vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) bluecat - 08/28/2013
I don't remember this one from history class.
[url]http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/26/where-is-the-outrage-over-obamanation-flag/[/url]
2.) DParker - 08/28/2013
I think it's in poor taste, and I like a good outrage as much as the next guy. But this practice isn't new, nor exclusive to one side...
I even recall one with Nixon's face in place of the stars that was used during one of his campaigns. I'm sure there have been others. Besides, I'm far more concerned with this:
1) The current Syrian civil war has been raging for 2 1/2 years, and has claimed the lives of approximately 93,000 people. The Obama admnistration did not consider that to be significant enough to warrant U.S. intervention, save for supplying some more-or-less useless small arms to the rebel forces. No compelling U.S. interest. OK, no argument there.
2) The war pits the brutal dictatorship of Assad against a coalition of mostly anti-U.S. organizations, inluding Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. In spite of how much of an evil asshole Assad is, I don't see how jihadists seizing power in Syria...as they did in Egypt...is in the best interests of the U.S....
3) The tide began turning against the rebel forces months ago, and the Syrian government has been winning the war, with Assad's retention of power seeming all but inevitable. This seems like an *extremely* unlikely scenario under which his regime would opt to employ chemical weapons and invite the intervention of foreign powers against it. It's not impossible, to be sure. But it's damned illogical. Assad is an asshole, but he's neither stupid nor insane.
4) But we're told that the Obama administration has a "nearly airtight circumstantial case" (a phrase I never thought I'd hear anyone use with a straight face) for holding Assad responsible. To accept this we're expected to rely on an intelligence assessment from the CIA director who lied to Congress about collecting metadata on virtually all Americans' communications, and the same State Department that gave us the Benghazi fiasco.
5) We're further told that if Assad *did* actually use chemical weapons on the rebel forces...entirely withing Syrian borders...it somehow constitutes a significant threat to U.S. security. But we have no explanation yet as to how. The fact that Syria has such weapons is not news, so even if it were a threat it did not just now become one.
6) This alleged use of chemical weapons is being cited as justification for what we're being told is some sort of U.S. (possibly in conjunction with one or more European allies) military attack on Syria. An attack likely consisting of raining cruise missiles (at ~$2 million / copy) down on some unidentified targets...perhaps even some precision bombing (though that would be very risky given Syria's possession of some pretty good Russian military hardware, including sophisticated anti-aircraft batteries).
7) Syria is Russia's primary partner in the Middle East. The latter maintains a naval base there, and there are approximately 30,000 Russian citizens currently living in Syria.
What could possibly go wrong?
I even recall one with Nixon's face in place of the stars that was used during one of his campaigns. I'm sure there have been others. Besides, I'm far more concerned with this:
1) The current Syrian civil war has been raging for 2 1/2 years, and has claimed the lives of approximately 93,000 people. The Obama admnistration did not consider that to be significant enough to warrant U.S. intervention, save for supplying some more-or-less useless small arms to the rebel forces. No compelling U.S. interest. OK, no argument there.
2) The war pits the brutal dictatorship of Assad against a coalition of mostly anti-U.S. organizations, inluding Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. In spite of how much of an evil asshole Assad is, I don't see how jihadists seizing power in Syria...as they did in Egypt...is in the best interests of the U.S....
3) The tide began turning against the rebel forces months ago, and the Syrian government has been winning the war, with Assad's retention of power seeming all but inevitable. This seems like an *extremely* unlikely scenario under which his regime would opt to employ chemical weapons and invite the intervention of foreign powers against it. It's not impossible, to be sure. But it's damned illogical. Assad is an asshole, but he's neither stupid nor insane.
4) But we're told that the Obama administration has a "nearly airtight circumstantial case" (a phrase I never thought I'd hear anyone use with a straight face) for holding Assad responsible. To accept this we're expected to rely on an intelligence assessment from the CIA director who lied to Congress about collecting metadata on virtually all Americans' communications, and the same State Department that gave us the Benghazi fiasco.
5) We're further told that if Assad *did* actually use chemical weapons on the rebel forces...entirely withing Syrian borders...it somehow constitutes a significant threat to U.S. security. But we have no explanation yet as to how. The fact that Syria has such weapons is not news, so even if it were a threat it did not just now become one.
6) This alleged use of chemical weapons is being cited as justification for what we're being told is some sort of U.S. (possibly in conjunction with one or more European allies) military attack on Syria. An attack likely consisting of raining cruise missiles (at ~$2 million / copy) down on some unidentified targets...perhaps even some precision bombing (though that would be very risky given Syria's possession of some pretty good Russian military hardware, including sophisticated anti-aircraft batteries).
7) Syria is Russia's primary partner in the Middle East. The latter maintains a naval base there, and there are approximately 30,000 Russian citizens currently living in Syria.
What could possibly go wrong?
3.) bluecat - 08/28/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;10057]
I even recall one with Nixon's face in place of the stars that was used during one of his campaigns. I'm sure there have been others.
[/QUOTE]
That must have been a big flag.
I even recall one with Nixon's face in place of the stars that was used during one of his campaigns. I'm sure there have been others.
[/QUOTE]
That must have been a big flag.
4.) bluecat - 08/28/2013
I'm concerned with this:
'We are taking time apart': Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones confirm separation after 13 years of marriage
Read more: [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2404151/Michael-Douglas-Catherine-Zeta-Jones-confirm-separation-13-years-marriage.html#ixzz2dHsA49ck[/url]
'We are taking time apart': Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones confirm separation after 13 years of marriage
Read more: [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2404151/Michael-Douglas-Catherine-Zeta-Jones-confirm-separation-13-years-marriage.html#ixzz2dHsA49ck[/url]
5.) DParker - 08/28/2013
So she's available then?
Paging Mr. Swamp Fox. Mr. Swamp Fox to the white courtesy phone please.
Paging Mr. Swamp Fox. Mr. Swamp Fox to the white courtesy phone please.
6.) bluecat - 08/28/2013
Dibs
Because those kids need a father damnit.
Because those kids need a father damnit.
7.) bluecat - 08/28/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;10057]
[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing when they designed that flag they had two options. Omit the word TEA but make a graphic that looks like a tea cup OR put the word TEA in and make some sort of amorphous,' not real sure what it is' graphic.
[/QUOTE]I'm guessing when they designed that flag they had two options. Omit the word TEA but make a graphic that looks like a tea cup OR put the word TEA in and make some sort of amorphous,' not real sure what it is' graphic.
8.) Swamp Fox - 08/29/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;10060]So she's available then?
Paging Mr. Swamp Fox. Mr. Swamp Fox to the white courtesy phone please.[/QUOTE]
:tu::wave:
Already on it, Chief. Already on it.
:grin:
Paging Mr. Swamp Fox. Mr. Swamp Fox to the white courtesy phone please.[/QUOTE]
:tu::wave:
Already on it, Chief. Already on it.
:grin:
9.) Swamp Fox - 08/29/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;10057]I think it's in poor taste, and I like a good outrage as much as the next guy. But this practice isn't new, nor exclusive to one side...
[/QUOTE]
Well, this is Obama's second bite at the apple. I think it's safe to say that at this point and on several different fronts, including this one, that he's not a fast learner.
[url]http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/obama-campaign-print-sparks-controversy/nSHcP/[/url]
I wonder if he realizes how badly he botched Iraq, now that Syria's come back to bite him on the ass.
There's that unfortunate slow-leaner, thing, though, so I'm not optimistic...
[/QUOTE]
Well, this is Obama's second bite at the apple. I think it's safe to say that at this point and on several different fronts, including this one, that he's not a fast learner.
[url]http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/obama-campaign-print-sparks-controversy/nSHcP/[/url]
I wonder if he realizes how badly he botched Iraq, now that Syria's come back to bite him on the ass.
There's that unfortunate slow-leaner, thing, though, so I'm not optimistic...
10.) bluecat - 08/29/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;10072]:tu::wave:
Already on it, Chief. Already on it.
:grin:[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, she likes sunrises sometimes and other times sunsets.
I think you have a shot Swampy.
Already on it, Chief. Already on it.
:grin:[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, she likes sunrises sometimes and other times sunsets.
I think you have a shot Swampy.
11.) Swamp Fox - 08/29/2013
I'll let you know how it goes...:-)
12.) DParker - 08/30/2013
13.) Hunter - 08/30/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;10077]I'll let you know how it goes...:-)[/QUOTE]
We'll be waiting for a full report! :tap:
We'll be waiting for a full report! :tap: