Tuesday, August 27, 2013

A Sampling of the Day's News...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Feeling like posting something tonight but at the same time I am feeling a bit lazy. So, following are some today's stories. Click to read.

“Experts” Who Are Always Wrong About Everything Want to Bomb Syria

Obama’s third war
The folly of striking Syria


White House: We're not seeking 'regime change' as goal in Syria

Exclusive: Syria strike due in days, West tells opposition - sources
Obama, race and class

Robertson: Gay People Deliberately Spread HIV/AIDS By Cutting People With Special Rings
Obama source predicts Summers will be named Fed chief soon

How Louie Gohmert Is Fueling An Anti-American Conspiracy Theory In Egypt

Rogue IRS Shamefully Targets Nation’s Veterans

Iranian Official: Israel to Be ‘First Victim’ of U.S. Attack on Syria

Boehner visits Boise; vows to succeed with entitlement reform this fall

19 comments:

  1. The only reason that Obama is going to strike is because the fellow backed himself into yet another corner. Just like he did with Afghanistan being the just war and then having to back it up with that idiotic surge, so, too, with this whole chemical weapons being a "red line" (the previous 100,000 deaths by non-chemical means didn't matter, I guess) malarkey. The man is simply incapable of thinking more than 2 steps ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty much Will.

      Besides, it is a Syrian civil war, it does not threaten the U.S or it's interests. Involving ourselves militarily will have further negative consequences for us AND add to our continual growing debt.


      This nation has never stepped down off it's war footing following WW II and the MIC and hawks in both parties fully intend to keep us there. It is as profitable as it is destructive. Ultimately the destructive aspect of the insanity will crush this nation, in more ways than just financial ruin.

      But I grow weary of thinking about it.

      Delete
    2. Maybe, MAYBE, if one of the two sides was preferable, but when you have a situation like this in which they're equally loathsome, you gotta stay out - red line or no red line.

      Delete
    3. Are innocent civilians caught in the middle "loathsome"? Seeing as most of them are probably poor, I'm going to guess Will would say "yes".

      Delete
    4. Just like the innocent civilians that Hussein and his sons tortured, raped, and murdered you didn't seem to care about. Typical partisan fool; defending the wars of your guy's choosing and vilifying those from the opposition. As opposed to me, who has consistently been against conflict in general. Dismissed.

      Delete
  2. More silly Anti-Obama nonsense from Will.

    Whether or not Obama would like to help in Syria, he's going to get stuck with it over this chemical weapons issue because of the Geneva Protocol. It's politically unpopular, so he'd like to go to Congress (he doesn't have to), but that place if chock full of Wills, so they're useless.

    With or without our ridiculous post-WWII endless war footing, with or without Obama, we'd still be stuck with this one.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  3. Will: you see that from Jersey? For some unknown reason, he wants you too not criticize Obama consistent to how you have been criticizing his predecessors. I guess Obama deserves special treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh please. Obama's handled all these crises far far better than that retarded scumbag you idiot cons put in there last time.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you are directing something at "idiot cons", Jersey, it is directed only at me. There are two other participants here, who are not conservatives. And one of them is Will, who as we have seen holds Obama to the same standard as Bush.

    "Obama's handled all these crises far far better..."

    And from objective measurements, your claim is disputable. One can only assume you are so emphatic like this is because you are letting the blind partisanship (judging mainly on whether or not there is a (D) or an (R) after someone's name...and from this unprincipled start, building cases that exclude information that does not fit the partisan narrowscope). I know I do this sometimes, but I realized it is a mistake..... and I certainly don't revel in it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You, D. Lutho, are the last person to pontificate about things unprincipled.

    You left a comment on RN's blog post "How A Nation Can And Does Change" that slandered me.

    You have zero to say about being principled. You are a person who misrepresents and defames people without a shred of evidence to back up your smears.

    There is nothing more unprincipled than that. And you revel in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Shaw, I did not misrepresent or defame your extreme and irrational views there. But your temper tantrum continues and you slander and smear me there... and here. And are completely off topic, as well as being unprincipled.

      Delete
    2. I did not leave any comment that slandered you. But you have left one full of smears here. I suppose you think that is fair tit-for-tat, but all you are is saying untrue things (without a shred of evidence) that just must feel good for you type on it.

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

      Octo: That is how it looks here.... But I've seen it a lot more divisive elsewhere. As you might predict: liberals who opposed Bush being pretty much on Obama's side, and conservatives who supported Bush on Iraq being rock steady non-interventionists that time.

      I've seen more consistent people (i.e. always noninterventionist) among liberals, and more waffling among conservatives.

      Delete
  7. Jersey obviously sees a huge difference between Bush and Obama. I (as a longstanding noninterventionist) kinda don't.......And I totally agree with Colonel David Hunt here; "When our enemies are killing each other, let them."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Curious, how this Syria conflict can bring Liberals and Libertarians together on the side of non-intervention. See, things are not always as partisan and polarizing as they may seem.

    Yet, I find myself torn over this conflict. On one hand, I am just as sick and tired as anybody with Mid East instability and would sooner have the entire region transported to Pluto and beyond.

    On the other hand, Assad is an evil dude; and his allies are not our friends. If Assad disappeared tomorrow, Iran and Russia would lose influence in the region; and Hezbollah would lose a sponsor.

    Do I fear a wider war? Maybe yes; maybe no. I wouldn’t let saber rattling from Iran or Russia influence events.

    Nor would I allow money and budgets (always a smokescreen masking a partisan agenda) dissuade me either. Why? Money did not stop us from fighting WWII, and money should not be a reason when a moral decision must be made.

    Chemical weapons? Now, that is another matter! As signatory to the Geneva Accords, the U.S. has an obligation to intervene under international law, as all signatories do; and U.N. approval is not required. Without sanctions, however, chemical weapons may likely proliferate – exposing our allies and American interests abroad to even greater risk.

    Should we have a dog in this fight? Not to come across sounding like a neo-con, there are no good choices no matter how you look at it. Yet, I remain undecided.

    There is one concern of mine that I feel compelled to share. I did not agree with the Iraq war; yet I supported our soldiers (including my own daughter who was deployed to Iraq 3 times). In any event, we should support all Americans abroad regardless of which way this goes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am in complete agreement with the absolute need to support our troops (O)CT(O)PUS. Even when the decisions of the boneheaded lawmakers who put them in harm's way makes no sense.

      Your point with respect to the Geneva Accords is duly noted. I shall endeavor to study this as my knowledge is but cursory.

      Delete
  9. Someone peed in someone's cornflakes...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry... that was meant for another post, about some comments by a guy on an anti-Arab rant. It landed here by mistake...

      No, I am put off cornflakes for a while.

      Delete
  10. iParrot Post is a global read and reporting news platform that enable users to post their account of events witnessed, worthy local and International news. iParrot Post is a breaking news portal.iParrot Post exists to provide independent news and information to the masses, comprised of news feeds from around the world. We enable our users and subscribers to submit local News that they see as important. It is also a portal to allow users and subscribers to comment and contribute to the News events of the day. Worldwide News UK | English UK News | Local UK News | UK Political News | English British Sports News | Business UK News | Breaking UK News | Technology UK News |

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.