Why do we even need to back someone in Syria, a country thousands of miles away from us? Same thing for the Ukraine. Neither of these things would have happened if the US hadn't interefered first with the wonderful idea of changing the government. Now both countries are in shambles. Is that what democracy is all about?
Hahahahahah.... he's pretty much the only one who said anything about fixing what we have here instead of spending trillions on fighting some wars thousands of miles away. Ok I am done with you here
I would agree that Syria did not have certainly a significant strategic interest to the US before. No economic ties. Not a military threat, even to Israel. Their meddling in Lebanon is about the worst they were doing, and that does not meet the significance test. But I think the refugee crisis makes it strategic, because of the effects on Europe. The US certainly has a strategic interest in Europe, and the refugee crisis is a huge problem for them. And therefore us. The notion that we can ignore it is really in tune with an isolationist tendency that ignores the connection to us through Europe. Therefore it is simplistic and however appealing it is bad policy to ignore Syria.
Ok, but who's responsible for the crisis? 1). Let's remove Saddam because a). he supposedly had WMDs b). he was just a bad guy. On the other hand, Saddam was preventing the crazies of Iran from expanding and keeping his own crazies in check. Do you think if Saddam was still there ISIS would ever appear? He would ruthlessly slaughter them. So, Saddam is gone, Iran is expanding its influence in the region and all kinds of Muslim crazies (ISIS) are filling the remaining void. But hey that's not enough..... 2). Let's remove Assad too because he's a bad guy who gassed his own people. However many people the bad guy Assad killed or did not kill, it's nowhere near the 250,000 who have already perished in the Civil War, over 7 million displaced and 4 million of refugees.
Hmmmm........Jets-Cowboys or a political debate? Who here is aware that the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz-sponsored "Secret Secretions" tour continues tomorrow night opposite the Jets - 'Boys? And who in their right mind is actually going to watch a (rigged) political debate let alone one being (purposely) held on a Saturday night? Not rigged? Well, when was the previous Democratic debate held? On a Saturday night. now, if only Sanders and O'Malley would stfu and go away...... FROM FRANK BRUNI IN THE NYT: The Republican presidential candidates have demonstrated such an appetite for debates that if I set up nine lecterns in my living room on a weeknight around 8 p.m. and chanted “carpet bomb” and “anchor baby,” they’d probably materialize en masse, even before I had time to vacuum and put out the artichoke dip. And who’s going to watch it? It’s on a Saturday night, when a political debate ranks somewhere between dialysis and a Milli Vanilli tribute concert as a desirable way to unwind. The last meeting of the Democratic candidates was also on a Saturday night, and fewer than nine million viewers tuned in, down from 15.3 million for the sole Democratic debate so far on a weeknight. All of the Republican debates have been on weeknights; the first two attracted more than 23 million viewers each. In fact none of the first four Republican debates had an audience of less than 13.5 million. The fifth debate had an estimated audience of 18 million. The Republican events certainly have seductions that the Democratic ones don’t. There are many more brawlers onstage, fanning out in a motley conga line. There’s Trump. He could say anything, degrade anyone, spontaneously combust. And while Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley will again try to put Hillary Clinton on the defensive when the three appear together at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H., this weekend, their efforts won’t carry the reality-show fascination of Trump’s Republican adversaries trying to erase—trying to understand—his surreal lead. But the disparity in viewership is also a function of scheduling, and was thus predictable and obviously intended. When the Democratic debates were set up, party leaders assumed that Hillary Clinton would be their best candidate, put their chips on her and sought to make sure that some upstart didn’t upset their plans or complicate things to a point where Clinton would stagger into the general election all banged up. Bernie Sanders complained. Martin O’Malley cried foul. So did one of the vice chairwomen of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard, who made a lot of public noise about the paucity of debates and the unwillingness of the head of the D.N.C., Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to abide such dissent. It was an ugly sideshow for a few days, then it blew over. But we shouldn’t be so quick to forgive and forget how the Democratic Party has behaved. For the Democratic Party that prides itself on being the true champion of democracy, more vigilant than the Republican Party about the disenfranchisement of voters, more invested in — and industrious about — making sure that as many people as possible are drawn into the process.Then shouldn’t it want its candidates on vivid, continuous display? Shouldn’t it connect them with the largest audience that it can? I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more griping about this. What I’ve heard instead is the concern that if Clinton indeed gets the nomination, she’ll enter the general election less battle-tested than she’d be if she were facing stiffer primary competition and enduring a greater number of higher-stakes debates. And a real vulnerability is that she’s seen by voters as entrenched political royalty and thus distant — too distant — from those “everyday Americans” she talked about so much at the start of her campaign. That’s one of the problems with the Democratic debate schedule: It smacks of special treatment, and Clinton, who set up her own home-brewed email account as secretary of state, can’t afford to keep giving voters the impression that normal rules don’t apply to her. And the Democratic Party can’t pretend that it’s done the right thing here. While these debates aren’t as high-minded as we’d wish or as illuminating as we sometimes pretend, they’re an important piece of the puzzle of figuring out candidates, with a bit more spontaneity and surprise than many other facets of the modern campaign. They deserve priority and prominence.
I was referring to the question of Syria on a going forward basis. How we got here is a different question.
we just need to figure out what the FUCK we want in Syria!!! are we helping Assad by battling ISIS?? no... well. yes. but no.. are we helping to overthrow Assad by helping the rebels? yes... wait, no, not ISIS, so no. but yes kinda cause Assad is bad right? but not as bad as the alternative..yada yada yada the Rest of the World is looking at the U.S.: At least Trump's strategy is an actual strategy. Let the Russians do what they want with that shithole place. They want to take out ISIS? that's cool, the world is a better place without ISIS anyway
Depends on who exactly is "we." There are certain people who are going to make a lot of $$$ if Assad is gone. They could care less about genocide, dictators, terrorists, etc.... it's all about what it's usually all about - the almighty dollar. As abyzmul mentioned before... http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/...kets-Qatari-gas-Al-Assad-analyst_7560833.html
So "we're going to bomb the hell out of ISIS" means we're going to fix things here? What about all the illegals he's going to deport that is going to make it tough for him to build his buildings? Restaurants around the country? Muslim database? Trump is an entertainer. Nothing more. If you can't see the type of people he's appealing to, that's on you.
There are plenty of LEGAL immigrants willing to take those jobs. As for the Muslim database, are you that naive? There's a database... your posts on facebook, your likes, your tweets, google searches, your phone locations, your buying habits - it's all there.
I remember when making a fb page I did what you did everywhere else, made up name. I thought people were nuts using their real name on the internet.
When I was a kid I read this short story, could never remember the name but I remember the plot. It's about a dude who goes back in time to assassinate some bad guy boss of an evil corporation. Then when he goes back to the future it's worse because the guy who replaced the bad guy is even badder. So he goes back again to kill that guy, and the cycle continues on a downward spiral...
They can still connect your fake name to the real you. You're paying for your internet connection, right? So, the big brother knows your IP and the name on the credit card that pays for that IP, then matches the IP on facebook, and so and so on. Welcome to the Information Age!
^ Speaking of Saturday night, anyone check in on the pre-Coronation "debate?" Once Bernie offered up his prefunctory apology for his (since fired) people snooping, it then resorted back to the staged school play scripted to look like a 'level playing field' debate. You think the commercial breaks during the Jet game were bad, you should've seen her Royal Big Assness leaving Sanders and O'Malley twisting in the wind during a pit stop of hers that extended beyond a commercial break. The reason for the delayed return of the Hill? Apparently she had her people completely clear the girl's 'sandbox' of all people before she would venture in to break wind and/or blow mud (even though there were multiple stalls). Shrewd move - you never know what smartphone/Youtube video might've come from that......"gang way!...she's going to blow!!!" Later, Hillary walked back on stage while moderator David Muir (ABC news anchor) was asking a question about income inequality. Once at the podium, she blithely offered a quick 'sorry' without explaining her absence to Muir. So even when she gives a shit, she doesn't give a shit - my kind of 99% er "of the people" gal! And the Wasserman-Schultz denials about running interference o/b/o of the tardy pot-squatter that followed got more absurd (and insulting) by the minute. Overall: Trump?...Clinton?.....Cruz?.....Rubio?.....Christie?.....the lying's become so blatant from these frauds and nobody's batting an eye...
would suck to be a woman. A man could've walked to the shitter, came back 5 mins later and laughed it up. "sorry everyone, but when you gotta go you gotta go" hell Trump would let out a fart and people would respect him for it...... but hillary as a woman has to run and run back, and she's dammed if she does address it and dammed if she doesn't. the rest of your points though (about the defacto coronation, the gutless lack of debates, timing of the debate, etc ) are fair game
