America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by jpotts. 64 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Putin's NY Times OpEd
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jetblasted Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Sep 12 2013, 8:36 PM EST
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
Did anyone read it ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Obama is getting his ass handed to him in the world's stage & this may be a turning point in general for our country.

Now the whole works knows what 1/2 of this country has for the last 6 years ... Obama is nothing but a TelePrompTer reading community organizer.
Lou Sanis Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Sep 12 2013, 9:36 PM EST
Joined: 09-05-2013
Posts: 219
Yup. We need to listen to Putin more.
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Sep 12 2013, 9:49 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Indeed Mr Fencepost.
dpnewell Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Sep 12 2013, 10:16 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Yet the Obamatrons on the MSM boards claim that Dear Leader masterfully orchestrated the whole Russian/Syrian chem weapons deal, and Putin was just a pawn who Obama manipulated. There's no cure for that kind of stupid.
ZRX1200 Offline
#5 Posted: Thu, Sep 12 2013, 10:29 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Yeah some mouthpiece was on NPR this a.m. saying this was all his plan all along........

*smh*
bloody spaniard Offline
#6 Posted: Thu, Sep 12 2013, 10:37 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
ZRX1200 wrote:
Indeed Mr Fencepost.

LOL!! It's understandable. Putin's been cocky since he found someone he can beat at checkers.
ZRX1200 Offline
#7 Posted: Thu, Sep 12 2013, 10:40 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Half black folks don't play craps?
rfenst Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Sep 13 2013, 2:34 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
Where have the Russians been all along? Their worldwide leadership on the issue would have avoided the escalating tensions of the last 30 days or so.
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Sep 13 2013, 8:45 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
rfenst wrote:
Where have the Russians been all along? Their worldwide leadership on the issue would have avoided the escalating tensions of the last 30 days or so.



prolly been making chemical weapons.... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Sep 13 2013, 9:01 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
rfenst wrote:
Where have the Russians been all along? Their worldwide leadership on the issue would have avoided the escalating tensions of the last 30 days or so.




Sitting back laughing at Obama and the all-of-a-sudden war thirsty Americans.

The USA is the self-appointed Worldwide Cop, not Russia.
snowwolf777 Offline
#11 Posted: Fri, Sep 13 2013, 6:42 PM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
HockeyDad wrote:
Sitting back laughing at Obama and the all-of-a-sudden war thirsty Americans.

The USA is the self-appointed Worldwide Cop, not Russia.



[email protected]
wheelrite Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Sep 13 2013, 8:52 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
a writer at the NY Times wrote this , not Vlad...
snowwolf777 Offline
#13 Posted: Sat, Sep 14 2013, 8:42 AM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
wheelrite wrote:
a writer at the NY Times wrote this , not Vlad...


He called Poontang and read it to him, though. He said it sounded pretty OK. I believe he was playing croquet, shirtless, at the time. Poontang was. Not the writer.
rfenst Offline
#14 Posted: Sat, Sep 14 2013, 12:22 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
The more I think about this, the more I think the Russians have the burden of any problem now. In a way, we are currently "off the hook"...
HockeyDad Offline
#15 Posted: Sat, Sep 14 2013, 2:40 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
rfenst wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I think the Russians have the burden of any problem now. In a way, we are currently "off the hook"...



Do you think the Russians give a **** about any burden of problem? They have the solution...send more weapons to the Syrian government until the islamist rebels are wiped out.

Meanwhile while the USA sits and does nothing, Syrians are being killed each day and the outrage is that it isn't the USA doing the killing.
rfenst Offline
#16 Posted: Sat, Sep 14 2013, 3:08 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
HockeyDad wrote:
Do you think the Russians give a **** about any burden of problem? They have the solution...send more weapons to the Syrian government until the islamist rebels are wiped out.

Meanwhile while the USA sits and does nothing, Syrians are being killed each day and the outrage is that it isn't the USA doing the killing.
.

The Russians don't give a $hit about Syrians and neither do I other than Assad winning the civil war. Sending more weapons to Assad is good. He's not a good guy, but he is the lesser of evils and he is at least fairly predictable. our interest in that broad region are oil, a few allies and the Suez canal

As to the U.S. attacking for the use of gas- I don't want us to at all under present circumstances. However, I don't want to see gas used on civilian, but, not enough to be concerned about a decades old, historical treaty. Our interest in the Middle East is stability for our oil allies and for Israel (like Israel beinging included or not). Those interests are better served (unfortunately) by Assad and Russia.
rfenst Offline
#17 Posted: Sat, Sep 14 2013, 3:13 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
HockeyDad wrote:
Do you think the Russians give a **** about any burden of problem? They have the solution...send more weapons to the Syrian government until the islamist rebels are wiped out.

Meanwhile while the USA sits and does nothing, Syrians are being killed each day and the outrage is that it isn't the USA doing the killing.
.

The Russians don't give a $hit about Syrians and neither do I other than Assad winning the civil war. Sending more weapons to Assad is good. He's not a good guy, but he is the lesser of evils and he is at least fairly predictable. our interest in that broad region are oil, a few allies and the Suez canal

As to the U.S. attacking for the use of gas- I don't want us to at all under present circumstances. However, I don't want to see gas used on civilian, but, not enough to be concerned about a decades old, historical treaty. Our interest in the Middle East is stability for our oil allies and for Israel (like Israel beiging included or not). Those interests are better served (unfortunately) by Assad and Russia.
HockeyDad Offline
#18 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 8:11 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
rfenst wrote:
.

The Russians don't give a $hit about Syrians and neither do I other than Assad winning the civil war. Sending more weapons to Assad is good. He's not a good guy, but he is the lesser of evils and he is at least fairly predictable. our interest in that broad region are oil, a few allies and the Suez canal

As to the U.S. attacking for the use of gas- I don't want us to at all under present circumstances. However, I don't want to see gas used on civilian, but, not enough to be concerned about a decades old, historical treaty. Our interest in the Middle East is stability for our oil allies and for Israel (like Israel beiging included or not). Those interests are better served (unfortunately) by Assad and Russia.



You are gonna lose your Obama-card this way for not backing his war and his rebels.

I have no problem with Israel as an ally...we're just helping them along the journey. Remember the prophecy is that the Jews will keep gathering there from all corners of the globe and then the Gog/Magog war will wipe out 2/3 of them. Some might argue that even Obama has hit foot on the gas pedal to speed up the coming of that war. Weird thing about the prophecy though is that there is no mention of the USA. It is like it no longer exists during the end times party.
ZRX1200 Offline
#19 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 9:40 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Syria is not signed on to that treaty rfenster.
rfenst Offline
#20 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 9:46 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
ZRX1200 wrote:
Syria is not signed on to that treaty rfenster.



I know. I refered to it as a "historical treaty" because it was agreed on when gas really was a WMD.
rfenst Offline
#21 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 10:14 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
HockeyDad wrote:
You are gonna lose your Obama-card this way for not backing his war and his rebels.

I have no problem with Israel as an ally...we're just helping them along the journey. Remember the prophecy is that the Jews will keep gathering there from all corners of the globe and then the Gog/Magog war will wipe out 2/3 of them. Some might argue that even Obama has hit foot on the gas pedal to speed up the coming of that war. Weird thing about the prophecy though is that there is no mention of the USA. It is like it no longer exists during the end times party.


I find the whole eschiology-thing weird.
ZRX1200 Offline
#22 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 10:19 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
"Historical" often used in contract law?
HockeyDad Offline
#23 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 10:39 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
rfenst wrote:
I find the whole eschiology-thing weird.



Christians can be a bit weird when they get hard-core.
frankj1 Offline
#24 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 10:42 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,242
HockeyDad wrote:
Do you think the Russians give a **** about any burden of problem? They have the solution...send more weapons to the Syrian government until the islamist rebels are wiped out.

Meanwhile while the USA sits and does nothing, Syrians are being killed each day and the outrage is that it isn't the USA doing the killing.

I am simply trying to understand your position when I ask...does this mean you are for Obama's threat of military intervention? If not, what do you mean we sit and do nothing?
HockeyDad Offline
#25 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 11:39 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Threat of military intervention? Is that what it was? Military intervention is troops on the ground, killing brown people, and nation building to create a shining democracy.
ZRX1200 Offline
#26 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 11:45 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Frank terrible question.

LeHockey Dad.......you buying or shorting Qatar pipeline?
rfenst Offline
#27 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 11:50 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
ZRX1200 wrote:
"Historical" often used in contract law?


Yes, when discussing and learning the development and stages of the law to understand where we are presently at and the reason(s) why.

I would hardly calla Treaty a contract. No defined penalty for a breach.
ZRX1200 Offline
#28 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 11:55 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
It is a writen agreement.
rfenst Offline
#29 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 12:31 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
ZRX1200 wrote:
It is a writen agreement.


A written agreement is only as good as the parties who sign it. Breach of contract in the real world is a very common occurrence. Too bad you live so far a way. We could be herfing right now...
frankj1 Offline
#30 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 1:36 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,242
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank terrible question.

LeHockey Dad.......you buying or shorting Qatar pipeline?

Told ya I come here to learn.
HockeyDad Offline
#31 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 2:07 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank terrible question.

LeHockey Dad.......you buying or shorting Qatar pipeline?



Way too early to bet either way on the pipeline.
bloody spaniard Offline
#32 Posted: Sun, Sep 15 2013, 2:41 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Yeah, as sure a thing as gold. Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#33 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 10:24 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
The new stories don't seem to match the old stories back when Obama was all mad about his "red line".



Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, says IHS Jane's report
The Telegraph - UK

Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.

The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda..

Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.

There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.

The stark assessment, to be published later this week, accords with the view of Western diplomats estimate that less than one third of the opposition forces are "palatable" to Britain, while American envoys put the figure even lower.
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 10:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
but we're not arming the bad ones right...?? Huh
HockeyDad Offline
#35 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 10:40 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
DrafterX wrote:
but we're not arming the bad ones right...?? Huh



Yes. If our weapons are picked up by bad rebels, the rifle won't fire. It has like a DUI-ignition breathalizer thingy on it,
DrafterX Offline
#36 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 10:42 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
cool.... I've heard about those... Mellow
bloody spaniard Offline
#37 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 10:42 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
If I had to choose between sides, I'd have to go with Puto & al-Assad's gang. Christian Syrians have a better chance with them. Plus I've also seen how the rebels gleefully slice up & decapitate kids.

Kinda like choosing between Iraq and Iran during their war in the 80's. Of course we HAD to butt in on that one too instead of letting it run its course...
DrafterX Offline
#38 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 10:45 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
Assad's wife is hot... Mellow
bloody spaniard Offline
#39 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 10:50 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
DrafterX wrote:
Assad's wife is hot... Mellow

Most of those middle eastern guys have hot wives. Must order from the same mail order bride catalog. None of that swarthy, big nose stuff for them!Shame on you
DrafterX Offline
#40 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 11:00 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
bloody spaniard wrote:
. None of that swarthy, big nose stuff for them!Shame on you


are you refering to Obama's wife..?? Huh
ZRX1200 Offline
#41 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 11:07 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
He said schnoz not schmendrick.
DadZilla3 Offline
#42 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 2:13 PM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
DrafterX wrote:
are you refering to Obama's wife..?? Huh

No, I think in that case Bloody would have said ' None of that swarthy, big muscular armed stuff for them.'
8trackdisco Offline
#43 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 4:32 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,100
jetblasted wrote:
Did anyone read it ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Obama is getting his ass handed to him in the world's stage & this may be a turning point in general for our country.

Now the whole works knows what 1/2 of this country has for the last 6 years ... Obama is nothing but a TelePrompTer reading community organizer.


Putin has been a better friend to the American people than Obama.

-He doesn't want us in another Mideast chit hole.
-He isn't spying on Joe Six Pack American.
-He isn't forcing healthcare down our throats.

Vote Putin in 2016.
DrafterX Offline
#44 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 5:49 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
Is his wife hot..?? Huh
dubleuhb Offline
#45 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 6:23 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Lots of Russian brides to be had, get a few.
frankj1 Offline
#46 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 6:57 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,242
bloody spaniard wrote:
If I had to choose between sides, I'd have to go with Puto & al-Assad's gang. Christian Syrians have a better chance with them. Plus I've also seen how the rebels gleefully slice up & decapitate kids.

Kinda like choosing between Iraq and Iran during their war in the 80's. Of course we HAD to butt in on that one too instead of letting it run its course...

we armed both sides.
bloody spaniard Offline
#47 Posted: Mon, Sep 16 2013, 7:07 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
frankj1 wrote:
we armed both sides.

Yes, Iran up until the 70's but in the 80's we were still smartin' from the Ayatollah & threw in with the more "secular" Iraquis.
HockeyDad Offline
#48 Posted: Tue, Sep 17 2013, 8:46 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
frankj1 wrote:
we armed both sides.



Even better for weapons sales!
DrafterX Offline
#49 Posted: Tue, Sep 17 2013, 9:32 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
I wonder what ever happened to that little redheaded spy girl.... Think Think
HockeyDad Offline
#50 Posted: Tue, Sep 17 2013, 9:49 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Good News: Arming terrorists is now essential to the national security interests of the United States. Do we still actually believe the USA wears the white hat?!





President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad's regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.

The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would "waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction."

Those two sections prohibit sending weaponry to countries described in section 40(d): "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," Congress stated in the Arms Control Export Act.

"For purposes of this subsection, such acts shall include all activities that the Secretary determines willfully aid or abet the international proliferation of nuclear explosive devices to individuals or groups or willfully aid or abet an individual or groups in acquiring unsafeguarded special nuclear material," the law continues.

The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."

Under section 40(g) of the AECA, the Obama team must also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — "the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items," along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top