American Soldiers refuse orders to attack Syria!

False. Islamic extremists are blowing up UN soldiers in Iraq and Afghan, with the help of the Iranian govt. A trigger is mounted in the bumpers of US vehicles eh? Do the explosives come prepackaged with the vehicle? Lmao.

 

Then they shouldn't tell lies and provide ridiculous analysis. Like I said, their final analysis that McCain stayed another 5 years in that prison for career reasons is absurd. Also, the video claims that everyone in that prison camp hated McCain, but here are videos of the actual guys who were there, and they sound more credible than your guys. They don't appear to hate McCain, and you would think they would make that known in these videos and other public appearances they have made throughout the years. So another falsehood in the video.

[video=youtube;io1GKKYvuEs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io1GKKYvuEs[/video]

[video=youtube;rFIhqpNYEeQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFIhqpNYEeQ[/video]

 

whatever

You keep posting that, what is a synogog of satan? Satan dont exist. Each of us is as capable as any other to make, either good or bad choices. I trust that each are capable of empathy, beyond self. But each are also capable of da utter side and can make sense of it by the 'invisible hand' (.....ie..."nothing personal, just business" (no need of empathy/virtues))

The reason i render that the sub is doing the sub, is to try and stop any more detonations as they can be blinded and a nuke war, cuts the heads off of any centralization. So either they stop or be sunk by every means. That's how i believe the war ends.

That war will be over when the subs stop firing as the land based, already know what is happening and stop within hours of the first. I have no material information to support what i claim on this.

I just trust that each are capable of both sides of the good and bad.

Guess which side wins?



.

 

I believe we need an audit trail; from each and every letter of marque, reprisal, or retaliation enacted by our federal Congress regarding our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, as well.

 

Then you said this:

"Then you admit this policy is making it harder to deal with AQ."

Now a better word in hindsight would have been interepet my post that way, but that's not what I said.

If I don't support war, what do you think?

My understanding of the Syrian Civil War, is that there are various factions in it. Each one could potentially form the new government. Support those groups, and they'll be ind debt to us. Think of it like this. Everyone is a revolutionary, until they get what they want. Once that happens, it because a slugfest between the various rebel groups.

Unless there's an actual connection, mind laying off the WWII analogy?

Then why do you keep saying AQ? It's the rebels. Or the Free Syrian Army.

You gave the answer to your questions.

Let's hear a source for this. I have Kerry saying something else.
"But in testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 3, Kerry said it was "basically incorrect" to claim Syria's opposition is becoming more infiltrated by Al-Qaeda militants. Kerry told lawmakers that "extremists" now make up 15-25 percent of all antiregime fighters in Syria. He said the total number of opposition fighters was "in the tens of thousands," with estimates between 80,000 and 100,000. He also said the latest intelligence showed the number of Al-Qaeda fighters among the rebels is lower than "previously expected.""
http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-al-qaeda-explainer/25096887.html

If you told me 2+2=4, then why would I have to say two plus two equals four? You already answered your own question. It weakens the Syrian rebels overall. AQ is small and Assad is a bigger target right now. If you win over the majority with promises of support, and all you have to do is go against AQ, then they'll fight against them in the long run. It's building a base of support basically.

 

Solid.


We the people, dont need another debt, especially at the expense of lives and war. What does the US want?

 

My guess is as good as any. But I think it has to do with Iran. Syria is Iran's ally, and destabilizing the region will certainly mean, if Israel invades then it's one less ally to deal with.

 

Have you ever noticed how the US defends its allies and even the strangers of syria?

Why wouldn't Russia and China?

Especially if Russia has a naval base there?

 

No idea.

 

I am sorry, but you seem to be confused. No order was given. No order disobeyed. This is just people expressing their opinion, and some scary person called it treason!! That is insane.....

 

Americans do care, including George Bush, and his team. They said repeatedly, starting in 2001 with the Afghan invasion, that one of the US goals in these wars was to start a wave of democracy in the Middle East, so that dictators or extremists could not dictate to those peoples any longer. I don't think anyone can deny that this is exactly what is happening in the Middle East today. The Bush team predicted dictators would fall like dominoes, and they have. The US is helping the Middle East whether or not they realize it, as the time scales our leaders are thinking and making decisions on, aren't always the timescales that the average person thinks in.

 

Not quite so insane, as there is a reason these people are hiding their faces. Their commander-in-chief is trying to build home support and international coalitions in order to authorize what he considers is the correct military action. These soldiers are undermining their commander-in-chief's actions by using social media, etc., to announce their own messages that directly contradict their commander's. I'm not sure if I'd go so far as call it treason, which is why I prefixed it with low-level, it is at the least treasonous behavior, and these soldiers should receive severe disciplinary action.

 

The US is helping to genocide middle eastern Christians in the process of its 'grand' vision of ME democracies. Fact is, the more foreign military intervention in the region retards any movements towards democracy since it incites extremism.

 

Indeed. This is the excuse that many liars put forth - "I don't have to prove my poo so therefore, can poo whatever I wish, wherever I wish."

You have been called out for lying nine times in one post yesterday and have nothing to refute your tired, factless claims save you don't have to prove anything. No more is this valid, rule #10 was made for liars to be held accountable

So, have you any proof of your claim or is it simply a lie?

 

"Intervention incites extremism" is too simplistic, and it can't be used as a stand alone doctrine for US military strategy or actions. But I agree with you for the most part, and it is a factor to be considered (although I strongly disagree with your statement about the US helping genocide). As I and others have repeatedly stated, including Obama and his team, WMD's are the reason we are getting involved. I have faith that the Syrian people can oust Assad and get their democracy without the US. I even have faith that the Syrians, despite having AQ as a strong ally against Assad, will not stand for AQ influence in their govt, just as Egypt will not tolerate anything but a secular govt.

But again, the WMD's represent a problem. I predicted US boots on the ground in Syria from the first couple of weeks of the civil war. Not because I want them to be, or for the reasons that some here claim to have predicted the Syria conflict. I learned the proper lessons on WMD's from the collapse of the USSR and the invasion of Iraq by the US, partly on suspicion of them: that there is an additional danger to the world in WMD's that needs to be addressed. What happens when states with WMD's collapse, either by civil war, or by invasion of another nation? Should the world just leave the fate of the WMD's up to chance if the system of law and order and/or security of the state which possesses them ceases to exist?

The reason I knew we would be in Syria is the combination of my 2 opinions on WMD's and democracy. All peoples of the world will demand democracy. In some states, there may be a chaotic and/or bloody transition to that democracy. Some states have WMD's. I have deduced the following states will be problems in the future, based on lack of democracy combined with WMD's:

1. Syria = happening now
2. Pakistan = true democracy will eventually happen, and I am specifically concerned about security status of this country's WMD's during transition
3. Iran = true democracy movement will happen, but I'm not sure if security status of WMD's will fail during that movement or not.
4. North Korea = democracy will happen eventually, China will ensure security of WMD's if need be
5. Israel = already a democracy, but is unique, as imo, it is the WMD nation most vulnerable to invasion and possible loss of security of WMD's if so
6. China = democracy is inevitable, but I suspect security of WMD's remains intact as in USSR

I don't foresee any future instability and therefore unpredictability in other WMD possessing states.

As you can see, I disagree on some key fundamentals with most here on what's going on in the Middle East. Imo, these soldiers don't know enough about treason, intl relations, WMD's, diplomatic treaties and alliances, to be making the statements they are making. And even if they did, they shouldn't be participating in a debate on the issue while in uniform, in direct opposition to their commander.

 

The non-partisan 9/11 commission report said that foreign military presence in the Arab world was the number one motive of the terrorists.

If even John McCain cannot delineate on the ground between supposedly 'pro-Western' rebels from al-Qaeda affiliates than it is clear that the transfer of arms to rebel groups is likely supporting the persecution of Christians in Syria.....just watch the youtube videos from Christian majority towns in Syria...,it's by no means a secret.

Syria won't collapse, that's the point. Russia and Iran are pumping massive funds and arms to Syria which is why the Assad regime is crushing the meagerly US funded 'rebels.'

 

I agree. But nothing can be done to convince the terrorists, and they represent a very small portion of the population of the Middle East. They will never be satisfied until complete US military withdrawal, and unless China wants to send a fleet to the Persian Gulf to relieve us, that is not possible. The world's oil flows cannot be left up to chance or the whims of various local dictators, kings; it is too important to the societies of modern people. We must secure it, until we can come up with green energy methods of powering the world. So although I agree with the 9/11 report's statement, I disagree that the US should base every decision upon it.

I'm not sure what McCain can delineate or not. I'm not sure what he knows. I admit, I don't know a lot about what's happening on the ground in Syria. I must combine what my leaders are saying, what other world leaders are saying, with logic. If it is as you say, you are right, and I would not have given assistance to the rebels. I said above, that eventually, the Syrians will get their democracy with or without us. But I still would consider the support of 1 side or the other in the civil war as a separate issue from the WMD use (by Assad or the Rebels), and would consider military action to secure those WMD's and/or prevent their use or transfer.

I am not guaranteeing collapse of security system of WMD's in the case of either side gaining victory. I'm simply saying that I always considered Syria high up on the list of upcoming military conflicts related to WMD's for the US and/or UN, as I do Pakistan and Iran. The fact that WMD's are now being used is just further reinforcement of my belief that someone is going to have to go in there and get them.

First Iraq, now this Syria debate. Trust me, this is not the last time the world will have to confront what to do in regards to WMD's in a failed state.

 

So, what form of political governance DO either of you prefer - monarchy, socialism, anarchy, what - ?

 

Keep our principals of democracy where it belongs- in our own country. Let other countries be responsible for the formation of their governments. and oh btw- quit the sanctimonious bs of taking the high moral ground. we didn't take that high moral ground while we encouraged a war between Iran and Iraq and when Saddam used wmd on his own people. The USA has proven that it cares for nothing but its own self interests which in the ME is a) protection of Israel b) preferential access to the Suez Canal, c) limit access of oil flow to China, to name but a few. Just say that you want to invade every middle eastern country with a large army because doing so is in the best interests of the united states and her allies and quit yakking about values, moral right and ethics. we have none when it comes to foreign policy.

 

That would be a question that I would put to my people, by way of offering them extensive and true choices, with distinct differences, rather than force upon them a one party state (disguised as two), in which we (people) have little true power, and which our head of state is not elected.

In short, it would not be for me to tell them what to choose, but I would offer them true and real choice with distinction.

 

What a silly question, the answers are in front of your, you have no need to look further.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j1r2GF7ovL0#t=166

Real Americans caring for real Americans.

The land of plenty, but your policies for and by the 1% are there to divide and conquer.

Regards
Highlander