Search this Topic:
Sep 4 13 4:43 AM
Sep 4 13 6:01 AM
Sep 4 13 10:47 AM
Sep 4 13 1:48 PM
Sep 4 13 2:28 PM
Sep 4 13 8:36 PM
Sep 4 13 9:07 PM
you Iain (sp?) for your thoughtful comments and for joining the conversation!
It is a conversation that I don’t think anyone would be having now if it
weren’t for president Obama’s red line. He apparently thought that being the U.S.
president gave him an imposing image in the world that his persona clearly
didn’t. He painted himself (and America) into a corner. Failing to follow
through on his implied threat would diminish his (and America’s) resolve and
leadership role as seen by the world (if it weren’t that his leadership and
resolve was already in doubt).
it looks to me, the Arab (Muslim) uprisings are largely the consequence of
Obama’s signaling a change in American policy toward Muslims. Apparently (in
the eyes of his supporters at least), being in a misguided effort to win over
support in the Muslim world for America. Instead, it gave an opportunity for Al
Qaeda types to exploit Western naiveté. That exploitation becomes all the
easier given the West’s mixed signals as to where it stands.
that the bluff has been called, there is a massive effort at damage control. There
seems to be the thought that we have to act or we will look like fools. It is
disappointing to me that Republican leaders seem to be buying into the effort.
I think that it makes more sense to abandon one sinking ship than it does to
put the whole navy at risk in an effort to save it. It’s still possible, of
course, that sending the question to congress for debate is an effort to delay
any action until the UN has its say. It’s clear that there is little support
for an attack on Syria in the rest of the world (or even among many Americans) and,
if the UN tells us to stand down, the administration would have an excuse to
change course. One can hope.
to me that the action that has been publically proposed amounts to a slap not a
spanking. There is little reason to believe that a small scale attack would
achieve anything other than to inflame international tensions and possibly
incite unpredictable responses by others who are also driven by appearances among
supporters of their ideologies. Even accurate targeting based on satellite
surveillance and global positioning would not be effective in degrading Syria’s
chemical weapons capability. It would more likely unleash the devastation that
it is supposedly intended to destroy.
propaganda being pedaled by the Obama administration is totally lacking in
credibility. Who is going to accept the argument that we would be acting on
humanitarian grounds? Is killing a 1,000 people more outrageous than killing a
100,000? What about the 2,000,000 Syrians who have sought refuge in neighboring
countries? Or, the 5,000,000 who have become displaced within Syria? What would
we think if 10% of America’s population fled to Canada or Mexico to get away
from violence here? Or, if nearly three times that number moved to the desert
from the cities for that reason?
chemical weapons story is only a way to invoke international law (norms?) as a
basis for action. Why should we accept anything as unquestionable truth after
Benghazi? In Libya, we supposedly acted on moral grounds and we jumped right in
without hesitation. Libya was easier to sell than Syria. Kaddafi had no allies
and probably more people remember Pan Am 103 than remember the Marine barracks
in Beirut. Did the culprits find haven in Libya or in Syria? In Libya, what was
the outcome? Are people there better off than they were? What strategically
important objectives were achieved?
Sep 5 13 12:40 AM
Sep 5 13 1:13 AM
Sep 5 13 3:18 AM
I was mostly curious about the spelling. I have an Aussie friend here in the
Philippines by the name of Ian and he spells it the same as Fleming. I didn’t
know about the way you spell it. Thanks for cluing me in. I was in the USAF
during the Cuban Missile crises and we were on red alert. As it happens, I was
TDY (temporary duty) in Wichita Falls, Texas, and, though we were prepared to
return to our permanent duty station on a moment’s notice, there wouldn’t have
been enough time for that to make a difference. Mostly, we followed events on
the news like everyone else. My home base was an ICBM base in Kansas and, had I
been there, I wouldn’t have had much rest.
my recollection is that Khrushchev blinked first. As you say, there was direct
communication between him and Kennedy but much of what went on didn’t actually
come to light until the dust settled. Unlike today, we took aerial
reconnaissance photos to the UN showing the world the missile locations in Cuba
and, as a result of the naval blockade, what was found on Cuban bound Russian
ships. A few years ago, there was a conference held in Havana, I believe,
involving most of the principle players and they concluded that we came much
closer to the brink than many knew. Whether Kennedy intentionally gave
Khrushchev an opening, I can’t say. I think that depends on how each read the
Walker (lumberjack?), I agree that what is lacking in most places today are
competent leaders. One doesn’t hear the word “statesman” anymore. Today, herding
people has become a substitute for leading them. It is difficult to follow
someone who seems lost and, from appearances, most vying for the position
appear to be. Let’s hope that ego and testosterone don’t bring us to the brink
Sep 5 13 3:55 AM
Sep 5 13 4:05 AM
Sep 5 13 4:36 AM
Sep 5 13 5:53 AM
Sep 5 13 7:26 AM
"Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese....
Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doen'st have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say they we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."
More about Kerry's fraudulent war record.
Sep 5 13 9:59 AM
Sep 5 13 5:51 PM
Sep 5 13 6:34 PM
Your explanation was actually my second guess. If you had
used the plural form of wood, I would have understood you to mean a forest. As
it was, I didn’t know much wood was included and it didn’t register with me
that you covered that when you prefixed it with Ardennes. My apologies for asking a dumb question.
I was only trying to express my point of view. I wasn’t
meaning to trigger an eruption. I hope that you noticed that the two who have
just joined the conversation are from the other side of the pond. I tried once
to tell you that, here in the Philippines, I have met a number of ex-patriots
from other parts of the world and nearly all have the same concerns and value
systems as Americans. I don’t think that would surprise many TT’ers given their interests and travels.
There was only one exception that I can think of. He was from
somewhere in Europe (I can’t remember where) and he thought that the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t real. According to him, everything we see on TV
was just staged for the benefit of the embedded reporters to perpetuate the
myth. I don’t know if he really believed that or if he was just trying to get
my goat. It only goes to show that the old expression about there “being one in
every crowd” applies everywhere. My point? Big as Texas is, it’s only a small
part of the world. Don’t jump to conclusions about what yonder places are like.
As for your video, Obama was incredulous trying to argue his
way out from behind his red line. Though the video was obviously selective in
its editing, his comments were intellectually dishonest. Before he cites
international treaties’ and laws, he needs to explain how it is that enforcing
them became his prerogative and how he can justify his
own statements about the use of chemical weapons, “....that would
change my calculus, that would change the equation.” If he had
never made that statement, he would now be able to take those same arguments
before the UN. While challenging the UN to act might not have borne fruit, it would
have placed America’s position in a more righteous light and won more respect
in the eyes of the world. To discount the role of the UN when it comes to
international law is to discount international law itself and, then, where is
the justification? I think that the proposed military action will do more harm
than good to our stated objectives and it makes us look like dumb heads in the
eyes of the world. The only beneficiaries, if any, will be the terrorists.
Sep 6 13 5:32 AM
Sep 6 13 6:09 AM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.