100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Forget The Blame Game... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 09/02/13 08:52 PM
|
|
Meanwhile, I'm just watching the game to see what happens next. The tarot card reading I did so far has hit the nail on the head.
I'm waiting for the tower and the two of wands to manifest. The tower, I'm not sure of but I decided it means the falling apart of the Elite's plans to dominate Syria. The two of wands reversed is the breaking up of a collaboration. Now the British have been excluded from some kind of conference on the situation, but I can't find the website where I read that information... Maybe they are the ones who bailed. Israel I think is the Dark magician who is seething angry because Obama is not asking how high to jump when they say jump. The British petroleum has a conflict of interest because they are in Bed with Russian oil companies. What a tangled web we weave. http://tarottower.com/2013/08/a-five-card-tarot-reading-about-syria-august-28-2013/ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In either case... one might ask why is it any of our concern and why does Obama feel that he needs to "punish" Assad? Because of his credibility? Hell he lost that A LONG TIME AGO as everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. Good point, The credibility issue is huge, because if he had credibility on the international stage, he would be able to get the UN, EU and our other "partners" on board instead of going it alone. But we are where we are, regardless of how we got here 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the U.N. likes to make laws but they don't yet have the world police force (other than America) to enforce their laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the U.N. likes to make laws but they don't yet have the world police force (other than America) to enforce their laws. The U.S needs to leave the U.N., It has done nothing for us. America is not the world police. Leave these muslimes to kill each other as they have done for centuries. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the U.N. likes to make laws but they don't yet have the world police force (other than America) to enforce their laws. The U.S needs to leave the U.N., It has done nothing for us. America is not the world police. Leave these muslimes to kill each other as they have done for centuries. LOL I say pack up the UN and ship it to Pakistan and see how many Ambassadors show up for work 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the U.N. likes to make laws but they don't yet have the world police force (other than America) to enforce their laws. The U.S needs to leave the U.N., It has done nothing for us. America is not the world police. Leave these muslimes to kill each other as they have done for centuries. I thought they already did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read Assad is in Iran?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It just might help if, They find that what is it, serin, actually in samples instead of the signature. Another deciding factor would be who did the gassing. I'm assuming they'll know that in the next week or so...If we launch a strike without proof who did it, that would be really bad. That might be our saving grace...if no one can actually prove who used it...then we can back out of this whole mess. That type proof will be hard, if not impossible, to obtain...Also, what happened in Iraq should not be a deciding factor for what, if any, action we take in Syria…No matter how much people like to compare the two, they are not the same…The best congress can do is take what history teaches and use that knowledge where it applies…Britain has spoken formally, Russia, China, Israel, France, and America have let their feelings be known…UN investigators have gathered the data needed to make a "clinical" determination on what, if any, chemicals were used….They left Syria on Saturday and estimate it will take approximately a week to complete tests…Hopefully congress will have the results when they convene on Sept 9th…The biggest questions are what will using military force accomplish and what are the long range plans if we do attack…Obamas proposed resolution is not definitive enough for many lawmakers…The biggest obstacle is failure to "prove" Assad gave the order …These and many other questions will be debated pitting Obama and Pelosi against those Republicans and Democrats who remain skeptical of military intervention…Reason says congress will follow British Parliament's lead and reject Obama's proposal to use military force in response to the use of chemical warfare in Syria….Personally, I think refusing to attack combined with moving even more assets into position is the way to go because Obama's bright red line has already faded to a sickly pale pink as he beats the drum in an effort to convince House and Senate members to back him….In view of his history with congress, I don't think his chances are all that good….One can certainly hope.... Well put, but although a lot of politicians would love to hang Obama out in the wind and say no, unfortunately there are one's that have a financial stake in the game. If you are a Senator(Dem or Rep) from a state where a large portion of your economy is from defense contractors, that means more jobs, more influx of money into your state. It's sad to say but that is a reality. The worry here(and that's if it's all proven)is because Obama went to congress, they will amend his resolution to include certain objectives like a sustained 6 week bombing campaign to achieve XYZ.Or they will not support it. So as time goes on, the less likely it will be a "very limited" one and more likely this will grow into something much bigger. or they will n No, if anything they will demand Obama present a revised proposal before they will even consider giving him the OK ....The resolution Obama is proposing authorizes him to use the armed forces "as he determines necessary and appropriate."…It does not contain limits and that makes it a declaration of war!…No matter how you slice it, lobbying missiles into a sovereign country is an act of war…I don't think congress will approve unless Obama completely revises his proposal and that's the problem, there is no feasible way to revise it for a quick in and out smack on the wrist so Obama can save face… Like you say, if we strike it will demand ongoing fighting to include boots...Assad has guaranteed that!…Americans don't support war in Syria and neither does congress…As for France, if they support, they need to back it up with assets….Same goes for Australia…They say they agree with Obama but will not offer military support…I say that's bullchit….We can't continue to police these barbarians and this is as good a time as any to send that message to the world…. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australians have guns?
Gubament took em all away. If they gonna go fight, they'll have to throw boomerangs and chuck spears, no? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It just might help if, They find that what is it, serin, actually in samples instead of the signature. Another deciding factor would be who did the gassing. I'm assuming they'll know that in the next week or so...If we launch a strike without proof who did it, that would be really bad. That might be our saving grace...if no one can actually prove who used it...then we can back out of this whole mess. That type proof will be hard, if not impossible, to obtain...Also, what happened in Iraq should not be a deciding factor for what, if any, action we take in Syria…No matter how much people like to compare the two, they are not the same…The best congress can do is take what history teaches and use that knowledge where it applies…Britain has spoken formally, Russia, China, Israel, France, and America have let their feelings be known…UN investigators have gathered the data needed to make a "clinical" determination on what, if any, chemicals were used….They left Syria on Saturday and estimate it will take approximately a week to complete tests…Hopefully congress will have the results when they convene on Sept 9th…The biggest questions are what will using military force accomplish and what are the long range plans if we do attack…Obamas proposed resolution is not definitive enough for many lawmakers…The biggest obstacle is failure to "prove" Assad gave the order …These and many other questions will be debated pitting Obama and Pelosi against those Republicans and Democrats who remain skeptical of military intervention…Reason says congress will follow British Parliament's lead and reject Obama's proposal to use military force in response to the use of chemical warfare in Syria….Personally, I think refusing to attack combined with moving even more assets into position is the way to go because Obama's bright red line has already faded to a sickly pale pink as he beats the drum in an effort to convince House and Senate members to back him….In view of his history with congress, I don't think his chances are all that good….One can certainly hope.... Well put, but although a lot of politicians would love to hang Obama out in the wind and say no, unfortunately there are one's that have a financial stake in the game. If you are a Senator(Dem or Rep) from a state where a large portion of your economy is from defense contractors, that means more jobs, more influx of money into your state. It's sad to say but that is a reality. The worry here(and that's if it's all proven)is because Obama went to congress, they will amend his resolution to include certain objectives like a sustained 6 week bombing campaign to achieve XYZ.Or they will not support it. So as time goes on, the less likely it will be a "very limited" one and more likely this will grow into something much bigger. or they will n No, if anything they will demand Obama present a revised proposal before they will even consider giving him the OK ....The resolution Obama is proposing authorizes him to use the armed forces "as he determines necessary and appropriate."…It does not contain limits and that makes it a declaration of war!…No matter how you slice it, lobbying missiles into a sovereign country is an act of war…I don't think congress will approve unless Obama completely revises his proposal and that's the problem, there is no feasible way to revise it for a quick in and out smack on the wrist so Obama can save face… Like you say, if we strike it will demand ongoing fighting to include boots...Assad has guaranteed that!…Americans don't support war in Syria and neither does congress…As for France, if they support, they need to back it up with assets….Same goes for Australia…They say they agree with Obama but will not offer military support…I say that's bullchit….We can't continue to police these barbarians and this is as good a time as any to send that message to the world…. WOW. I completely agree. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep asking but have not heard an answer.
What interest does FRANCE have in this project anyway? Do they even have any weapons? Do they have an army? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 09/02/13 11:27 PM
|
|
Okay so I asked the card:
WHAT INTEREST DOES FRANCE HAVE IN WAR WITH SYRIA? Six of Pentacles. I should have known. Its about money and compensation. It could be a loan or some other kind of assistance from someone. A debt will be repaid or forgiven. (Okay now I need to ask another question. Is France in trouble financially?) I guess I will consult with google. LOL (Well aren't we all?) So who is encouraging France to voice support for this war with Syria? Does anyone know? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so I asked the card: WHAT INTEREST DOES FRANCE HAVE IN WAR WITH SYRIA? Six of Pentacles. I should have known. Its about money and compensation. It could be a loan or some other kind of assistance from someone. A debt will be repaid or forgiven. (Okay now I need to ask another question. Is France in trouble financially?) I guess I will consult with google. LOL (Well aren't we all?) So who is encouraging France to voice support for this war with Syria? Does anyone know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep asking but have not heard an answer. What interest does FRANCE have in this project anyway? Do they even have any weapons? Do they have an army? The short answer is that France wants its old occupation mandate back that they had between 1920 and 1946. They were forced to give up and allow Syria to become independent once again. France lost a lot of troops fighting the Syrians, Their hatred of Syrians is palpable Things with the French has not improved since about 120 officers and Legion troops were captured inside Syrian territory back in Feb. of 2012. Not a word of this in North American papers, but it was in most newspapers around the world...check it out, I'm sure that Google, at least has something on it. It was big news as now with France sending more troops into Lebanon, but still, not a word here either on TV news or the papers...silence as usual... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep asking but have not heard an answer. What interest does FRANCE have in this project anyway? Do they even have any weapons? Do they have an army? The short answer is that France wants its old occupation mandate back that they had between 1920 and 1946. They were forced to give up and allow Syria to become independent once again. France lost a lot of troops fighting the Syrians, Their hatred of Syrians is palpable Things with the French has not improved since about 120 officers and Legion troops were captured inside Syrian territory back in Feb. of 2012. Not a word of this in North American papers, but it was in most newspapers around the world...check it out, I'm sure that Google, at least has something on it. It was big news as now with France sending more troops into Lebanon, but still, not a word here either on TV news or the papers...silence as usual... I did some reading and skimming on this subject and discovered that one of the problems are that "rebels" are nothing more than drug dealers and thugs. Kidnappings of French and British tourists have also been a form of income for them. I think it is more about thugs, guns and drugs than religious conflicts. Religion sure gets blamed for a lot of things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole area of Mali and Syria just seems like the wild wild west in need of a gun toting Marshall. LOL
But there is also the problem of the Big shot Elite politicians and leaders who are profiting from gun trade and drugs. The world is run by criminals. We just have to accept that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been watching the Senate hearings on Capitol Hill this morning. The question was posed to Sec. Kerry Regarding "American boots on the ground".
He would not totally rule it out and gave a scenario where hypothetically if a cache of chemical weapons were about to fall into the hands of Some bad rebels… American forces may be sent in to secure those chemical weapons. If we attack… It's going to be a hell of a mess. We need to stay out of Syria. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Tue 09/03/13 01:22 PM
|
|
I have been watching the Senate hearings on Capitol Hill this morning. The question was posed to Sec. Kerry Regarding "American boots on the ground". He would not totally rule it out and gave a scenario where hypothetically if a cache of chemical weapons were about to fall into the hands of Some bad rebels… American forces may be sent in to secure those chemical weapons. If we attack… It's going to be a hell of a mess. We need to stay out of Syria. Hell of a mess for sure...Seems like support for the resolution is growing, but not without specific changes to Obama's original proposal…Lawmakers want it more tailored, feeling that there is a "need" to act and a "way" to act that will not create an open-ended, boots-on-the-ground situation…Lets hope they can pull it off….
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A limited strike for no purpose other than the sake of politics, as is clear here, is like kicking a beehive and expecting to walk away without getting stung.
While expecting the bees to just accept it. It doesn't work. Those bees will become pissed off and swarm out of that beehive and sting you and everyone else around you. If you are not prepared to annihilate the beehive than don't kick the beehive. If Obama does decide to go for a limited strike on Syria, all he will have done is squandered resources. As Iran and Russia will likely resupply Assad within a couple of months. Assad and the rest of the world knows that Obama is full of the s word when it comes to foreign policy and will not take him credibly even with a limited strike. In the end Assad would likely gas even more innocent people in retaliation for the limited strike. Israel will likely come under attack as a result. There are absolutely no benefits to the US or our allies with the limited strike on Assad's forces. It has no purpose other than failed politics and foreign policy and will not work to deter either Assad or Iran. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the fuss over some thugs and drugs?
And, he wants to help the bad guys. What countries are gonna come help us clean up our feral problem? |
|
|
|
|
