obama successfully reaches across to Republicans.

[BoberFett]

I see you are doubling down on the claim that "a war" is the same thing as an "act of war." Kerry believes that this act of war will not turn into a full scale war. Not sure why you continue to think you've caught him in some sort of gotcha moment, but I think it probably has to do with the websites you get your information from.

As expected, you try to twist words and claim that words mean something other than their generally accepted meaning in an effort to protect your beloved leader.

 

[Genx87]

I see you are doubling down on the claim that "a war" is the same thing as an "act of war." Kerry believes that this act of war will not turn into a full scale war. Not sure why you continue to think you've caught him in some sort of gotcha moment, but I think it probably has to do with the websites you get your information from.

What does it matter if it turns into a full scale war or not? What we are doing is comitting an act of war. When we bomb Syria our countries will be in a state of war. Read the links instead insulting them. It will help you form a better opinion on the crap our govt is trying to take in our collective mouth.

 

[BoberFett]

It would be an act of war. I would also consider the use of chemical weapons an act of war. I wouldn't classify either as "going to war."

Then Iraq wasn't really a war, it was just many separate acts of war in a row. Technically we never declared war on Iraq, so I'm not sure what people were bitching about. Bush never got us involved in a war in the classic sense. We didn't storm the beaches at Normandy, so it wasn't a war, classically speaking.

 

[Genx87]

It would be an act of war. I would also consider the use of chemical weapons an act of war. I wouldn't classify either as "going to war."

How does one commit an act of war without going to war? This ought to be good.

 

[dank69]

Then Iraq wasn't really a war, it was just many separate acts of war in a row. Technically we never declared war on Iraq, so I'm not sure what people were bitching about. Bush never got us involved in a war in the classic sense. We didn't storm the beaches at Normandy, so it wasn't a war, classically speaking.

All Kerry is trying to do is distinguish between this and boots on the ground. Pretty sure we had boots on the ground in Iraq so your analogy fails, unsurprisingly.

 

[dank69]

How does one commit an act of war without going to war? This ought to be good.

From the context of Kerry's statements it is clear that he is using the term "going to war" to mean boots on the ground.

 

[BoberFett]

All Kerry is trying to do is distinguish between this and boots on the ground. Pretty sure we had boots on the ground in Iraq so your analogy fails, unsurprisingly.

You and your beloved leaders are no better than Bush, et al.

 

[dank69]

You and your beloved leaders are no better than Bush, et al.

You only think that because you are to stupid to realize that I'm not condoning any action on Syria, I'm just pointing out that Genx87's meme doesn't make any sense.

 

[Genx87]

From the context of Kerry's statements it is clear that he is using the term "going to war" to mean boots on the ground.

That is nice of him to paint his warmongering in the nicest of light and frame it so he doesnt have to say we are going to war. However in the real world where bombing a country is an act of war. That would put both of us in a state of war. The Geneva convetion seems to side with me. You can go with horse face's definition for all I care.

 

[dank69]

That is nice of him to paint his warmongering in the nicest of light and frame it so he doesnt have to say we are going to war. However in the real world where bombing a country is an act of war. That would put both of us in a state of war. The Geneva convetion seems to side with me. You can go with horse face's definition for all I care.

Don't blame me for your inability to understand why your meme failed.

 

[BoberFett]

You only think that because you are to stupid to realize that I'm not condoning any action on Syria, I'm just pointing out that Genx87's meme doesn't make any sense.

If you don't condone the action, why are you defending their word games designed to pull us into war? Are you really so hyperpartisan that you have to defend the worst offenses of your team?

 

[Genx87]

Don't blame me for your inability to understand why your meme failed.

You seem butthurt over this meme. Slow day or something?

 

[dank69]

If you don't condone the action, why are you defending their word games designed to pull us into war? Are you really so hyperpartisan that you have to defend the worst offenses of your team?

I'm not defending any word games. Kerry was attempting to explain that we don't intend to put any boots on the ground. He may not have done so in the most eloquent way but anyone without a hatchet to bury understands the gist of what he was trying to communicate. The ones trying to portray Kerry as redefining war are the ones playing word games.

 

[dank69]

You seem butthurt over this meme. Slow day or something?

Can you point out the part of the post you quoted that looks like "butthurt" to you?

 

[BoberFett]

I'm not defending any word games. Kerry was attempting to explain that we don't intend to put any boots on the ground. He may not have done so in the most eloquent way but anyone without a hatchet to bury understands the gist of what he was trying to communicate. The ones trying to portray Kerry as redefining war are the ones playing word games.

Unbelievable. If the positions were reversed, you and the rest of the Democrats would no doubt be blasting a Republican who tried to say the exact same thing.

Kerry is redefining war. He's claiming that until we actually invade with troops on the ground that it's not a war. Technically then we could nuke any country in the world, and it's not a war. Stupid.

 

[dank69]

Unbelievable. If the positions were reversed, you and the rest of the Democrats would no doubt be blasting a Republican who tried to say the exact same thing.

No, I would not be constructing straw man arguments to attack Republicans. I would attack what Republicans actually do or say rather than a misrepresentation of what they do or say.

Kerry is redefining war. He's claiming that until we actually invade with troops on the ground that it's not a war. Technically then we could nuke any country in the world, and it's not a war. Stupid.

I agree, your straw man is stupid. Kerry is not saying what you are claiming he is saying. He is not redefining war, he is claiming that he doesn't want to invade, he just wants to blow shit up.

 

[BoberFett]

No, I would not be constructing straw man arguments to attack Republicans. I would attack what Republicans actually do or say rather than a misrepresentation of what they do or say.

I agree, your straw man is stupid. Kerry is not saying what you are claiming he is saying. He is not redefining war, he is claiming that he doesn't want to invade, he just wants to blow shit up.

And he's claiming it's not war, not in the classical sense anyway. Again, he (and you, by coming to his defense) is using semantics to try to cover up a despicable act.

Did Republicans ever directly claim that Saddam was responsible for 9/11? No, but they did everything possible to try to link Saddam to al Qaeda, and let the American people's imagination do the rest. It was despicable when Republicans did it, and it's despicable now. But here you are protecting the Obama administration and their twisting of words.

 

[dank69]

And he's claiming it's not war, not in the classical sense anyway. Again, he (and you, by coming to his defense) is using semantics to try to cover up a despicable act.

Did Republicans ever directly claim that Saddam was responsible for 9/11? No, but they did everything possible to try to link Saddam to al Qaeda, and let the American people's imagination do the rest. It was despicable when Republicans did it, and it's despicable now. But here you are protecting the Obama administration and their twisting of words.

Why trim "classic sense of coming to Congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way" down to "classical sense"? Oh, because your rant makes no sense when you use the whole sentence.

 

[Fern]

Attacking the US is suicide. WTF is wrong with you people?

There are some people in Benghazi Libya laughing pretty hard right now.

-------------------

Do I think attacking the US is suicide?

I'm not so sure. Obama, and the American people, aren't willing to get in a full scale war. So if we got attacked, I suspect we may find some way to avoid such a war. Thus it might not be suicide to attack us. And I think Putin is just the kind of guy to call Obama's bluff.

IIRC, we blew the sh!t of a Chinese embassy somewhere. We apologized and said it was a 'mistake'. Could Russia 'make' a mistake? Russia has not only ships nearby, but a base in Syria. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm not saying it's likely, just that it is a possibility.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

There are some people in Benghazi Libya laughing pretty hard right now.

-------------------

Do I think attacking the US is suicide?

I'm not so sure. Obama, and the American people, aren't willing to get in a full scale war. So if we got attacked, I suspect we may find some way to avoid such a war. Thus it might not be suicide to attack us. And I think Putin is just the kind of guy to call Obama's bluff.

IIRC, we blew the sh!t of a Chinese embassy somewhere. We apologized and said it was a 'mistake'. Could Russia 'make' a mistake? Russia has not only ships nearby, but a base in Syria. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm not saying it's likely, just that it is a possibility.

Fern

None of that makes any sense. You think that Russian ships firing on our troops and/or aircraft would 'call our bluff'? How? It would lead to Russia profusely apologizing and Putin prostrating himself in front of Obama. (this is what we did when we bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake) This would make Putin look weak when he's trying to appear strong.

There is simply no way that a Russian military unit could fire on US ships or aircraft without either a major apology on Russia's part. It would make the US stronger, not weaker.

 

[Fern]

What if Putin didn't make a "major apology"?

What if he blamed it on Obama somehow?

You think Obama is going to escalate it? Does he have the cajones for that?

Again, I'm not saying it's likely. But I do believe that Putin has no respect for Obama.

And another thing, and I could be wrong but it's my understanding that Syria gets their military hardware from Russia. So, if we blow up Assad's military equip will Russia resupply it? If so, who are we really penalizing for the gas attack? Wouldn't it be Russia? Might Russia see it that way?

Fern

 

[Agent11]

None of that makes any sense. You think that Russian ships firing on our troops and/or aircraft would 'call our bluff'? How? It would lead to Russia profusely apologizing and Putin prostrating himself in front of Obama. (this is what we did when we bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake) This would make Putin look weak when he's trying to appear strong.

There is simply no way that a Russian military unit could fire on US ships or aircraft without either a major apology on Russia's part. It would make the US stronger, not weaker.

The only way such a conflict could play out is if Russia concedes that such would escalate quickly and calculates where the US would lose the will to keep pace with such escalation.
This is a game of chicken I think Putin would be well suited to win, despite the comparative weakness of the Russian military... And it is a fairly modern and sophisticated Military.
Although the US can project power like no other Russia does have the advantage of geographical proximity as well.

Russia has a naval base in Syria and I imagine with current tensions there are many Russian nuclear submarines in the area.

 

[fskimospy]

What if Putin didn't make a "major apology"?

What if he blamed it on Obama somehow?

You think Obama is going to escalate it? Does he have the cajones for that?

Russia would make a major apology or the US would undoubtedly escalate. Depending on how effective the Russian attack was (did he hit our crews or not) would probably determine how far we escalated.

Again, I'm not saying it's likely. But I do believe that Putin has no respect for Obama.

If Putin thinks he can attack US ships or aircraft and get away with it, he is a fool.

And another thing, and I could be wrong but it's my understanding that Syria gets their military hardware from Russia. So, if we blow up Assad's military equip will Russia resupply it? If so, who are we really penalizing for the gas attack? Wouldn't it be Russia? Might Russia see it that way?

Fern

Yes, Syria gets a lot of equipment from Russia. No, Russia would not see our bombing Syrian targets as penalizing Russia for Syria's actions.

 

[Agent11]

The wild card is the UN. If the UN does not back action Putin will have international law on his side...

 

[fskimospy]

The only way such a conflict could play out is if Russia concedes that such would escalate quickly and calculates where the US would lose the will to keep pace with such escalation.
This is a game of chicken I think Putin would be well suited to win, despite the comparative weakness of the Russian military.

Although the US can project power like no other Russia does have the advantage of geographical proximity.

Russia has a naval base in Syria and I imagine with current tensions there are many Russian nuclear submarines in the area.

The Russian 'base' in Syria is a tiny resupply port that is barely manned. Furthermore, Russian submarine forces are outdated, weak and mostly port-bound due to funding constraints. Russia is attempting to fix this, but that will be a long time coming, if ever.

In a larger conflict one could argue that the US actually enjoys closer geographic proximity through Israeli and Turkish bases.

Regardless, this won't happen. Putin simply is not strong enough.