Okay, back to moving Direct TV back into my daughters room, from a guest room where it had been borrowed for a couple of days! (6 weeks ago)!Originally Posted by dsummoner
You will be wishing for that 'vacation' at Club Black Site if ye get caught.
Member
Okay, back to moving Direct TV back into my daughters room, from a guest room where it had been borrowed for a couple of days! (6 weeks ago)!You will be wishing for that 'vacation' at Club Black Site if ye get caught.
Member
I suspected that there would not be very many takers for carrying Clapper's water once the memory vault was opened.I question the sanity of anybody that would suggest that Assad in Syria would even touch the 'hot potato' of the WMD that Saddam didn't have. Especially when Bush and Cheney had made it pretty damn clear that Syria was next on the list for invasion/democratisation before they screwed up Iraq so badly and got themselves bogged down!
Member
Obama only picked up a few of the numb-nuts that advised Bush. Romney picked up the rest. We certainly dodged a bullet in the 2012 Presidential election. IMHOI suspected that there would not be very many takers for carrying Clapper's water once the memory vault was opened.
Member
On foreign policy, most certainly not. The disease of foreign meddling is running no less rampant in the current administration than it would have run in a Romney Administration. The f(t - t0) manifestation of shortsighted, schizophrenic and oft conflicted US foreign policy actions is, as usual, present.Obama only picked up a few of the numb-nuts that advised Bush. Romney picked up the rest. We certainly dodged a bullet in the 2012 Presidential election. IMHO
Member
There is the inquisitive mind (that would be you) and there are the minds that just want to make noise (that would be _____).Ah! But an inquisitive mind has questions... questions that require answers.
Member
Under a Romney Administration, there would be no cease-fire in the Middle East today because the minute he took over Romney and Netanyahu would be on their way to Iran. Why do you think that Netanuahu had to go to Plan B when his man didn't win?On foreign policy, most certainly not. The disease of foreign meddling is running no less rampant in the current administration than it would have run in a Romney Administration. The f(t - t0) manifestation of shortsighted, schizophrenic and oft conflicted US foreign policy actions is, as usual, present.
Member
There is no cease fire as of yet.Under a Romney Administration, there would be no cease-fire in the Middle East today because the minute he took over Romney and Netanyahu would be on their way to Iran. Why do you think that Netanuahu had to go to Plan B when his man didn't win?
Romney's red line may have been closer to Netanyahu's red line but this does not change the paradigm of US government meddling (I can repost the links to the current administration's red lines).
Member
It allows me to put one portion of my educational background to some use and test my analytic mettle against certain formiddable debate partners (except when Fox News steals my posts regarding the broader goals of the Netanyahu government and reposts it as its own analysis).There is the inquisitive mind (that would be you) and there are the minds that just want to make noise (that would be _____).
Member
Benghazi talking points were not edited by the WH
Member
Member
Netanyahu's red line is not even close to Romney. What that disgusting excuse for a human-being did this week was completely personal and political.There is no cease fire as of yet.
Romney's red line may have been closer to Netanyahu's red line but this does not change the paradigm of US government meddling (I can repost the links to the current administration's red lines).
The wrong man won the election in the US and Netanyahu had made the mistake of calling an early election for himself for January, banking on a Romney win.
Obama won so Netanyahu went to plan B by 'kicking the puppy in Gaza'. Hamas retaliated, as he knew they would, by raining rockets down on Israel. Netanyahu blames Hamas for starting it when he knows that he in fact did and Bibi puts Israel on a war-footing to emphasise to the Israeli voters that he is the man they should elect in January for security because Hamas is so dangerous of a threat.
The Palestinians on the West Bank who did nothing and want to start Peace Talks get their aspirations punted down the road for another generation and all that Netanyahu will possibly sign today is a cease-fire with no talk of Peace whatsoever because that is not what he wants.
He gets reelected in January with an increased majority and an even more hawkish cabinet and then its off to Iran.
Not a bad job because his reelection has only cost him about 150 lives to date.
Last edited by Byng; 11-20-2012 at 02:54 PM.
Member
..........the icing on the cake for Netanyahu is that he actually managed to get a handful of Israeli civilians killed this time so that will certainly be good for a few more votes in January!
Member
Is it the above or is it the below? You can't have it both ways.
Under a Romney Administration, there would be no cease-fire in the Middle East today because the minute he took over Romney and Netanyahu would be on their way to Iran. Why do you think that Netanuahu had to go to Plan B when his man didn't win?The domestic politics of Israel are what they are (especially with an election drawing close). Looking at the broader picture from the strategic perspective, if one was set on the path to open hostilities with Iran, it would make sense to shore up one's immediate geographical threats first. Syria and Jordan are taken care of secondary to their own internal issues. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt does not appear to be quite ready, yet, to pull the eventual trigger that will be pulled. This leaves Hamas and Hizb'allah (the defacto rulers of Lebanon). Reducing these two fronts to one and perhaps zero would be the appropriate course of action. The Fajr-5 also represented a significant upgrade in Hamas' offensive capabilities but not nearly sufficient enough to mitigate Israeli airpower and defensive capabilities.The wrong man won the election in the US and Netanyahu had made the mistake of calling an early election for himself for January, banking on a Romney win.
Obama won so Netanyahu went to plan B by 'kicking the puppy in Gaza'. Hamas retaliated, as he knew they would, by raining rockets down on Israel. Netanyahu blames Hamas for starting it when he knows that he in fact did and Bibi puts Israel on a war-footing to emphasise to the Israeli voters that he is the man they should elect in January for security because Hamas is so dangerous of a threat.
The Palestinian on the West Bank who did nothing and want to start Peace Talks get their aspirations punted down the road for another generation and all that Netanyahu will possibly sign today is a cease-fire with no talk of Peace whatsoever because that is not what he wants.
He gets reelected in January with an increased majority and an even more hawkish cabinet and then its off to Iran.
Not a bad job because his reelection has only cost him about 150 lives to date.
One should not forget that Hamas is a willing participant in this dance and was (s)elected (by the Bushblundering of democracy spreading). Derailing the PA's push for UN recognition was just as much a desired outcome for Hamas as it was for Netanyahu. There will be no lasting peace because the root cause of the conflict is religious (not secular).
Member
You will get no argument from me on Hamas because they are a more than willing dance partner and don't want peace either. But this last two weeks has been all about Netanyahu and his political future and very little else. Obama and Clinton will certainly not be saying privately what they are saying publicly. Because they know that they are being led around by the nose!Is it the above or is it the below? You can't have it both ways.
The domestic politics of Israel are what they are (especially with an election drawing close). Looking at the broader picture from the strategic perspective, if one was set on the path to open hostilities with Iran, it would make sense to shore up one's immediate geographical threats first. Syria and Jordan are taken care of secondary to their own internal issues. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt does not appear to be quite ready, yet, to pull the eventual trigger that will be pulled. This leaves Hamas and Hizb'allah (the defacto rulers of Lebanon). Reducing these two fronts to one and perhaps zero would be the appropriate course of action. The Fajr-5 also represented a significant upgrade in Hamas' offensive capabilities but not nearly sufficient enough to mitigate Israeli airpower and defensive capabilities.
One should not forget that Hamas is a willing participant in this dance and was (s)elected (by the Bushblundering of democracy spreading). Derailing the PA's push for UN recognition was just as much a desired outcome for Hamas as it was for Netanyahu. There will be no lasting peace because the root cause of the conflict is religious (not secular).
But we had better stop and take this over to another thread before our posts suddenly disapear!
Member
The mire of foreign entanglements is what the US government gets with its foreign policy of meddling.You will get no argument from me on Hamas because they are a more than willing dance partner and don't want peace either. But this last two weeks has been all about Netanyahu and his political future and very little else. Obama and Clinton will certainly not be saying privately what they are saying publicly. Because they know that they are being led around by the nose!
But we had better stop and take this over to another thread before our posts suddenly disapear!
Member
Is it the above or is it the below? You can't have it both ways.
The domestic politics of Israel are what they are (especially with an election drawing close). Looking at the broader picture from the strategic perspective, if one was set on the path to open hostilities with Iran, it would make sense to shore up one's immediate geographical threats first. Syria and Jordan are taken care of secondary to their own internal issues. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt does not appear to be quite ready, yet, to pull the eventual trigger that will be pulled. This leaves Hamas and Hizb'allah (the defacto rulers of Lebanon). Reducing these two fronts to one and perhaps zero would be the appropriate course of action. The Fajr-5 also represented a significant upgrade in Hamas' offensive capabilities but not nearly sufficient enough to mitigate Israeli airpower and defensive capabilities.
One should not forget that Hamas is a willing participant in this dance and was (s)elected (by the Bushblundering of democracy spreading). Derailing the PA's push for UN recognition was just as much a desired outcome for Hamas as it was for Netanyahu. There will be no lasting peace because the root cause of the conflict is religious (not secular).So Netanyahu and Israel were somehow involved in Benghazi? Why would you want to go there? Isn't Congress already confused enough?
Member
They may have been, but Syria definitely was. Or should I say the opposition in Syria definitely was!
Member
And the same mistakes repeated over and over and over again.They may have been, but Syria definitely was. Or should I say the opposition in Syria definitely was!
Member
They may have been, but Syria definitely was. Or should I say the opposition in Syria definitely was!It hurts the head. I guess we are officially the Libyan government too.The top financer of the Syrian opposition is no Arabian Peninsula oil kingdom or cloak-and-dagger Western spy outfit, but struggling, war-ravaged Libya, which is itself recovering from a devastating civil conflict.
According to a budget released by the Syrian National Council and posted to its Web site late Sunday, the Libyan government contributed $20.3 million of the $40.4 million that the opposition umbrella group has amassed since its creation in October 2011.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...439_story.html
Member
Which is why when another poster stated yesterday that Ambassador Stevens was the first American Ambassador killed in 30+ years while "on the job".
My answer was "define on the job". Yes my friend it makes ones head hurt.
Posting Permissions
 |
| Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv | Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278 |
Reply With Quote