Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 113

Thread: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-03-13 @ 04:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    376

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    With Russia and China both positioning themselves against another U.S. war, it would be very messy for us to go in there. Not to mention, the evidence for it is shaky, once again.
    Do you know who our #6 creditor is for USA debt? Russia. Know who #2 is? China. Only the American Public holds more USA debt than China. Economists are saying Russia will have a debt crisis by 2030 no matter what. Vlad Putin absolutely will not go to war with USA and risk USA defaulting on a few hundred billion dollars of debt. Russia's GDP is 1.8 trillion, whereas USA is 14.99 trillion. We can afford a $200 billion default, but Russia absolutely cannot. China, with a GDP of 7 trillion can afford a few hundred billion; but that's not what we owe them. We owe them a tad over $1.1 trillion; which they cannot afford for us to default on. China also does $500 billion in trade-goods with USA on the export side and $100 billion on the import side. She can ill afford for both of those numbers to go to $0. I am honestly not worried about China or Russia. Just like USA, they stand to make a lot of money supplying arms and rebuilding the countries that get leveled.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-03-13 @ 04:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    376

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    The most laughable excuse I saw for Syria was Obama on PBS claiming that Syria could use chemical weapons to attack the US. This is right up their with Condoleezza Rice and the mushroom clouds coming from Iraq to America.
    Pro tip: USA has tens of thousands of American citizens living on military bases within striking distance of Syria. If you are thinking Syria has to attack Miami or Boston; your thought process is broken.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,973

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    again nothing about this conflict is good.

  4. #54
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,805

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    Pathetic and sad is the enemy within, the Republican House.

    and the people who defend them.

  5. #55
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    Quote Originally Posted by Snappo View Post
    Pro tip: USA has tens of thousands of American citizens living on military bases within striking distance of Syria. If you are thinking Syria has to attack Miami or Boston; your thought process is broken.
    Pro tip: Don't assume people are stupid - my point still stands, the suggestion that Syria will preemptively attack the US is nonsense.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  6. #56
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,348

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, the vote reflects:

    1. A lack of compelling British strategic interest in military intervention in Syria (something that is true for the U.S., as well)
    2. Information related to the responsibility of the chemical weapons attack that does not rise to the standard of confidence necessary to justify a use of force.

    On the latter point, Washington has used the word "circumstantial" to describe the case and has, at last word, declined to make public the reported electronic intercepts. The reality is that there is probably high confidence that a chemical weapons attack took place, but not the degree of confidence as to who was responsible. In other words, sufficiently significant uncertainty exists.

    It will be interesting to see what the UN investigation reports perhaps as early as this weekend.
    Good evening, Donsutherland1.

    In reading many of the posts, here are some of the areas of agreement that I saw.

    1. Our allies are having second thoughts about jumping into the fray... at this time.

    2. We have no compelling reason to get involved in Syria...at this time.

    3. There seems to be no proof as to who actually used the chemical weapons...at this time..

    I agree. Just because Russia has sent a warship or two to the region, does not mean the US needs to play their game. It seems prudent to wait a few days for the official report. The talk of bombing the chemical weapons site is almost guaranteeing that many more non-combatant Syrians, including women and children, will die as an unfortunate result of being in the vicinity. Is this what we want to do?
    .

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-03-13 @ 04:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    376

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    The level of PR - false PR - pushing for this war is incredible. THEY MUST HAVE A WAR SOMEWHERE WITH SOMEONE. What other excuse is there for building mega costly replacement weapons and new weapons systems?
    You are 100% spot on, Joko. Washington panders to the major corporations and wealthy individuals that feed hundreds upon hundreds of millions every year to Super PAC's, which often lines to pockets of politicians. Corporations like United Technologies, Northrop Grumman, Ford Aerospace, and Lockheed Martin; and wealthy indivudals worth hundreds of millions to tens of billions. War is EXTREMELY lucrative for them.

    Political action committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Super PACs

    Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups, without any legal limit on donation size

    2012 Election

    Super PACs may support particular candidacies. In the 2012 presidential election, Super PACs played a major role, spending more than the candidates' election campaigns in the Republican primaries. As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future—a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney's presidential campaign—had spent $40 million. Winning Our Future (a pro–Newt Gingrich group) spent $16 million. Some Super PACs are run or advised by a candidate's former staff or associates.

    As of February 2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008. The leading Super PAC on its own raised more money than the combined total spent by the top 9 PACS in the 2008 cycle.

  8. #58
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,805

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    Just imagine the whining, complaining, sedition and all-around back-stabbing that would occur if President Obama would try to call Congress into session.

    Why, many of these clowns would just refuse to show, as with the march yesterday.

    Would you trust M. Bachmann with state secrets?

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-03-13 @ 04:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    376

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Pro tip: Don't assume people are stupid - my point still stands, the suggestion that Syria will preemptively attack the US is nonsense.
    I never assume someone to be stupid. Someone has to say something stupid for me to think that - after all what can I judge someone on other than their posts? If someone does not believe facts, I prefer to think they are merely blinded by ideology and not that they are stupid. In your case, you are now trying to backpedal, which is highly disingenuous. Now you are saying your point stands because Syria will not pre-emtively attack Syria. Your earlier comment was "The most laughable excuse I saw for Syria was Obama on PBS claiming that Syria could use chemical weapons to attack the US.". There is a PROFOUND difference between "could" and "will". Nobody knows but Assad if Syria will attack; but it's a FACT that Assad can attack.

    A very smart man once said we were all entitled to our own opinions, but we were not entitled to our own facts. You probably don't know off the cuff who that smart man is, but it was Senator Pat Moynihan. I think that might be one of his best sayings. It is absolutely a fact that Assad presently has the delivery systems to attack over 100 USA and NATO military installations in the region. This critical fact is what has our Commander in Chief worried..

  10. #60
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

    Quote Originally Posted by Snappo View Post
    I never assume someone to be stupid. Someone has to say something stupid for me to think that - after all what can I judge someone on other than their posts? If someone does not believe facts, I prefer to think they are merely blinded by ideology and not that they are stupid. In your case, you are now trying to backpedal, which is highly disingenuous. Now you are saying your point stands because Syria will not pre-emtively attack Syria. Your earlier comment was "The most laughable excuse I saw for Syria was Obama on PBS claiming that Syria could use chemical weapons to attack the US.". There is a PROFOUND difference between "could" and "will". Nobody knows but Assad if Syria will attack; but it's a FACT that Assad can attack.

    A very smart man once said we were all entitled to our own opinions, but we were not entitled to our own facts. You probably don't know off the cuff who that smart man is, but it was Senator Pat Moynihan. I think that might be one of his best sayings. It is absolutely a fact that Assad presently has the delivery systems to attack over 100 USA and NATO military installations in the region. This critical fact is what has our Commander in Chief worried..
    Sorry, I'm not interested in pompous nit-picking - if you want to dissect and parse people's posts, have at it, just don't expect me to play along.

    Take care and have a good night.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •