| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2013 01:32:52 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
I would say that the data indicates change is afoot. |
I donno about that... Seems to me somebody's pretty much unhappy with every leader pretty much all the time. What we're seeing here is just better information collating.
Also, for what it's worth, note that the preponderance of the protesting is happening where change is arguably least needed, though that's not saying much. In other words, way fewer protests in Africa and South America than you'd hope for, presumably because protesting's REALLY dangerous in those places?
Also, as an aside, I was noticing how little protesting goes on in Scandinavia... |
Alaska, Canada, and Here all seem pretty much mellow too. |
|
|
|
08/30/2013 04:15:59 PM · #52 |
| Take this with a grain of salt because we all know that Russia's gov't and media lies and the U.S. never does. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 10:00:47 AM · #53 |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 11:19:43 AM · #54 |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 07:47:56 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's just insane... |
Well the article makes it sound like they sold the Sarin that was used. Potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride, the two chemicals that were sold, are indeed used in Sarin, but they are very common chemicals, potassium fluoride used as an agent in etching and glass work, as a disinfectant, and as a catalyst in the manufacture of polyurethanes. Sodium fluoride has even more uses from a fertilizer component to coating teeth to resist cavities. Yet the article makes it sound as if it was obvious that these components would be used as a weapon. Short of a total ban on all commerce, there is no way that any country would have flagged these two components normal industrial chemicals as being weaponizable despite the tone of the article.
The coverage in the mass media from every side on this debate has been horrible. Proxy fighters using this event to further the political aims of their political parties to count coup on the other side in national politics, with no concern over those locked in a terrible civil war in Syria; but who cares how many Syrians die if you can make a specious point against the other side of an upcoming election? This article is a prime example. |
|
|
|
09/01/2013 08:15:32 PM · #56 |
It is not necessary to concoct sophisticated nerve agents to make large quantities of highly poisonous gas, if your only intent is to kill or maim without regard to civilian or combatant status, and when it is possible to get it to a specific target without concern for the health of the "delivery system" (i.e. "suicide bomber") -- you can easily make large quanities with ingredients found at any market in the world ...
Chlorine Gas: An Evolving Hazardous Material Threat and Unconventional Weapon
Originally posted by Article Abstract:
Chlorine gas represents a hazardous material threat from industrial accidents and as a terrorist weapon. This review will summarize recent events involving chlorine disasters and its use by terrorists, discuss pre-hospital considerations and suggest strategies for the initial management for acute chlorine exposure events. |
|
|
|
|
09/01/2013 08:19:32 PM · #57 |
Look people...Obama in the best case scenario is a weak pres. He is a wimp and he is making..he has made the US the laughing stock of the world.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2013 04:43:54 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
I would say that the data indicates change is afoot. |
I donno about that... Seems to me somebody's pretty much unhappy with every leader pretty much all the time. What we're seeing here is just better information collating.
Also, for what it's worth, note that the preponderance of the protesting is happening where change is arguably least needed, though that's not saying much. In other words, way fewer protests in Africa and South America than you'd hope for, presumably because protesting's REALLY dangerous in those places? ETA: I didn't follow all the way to the end LOL. It IS looking a lot more lively lately isn't it?
Also, as an aside, I was noticing how little protesting goes on in Scandinavia... |
I think it's more complicated than that.
Protests of the type taking place in Middle East requires civil society to evolve so you have at least temporarily a protest front through a cross section of society. You need the relatively rich and relatively poor in both urban and rural areas identifying themselves with a common opposition to the government, ideally.
Certainly you need the relatively rich on board. And the government ability to instil terror and keep opposition fragmented must somewhat be reduced.
There have been countless examples in the past. Whether civil society leaders then manage to successfully convert into the new political class if the movement manages to overturn the government .. well.. that's entirely a different matter. The adamant and simple ideas they display to keep people together are simply not suitable for politics as we intend them, which is the art of compromise.
I'd contest that protests in South America and Africa don't take place. And I'd add Asia and of course the Russian area.
Simply, the society is too fragmented for them to take a national character, more often than not, and our media and governments interest in discussing them and promote them as actual issues is null anyway, more often than not.
Just a few years ago an Argentinian friend was telling me how campesinos were being stripped of their access to common lands. Land was being sold to foreigner investors to build resorts in protected areas (mostly US investors, Sylvester Stallone being one of them) and rural people left to starve.
As an example:
1) The protest failed to involve urban educated middle class. My friend was attempting to garner interest but let's admit it, she and her socially sensitive friends are not representative of the majority.
2) The problem is let's admit it, of little strategic interest to anybody, and international competition for controlling resources in the area limited.
3) Still, protests did take place.
Scandinavian do protest all the time, in a sense :) If for protesting we mean requesting change when things go wrong. Surely, they don't need to erect barricades on the main street to be heard though.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2013 10:17:13 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by mcaldo:
I'd contest that protests in South America and Africa don't take place. |
Check the news out of Brazil a month or two ago -- check for Olympics, World Cup and Transportation if you have trouble finding the stories ... |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 10:36:27 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Look people...Obama in the best case scenario is a weak pres. He is a wimp and he is making..he has made the US the laughing stock of the world. |
Unsubstantiated generalizations such as this one do little to enhance discussion...do you have concrete examples as to just exactly how the President managed to do this?
Ray
|
|
|
|
09/02/2013 11:47:42 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Look people...Obama in the best case scenario is a weak pres. He is a wimp and he is making..he has made the US the laughing stock of the world. |
So he's a wimp if he doesn't attack? - I'd say it takes more willpower and strength to withstand the political pressure to attack (and we're only exposed to the tip of the iceberg as far as that pressure goes)
And tbh, Bush junior and senior managed to make themselves laughing stocks without even trying. |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 12:10:42 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Look people...Obama in the best case scenario is a weak pres. He is a wimp and he is making..he has made the US the laughing stock of the world. |
Cowboy, your posts in Rant have become a drinking game. Every time you mention Obama we all take a shot. Please try to limit your posting activity to Friday and Saturday evenings as to not interfere with our work schedules. (North American/South American time zones, for the sake of the majority of users here.)
For every ill you point to him ad nauseam, and more often than not it's a complete non sequitur. It's incredibly tiring, not to mention dehydrating. |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 07:08:33 PM · #63 |
Attempting to get back on track ...
Before WWII, the world chastised western nations for not intervening to stop the holocaust. Western nations have been chastised for not intervening in DarFur. What should the world do ... allow the use of chemical weapons which have been forbidden by Geneva Convention since the early 1900's ... or act to prevent it? Does the civilized world have a moral or ethical obligation to intervene?
Fortunately, way above my pay grade!
I think, yes. But, how? And therein lies the rub.
Message edited by author 2013-09-02 19:08:56. |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 07:48:53 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Attempting to get back on track ...
Before WWII, the world chastised western nations for not intervening to stop the holocaust. Western nations have been chastised for not intervening in DarFur. What should the world do ... allow the use of chemical weapons which have been forbidden by Geneva Convention since the early 1900's ... or act to prevent it? Does the civilized world have a moral or ethical obligation to intervene?
Fortunately, way above my pay grade!
I think, yes. But, how? And therein lies the rub. |
On this particular issue (Syria), it is not a question of should we stop the use of chemical weapons, but a question of WHO is behind the use of them in the first place. We have been told in the past that there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that we needed to act on. How quickly we forget. So there's that. We should not be operating under the assumption that we have 100% certainty of anything.
Then there's the question of WHAT will a missile strike in Syria accomplish? What is the goal? What are the potential ramifications? What is the exit strategy?
Somewhat of an aside: This photo (among others like it) have been circulating around the internet recently:
A retired Navy friend of mine reposted it with harsh words against the guy in the photo for being a coward/wimp, etc. What disturbed me more than anything was a comment on that post from someone I don't know, but is an active member of the military:
Originally posted by Comment by Military member:
"You can not wear our uniform and go against our country!!!!! I may not always totally agree . But dammit I will never disrespect or go against what ever the commander and chief says. This guy is wrong" |
It may be a poor choice of words, or it may be a chilling revelation of misguided allegiance. |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 08:14:21 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Attempting to get back on track ...
Before WWII, the world chastised western nations for not intervening to stop the holocaust. Western nations have been chastised for not intervening in DarFur. What should the world do ... allow the use of chemical weapons which have been forbidden by Geneva Convention since the early 1900's ... or act to prevent it? Does the civilized world have a moral or ethical obligation to intervene?
Fortunately, way above my pay grade!
I think, yes. But, how? And therein lies the rub. |
On this particular issue (Syria), it is not a question of should we stop the use of chemical weapons, but a question of WHO is behind the use of them in the first place. We have been told in the past that there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that we needed to act on. How quickly we forget. So there's that. We should not be operating under the assumption that we have 100% certainty of anything.
Then there's the question of WHAT will a missile strike in Syria accomplish? What is the goal? What are the potential ramifications? What is the exit strategy?
Somewhat of an aside: This photo (among others like it) have been circulating around the internet recently:
A retired Navy friend of mine reposted it with harsh words against the guy in the photo for being a coward/wimp, etc. What disturbed me more than anything was a comment on that post from someone I don't know, but is an active member of the military:
Originally posted by Comment by Military member:
"You can not wear our uniform and go against our country!!!!! I may not always totally agree . But dammit I will never disrespect or go against what ever the commander and chief says. This guy is wrong" |
It may be a poor choice of words, or it may be a chilling revelation of misguided allegiance. |
That's exactly why i said ...
Fortunately, way above my pay grade!
I think, yes. But, how? And therein lies the rub.
I didn't say the US, or name any country. This issue is way beyond nationalities or international borders. |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 09:08:55 PM · #66 |
Is there a single person here that actually thinks that Obama is doing a good job.
OK without wasting my time in looking up actual news reports lets rely on some memory.
OK he is a weak pres..... He stated if Syria crosses "the red line" we'll attack...(actually I think the 1st time was sanctions)...Guess what the line was crossed....then our pres just moved the red line....and when it was crossed guess what nothing happened.
Putin understands this, Assad understands this. How can anyone think he is anything but a weak pres
Think about child discipline. If you keep moving the line the child knows he can cross it without getting a whipping
|
|
|
|
09/02/2013 09:26:49 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Is there a single person here that actually thinks that Obama is doing a good job.
OK without wasting my time in looking up actual news reports lets rely on some memory.
OK he is a weak pres..... He stated if Syria crosses "the red line" we'll attack...(actually I think the 1st time was sanctions)...Guess what the line was crossed....then our pres just moved the red line....and when it was crossed guess what nothing happened.
Putin understands this, Assad understands this. How can anyone think he is anything but a weak pres
Think about child discipline. If you keep moving the line the child knows he can cross it without getting a whipping |
+1 |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 10:31:32 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Think about child discipline. If you keep moving the line the child knows he can cross it without getting a whipping |
The thought that one would equate the whipping of a child as a form of discipline speaks volumes ...and I for one can't say that I agree with such a stance.
I can only hope that this was a figure of speech.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-09-02 22:32:52.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2013 11:48:52 PM · #69 |
| Frankly, cowboy, I think you are way off base. I believe Obama would have already attacked if the British Parliament approved the UK's involvement. I also believe he would be fine with going it alone except that it would create some significant political fallout. He may or may not be a wimp - but it makes no difference - the agenda has been set since before he came into office and he is just carrying it out as would Bush, McCain and/or Romney. Broken record alert: Bicker and argue about Obama vs. Bush, R vs. D, etc. that's what we are conditioned to do and that's what the real powers depend on. |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 11:53:50 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Frankly, cowboy, I think you are way off base. I believe Obama would have already attacked if the British Parliament approved the UK's involvement. I also believe he would be fine with going it alone except that it would create some significant political fallout. He may or may not be a wimp - but it makes no difference - the agenda has been set since before he came into office and he is just carrying it out as would Bush, McCain and/or Romney. Broken record alert: Bicker and argue about Obama vs. Bush, R vs. D, etc. that's what we are conditioned to do and that's what the real powers depend on. |
Exactly so. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 12:18:21 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Frankly, cowboy, I think you are way off base. I believe Obama would have already attacked if the British Parliament approved the UK's involvement. I also believe he would be fine with going it alone except that it would create some significant political fallout. He may or may not be a wimp - but it makes no difference - the agenda has been set since before he came into office and he is just carrying it out as would Bush, McCain and/or Romney. Broken record alert: Bicker and argue about Obama vs. Bush, R vs. D, etc. that's what we are conditioned to do and that's what the real powers depend on. |
Let's assume for a moment that everything the Obama Administration has claimed about the use of chemical weapons is true. You would contend that none of that matters because it's just a pretext to all-out war/regime change, right? (As per your Wesley Clark video.) Doesn't it seem to you that Obama has been extraordinarily reluctant to get involved in the Syria conflict up to this point? Why, if he has been absorbed by the Borg, has he resisted thus far? And why does he seem to want to limit our involvement even now? He also has ended two wars, or will have ended two wars by next year, not something that Bush, McCain or Romney would have done. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 01:01:08 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Frankly, cowboy, I think you are way off base. I believe Obama would have already attacked if the British Parliament approved the UK's involvement. I also believe he would be fine with going it alone except that it would create some significant political fallout. He may or may not be a wimp - but it makes no difference - the agenda has been set since before he came into office and he is just carrying it out as would Bush, McCain and/or Romney. Broken record alert: Bicker and argue about Obama vs. Bush, R vs. D, etc. that's what we are conditioned to do and that's what the real powers depend on. |
Let's assume for a moment that everything the Obama Administration has claimed about the use of chemical weapons is true. You would contend that none of that matters because it's just a pretext to all-out war/regime change, right? (As per your Wesley Clark video.) Doesn't it seem to you that Obama has been extraordinarily reluctant to get involved in the Syria conflict up to this point? Why, if he has been absorbed by the Borg, has he resisted thus far? And why does he seem to want to limit our involvement even now? He also has ended two wars, or will have ended two wars by next year, not something that Bush, McCain or Romney would have done. |
I don't know that he has "resisted" - you first have to have good reason and SUPPORT of some form (if not UN, Nato. If not NATO, Congress) to intervene. And I'll believe "limited involvement" when I see it. Do you support military action in Syria, Judith?? If so, what about the other questions - What will it accomplish? What is the goal? What is the exit strategy? Does it bother you that the president (ANY president) suddenly has sole authority to launch a military strike - anywhere? Or (while we are on the subject), has the authority to order the assassination of anyone he and his death panel (the anti-terror one, not the Obamacare one) decide is a terrorist? |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 08:56:18 AM · #73 |
Hey Obama opened his mouth about crossing the red line. If you say that you are going to do something follow through...
oh and Ray.....I do believe in spanking a child....(not for every offence) I am not talking about beating a child...there is a diffence. However It was a figure of speech when used above..
|
|
|
|
09/03/2013 09:34:47 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Frankly, cowboy, I think you are way off base. I believe Obama would have already attacked if the British Parliament approved the UK's involvement. I also believe he would be fine with going it alone except that it would create some significant political fallout. He may or may not be a wimp - but it makes no difference - the agenda has been set since before he came into office and he is just carrying it out as would Bush, McCain and/or Romney. Broken record alert: Bicker and argue about Obama vs. Bush, R vs. D, etc. that's what we are conditioned to do and that's what the real powers depend on. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Let's assume for a moment that everything the Obama Administration has claimed about the use of chemical weapons is true. You would contend that none of that matters because it's just a pretext to all-out war/regime change, right? (As per your Wesley Clark video.) Doesn't it seem to you that Obama has been extraordinarily reluctant to get involved in the Syria conflict up to this point? Why, if he has been absorbed by the Borg, has he resisted thus far? And why does he seem to want to limit our involvement even now? He also has ended two wars, or will have ended two wars by next year, not something that Bush, McCain or Romney would have done. |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I don't know that he has "resisted" - you first have to have good reason and SUPPORT of some form (if not UN, Nato. If not NATO, Congress) to intervene. And I'll believe "limited involvement" when I see it. Do you support military action in Syria, Judith?? If so, what about the other questions - What will it accomplish? What is the goal? What is the exit strategy? Does it bother you that the president (ANY president) suddenly has sole authority to launch a military strike - anywhere? Or (while we are on the subject), has the authority to order the assassination of anyone he and his death panel (the anti-terror one, not the Obamacare one) decide is a terrorist? |
You're not being very consistent. You just said you thought Obama was willing to go it alone; now you say he needs support. I think he assumed support from the UK and possibly a few other countries at the very least. If you saw the ridiculous press conference with Senators McCain and Graham yesterday, you'd be convinced that Obama has resisted attacking Syria. Why do you think they and Cheney and others of that ilk hate Obama so much -- because he's one of them? No, he's not a neocon, notwithstanding your attempts to conflate his foreign policy with theirs. Also, non-proliferation has been a central concern of his since he was a U.S. senator, so it should come as no surprise that he is reacting now to the use of chemical weapons. For those reasons, I tend to cut him a break and believe what he says in this particular instance. The goal as Obama has stated it would be to cripple Assad's ability to use chemical weapons. And I assume the "exit strategy" is simply to stop bombing. I'm glad he's gone to the Congress, but I don't know whether I support this strike or not, will be reserving judgment until I've given it more thought.
And, by the way, you might try taking your own "broken record" advice and not drag "Obamacare" into this argument. The bat-shit crazy Tea Party attacks don't help your cause. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 02:45:30 PM · #75 |
| None of this is funny but.. |
|
