PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues This year we could face our greatest security challenge/threat since WWII.


BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 04:48 PM
If you are paying attention, it's going to happen.

Take your pick from below. They are just waiting to blow up. We will not be able to keep all these threats/challenges from exploding.



Iran on the verge of nuclear weapon. We or Israel attacks. Shit can spiral out of control quick. Iran attacks the USA in the continental USA.
North Korea has nuclear weapons. They have paid unemployed Russian ballistic engineers to help them. They are now making progress. The kid needs to prove to the military he is as loco as they are. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
Pakistan has a coup or political instability and terrorists get a hold of one of their nuclear weapons. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
Syria draws us into a renewal of the cold war. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
The Saudi or Jordanian Kings get thrown out by their people.
Egypt turns to civil war and the hard liners win and disavow the Israeli/Egyptian treaty. Shit can spiral out of control quick.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 04:50 PM
I didn't know you were a NeoCon.

Reaper16
01-27-2013, 04:53 PM
Seems like the Cuban Missile Crisis was greater than these scenarios.

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 04:54 PM
I didn't know you were a NeoCon.I believe we need to protect our-self's from people/states that would do us harm. Is that a NeoCon?

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 04:55 PM
Seems like the Cuban Missile Crisis was greater than these scenarios.Dude, its not a contest.:shake:

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 04:56 PM
I believe we need to protect our-self's from people/states that would do us harm. Is that a NeoCon?

"Would" is not the same as "are."

RedNeckRaider
01-27-2013, 04:56 PM
Seems like the Cuban Missile Crisis was greater than these scenarios.
I would say the developments in the Middle East are as imposing as any threat ever faced~

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 04:57 PM
"Would" is not the same as "are."A lot of if's in the OP that if happen, become "are".

jjjayb
01-27-2013, 08:43 PM
It's a good thing we have Obama at the helm so none of that will happen. He'll have everyone of those countries holding hands with us and singing Kumbaya together.

suzzer99
01-27-2013, 08:48 PM
Yeah cuz he's been such a pussy. You need to update your talking points.

cosmo20002
01-27-2013, 08:56 PM
Yeah cuz he's been such a pussy. You need to update your talking points.

On odd-numbered dates, it is, "Obama's drones are killing too many people."

On even-numbered dates it is, "Obama is appeasing and apologizing too much."

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 08:59 PM
Yeah cuz he's been such a pussy. You need to update your talking points.
You got it!


• Started a war in Libya under false pretenses while shifting the goal posts on Congressional approval
• Bombing Yeman and lying about it.
• Increasing troops in Afghanistan, then drawing down while still leaving in more than Bush.
• Tried to extend the withdrawal agreement from Iraq that Bush set, but the Iraqis said get out.
• Furiously expanded the war in Pakistan using drones
• Claimed the right to unilaterally kill any US citizen on earth without a nod from Congress or the courts
• Tortured a whistleblower
• Implemented invasive airport security measures
• Continues rendition
• Detention without trial
• Violations of Habeas Corpus

No wonder Bill Kristol calls Obama a NeoCon.

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 09:07 PM
It's a good thing we have Obama at the helm so none of that will happen. He'll have everyone of those countries holding hands with us and singing Kumbaya together.WTF? He's more likely to kill them with drone attacks. You really need to take your Obama is an appeaser talking point back to the Glen Beck bubble.

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 09:14 PM
You got it!

• Started a war in Libya under false pretenses while shifting the goal posts on Congressional approval
• Bombing Yeman and lying about it.
• Increasing troops in Afghanistan, then drawing down while still leaving in more than Bush.
• Tried to extend the withdrawal agreement from Iraq that Bush set, but the Iraqis said get out.
• Furiously expanded the war in Pakistan using drones
• Claimed the right to unilaterally kill any US citizen on earth without a nod from Congress or the courts
• Tortured a whistleblower
• Implemented invasive airport security measures
• Continues rendition
• Detention without trial
• Violations of Habeas CorpusNo wonder Bill Kristol calls Obama a NeoCon.yep, his liberal base has a lot to be pissed off about the way he has conducted himself as President. Neocons and Republicans have no reason to bitch other than its Obama. If it was a Republican doing these things they would be anointing him the second coming of Reagan.

Chocolate Hog
01-27-2013, 09:16 PM
This thread sucks

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 09:21 PM
This thread sucks

ROFL

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 09:23 PM
yep, his liberal base has a lot to be pissed off about the way he has conducted himself as President. Neocons and Republicans have no reason to bitch other than its Obama. If it was a Republican doing these things they would be anointing him the second coming of Reagan.

Reagan did not go that far. In fact, Reagan was against more involvement in the Middle East and said putting Marines in Beirut was one of his biggest mistakes and regrets. Reagan was from the FP Realist camp—not the NeoCon camp. In fact, it was the NeoCons who dissed him behind the scenes for pulling out of Beirut and also for criticizing Israel, privately, for bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor.

LiveSteam
01-28-2013, 08:38 AM
Kong pow chicken with fried rice. from Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Chinese Troops Reportedly Amassing Near US-Mexico Border

If recent accounts coming from some in the alternative media are to be believed, then Operation Fast & Furious may soon give way to an even bigger story surrounding the U.S./Mexico border. Indeed, even the notorious Mexican drug cartels might find themselves taking a back seat.

This is because claims are now being made suggesting the major presence of Chinese troops stationed inside Mexico, both along the U.S. border and the port areas.

The first question, of course, is whether or not this information is accurate. If it is, the second question immediately becomes, “why?”

Unfortunately, however, all the information we have currently comes from anonymous sources who have yet to be verified in terms of their reliability.

The reports currently garnering the most attention are those coming from Steve Quayle of the Q-Files Radio Show who recently interviewed a cross-border trucker who claims to have actually seen a major Chinese military base inside Mexico.

The trucker claims he was delivering a trailer load of food to a military camp 60 miles south of Laredo, Texas. As he was entering Mexico, he says he was escorted into the country by the Mexican Federal Police to protect the truck from hijackings and robbery
The camp itself, according to the trucker, was about 2 miles wide and 3 miles long and was staffed by Chinese soldiers complete with armored vehicles and living quarters constructed from refurbished shipping containers. As his truck was being unloaded by the soldiers, he claims he was able to count the armored vehicles parked neatly in rows. According to the trucker, there were 10,000 armored vehicles located in this facility. He also claims that there were water tanks, generators, and communications complexes.

After this report and based upon the information given by the trucker as well as the geographical knowledge available to him through other individuals, Quayle claims he enlisted his own source which he refers to as “Cross Border Eyes,” to go to the area which was the most likely location for the Chinese base. This area was determined to be in the triangle between Sabinas Hidalgo, Lampazos de Naranjos, and Arroyo Blanco.

Upon entering the area, “Cross Border Eyes” claims he immediately noticed large numbers of Mexican Federal Police in many different types of vehicles, including some that were painted “that odd green characteristic of Red Chinese vehicles.” “Cross Border Eyes” then claims that he tried numerous other entrances to the triangular region by other roads, tracks, etc. but, at each location, there were massive levels of Federal Police on patrol. He is quoted as saying, “it was like you stuck a firecracker into a red ant hole and blew it, and you know how all the red ants come up out of the hole . . .”

Quayle also reported on the same day that High Frequency communications were being broadcast on U.S. military frequencies carrying with them “heavily oriental accented operators speaking broken English in direct communications with Conus [Continental United States] Military Comm Stations . . . . . . . . the accent was not Japanese either, but Chinese.
Alongside these reports, there are still the unsubstantiated claims (or just rumors at this point) of Chinese soldiers involved in a shooting incident with American Border Patrol agents and the Mexican army. The incident occurred on October 24, 2000 with the Mexican army making an incursion onto the American side of the border. When the Border Patrol identified themselves and told the soldiers to return to their side of the border, the soldiers opened fire on the agents.

Janice Manning, of YOWUSA, writes:
The incident, which occurred on October 24 near the Otay Mesa border-crossing southeast of San Diego, has received little attention in the mainstream media but local law enforcement circles are a buzz at reports that Mexican soldiers were not the only ones in the area.
Several eyewitness accounts stated soldiers of Asian and Caucasian origin were also firing from Mexico on the Border Patrol agents in the unprovoked attack.
A Border Patrol agent, speaking to the Strategic Jungle Syndicate on the condition of anonymity, stated the attack was more than Mexican soldiers firing upon what they thought might be drug dealers. 'Everything happened so fast but I know not all of them were Mexican nationals,' the agent said. 'More than two of us saw what appeared to be an Asian soldier. I didn't get a real clean look at his eyes but he certainly looked Asian to me. The bottom line here is this was planned and not some random event. The government might not want to admit that but it's the damn truth.'
The agent also stated several Mexican nationals, attempting to cross the border illegally, also told of 'chinos,' a slang term in Spanish for Chinese, soldiers dressed in fatigues. 'There were a few people in the brush trying to get into the United States and after the shooting ended, they were apprehended and being processed to return to Mexico,' the Border Patrol agent said.
'Two or three of them were close enough and said they heard men speaking what they described as Chinese. They were scared and said they had seen the men before, including some white men driving military type vehicles.'
Local law enforcement officials have also confirmed the movement of unidentified military vehicles. A deputy with the San Diego County Sheriff's office confirmed officers have encountered unknown vehicles in and near the border area. 'We're all law enforcement officers and we talk a lot about what we see,' the deputy with nine years in the department said. 'There's been strange things going on. Even homeowners have been calling about automatic weapons fire in the canyons near Otay Mesa. I know my friends with the San Diego Police Department also hear about it. There's something going on and most of us feel like we're not being told everything.'
Of course, these types of reports have never been corroborated by official sources nor by any hard evidence gained from on the ground reporting. For that reason, it would advisable not to put too much stock in them as of yet.
However, considering the fact that the world seems to be quickly marching toward a third world war in which the United States and China will undoubtedly play a major role, it might also be wise not to completely ignore such information.
After all, China does have a strategic interest in Mexico. Its shipping ports have long been used as an end-run around “free trade” restrictions between the U.S. and China, taking advantage of the signing of the disastrous NAFTA agreement which opened the floodgates of goods and jobs between the two nations and Canada. Both China and the U.S. are taking advantage of this initial agreement as a way to flood the U.S. market with Chinese goods, as China would offload its products at the Mexican ports and where they head straight for the United States market via the Mexican trucks.

It may very well be that there are Chinese troops in Mexico in an effort to protect their investments and ensure that their products make it to market. It is also possible that China is using this reasoning merely as cover for a more militaristic strategic purpose than simply guarding trinkets from drug traffickers. We must keep in mind that plans have been discussed to use foreign troops in the event of mass dislocation and Martial Law inside the United States. Of course, these reports of Chinese troops in Mexico may be false. The war machine loves to induce fear whether real or imagined and they have remained silent.

Many of the claims that are circulating regarding sightings of Chinese helicopters and stationing of Chinese troops at American bases, however, are more likely the result of overactive imaginations. For instance, there are detachments of Asian troops inside the United States – in Texas, Idaho, and Arizona – where many of these sightings have occurred. However, these troops proved to be Singaporean not Chinese, as Singapore has two helicopter and fighter jet detachments inside the United States as part of a program between the two governments for training the RSAF (Royal Singaporean Air Force) because the Singaporean airspace is too restrictive to provide adequate training.

Whatever one thinks of this program, it is certainly not a secretive one. Indeed, Singapore has worked very close with the United States and Israel for years. But it is still foreign troops o U.S. soil.

Regardless of what ones initial reactions may be, the claims being made regarding real Chinese troops in Mexico, particularly in such large numbers, obviously bear watching. At this stage of the game, we cannot afford to become complacent or to write anything off in a knee-jerk reaction.

If anyone has any legitimate information or tips regarding Chinese soldiers inside Mexico (or the United States), please send them to activistpost@gmail.com.


http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-troops-reportedly-amassing-near.html

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 09:13 AM
Well, if we don't pay our debt down, I would think the Chinese would want some US real estate to take as collateral. But they don't want a war. They have to wait for us to be disarmed first.

jjjayb
01-28-2013, 10:15 AM
WTF? He's more likely to kill them with drone attacks. You really need to take your Obama is an appeaser talking point back to the Glen Beck bubble.

I'm well aware of his use of drone attacks. I'm being sarcastic about the image he had before he was elected as being the guy who would close gitmo, stop the wars and make the middle east love us. He hasn't done that yet has he? My point still stands. Now piss off.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-28-2013, 10:19 AM
Rename this to the official "Panties in a bunch" thread please...

Bill Parcells
01-28-2013, 10:33 AM
WOW, you're really smart! its a good thing you voted for Obama!

HonestChieffan
01-28-2013, 10:38 AM
Mountain Lions in Missouri

Its a sign.

Fish
01-28-2013, 10:39 AM
So........ what's the purpose of this thread then? Are we supposed to do something with these predictions other than live in fear this year?

KILLER_CLOWN
01-28-2013, 11:08 AM
So........ what's the purpose of this thread then? Are we supposed to do something with these predictions other than live in fear this year?

Be afraid, be very afraid.

BigMeatballDave
01-28-2013, 11:14 AM
Do you think things could spiral out of control quickly?

KC native
01-28-2013, 11:26 AM
Kong pow chicken with fried rice. from Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Chinese Troops Reportedly Amassing Near US-Mexico Border

If recent accounts coming from some in the alternative media are to be believed, then Operation Fast & Furious may soon give way to an even bigger story surrounding the U.S./Mexico border. Indeed, even the notorious Mexican drug cartels might find themselves taking a back seat.

This is because claims are now being made suggesting the major presence of Chinese troops stationed inside Mexico, both along the U.S. border and the port areas.

The first question, of course, is whether or not this information is accurate. If it is, the second question immediately becomes, “why?”

Unfortunately, however, all the information we have currently comes from anonymous sources who have yet to be verified in terms of their reliability.

The reports currently garnering the most attention are those coming from Steve Quayle of the Q-Files Radio Show who recently interviewed a cross-border trucker who claims to have actually seen a major Chinese military base inside Mexico.

The trucker claims he was delivering a trailer load of food to a military camp 60 miles south of Laredo, Texas. As he was entering Mexico, he says he was escorted into the country by the Mexican Federal Police to protect the truck from hijackings and robbery
The camp itself, according to the trucker, was about 2 miles wide and 3 miles long and was staffed by Chinese soldiers complete with armored vehicles and living quarters constructed from refurbished shipping containers. As his truck was being unloaded by the soldiers, he claims he was able to count the armored vehicles parked neatly in rows. According to the trucker, there were 10,000 armored vehicles located in this facility. He also claims that there were water tanks, generators, and communications complexes.

After this report and based upon the information given by the trucker as well as the geographical knowledge available to him through other individuals, Quayle claims he enlisted his own source which he refers to as “Cross Border Eyes,” to go to the area which was the most likely location for the Chinese base. This area was determined to be in the triangle between Sabinas Hidalgo, Lampazos de Naranjos, and Arroyo Blanco.

Upon entering the area, “Cross Border Eyes” claims he immediately noticed large numbers of Mexican Federal Police in many different types of vehicles, including some that were painted “that odd green characteristic of Red Chinese vehicles.” “Cross Border Eyes” then claims that he tried numerous other entrances to the triangular region by other roads, tracks, etc. but, at each location, there were massive levels of Federal Police on patrol. He is quoted as saying, “it was like you stuck a firecracker into a red ant hole and blew it, and you know how all the red ants come up out of the hole . . .”

Quayle also reported on the same day that High Frequency communications were being broadcast on U.S. military frequencies carrying with them “heavily oriental accented operators speaking broken English in direct communications with Conus [Continental United States] Military Comm Stations . . . . . . . . the accent was not Japanese either, but Chinese.
Alongside these reports, there are still the unsubstantiated claims (or just rumors at this point) of Chinese soldiers involved in a shooting incident with American Border Patrol agents and the Mexican army. The incident occurred on October 24, 2000 with the Mexican army making an incursion onto the American side of the border. When the Border Patrol identified themselves and told the soldiers to return to their side of the border, the soldiers opened fire on the agents.

Janice Manning, of YOWUSA, writes:
The incident, which occurred on October 24 near the Otay Mesa border-crossing southeast of San Diego, has received little attention in the mainstream media but local law enforcement circles are a buzz at reports that Mexican soldiers were not the only ones in the area.
Several eyewitness accounts stated soldiers of Asian and Caucasian origin were also firing from Mexico on the Border Patrol agents in the unprovoked attack.
A Border Patrol agent, speaking to the Strategic Jungle Syndicate on the condition of anonymity, stated the attack was more than Mexican soldiers firing upon what they thought might be drug dealers. 'Everything happened so fast but I know not all of them were Mexican nationals,' the agent said. 'More than two of us saw what appeared to be an Asian soldier. I didn't get a real clean look at his eyes but he certainly looked Asian to me. The bottom line here is this was planned and not some random event. The government might not want to admit that but it's the damn truth.'
The agent also stated several Mexican nationals, attempting to cross the border illegally, also told of 'chinos,' a slang term in Spanish for Chinese, soldiers dressed in fatigues. 'There were a few people in the brush trying to get into the United States and after the shooting ended, they were apprehended and being processed to return to Mexico,' the Border Patrol agent said.
'Two or three of them were close enough and said they heard men speaking what they described as Chinese. They were scared and said they had seen the men before, including some white men driving military type vehicles.'
Local law enforcement officials have also confirmed the movement of unidentified military vehicles. A deputy with the San Diego County Sheriff's office confirmed officers have encountered unknown vehicles in and near the border area. 'We're all law enforcement officers and we talk a lot about what we see,' the deputy with nine years in the department said. 'There's been strange things going on. Even homeowners have been calling about automatic weapons fire in the canyons near Otay Mesa. I know my friends with the San Diego Police Department also hear about it. There's something going on and most of us feel like we're not being told everything.'
Of course, these types of reports have never been corroborated by official sources nor by any hard evidence gained from on the ground reporting. For that reason, it would advisable not to put too much stock in them as of yet.
However, considering the fact that the world seems to be quickly marching toward a third world war in which the United States and China will undoubtedly play a major role, it might also be wise not to completely ignore such information.
After all, China does have a strategic interest in Mexico. Its shipping ports have long been used as an end-run around “free trade” restrictions between the U.S. and China, taking advantage of the signing of the disastrous NAFTA agreement which opened the floodgates of goods and jobs between the two nations and Canada. Both China and the U.S. are taking advantage of this initial agreement as a way to flood the U.S. market with Chinese goods, as China would offload its products at the Mexican ports and where they head straight for the United States market via the Mexican trucks.

It may very well be that there are Chinese troops in Mexico in an effort to protect their investments and ensure that their products make it to market. It is also possible that China is using this reasoning merely as cover for a more militaristic strategic purpose than simply guarding trinkets from drug traffickers. We must keep in mind that plans have been discussed to use foreign troops in the event of mass dislocation and Martial Law inside the United States. Of course, these reports of Chinese troops in Mexico may be false. The war machine loves to induce fear whether real or imagined and they have remained silent.

Many of the claims that are circulating regarding sightings of Chinese helicopters and stationing of Chinese troops at American bases, however, are more likely the result of overactive imaginations. For instance, there are detachments of Asian troops inside the United States – in Texas, Idaho, and Arizona – where many of these sightings have occurred. However, these troops proved to be Singaporean not Chinese, as Singapore has two helicopter and fighter jet detachments inside the United States as part of a program between the two governments for training the RSAF (Royal Singaporean Air Force) because the Singaporean airspace is too restrictive to provide adequate training.

Whatever one thinks of this program, it is certainly not a secretive one. Indeed, Singapore has worked very close with the United States and Israel for years. But it is still foreign troops o U.S. soil.

Regardless of what ones initial reactions may be, the claims being made regarding real Chinese troops in Mexico, particularly in such large numbers, obviously bear watching. At this stage of the game, we cannot afford to become complacent or to write anything off in a knee-jerk reaction.

If anyone has any legitimate information or tips regarding Chinese soldiers inside Mexico (or the United States), please send them to activistpost@gmail.com.


http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-troops-reportedly-amassing-near.html

You are a monumental dumbass. Do you believe any of this?

Iowanian
01-28-2013, 11:57 AM
Why should we be concerned?

Your boy, Obama has this covered. He's ordered a 12 pack of Boulevard to solve all 6 meetings. Rumor is he is even willing to sing to Kim Jong Jr.

Ace Gunner
01-28-2013, 12:04 PM
I believe we need to protect our-self's from people/states that would do us harm. Is that a NeoCon?

ya, so the military strategy is to scatter all our navy as far away from US soil as possible and keep all our troops/armory on the other side of the earth :D

Ace Gunner
01-28-2013, 12:10 PM
Kong pow chicken with fried rice. from Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Chinese Troops Reportedly Amassing Near US-Mexico Border


..............................................................................................



http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-troops-reportedly-amassing-near.html


1972 (during Vietnam Conflict)
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwjVioGlhynHxN271d7BIY0tOcLDOqDfRZWUAZQ9fgg-2T6YQOqw

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/25/books/gadd600span.jpg

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/files/nixonchinaresized.jpg

blaise
01-28-2013, 12:25 PM
Thank you for the current affairs update BRC.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 12:40 PM
ya, so the military strategy is to scatter all our navy as far away from US soil as possible and keep all our troops/armory on the other side of the earth :D

Excellent way of putting it. :thumb:

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 12:42 PM
Kong pow chicken with fried rice. from Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Chinese Troops Reportedly Amassing Near US-Mexico Border

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-troops-reportedly-amassing-near.html

Why do you act so retarded?

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 12:52 PM
ya, so the military strategy is to scatter all our navy as far away from US soil as possible and keep all our troops/armory on the other side of the earth :Dthats the DOD's decision. The theory is tha since there is No real threat of a homeland invasion it's best to position our military resources where our enemies are located. Take it them. Don't sit and wait for them to attack.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 12:54 PM
So........ what's the purpose of this thread then? Are we supposed to do something with these predictions other than live in fear this year?you should be concerned. I am.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 12:56 PM
thats the DOD's decision. The theory is tha since there is No real threat of a homeland invasion it's best to position our military resources where our enemies are located. Take it them. Don't sit and wait for them to attack.

Like they did on 9/11? There over here, because we were over there. So now we have to live in a garrison state instead. Sorry, doesn't work for me. I'd rather pull out of bases in hot spots and live the way we once did. Wouldn't you?

The globalists are taking over our govt and country. The enemy is inside.

alpha_omega
01-28-2013, 12:56 PM
.... Neocons and Republicans have no reason to bitch other than its Obama.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 01:01 PM
Like they did on 9/11? There over here, because we were over there. So now we have to live in a garrison state instead. Sorry, doesn't work for me. I'd rather pull out of bases in hot spots and live the way we once did. Wouldn't you?

The globalists are taking over our govt and country. The enemy is inside.just repeating the public strategy.
I don't know shit about military strategy. I sure hope they are right.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 01:03 PM
just repeating the public strategy.
I don't know shit about military strategy. I sure hope they are right.

Well, it may be strategy but the arguments you have used are the same as the Bush NeoCons.

lcarus
01-28-2013, 01:03 PM
Seems like every threat now days is "they could get a nuclear weapon" or "they're trying to get WMDs!" or "they want all Jews dead!". North Korea and Iran aren't gonna do a god damn thing.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 01:04 PM
Seems like every threat now days is "they could get a nuclear weapon" or "they're trying to get WMDs!" or "they want all Jews dead!". North Korea and Iran aren't gonna do a god damn thing.

Fear is used to control the masses.

Fish
01-28-2013, 01:17 PM
you should be concerned. I am.

OK, but what do I accomplish by being concerned? I don't have any influence at all over the potential events you listed. And I doubt any other member here does either. I don't understand the purpose of living in fear of something that you have zero control over. If you have additional info beyond "Shit could spiral out of control", that would be great. Otherwise I don't understand the scare tactics.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 01:54 PM
Surely it's nothing a few soft, meaningless words and a bow or two can't fix.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 01:57 PM
yep, his liberal base has a lot to be pissed off about the way he has conducted himself as President. Neocons and Republicans have no reason to bitch other than its Obama. If it was a Republican doing these things they would be anointing him the second coming of Reagan.

Obama's foreign policy is incoherent and there's plenty of weakness and appeasement mixed in with the drone strikes.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 02:00 PM
OK, but what do I accomplish by being concerned? I don't have any influence at all over the potential events you listed. And I doubt any other member here does either. I don't understand the purpose of living in fear of something that you have zero control over. If you have additional info beyond "Shit could spiral out of control", that would be great. Otherwise I don't understand the scare tactics.

You could write a letter to your Congressman and Senators opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel as SecDef.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 02:02 PM
You could write a letter to your Congressman and Senators opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel as SecDef.

I think he's an awesome choice because he's from the FP Realist camp, Reagan's camp, which is why the NCs have been so belligerent toward him.

LiveSteam
01-28-2013, 02:30 PM
Mountain Lions in Missouri

Its a sign.

Something much bigger than a mountain lion haunts the woods of southern Missouri.

LiveSteam
01-28-2013, 02:33 PM
. Do you believe any of this?

Kong pow chicken & beans Chewy :shrug:

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 03:03 PM
OK, but what do I accomplish by being concerned? .
There is a difference between being concerned and worried. Concerned you are paying attention to the news, educating yourself. Worried is over the line because unless you get millions of people on the same page as yourself, our actions would be futile.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 03:04 PM
Obama's foreign policy is incoherent and there's plenty of weakness and appeasement mixed in with the drone strikes.

Where is the appeasement?

patteeu
01-28-2013, 03:23 PM
Where is the appeasement?

Do you remember when the administration blamed a filmmaker for the Benghazi attack and then rounded the guy up and put him in jail? You might consider that an example of domestic political cynicism rather than appeasement though. The truth is that it's both.

Obama has a long history of embracing this country's enemies by endorsing their criticisms.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 03:32 PM
Do you remember when the administration blamed a filmmaker for the Benghazi attack and then rounded the guy up and put him in jail? You might consider that an example of domestic political cynicism rather than appeasement though. The truth is that it's both.

Obama has a long history of embracing this country's enemies by endorsing their criticisms.

I'm pretty sure they blamed the people who attacked for the attack, and the video guy was jailed for a clear probation violation.

Radar Chief
01-28-2013, 03:33 PM
Something much bigger than a mountain lion haunts the woods of southern Missouri.

A 'squatch? /Matt Moneymaker

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 03:41 PM
A 'squatch? /Matt Moneymaker

LMAO I thought you were talking about the card player and didn't get the joke. I searched the name and found the buffoon you are talking about~

KC Dan
01-28-2013, 03:45 PM
Where is the appeasement?How about giving them F16's when clearly it is a time where that should probably not be done with all of the uneasiness in Egypt

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 03:52 PM
How about giving them F16's when clearly it is a time where that should probably not be done with all of the uneasiness in Egypt

It is goodwill bro!

Radar Chief
01-28-2013, 04:00 PM
LMAO I thought you were talking about the card player and didn't get the joke. I searched the name and found the buffoon you are talking about~

That show cracks me up. Everything is a sign of a squatch.
They were walking through the woods with a bunch of other researchers and they found a deer carcass with a spiral fracture to one of its legs and without hesitation Moneymaker blurts out, “Yea, squatches will do that so the deer can’t run away.” :spock:

Brainiac
01-28-2013, 04:04 PM
"Would" is not the same as "are."
/Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 04:05 PM
That show cracks me up. Everything is a sign of a squatch.
They were walking through the woods with a bunch of other researchers and they found a deer carcass with a spiral fracture to one of its legs and without hesitation Moneymaker blurts out, “Yea, squatches will do that so the deer can’t run away.” :spock:
Nobody has ever found a single bit of credible evidence but there are still idiots who believe they exist~

Brainiac
01-28-2013, 04:06 PM
I'm pretty sure they blamed the people who attacked for the attack, and the video guy was jailed for a clear probation violation.
This is why nobody takes you seriously. It's OK to support your guy, but if you steadfastly refuse to criticize him when he or his administration fucks up in such an obvious way, you're nothing more than a partisan shill.

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 04:12 PM
This is why nobody takes you seriously. It's OK to support your guy, but if you steadfastly refuse to criticize him when he or his administration ****s up in such an obvious way, you're nothing more than a partisan shill.

I called him out for the same exact thing about a half an hour ago in another thread LMAO

stonedstooge
01-28-2013, 04:31 PM
Sounds like things went south awful quick. People were just showering praise and admiration on Hillary for the splendid, almost record setting advancements in foreign affairs she's made just last night. Bastards snuck up on us after they knew she resigned

King_Chief_Fan
01-28-2013, 04:36 PM
If you are paying attention, it's going to happen.

Take your pick from below. They are just waiting to blow up. We will not be able to keep all these threats/challenges from exploding.



Iran on the verge of nuclear weapon. We or Israel attacks. Shit can spiral out of control quick. Iran attacks the USA in the continental USA.
North Korea has nuclear weapons. They have paid unemployed Russian ballistic engineers to help them. They are now making progress. The kid needs to prove to the military he is as loco as they are. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
Pakistan has a coup or political instability and terrorists get a hold of one of their nuclear weapons. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
Syria draws us into a renewal of the cold war. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
The Saudi or Jordanian Kings get thrown out by their people.
Egypt turns to civil war and the hard liners win and disavow the Israeli/Egyptian treaty. Shit can spiral out of control quick.
POTUS better get busy

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 04:43 PM
Do you remember when the administration blamed a filmmaker for the Benghazi attack and then rounded the guy up and put him in jail? You might consider that an example of domestic political cynicism rather than appeasement though. The truth is that it's both.

Obama has a long history of embracing this country's enemies by endorsing their criticisms.blaming a filmaker for benghazi is not an "appeasement" by the President. Try again. He's an appeaser, correct? You should be able to provide a list???

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 04:44 PM
POTUS better get busyPlans are in place. Trigger goes off the shit starts spinning.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 04:52 PM
How about giving them F16's when clearly it is a time where that should probably not be done with all of the uneasiness in Egyptthey had no choice. It's in the peace agreement. If we renegaded or delayed it could have provided the Muslim brotherhood an option to void the Egypt/Israeli agreement. That would be a big time fuck up.

Besides our military trusts the Generals in change of the Egyptian military. They have been working side by side with us for 25+ years. No way will they fire on us or allow an Islamist party to order them to fire on us. They will turn the guns on the government. They are really professional and the Egyptian military loves its USA partnership or maybe its all the Billions of $ and free training?:rolleyes:

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 05:01 PM
blaming a filmaker for benghazi is not an "appeasement" by the President. Try again. He's an appeaser, correct? You should be able to provide a list???

It was however disingenuous and despicable~

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 05:04 PM
Sounds familiar doesn't it?you just ain't a whistling dixie. No matter who's in office our foreign policy is erriely similiar. Look at the Presidential debate between Romney and Obama. 90% the same.

Now Obama got us out of Iraq. McCain was prepared to stay 100 years. We are getting out of Afghanistan and I think Romeny would have kept us there longer but he would have got us out too.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-28-2013, 05:23 PM
you just ain't a whistling dixie. No matter who's in office our foreign policy is erriely similiar. Look at the Presidential debate between Romney and Obama. 90% the same.

Now Obama got us out of Iraq. McCain was prepared to stay 100 years. We are getting out of Afghanistan and I think Romeny would have kept us there longer but he would have got us out too.

The only choice was Ron Paul.....Anyone stating they want change from either side of the aisle can kindly STFU.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 05:31 PM
you just ain't a whistling dixie. No matter who's in office our foreign policy is erriely similiar. Look at the Presidential debate between Romney and Obama. 90% the same.

Now Obama got us out of Iraq. McCain was prepared to stay 100 years. We are getting out of Afghanistan and I think Romeny would have kept us there longer but he would have got us out too.

Obama did not get us out of Iraq. The Status of Forces agreement was made under Bush for the deadline. Obama tried to extend it but the Iraqis said no "get out." Obama had to comply. I have family that make this claim and it's just BS.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 05:33 PM
This is why nobody takes you seriously. It's OK to support your guy, but if you steadfastly refuse to criticize him when he or his administration ****s up in such an obvious way, you're nothing more than a partisan shill.

I'll criticize when it is deserved. In this case, some Libyans attacked the consulate, and that's who was blamed. And the videomaker violated probation. If you want to dispute that, then do so.

You want me to criticize him for not having adequate security at the consulate? Fine. Although I tend to think that staffing decisions at US consulates probably don't make it to the presidential level, it technically occured on his watch. I just don't think such a mistake is akin to treason or deserves impeachment.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 05:34 PM
I called him out for the same exact thing about a half an hour ago in another thread LMAO

Called out, but didn't dispute what I said. So your "calling out" is pretty empty.

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 05:43 PM
Called out, but didn't dispute what I said. So your "calling out" is pretty empty.

Everyone sees you for what you are, hence the reason nobody takes you serious~

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 05:44 PM
Obama did not get us out of Iraq. The Status of Forces agreement was made under Bush for the deadline. Obama tried to extend it but the Iraqis said no "get out." Obama had to comply. I have family that make this claim and it's just BS.Your information is incorrect. We had a lot of options to stay. The Iraq's didn't kick us out. We chose to leave. McCain would not have left.

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 05:46 PM
you just ain't a whistling dixie. No matter who's in office our foreign policy is erriely similiar. Look at the Presidential debate between Romney and Obama. 90% the same.

Now Obama got us out of Iraq. McCain was prepared to stay 100 years. We are getting out of Afghanistan and I think Romeny would have kept us there longer but he would have got us out too.

LMAO you just cannot help yourself. Obama got us out LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
01-28-2013, 05:46 PM
LMAO you just cannot help yourself. Obama got us out LMAO

Even though we're still there he got us out.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 06:19 PM
Your information is incorrect. We had a lot of options to stay. The Iraq's didn't kick us out. We chose to leave. McCain would not have left.

No that is correct information. The Status of Force agreement set a deadline under Bush. Obama had to get out. The Iraqi's wanted us out. McCain may have pushed to stay but I am not sure he could have without some major controversy. But the agreement was signed by Bush.

Fact Check
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-iraq/index.html
Each man's attacks are rooted in fact. The Obama administration did attempt, unsuccessfully, to extend the presence of a scaled-back U.S. training mission in Iraq, while Romney has said Washington should have kept a considerably larger force in Baghdad.

and

http://www.businessinsider.com/debate-obama-wrong-iraq-2012-10#ixzz2JJs9mnqp

The status of forces agreement — put into place in 2008, before Obama took office — called for a full U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. When that time came, the Obama administration tried to work out an extension of the agreement with the Iraqi government that would have kept an unspecified number of U.S. troops (likely between 3,000 and 5,000) in the country to train Iraqi security forces.

The deal fell apart after Iraqi political leadership refused to grant legal immunity for U.S. troops, and the last U.S. troops withdrew from the country in December 2011.

KC Dan
01-28-2013, 06:23 PM
It's onlu Bushs' fault when it is a negative for the U.S., silly people. Get with the program. If it is positive, it is always Obama, jeez...When will people learn, racists

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 06:25 PM
No that is correct information. The Status of Force agreement set a deadline under Bush. Obama had to get out. The Iraqi's wanted us out. McCain may have pushed to stay but I am not sure he could have without some major controversy. But the agreement was signed by Bush.The Status of Force agreement is a piece of paper. We were the ones with 169K troops on the ground. Obama got us out of a war zone. He had a choice.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 06:25 PM
I'm pretty sure they blamed the people who attacked for the attack, and the video guy was jailed for a clear probation violation.

They blamed the filmmaker and coincidentally someone decided to bring the hammer down on a parole violation. How convenient.

stonedstooge
01-28-2013, 06:26 PM
No that is correct information. The Status of Force agreement set a deadline under Bush. Obama had to get out. The Iraqi's wanted us out. McCain may have pushed to stay but I am not sure he could have without some major controversy. But the agreement was signed by Bush.

Fact Check
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-iraq/index.html
Each man's attacks are rooted in fact. The Obama administration did attempt, unsuccessfully, to extend the presence of a scaled-back U.S. training mission in Iraq, while Romney has said Washington should have kept a considerably larger force in Baghdad.

an
http://www.businessinsider.com/debate-obama-wrong-iraq-2012-10#ixzz2JJs9mnqp

The status of forces agreement — put into place in 2008, before Obama took office — called for a full U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. When that time came, the Obama administration tried to work out an extension of the agreement with the Iraqi government that would have kept an unspecified number of U.S. troops (likely between 3,000 and 5,000) in the country to train Iraqi security forces.

The deal fell apart after Iraqi political leadership refused to grant legal immunity for U.S. troops, and the last U.S. troops withdrew from the country in December 2011.

Hey, the first legitimate thing I've seen you can actually blame Bush for! Never heard it said though.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 06:27 PM
Even though we're still there he got us out.I don't consider 200 troops still at war in Iraq. We have 200 troops manning the Patriot missiles that we gave Turkey last month. 200 troops are not a war machine.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 06:27 PM
The Status of Force agreement is a piece of paper. We were the ones with 169K troops on the ground. Obama got us out of a war zone. He had a choice.

Go and see the edits I made to my last post which is #77.

The SoF is more than a piece of paper. It's an agreement. Obama tried to keep some troops there but failed to convince the Iraqis. They made us honor our agreement was all that happened.

Your using half-truths.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 06:29 PM
Hey, the first legitimate thing I've seen you can actually blame Bush for! Never heard it said though.

Well, I don't know if "blame" is the right word. I guess you'd have to see that as a bad thing. I don't happen to see it that way.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 06:31 PM
blaming a filmaker for benghazi is not an "appeasement" by the President. Try again. He's an appeaser, correct? You should be able to provide a list???

Blaming a filmmaker and being critical of the exercise of free speech that offends our Islamist adversaries (instead of defending such a central tenet of our society) in order to curry favor with them is most certainly appeasement.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 06:31 PM
Go and see the edits I made to my last post which is #77.

The SoF is more than a piece of paper. It's an agreement. Obama tried to keep some troops there but failed to convince the Iraqis. They made us honor our agreement was all that happened.

Your using half-truths.It was a non enforcable paper. We didnt want to leave, who was going to make us leave? Leaving was our choice. Thats a fact that I know first hand. We did not leave, repeat not leave because of some SOF agreement.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 06:32 PM
you just ain't a whistling dixie. No matter who's in office our foreign policy is erriely similiar. Look at the Presidential debate between Romney and Obama. 90% the same.

Now Obama got us out of Iraq. McCain was prepared to stay 100 years. We are getting out of Afghanistan and I think Romeny would have kept us there longer but he would have got us out too.

Correction: Obama retreated from Iraq.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 06:33 PM
Blaming a filmmaker and being critical of the exercise of free speech that offends our Islamist adversaries (instead of defending such a central tenet of our society) in order to curry favor with them is most certainly appeasement.BS. Appeasement is allowing someone to take something from you and hoping they dont take more.

Where is the rest of the appeasement examples?

patteeu
01-28-2013, 06:38 PM
BS. Appeasement is allowing someone to take something from you and hoping they dont take more.

Appeasement is giving in to the demands of an enemy in order to avoid conflict. Islamists demand that we truncate our freedom of speech when it comes to depictions of Islam or Mohammed. Obama's criticism of someone who exercised their free speech in that manner and the subsequent (purely coincidental, I'm sure) jailing of that person is designed to placate those Islamist concerns. That's not the same as handing over California to prevent Mexico from attacking us, but it's appeasement nonetheless, whether you like it or not.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 06:42 PM
Where is the rest of the appeasement examples?

Why do I need to provide a list? Even if someone only rapes a single girl, he's still a rapist, right? That said, this wasn't a singular event. Obama's four years have been filled with similar examples of appeasement from his Cairo speech to his calls for Hosni Mubarak to step down to his cancellation of naval exercises in order to avoid conflict with the Iranians. Weakness is part of his character.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 06:43 PM
Appeasement is giving in to the demands of an enemy in order to avoid conflict. Islamists demand that we truncate our freedom of speech when it comes to depictions of Islam or Mohammed. Obama's criticism of someone who exercised their free speech in that manner and the subsequent (purely coincidental, I'm sure) jailing of that person is designed to placate those Islamist concerns. That's not the same as handing over California to prevent Mexico from attacking us, but it's appeasement nonetheless, whether you like it or not.So when that preacher was going to burn the Koran and the DOD asked them to not burn the Koran that was appeasement?

Again........... where's the list of examples of Obama's appeasement?

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 06:47 PM
Why do I need to provide a list? Because you said he's an appeaser. I ask for some examples and you give me some BS criticism of a private citizen by the president.

There is none, thats why you can't list them. You will get owned. It's a BS Limbaugh/Beck talking point that has no basis in reality.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 06:47 PM
It was a non enforcable paper. We didnt want to leave, who was going to make us leave? Leaving was our choice. Thats a fact that I know first hand. We did not leave, repeat not leave because of some SOF agreement.

Well the Iraqi's sure enforced it. They wanted us out. Period.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 06:58 PM
"Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq" [ Whooa! That's a mouthful!}

On 16 November 2008, Iraq's Cabinet approved the agreement, which cited the end of 2009 for the pull out of US troops from Iraqi cities, and 2011 as the fixed deadline for removal of US military presence in country.

On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement


I wouldn't sign a contract with you BRC.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 07:01 PM
Well the Iraqi's sure enforced it. They wanted us out. Period.AGAIN, you don't get the dynamic in play.......... we were the ones in charge and the ones with the guns.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 07:03 PM
AGAIN, you don't get the dynamic in play.......... we were the ones in charge and the ones with the guns.

What your arguing for now, is being a bully and to hell with our word.
I disagree, because history is full of superpowers being tossed out with far less ammo and Gandhi did it peacefully because he had the people on his side.

It's like saying Nixon got us out of Nam when Congress pulled the funding.

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 07:05 PM
AGAIN, you don't get the dynamic in play.......... we were the ones in charge and the ones with the guns.

LMAO

mlyonsd
01-28-2013, 07:10 PM
AGAIN, you don't get the dynamic in play.......... we were the ones in charge and the ones with the guns.
Did we leave successfully or just running?

stonedstooge
01-28-2013, 07:13 PM
Did we leave successfully or just running?

Only successful after January 20 of 2009. Was a total failure to that point

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 07:21 PM
They blamed the filmmaker and coincidentally someone decided to bring the hammer down on a parole violation. How convenient.

Be specific--blamed the filmmaker for what?

LiveSteam
01-28-2013, 07:23 PM
Only successful after January 20 of 2009. Was a total failure to that point

ROFL This is fucking awesome. :clap:

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 07:23 PM
Be specific--blamed the filmmaker for what?

You just cannot help being a twat can you LMAO

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 07:26 PM
You just cannot help being a twat can you LMAO

Is that what you call people smarter than you?

RedNeckRaider
01-28-2013, 07:29 PM
Is that what you call people smarter than you?

Oh there are several here smarter than I am...you however are not on that list~

KC native
01-28-2013, 07:37 PM
Kong pow chicken & beans Chewy :shrug:

That's not an answer to the question. You are a racist dipshit.

LiveSteam
01-28-2013, 07:47 PM
That's not an answer to the question. You are a racist dipshit.

Chewy chicken pow Kong ?
Oh/ & try just once to STFU

KC native
01-28-2013, 07:50 PM
Chewy chicken pow Kong ?
Oh/ & try just once to STFU

What's sad is you think that is either insulting and/or funny.

Stole enough scrap to come get embarrassed yet cupcake?

LiveSteam
01-28-2013, 07:53 PM
What's sad is you think that is either insulting and/or funny.

Stole enough scrap to come get embarrassed yet cupcake?

Go hump some other leg Chewy.
I seen you tried to hump El Jefe's leg today but several people jumped in & kicked you in your puss..

KC native
01-28-2013, 07:55 PM
Go hump some other leg Chewy.
I seen you tried to hump El Jefe's leg today but several people jumped in & kicked you in your puss..

ROFL riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I got removed from the thread before I could point out all the bullshit threads he starts. But whatever you gotta tell yourself cupcake to make it through the day is fine with me.

LiveSteam
01-28-2013, 07:56 PM
ROFL riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I got removed from the thread before I could point out all the bullshit threads he starts. But whatever you gotta tell yourself cupcake to make it through the day is fine with me.

:thumb: Chewy

Bill Parcells
01-28-2013, 08:10 PM
That's not an answer to the question. You are a racist dipshit.

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/wp-content/uploads/untitled8.bmp

Is that you before Texas?

patteeu
01-28-2013, 08:20 PM
So when that preacher was going to burn the Koran and the DOD asked them to not burn the Koran that was appeasement?

Again........... where's the list of examples of Obama's appeasement?

Again, how many people do you have to rape before you become a rapist? I only need to provide one example to prove my point, but I've already given you a short list.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 08:26 PM
Be specific--blamed the filmmaker for what?

For the enraging the muslims who killed four Americans in Benghazi.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 08:27 PM
Because you said he's an appeaser. I ask for some examples and you give me some BS criticism of a private citizen by the president.

There is none, thats why you can't list them. You will get owned. It's a BS Limbaugh/Beck talking point that has no basis in reality.

That's an inadequate answer. Why do I need to provide a list when one example is enough to prove the point?

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 08:39 PM
That's an inadequate answer. Why do I need to provide a list when one example is enough to prove the point?criticizing some dude over a video is not the President practicing a foreign policy of appeasement.

Try again. Oh wait.... you can't because this President is not an appeaser and your Beck/Limbaugh bubble can't change that fact.

And just providing one example and then stating that makes all the rest of the examples the same is A MORNIC argument. You are better.

stonedstooge
01-28-2013, 08:46 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yqoPnAg3BAE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

KC native
01-28-2013, 08:49 PM
htp

Is that you before Texas?

I see you're just as miserable as ever. Trying to pick up your buddy's slack?

KC native
01-28-2013, 08:50 PM
criticizing some dude over a video is not the President practicing a foreign policy of appeasement.

Try again. Oh wait.... you can't because this President is not an appeaser and your Beck/Limbaugh bubble can't change that fact.

And just providing one example and then stating that makes all the rest of the examples the same is A MORNIC argument. You are better.

No, he's really not.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 08:51 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yqoPnAg3BAE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

She said the film "has led to protests in a number of countries." That is a true statement.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 08:57 PM
For enraging the muslims who killed four Americans in Benghazi.

Ok, so it was enraged Muslims being blamed for the attacks, just like I said.

And so, in this particular location, it turns out the attackers were not enraged by the video, but were enraged by something else? And this is the big scandal?

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 09:38 PM
Public info as of an hour ago leaked by the Yemen government. Speculation that it's Iran supplying Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Iran supplying Al-Qaeda..... that can't be good for peace.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/28/ship-bearing-illegal-arms-seized-off-yemen/


Ship bearing illegal arms seized off Yemen (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/28/ship-bearing-illegal-arms-seized-off-yemen/)

Yemeni authorities working with the U.S. Navy intercepted a ship carrying a "substantial" cache of "illegal arms" such as surface-to-air missiles, potent explosives and rocket-propelled grenades, a U.S. official and Yemen's government said Monday.


The incident took place in Yemeni territorial waters in the Arabian Sea last Wednesday, according to a statement issued five days later from Yemen's embassy in Washington.


The crew of the USS Farragut (http://www.farragut.navy.mil/), a Naval destroyer, was working with Yemeni authorities when they spotted the vessel, said an official in the Obama administration. The ship had several flags onboard, but no reliable documentation showing where it came from, the official added Monday.
After the ship was intercepted, Yemeni coast guard officers boarded it and "found a large cache of illegal arms," according to the Yemeni embassy's statement, which was also posted on the website of the Arabian country's state-run SABA news agency.


The firepower included anti-aircraft missiles, C4 military-grade explosive, ammunition and bomb-making equipment such as circuits, remote triggers and various handheld explosives, the Yemeni statement said.
There were eight Yemeni crew members aboard the vessel.
The Obama administration official described the effort as a joint operation, and said U.S. forces joined their Yemeni counterparts in boarding the suspect boat.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 10:42 PM
criticizing some dude over a video is not the President practicing a foreign policy of appeasement.

Try again. Oh wait.... you can't because this President is not an appeaser and your Beck/Limbaugh bubble can't change that fact.

And just providing one example and then stating that makes all the rest of the examples the same is A MORNIC argument. You are better.

One example is all it takes. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

We'll all be better off when our appeaser-in-chief is an ex-appeaser-in-chief even if his devoted followers like yourself don't recognize that.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 10:43 PM
Public info as of an hour ago leaked by the Yemen government. Speculation that it's Iran supplying Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Iran supplying Al-Qaeda..... that can't be good for peace.

That can't be right. There's no way Shia will work with Sunnis. Isn't that what we've been told? Can't happen.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 10:48 PM
Ok, so it was enraged Muslims being blamed for the attacks, just like I said.

I didn't ever say you were wrong. I'm not wrong either though.

And so, in this particular location, it turns out the attackers were not enraged by the video, but were enraged by something else? And this is the big scandal?

The false suggestion that they were (enraged by the video) is certainly a part of it.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 10:51 PM
That can't be right. There's no way Shia will work with Sunnis. Isn't that what we've been told? Can't happen.

Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Same damn reason we are "friends" with Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan governments etc etc

stevieray
01-28-2013, 10:58 PM
Dude, its not a contest.:shake:

irony on steroids..

Iowanian
01-28-2013, 11:16 PM
I was passing information to this site in 2004-2005 that Iran was supplying weapons, explosives, IED and Shape charges in Iraq to use against our people.


This isn't new information and it's not a surprise.

Iran is a used Israeli tampon.

patteeu
01-29-2013, 02:10 PM
Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Same damn reason we are "friends" with Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan governments etc etc

Yeah, I wasn't serious. That's what critics of the Bush administration used to say when news of Iran support of al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan was reported. And also what they said about Saddam (in the sense that he wasn't an Islamist and he supposedly wouldn't work with Islamists).

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 03:54 PM
Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Not always.

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 04:26 PM
Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Same damn reason we are "friends" with Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan governments etc etc

You forgot Saudi Arabia while listing countries we turn a blind eye to~

BigRedChief
01-29-2013, 04:50 PM
Yeah, I wasn't serious. That's what critics of the Bush administration used to say when news of Iran support of al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan was reported.And this is a dilemma for myself personally. The evidence is piling up that we can't ignore that Iran is funding AL-QAaeda is not even trying to be sly about it anymore.

I'm in favor of killing every member of Al-Qaeda until they decide to quit trying to kill Americans. I think we should attack them wherever they are hiding. Pakistan, take em out with drones. Yemen, use drones and SO. If they are hiding in any country and that country won't do anything about it, we go in and take them out.

What about providing arms? Aid and comfort to our enemies? If Iran is going to brazenly help Al-Qaeda do we just let it go? Going to war with Iran will be long and bloody and the war will come to the homeland. Is it worth it?

patteeu
01-29-2013, 08:15 PM
And this is a dilemma for myself personally. The evidence is piling up that we can't ignore that Iran is funding AL-QAaeda is not even trying to be sly about it anymore.

I'm in favor of killing every member of Al-Qaeda until they decide to quit trying to kill Americans. I think we should attack them wherever they are hiding. Pakistan, take em out with drones. Yemen, use drones and SO. If they are hiding in any country and that country won't do anything about it, we go in and take them out.

What about providing arms? Aid and comfort to our enemies? If Iran is going to brazenly help Al-Qaeda do we just let it go? Going to war with Iran will be long and bloody and the war will come to the homeland. Is it worth it?

We should have done something about it when we first found it happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and when we had significant forces on either side of them. Of course, we had a third front to fight here at home with the way many democrats (and some isolationist Republicans) were working full time to undermine the war effort.

BigRedChief
01-29-2013, 08:39 PM
We should have done something about it when we first found it happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and when we had significant forces on either side of them. Of course, we had a third front to fight here at home with the way many democrats (and some isolationist Republicans) were working full time to undermine the war effort.okay now lets put this together in case some on here are not paying attention........ public info



Iran and North Korea has all kinds of agreements, including a “civilian scientific and technological cooperation”.
Iran is publicly helping North Korea with ballistic technology
Iran put a monkey in space this week. Why would you do that? You really think they are interested in space exploration?
North Korea has 8-10 low yield nuclear weapons
Russia uses red fuming nitric acid in their ballistic missiles. North Korea is using it. How did they get it? Learn how to use it? It wasn't from the Russians directly. Has to have come from Iran.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2013, 08:30 AM
okay now lets put this together in case some on here are not paying attention........ public info



Iran and North Korea has all kinds of agreements, including a “civilian scientific and technological cooperation”.
Iran is publicly helping North Korea with ballistic technology
Iran put a monkey in space this week. Why would you do that? You really think they are interested in space exploration?
North Korea has 8-10 low yield nuclear weapons
Russia uses red fuming nitric acid in their ballistic missiles. North Korea is using it. How did they get it? Learn how to use it? It wasn't from the Russians directly. Has to have come from Iran.


So would you like to invade?

BigRedChief
01-30-2013, 06:01 PM
So would you like to invade?No, war will cost thousands of innocent lives and could spiral out of control into a wider war that no one can "win".

That being said, there is no way we can allow Iran to posses nuclear weapons unless they throw the mullahs out. And we can't allow North Korea to put one of their nuclear warheads on a ballistic missile that could reach USA.

But, all of our options suck royal ass. What needs to happen is China sit on dumbass North Korea and tell them to chill. It's not in their best interests either. And the people of Iran need to throw the mullahs out.

BigRedChief
01-31-2013, 05:47 PM
Israel attacks Syria and takes out a convey of anti-aircraft missiles heading to Hezbollah in Lebanon paid for with Iranian money. For good measure the Israeli's took out the manufacturing plant inside in Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/israeli-attack-on-syria-could-be-beginning-of-new-strategy-as-assads-grip-on-power-weakens/2013/01/31/20ee65a0-6beb-11e2-8f4f-2abd96162ba8_story.html

On Thursday, Syria threatened to retaliate, while Hezbollah condemned the attack as “barbaric aggression.” Iran, which supplies arms to Syria, Hezbollah and the Hamas militant group in Gaza, said the airstrike would have significant implications for Israel. Syrian ally Russia said it appeared to be an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

LiveSteam
01-31-2013, 05:55 PM
Israel attacks Syria and takes out a convey of anti-aircraft missiles heading to Hezbollah in Lebanon paid for with Iranian money. For good measure the Israeli's took out the manufacturing plant inside in Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/israeli-attack-on-syria-could-be-beginning-of-new-strategy-as-assads-grip-on-power-weakens/2013/01/31/20ee65a0-6beb-11e2-8f4f-2abd96162ba8_story.html

On Thursday, Syria threatened to retaliate, while Hezbollah condemned the attack as “barbaric aggression.” Iran, which supplies arms to Syria, Hezbollah and the Hamas militant group in Gaza, said the airstrike would have significant implications for Israel. Syrian ally Russia said it appeared to be an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

I read a story about an hour ago,about N Korea issuing martial law (Kinda thought that place was always under some form of ML) & telling its population to prepare for war.

BigRedChief
01-31-2013, 06:04 PM
I read a story about an hour ago,about N Korea issuing martial law (Kinda thought that place was always under some form of ML) & telling its population to prepare for war.North Korea is always releasing flamatory statments but they have ramped up the rhetoric. Basically threatning up with a nuclear weapon.

North Korea says it plans rocket and nuclear tests directly targeting the United States.


"In the new phase of our century-long struggle against the United States, we do not hide the fact that various satellites, long-range missiles that we will continue to launch and high-level nuclear test we will conduct will target our sworn enemy, the United States," said a statement Thursday from the North's National Defense Commission.


Earlier this week, the UN Security Council (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+Nations+Security+Council) members unanimously condemned Pyongyang’s rocket launch in December and expanded current sanctions. The US followed up with sanctions of its own yesterday, prompting North Korea to threaten additional rocket launches and nuclear tests against the US (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2013/0124/North-Korea-threatens-new-nuclear-test-aimed-at-US-video), its “sworn enemy.”

"Sanctions mean a war and a declaration of war against us (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/25/us-korea-north-idUSBRE90O0AJ20130125),” the North's Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said today, according to Reuters. "If the puppet group of traitors takes a direct part in the UN 'sanctions,' the DPRK will take strong physical counter-measures against it.”

Dayze
01-31-2013, 06:29 PM
Wars are not winnable any more. There is too much politicizing. And we're too quick to label some bullshit occupation as a "war". In a no shit war, you fucking destroy the enemy

People in general should place the label of war on so many of these things.

If you go to war, you go all in and don't stop until you win. It can be argued that an absolute destruction of a country or government would save more lives.

Rant off

BigRedChief
01-31-2013, 08:20 PM
If you go to war, you go all in and don't stop until you win.This is been a fact since war has existed.

It can be argued that an absolute destruction of a country or government would save more lives.
Rant offNo, thats not necessary or applicable to every situation. Afghanistan is already a shithole of a destructed country. How do we ever "win"?

We can't do shit to NK without China's permission and corporation If we act alone North Korea will nuke the 30K American soldiers in Korea. And then we wipe them off the face of the earth. It won't being back the 30K Americans and 100K South Koreans that died in the initial part of the war.

stonedstooge
01-31-2013, 08:26 PM
Thought I read somewhere that the North Korean's rockets can't reach the US, but can come close enough to do real damage to New York City, I think it said. Anyone else know?

BigRedChief
01-31-2013, 08:29 PM
Thought I read somewhere that the North Korean's rockets can't reach the US, but can come close enough to do real damage to New York City, I think it said. Anyone else know?In the last 6 months they have got outside help. They will get it done sooner than later.

stonedstooge
01-31-2013, 08:30 PM
In the last 6 months they have got outside help. They will get it done sooner than later.

Thanks

Otter
01-31-2013, 09:02 PM
Thought I read somewhere that the North Korean's rockets can't reach the US, but can come close enough to do real damage to New York City, I think it said. Anyone else know?

New York City is probably one of the furthest points in the US from a launch in North Korea. Why wouldn't they target the west coast shipping yards or oil refineries? Or the missile silos in the mid west? Or a couple other hundred things before trying to hit the hardest target possible?

If North Korea could do such a thing it would be a catalyst act. Not a first strike with thoughts of defeat and victory. NYC is pretty safe from North Korean missile strikes.

LiveSteam
02-15-2013, 11:11 PM
Two Russian nuclear-armed bombers circled the western Pacific island of Guam this week in the latest sign of Moscow’s growing strategic assertiveness toward the United States.

The Russian Tu-95 Bear-H strategic bombers were equipped with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and were followed by U.S. jets as they circumnavigated Guam on Feb. 12 local time—hours before President Barack Obama’s state of the union address.

Rest of the story http://freebeacon.com/bear-bombers-over-guam/