|
Wasn't it congress that voted not to get involved in Syria? Obviously because this is not an imperial presidency. Don't wanna get sued for overstepping boundaries.
|
|
|
|
As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.
That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).
Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again? See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest. Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did. Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'." What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon? |
|
|
|
As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.
That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).
Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again? |
|
|
|
Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action
Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line. Despite what Turkey says publicly, they love the idea of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq. That really takes the steam out of the Kurdish separatist movement that had been active for years in Turkey. |
|
|
|
So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...
Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.
My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.
I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.
Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.
Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it? Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq). This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them. Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude. So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously? Yet again, I don't think the world shares your misanthropic need for Obama to be the absolute failure you've been repeating he is since 2008. The reality is that any president would be working against the notion that working with the US in any real way would make them puppets in the eyes of their own faction, and right now this seems to be all about each faction grabbing as much as they can while the power vacuum expands. Think Russian state owned industry after the end of the Cold War: every fucking piece of infrastructure is now ripe for picking, and the more of it you own, the better your chances of continuing your cult of you into the future. And your supporters expect you to do this, because they have hitched themselves to your wagon--in this sense, imagine Ancient Rome of the fourth century and the never ending cycle of troops nominating their leader to be the new emperor. When this happened, you tried to be emperor or your supporters replaced you with someone else. In my opinion, there is a curve to overcome, and that curve is opportunity versus self preservation over time. SP requires you take advantage of O right now, but for SP to occur in the long term, you have to limit O through agreements. Right now, I don't think any of the key players can actually get their patrons to support the idea of concessions and compromise NOW for stability and security in the future. Not when the middle eastern version of the end of the Cold War is taking place, and there is so much up for grabs. keep repeating it, won't make it true Obama: "hey Assad, here's a red line on chemical weapon use!!" Assad: "fuck that, I just gassed 1400 people" Everyone: "hey Obama, what about that line?" Obama: "uhh, I didn't say that" Everyone: "yes you did " http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-issues-syria-red-line-warning-on-chemical-weapons/2012/08/20/ba5d26ec-eaf7-11e1-b811-09036bcb182b_story.html |
|
|
|
|
This is really hard to swallow. A fun thread turned into an argument over jokes. And of course the libs bring in references to body parts that have no place in the world of fun. And then I think of the thread libs started with headlines referring to con politicians which contained disgusting epithets, nothing fun and easy about them, pure filth.
It is said libs have no sense of humor. They don't. They think filth is humor and they think humor is racism, sexism, religousism.
That god I am not them. What miserable lives they must lead.
|
|
|
|
So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...
Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.
My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.
I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.
Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.
Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it? Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq). This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them. Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude. So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously? |
|
|
|
So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...
Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.
My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.
I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.
Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.
Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it? |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps some kind of plugging that compares US search results to EU's for the same query and highlights the missing ones.Preferably even more prominently than they would have originally appeared, because screw people trying to delete history.
|
|
|
|
|
This article sounds like what Israel is doing is a bad thing. If this were any other country who was fighting back against the rockets that have been launched at them for over a week now. We would be cheering them on. But because it's Israel this is a bad thing? Maybe I'm reading this wrong. But that is what it sounds like to me
|
|
|
|
|
We all wait! "IF" Income Redistribution is EVER to become acceptable, then it is for the best the Earth is snuffed out like a dead candle, and cast lifeless into deep space!
It would be pointless to save any such planet.
|
|
|
|
|
The magnetic field has been flip flopping, moving about, varying in strength since the formation of this world. It's not really anything to worry about. Magnetic north and south poles travel a bit every year... everyone should know that. Ten times faster than nearly nothing is... lemmee think, still nearly nothing.
Wait. Pelosi says we should never waste a crisis.... even if we have to invent one.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it's just the perspective but the photo caption above looks as though the water is just about to reach the edge of the conning tower - I have in my mind the voice of the restaurant waiter on the right screaming to the crew below; "Don't panic, our great leader's beach ball head will keep us afloat!"
159.there is nothing wrong with immigration, that was never the issue... there is something wrong with ILLEGAL immigration.... that's the issue that the liberals don't want to discuss.... and so therefore they try to make it seem as if republicans are against immigration when they are against ILLEGAL immigration... there is a bid difference....
|
|
|
|
and so therefore they try to make it seem as if republicans are against immigration when they are against ILLEGAL immigration... there is a bid difference....
So, you want illegal aliens sent back? That's a switch, I thought you wanted them rewarded with amnesty and a citizenship. BTW all those criminal sex offenders that crossed the border, do you think they'll apply for amnesty or continue to hide in the shadows? And with all those new amnesty papers how long do you think it will take those criminals to forge new papers in another name? liberalism is indeed a mental illness.... the liberals are all for illegals... nancy pilosi welcomed them at the boarder... obama and the administration will not send anyone back, the liberals want to give them welfare and food stamps.... illegal immigrants have more rights than legal immigrants according the liberals.... the liberals don't give a shit about legal immigrants... |
|
|
|
I worked with a guy from southern mexico that had legally migrated to Canada and was working in the US. When the day came that he was to be sworn in as a citizen of Canada I asked him if he was excited about his new citizenship. He said he was because as a citizen of Canada he could work anywhere in the world and make the big bucks so he could buy a condo in Toronto, pay if off and then retire in mexico on the profits. He had no real desire to be a Canadian much like many have no real desire to be American, they just want the perks that come with the citizenship.
there is nothing wrong with immigration, that was never the issue... there is something wrong with ILLEGAL immigration.... thats the issue that the liberals don't want to discuss.... and so therefore they try to make it seem as if republicans are against immigration when they are against ILLEGAL immigration... there is a bid difference.... |
|
|
|
|
That is the answer to this so-called dilemma , I will begin using Aloha for every occasion. ;-)
Seriously, a quick look at my good old Merriam -Webster shows multiple definitions for the word Blessed. The religious definition means "holy" or "beatified", while the non-religious definition means simple "Delightful". Which is generally the way I interpret someone who wishes me a "Blessed Day' Simply wishing me a delightful day. And even if the person who says to me "Have a Blessed Day" is meaning have a Holy Day, as long as he or she is not saying who or what makes the day "holy". And as such the expression remains generic and neutral with regard to specific religious tradition or belief.. Now if someone actually says "May the Good Lord bless you and keep" -- Or something like "Christ (or Allah) be with you, it does cross a certain religious boundary. Although even then I would be not be offended or even the least bit annoyed.
Having said all of that, I really do not have enough information to determine if I can justify the firing or not. If the employees history included any degree of proselytizing, that is one thing. On the other hand if it was obviously a greeting that was simply used in a generic manner, associated with a regional speech pattern, I would object to the firing on a personal level. Although the employer may be on solid legal ground based on how the manner in which specific instructions wee given tot he employee.
In any event, let me end by simply saying to everyone "Avere un giorno meraviglioso".
|
|
|
|
|
Now we're going to pick a nit as to who is southern and who isn't? Texas was a member of the Confederacy, which was about as "South" as it got. Down here, you know when someone says "bless your heart" if they're really blessing, or saying a saccharin FU. More often than not, it's the latter.
|
|
|
|
I didn't watch the whole video, just the first 3 minutes. That's all I needed to see. The guy did nothing wrong initially. Also police have the freedom to intervene when someone is sleeping on the subway, because subways aren't for sleeping in. Also they might have an incentive to check on people in that situation because for all they know they could have had a medical emergency and died there in their seat. Or maybe they want to see if he was a homeless person who's just sleeping on the subway with no destination. Anyways the guy was being combative. You can be arrested for being combative even if there wasn't a crime beforehand. |
|
|
|
|
The woman who was fired in the OP story had been warned by her employer, not just once, but several times. Why would she risk her job for something so trivial, unless it wasn't trivial to her and she was pushing an agenda?
|
|
|
|
If it is a companies public stance not to promote any religion or foster religious believes/religions it may be seen as a valid stance to restrict the use of religious expressions. This is a working place after all and the person in question is employed there (well not anymore in this case, but yeah...)
First, I would have to agree that free speech seems to end at corporate doorsteps, and I concede that with no excitement. I think sometimes the freedoms we have won are marginalized by our corporate lives, where we often live 2/3 of our days. So, in that regard, yes, the company has the right to demand an employee stop this use of greeting or goodbye. On a personal basis I see this as "more information than I needed to know". By that I mean, if when our transaction was completed you said "And do you like my nice wig" i would also think more than I needed to know. In either case you are presenting me with something personal in a transaction where that degree of personal is inappropriate. It is not about religion, it is about invading my privacy. Once you have made this statement I feel compelled to nod, smile, or verbally respond. And my verbal response might be rude because you crossed a privacy line. I do not want your blessing, or your pictures of kids, or to approve of oyur wig or anything other than to complete my transaction. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
