Keukasmallies Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Sources tell the WSJ that the "administration" is considering drawing a tough line in dealings with Russia. Good idea, but maybe just a smidgen late with that stance. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/06/us-considering-harder-stance-on-russia-report-says/ All the very best with that, POTUS. You've certainly established your street creds with the previous lines you've drawn be they red lines, lines in the sand...whatever. A suggestion for future consideration: The more successful tactic is to START from a strong position, then modify if needed. Starting with one's weakest positions then attempting to move to stronger positions rarely is successful (unless you are Iran and negotiating with, well.... with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 But what about the button? We gave them a button!! Are we taking the button back? Were we lying when we gave it to them? Was it faulty? Did it break? Dammit!! We gave them the button!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Sources tell the WSJ that the "administration" is considering drawing a tough line in dealings with Russia. Good idea, but maybe just a smidgen late with that stance. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/06/us-considering-harder-stance-on-russia-report-says/ "the 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Sources tell the WSJ that the "administration" is considering drawing a tough line in dealings with Russia. Good idea, but maybe just a smidgen late with that stance. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/06/us-considering-harder-stance-on-russia-report-says/ All the very best with that, POTUS. You've certainly established your street creds with the previous lines you've drawn be they red lines, lines in the sand...whatever. A suggestion for future consideration: The more successful tactic is to START from a strong position, then modify if needed. Starting with one's weakest positions then attempting to move to stronger positions rarely is successful (unless you are Iran and negotiating with, well.... with you. Think, think for a moment for yourself, instead of letting the liars at fox and wall street journal (both owned by Murdoch) think for you. Why, why would Assad order a chemical strike on civilians who were no threat to them, knowing it would bring US air and ground support into the war, when at the time he was winning the war and just days before inspectors were arriving? This wreaks of false flag. And it turns out enforcement of the red line would have really meant attacking our alleged ally Turkey. ----- Obamas change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didnt match the batches known to exist in the Syrian armys chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldnt hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon; the joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syrias infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack. For months there had been acute concern among senior military leaders and the intelligence community about the role in the war of Syrias neighbours, especially Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan was known to be supporting the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist faction among the rebel opposition, as well as other Islamist rebel groups. We knew there were some in the Turkish government, a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, who believed they could get Assads nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat." http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line Edited June 6, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 But what about the button? We gave them a button!! Are we taking the button back? Were we lying when we gave it to them? Was it faulty? Did it break? Dammit!! We gave them the button!! Grow up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Sources tell the WSJ that the "administration" is considering drawing a tough line in dealings with Russia. Good idea, but maybe just a smidgen late with that stance. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/06/us-considering-harder-stance-on-russia-report-says/ All the very best with that, POTUS. You've certainly established your street creds with the previous lines you've drawn be they red lines, lines in the sand...whatever. A suggestion for future consideration: The more successful tactic is to START from a strong position, then modify if needed. Starting with one's weakest positions then attempting to move to stronger positions rarely is successful (unless you are Iran and negotiating with, well.... with you. That's an unfair comparison to Syria. In Syria, the president "drew a read line." For Russia, he's just considering it. Clearly, he's learned his lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Grow up You can't be serious - the one person here who continually evokes butts, poop, and toilets as a routine, and you're going to try to come off as mature? And then have the gall to tell others to 'grow up'?! Hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted June 6, 2015 Author Share Posted June 6, 2015 Think, think for a moment for yourself, instead of letting the liars at fox and wall street journal (both owned by Murdoch) think for you. Why, why would Assad order a chemical strike on civilians who were no threat to them, knowing it would bring US air and ground support into the war, when at the time he was winning the war and just days before inspectors were arriving? This wreaks of false flag. And it turns out enforcement of the red line would have really meant attacking our alleged ally Turkey. ----- Obamas change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didnt match the batches known to exist in the Syrian armys chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldnt hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon; the joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syrias infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack. For months there had been acute concern among senior military leaders and the intelligence community about the role in the war of Syrias neighbours, especially Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan was known to be supporting the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist faction among the rebel opposition, as well as other Islamist rebel groups. We knew there were some in the Turkish government, a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, who believed they could get Assads nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat." http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line So is Rupert Murdock in league with that evil George Bush? If so, thanks for the heads up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 You can't be serious - the one person here who continually evokes butts, poop, and toilets as a routine, and you're going to try to come off as mature? And then have the gall to tell others to 'grow up'?! Hypocrite. No, I wasn't serious. You need to settle down alitte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 No, I wasn't serious. You need to settle down alitte So, tell us when to take your comments seriously. How can we differentiate between your serious versus non-serious comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 So, tell us when to take your comments seriously. How can we differentiate between your serious versus non-serious comments? Not surprised you would need help figuring things like that out. When you watch movies do you get the explained version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Not surprised you would need help figuring things like that out. When you watch movies do you get the explained version? No asswhole, I was wondering since all your posts are stupid, at what degree of stupid do we decide that they are serious or not serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 No asswhole, I was wondering since all your posts are stupid, at what degree of stupid do we decide that they are serious or not serious? Keep wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts