. The question is, what have you been listening to? No one, and I mean no one, besides you is making the claim that the military attack is to take out the CW.

Well, you either lied about having such a statement or you really have no idea what was said and your making it up. I don't ask people to "fetch" common knowledge or something that should be easily available from Google, but when you, and only you is making this statement, you should provide the sources. If you don't, why shouldn't I think your lying about it?

Do you realize that virtually your entire argument against me is you making up stuff that I didn't' say and making crazy statements without evidence?

 

And what is to be done with them if the state collapses? Deterrence leaves this factor to chance, and therefore sucks as a strategy.

 

I agree, so far so good. Obama hasn't handled this as bad as some think. At first I didn't like the vote, but it makes sense with what Obama appears to be doing here. It's important for Assad and Russia to know that Obama has a vote for force if necessary.

 

You haven't presented a statement from me that I'm supposed to respond to. I have no idea what you're even referring to, and I suspect you don't either, or you'd post it and offer your problem with it. So if you choose to make up a problem and then claim some kind of "victory" enjoy yourself. Whoopie I invented a non-issue with no basis and I won something. Bravo. As for calling you a liar, you posted this; "So you lied and really don't have anything. That's what I thought. You called me a liar? Really? You haven't pointed to any lie...you simply say it and then claim some kind of faux outrage and I'm supposed to be concerned? I don't think so. I'm not even sure about what you think is an insult? Point it out if you think you were insulted. You can do that right? Was it this? "You come across as a petulant little twerp. That's just and observation. I'm sure you think it's quite cute I didn't call you a twerp. I said you come across as one. Maybe you aren't a twerp at all. Maybe you just use twerpiness as a debate tactic. That's an observation and it fits the photo of the little guy in your picture, which you chose for some reason. Like I said, I'm sure you find it cute. I also pointed out your comment ""I would really like you to explain his brilliant strategy then, since right now this looks like the most amateurish thing I've seen from a White House in my lifetime." as an exercise in hyperbole. A complete exaggeration which you denied. Really?? How old are you? In your entire life, you've never seen anything more amateurish as what you see from the White House despite the fact that the guy is going to be able to resolve the issue without launching missiles. In looking back at the 44 presidents we've had....THIS is the most amateurish White House you've ever seen? I'd call it brilliant. Diplomacy backed by force. That's how it works. In the past, we shot first and dealt with the consequences later which lasted almost10 years cost us about a trillion dollars and over 4,000 lives. And you call this White House amateurish? So I say you exaggerated and you deny it when it's obvious that you did exactly that.

But what's more telling is that you don't address the actual body of my comment on what has transpire. Instead you focus on trivialities rather than the substance of the issue which is the use of Chemical weapons and how we respond to it. You avoided responding to that completely. I'll call that a victory for me, and let it speak for itself. Now if you can show me the comment of mine that I'm supposed to respond to and then where I lied, I'll be interested in seeing it.