the US should be embarassed

• Hanna wrote on 2013-09-13 23:34

  Quote from TheKartheus;1146658:

  Obama is just pretty much out of control. One of the main reasons people voted for him is because he was supposed to be an anti-Bush, and that meant staying OUT of the wars. The people voted for someone who promised to not do exactly this. It's not the people's fault at this point...there's litterally nothing that can be done about it without some extremely major changes.

  
  
  This, I trusted him
  "Finally a politician that thinks like I do. One that will fight for equal rights and peace"
  I feel betrayed
• Osayidan wrote on 2013-09-13 23:47
  I liked Obama back in 2008, didn't like him anymore in 2012 but felt he was the lesser of 2 evils.
• Juno wrote on 2013-09-14 00:15

  Quote from TLCBonaparte:

  He wasn't in hiding, he was killed in his backyard. Look obviously there has been mixed information, and per your quote, he wasn't even present for his trial, what kind of fair trial is that? Apprehension should obviously come before trial, this is just bullshit. I am sure we can both come up with sources that shows what we say is right and then criticize each other's source as biased, so how about we just skip that step and ignore whether he is a terrorist or not, because that's kind of irrelevant, US can't assassinate people by drone no matter who government thinks they are.
  
  Well Nazi Germany is a very good example of why this isn't the case. By the time general public are bearing the brunt of this law it's probably too late. Because Nazi had a very similar law.

  
  
  Speaking of sources, can you name yours? There's only one truth, and we can probably figure out what it is with a bit of work. I'll do all the heavy lifting, if necessary.
  
  Also, Nazi Germany and present-day U.S. aren't really comparable. Be careful not to over-simplify situations, it's a surefire way to put one's foot in one's mouth. On the most basic level, the Nazi party was not subject to the same scrutiny as the U.S. system. You can't imprison enough people to win the next election without an army, and you won't find an army that will support that measure. Thus, even if someone somehow tried it, it would fail horribly...assuming it even got off the ground.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-09-14 01:54

  Quote from Juno;1148173:

  Speaking of sources, can you name yours? There's only one truth, and we can probably figure out what it is with a bit of work. I'll do all the heavy lifting, if necessary.
  
  Also, Nazi Germany and present-day U.S. aren't really comparable. Be careful not to over-simplify situations, it's a surefire way to put one's foot in one's mouth. On the most basic level, the Nazi party was not subject to the same scrutiny as the U.S. system. You can't imprison enough people to win the next election without an army, and you won't find an army that will support that measure. Thus, even if someone somehow tried it, it would fail horribly...assuming it even got off the ground.

  
  
  Trust me it's a dead end. I been down this road too many times. We will get angry because we say each other's sources are biased, and really if there is no way to prove what anyone said is true, how are you going to find out if a internet page is true?
  
  About election, you need to assume that election isn't rigged though, and I have my doubts.
• Juno wrote on 2013-09-14 03:52

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1148206:

  Trust me it's a dead end. I been down this road too many times. We will get angry because we say each other's sources are biased, and really if there is no way to prove what anyone said is true, how are you going to find out if a internet page is true?
  
  About election, you need to assume that election isn't rigged though, and I have my doubts.

  
  
  There's no need to bring emotions into it. It -is- possible to stick to independently verified facts and see where they lead. Nonetheless, it's no big deal, there's little point unless both people want to go through with it.
  
  Rigging an election is no small task. There's evidence of small vote shifts here and there, but I've only seen one case that exceeded expected human error. It'd be especially difficult to do if everyone already disliked you, which would be the case in that situation.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-09-14 04:08

  Quote from Juno;1148248:

  There's no need to bring emotions into it. It -is- possible to stick to independently verified facts and see where they lead. Nonetheless, it's no big deal, there's little point unless both people want to go through with it.
  
  Rigging an election is no small task. There's evidence of small vote shifts here and there, but I've only seen one case that exceeded expected human error. It'd be especially difficult to do if everyone already disliked you, which would be the case in that situation.

  
  
  It's actually not that hard, there are videos on such matter, basically there are three choke points that can prevent election fraud but they don't guard those so election fraud is pretty easy right now. I will find the video tomorrow, coming down with a cold, kinda hard to discuss this with splitting headache.
• Evaris wrote on 2013-09-17 10:18
  -Yes, we can: Obama waives anti-terrorism provisions to arm Syrian rebels
  http://rt.com/usa/obama-terrorist-arms-supply-966/
  
  So apparently Obama thinks it's a good idea to arm the terrorists. Even though he has to utilize a loophole in a law to do so, which really doesn't match up with current circumstances.... yeah...
  when is someone going to initiate a coup with this psychopath? Honestly, I'm starting to think he's a psychopath now.
• Aubog007 wrote on 2013-09-17 10:27

  Quote from Evaris;1149305:

  -Yes, we can: Obama waives anti-terrorism provisions to arm Syrian rebels
  http://rt.com/usa/obama-terrorist-arms-supply-966/
  
  So apparently Obama thinks it's a good idea to arm the terrorists. Even though he has to utilize a loophole in a law to do so, which really doesn't match up with current circumstances.... yeah...
  when is someone going to initiate a coup with this psychopath? Honestly, I'm starting to think he's a psychopath now.

  
  
  I think it is absolutely appalling that we are assisting a "rebel/terrorist group" overthrow their government.
  I mean, by this logic, we should hate the French, helping those dirty colonist rebel against the British empire.
  
  The past exists for a reason, America was founded on violence and upheaval.
  
  And yes, i know it isn't the exact same, but sheesh, peace cannot be obtained without some war. It's history.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-09-17 14:11

  Quote from Aubog007;1149309:

  I think it is absolutely appalling that we are assisting a "rebel/terrorist group" overthrow their government.
  I mean, by this logic, we should hate the French, helping those dirty colonist rebel against the British empire.
  
  The past exists for a reason, America was founded on violence and upheaval.
  
  And yes, i know it isn't the exact same, but sheesh, peace cannot be obtained without some war. It's history.

  
  
  Conflict is a result of some structurally rooted social problems, it can be peacefully resolved when people find the problem and change it. War should only be a last resort. If everyone keep thinking war is the only solution, we will never find peaceful ways to resolve conflicts.
• Royale wrote on 2013-09-17 22:03

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1149331:

  Conflict is a result of some structurally rooted social problems, it can be peacefully resolved when people find the problem and change it. War should only be a last resort. If everyone keep thinking war is the only solution, we will never find peaceful ways to resolve conflicts.

  
  
  I find it kinda ironic you call it "structurally rooted social problems", how do you remove something that is structurally rooted? Usually with wrecking-balls and dynamites, or metaphorically, sudden violent change. But I digress.
  
  I think "find the problem and change it" is oversimplifying it , but that's fine, simple makes things easier. so simply, the problem with this problem is that the problem is right there, in plain sight, anyone can see it, making speeches and propaganda about how great it's. but changing it is usually beyond the means of normal people, and requires extraordinary measures. And the people of Syria have tried peaceful ways, with protests, then the government opened fire on them. So while war is the last resort, I can understand why they resorted to war. so now it's up to the international community to end this war. and at the risk of repeating myself, there is no easy way of resolving this. Diplomacy, while good on paper, and is the politically correct and the "right" thing to do, simply takes too long. In the end more people might die by this way, and frankly I don't think turning over chemical weapons contributes to ending the war in any ways, Assad is not going to step down because of some nice words and one less weapon of mass destruction. dictatorship only ends in two ways, the dictator will either die or be deposed, and I don't think I know any case in history where a dictator was peacefully deposed. But military action, while could resolve this much faster, could also go very very wrong, it would be the Korean war all over again, and heaven forbid we get another north Korea.
  
  P.s. hope your headache got better
  
  

  Quote from Evaris;1149305:

  -Yes, we can: Obama waives anti-terrorism provisions to arm Syrian rebels
  http://rt.com/usa/obama-terrorist-arms-supply-966/
  

  
  just want to say, RT, or Russia today is a Russian state owned news, and given Russia's stance on this, well I am not going to outright call it bias, but I would check everything it says with several other sources.
• Evaris wrote on 2013-09-17 22:25

  Quote from Royale;1149408:

  
  just want to say, RT, or Russia today is a Russian state owned news, and given Russia's stance on this, well I am not going to outright call it bias, but I would check everything it says with several other sources.

  
  
  http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-11/world/41972742_1_lethal-aid-syrian-rebels-chemical-weapons
  CIA arming Syrian rebels. Which have already been confirmed by various international sources to be linked to Al Qaeda.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-09-17 23:24

  Quote from Royale;1149408:

  I find it kinda ironic you call it "structurally rooted social problems", how do you remove something that is structurally rooted? Usually with wrecking-balls and dynamites, or metaphorically, sudden violent change. But I digress.
  
  I think "find the problem and change it" is oversimplifying it , but that's fine, simple makes things easier. so simply, the problem with this problem is that the problem is right there, in plain sight, anyone can see it, making speeches and propaganda about how great it's. but changing it is usually beyond the means of normal people, and requires extraordinary measures. And the people of Syria have tried peaceful ways, with protests, then the government opened fire on them. So while war is the last resort, I can understand why they resorted to war. so now it's up to the international community to end this war. and at the risk of repeating myself, there is no easy way of resolving this. Diplomacy, while good on paper, and is the politically correct and the "right" thing to do, simply takes too long. In the end more people might die by this way, and frankly I don't think turning over chemical weapons contributes to ending the war in any ways, Assad is not going to step down because of some nice words and one less weapon of mass destruction. dictatorship only ends in two ways, the dictator will either die or be deposed, and I don't think I know any case in history where a dictator was peacefully deposed. But military action, while could resolve this much faster, could also go very very wrong, it would be the Korean war all over again, and heaven forbid we get another north Korea.
  
  P.s. hope your headache got better
  
  
  just want to say, RT, or Russia today is a Russian state owned news, and given Russia's stance on this, well I am not going to outright call it bias, but I would check everything it says with several other sources.

  
  
  It just means some of the social policies caused problems which is likely the case in internal conflicts. Can we all agree on the fact that it is preferable to solve problems peacefully than through violence? If so, then comments that dismiss solutions other than war should not be regarded as correct (such is the case in Aubog007's comment.) Human faced many problems since the dawn of our history as a specie, and we don't just accept limitations as unchangeable, we accept the fact something are undesirable (such as war and death) and then use our mind to find a way to improve the situation. That is the essence of peace studies. A subject dedicated to find a way to solve conflicts without violence.
• Royale wrote on 2013-09-18 04:51

  Quote from Evaris;1149421:

  http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-11/world/41972742_1_lethal-aid-syrian-rebels-chemical-weapons
  CIA arming Syrian rebels. Which have already been confirmed by various international sources to be linked to Al Qaeda.

  
  
  But notice the wording and the differences between those two articles.
  For example the first and second paragraph in RT's article
  
  "The Obama administration waived provisions of a federal law which ban the supply of weapons and money to terrorists."
  ".....to countries supporting acts of terrorism."
  
  but it conveniently forgot to mention what qualifies a country as such
  
  

  22 USC § 2780 - Transactions with countries supporting acts of international terrorism
  
  (d) Countries covered by prohibition
  The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.
  

  Notice how with that little detail, those two paragraphs now tells an entirely different story. And who was it that's been supplying weapons and aid to the Syrian government? it starts with an R.
  
  Also note that article fails to mention that weapons are intended for " moderate factions" of the rebel army. The article from the Washington post does a very good job of pointing that out:
  "Targeted U.S. aid, he said, can be used to empower emerging local leaders who are moderate and to jump-start basic services while dimming the appeal of extremists."
  
  And finally it did not mention that US is only delivering light weapons and ammunition, and still withholding the heavy weapons, such as rocket launches, things a terrorist can really do damage with. remember it's very easy for them to get guns and assault rifle, there's plenty of them floating around middle east that came from this mysterious R.
  
  now I am not suggesting weapons are not going to fall into terrorist hands, even US admits that's going to happen, and I honestly don't know if this is a good idea or not, but it's not as sinister as RT makes it out to be, I guess only time will tell how this plays out. but it's good practice to read from a variety of news sources for things of the nature and form your own opinions .
  
  

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1149452:

  It just means some of the social policies caused problems which is likely the case in internal conflicts. Can we all agree on the fact that it is preferable to solve problems peacefully than through violence? If so, then comments that dismiss solutions other than war should not be regarded as correct (such is the case in Aubog007's comment.) Human faced many problems since the dawn of our history as a specie, and we don't just accept limitations as unchangeable, we accept the fact something are undesirable (such as war and death) and then use our mind to find a way to improve the situation. That is the essence of peace studies. A subject dedicated to find a way to solve conflicts without violence.

  
  
  Preferable, yes, but we must recognize that there are times when we simply cannot afford the luxury of sitting down and having long negations , especially if hundreds are losing their lives constantly, and who knows when the next atrocity is going to happen. Whatever we do, we much act and finish it quickly. remember everything we are doing is for the peace for Syrian people and with every passing day that peace becomes less meaningful.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-09-18 05:08

  Quote from Royale;1149588:

  
  Preferable, yes, but we must recognize that there are times when we simply cannot afford the luxury of sitting down and having long negations , especially if hundreds are losing their lives constantly, and who knows when the next atrocity is going to happen. Whatever we do, we much act and finish it quickly. remember everything we are doing is for the peace for Syrian people and with every passing day that peace becomes less meaningful.

  
  
  I have my doubts, if you are interested in why I am doubting US government's intention... watch this video:
  
  [video=youtube;HP7L8bw5QF4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4[/video]
• Evaris wrote on 2013-10-02 14:33
  So just something else I just learned that the current administration should be ashamed of;
  

  [Image: http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Obama-D-Day.jpg]