Obama to seek Congressional approval on Syria strikes: Clarity or more uncertainty?


President Obama will seek Congressional approval for a strike on Syria.

Obama says he has "decided the United States should take military action against Syrian targets."

By leaving the decision to a Congressional vote, the President has effectively ensured any military action will be delayed until at least September 9, when Congress comes back into session.

For investors, this provides at least a bit of clarity in terms of timing and also another week to sort things out before any potential strikes actually begin.

On the other hand, the decision is now pushed that much closer towards other key events for the market, such as the FOMC meeting on September 17 and 18. Additionally, the President's move sets up a potentially fractious situation in the event Congress votes "no."

Investors should note that the market's initial knee jerk reaction was decisively negative when Secretary of State John Kerry seemingly indicated that strikes were more likely than not in a speech last week.

SPY, DIA, QQQ, IVV, SPY, VOO, RWL, SFLA, SSO, UPRO, SDS, SPXU, SH, EPS, RSP, BXUB, BXUC, BXDBDIA, DDM, UDOW, DXD, SDOW, DOGQQQ, QQEW, TQQQ, QID, SQQQ, PSQ, QLD, QQQE.

From other sites
Comments (197)
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4343) | Send Message
     
    He needs someone - anyone to say it's okay to send some missiles. No way he wants that solely on his shoulders.
    31 Aug 2013, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1084) | Send Message
     
    He did the right thing and it has nothing to do with the cowboy toughman BS. There are lives at stake.
    31 Aug 2013, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (13198) | Send Message
     
    It's called passing the buck and simply put action isn't happening. I personally think we should avoid Syrian action. If we do commit to action on the side of Saudi Arabia who is the one who wants us to topple the regime we better have plans on occupying it and spending $200-500 billion keeping the peace. Really, can we afford that? If so, why not spend it on domestic IT infrastructure and small business loan programs.
    31 Aug 2013, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1084) | Send Message
     
    Maybe you should talk to Senate Republicans who have already filibustered 3 infrastructure bills.
    1 Sep 2013, 12:29 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1084) | Send Message
     
    Now everyone gets to see the difference between liberals and conservatives. When conservatives have a President in the White House who wants to go to war and you disagree, you get called a "traitor" and "unamerican".

     

    Liberals welcome a healthy debate before we get involved in another mid east country.
    1 Sep 2013, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Jake, calm down buddy. The last time there was a "conservative" in the White House he was an actor named Ronald Reagan. All the rest since were progressives. None of them want to do anything to benefit any every-day-working-Joe. You sound like one of those talking heads on Fox or MSNBC. "Liberals" aka - John Kerry, are all foaming at the mouth to punish Syria for embarrassing Obama (he needs no help). Hopefully Americans can talk to their congressional reps over the next week and we can kill this tar-baby called Syria retaliation. Bring the GI's home NOW!
    1 Sep 2013, 01:25 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    HI aretailguy,

     

    You forgot our latest conservative president.... Dick Cheney/Carl Rove. Or, were you confused with their puppet?
    1 Sep 2013, 07:17 AM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1296) | Send Message
     
    You're right, the one we have now is totally different. You still drinking that hope & change kool-aid bud?
    1 Sep 2013, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1312) | Send Message
     
    This is Obama's way out. 5 days ago he wasn't worried about asking for permission. Now he can look tough "Hey, don't look at me. I wanted to bomb Assad", while Congress rejects a new war.
    1 Sep 2013, 08:25 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1312) | Send Message
     
    Obama's not a puppet too?

     

    Dems and Repubs all kneel and kiss the same elite rings.
    1 Sep 2013, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    They do not care what you think or who approves it, they will move forward as soon as its is plausible. They are playing games with you.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    @Moon

     

    The only decent comment on this board.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    The last conservative we had in office was not Reagan. The last true conservative on fiscal policy and in no intervention is Jefferson. Since then the free market has grew fast and supported the machine that is the US federal government of today.

     

    Reagan did as much as he could, but he still spent money like crazy on military. Reagan did much better in tackling inflation and declining American international presence.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    @Tomlos

     

    They are using the usual one line blah blahs pointing to people and not principle.

     

    They probably actually think these guys sincerely know what they are doing also and that Obama really forms all of this in his genius head of his.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4635) | Send Message
     
    mick,
    "I wanted to bomb Assad", while Congress rejects a new war."
    What's wrong with that ? it's called democracy.
    Obama did the right thing which is asking Congress for permission. Had you preferred he'd have gone for war whatever the opinion of the Representatives ?
    Some may call it "covering one's a**". I call it a right political move.
    I'm strongly opposed to the US being involved in a war against Syria for a number of reasons, but I admit it comes to Congress to decide. If Congress votes for war, so be it, if not, I'll be glad.
    My point is Obama has clearly enhanced the democratic power of Congress and that was about time.
    Even if his move might seem a U-turn, at least Obama got the courage to perform it and face harsh criticism and even ridicule by his opponents.
    Only grand men with a strong vision prefer to lose their own face to the killing of thousands of innocents by collateral damage that bombing without doubt would have caused.
    I have no doubt the army lobby has been pushing him to launch those misssiles. We shouldn't underestimate that pressure. By manoeuvring the decision making into the hands of Congress, Obama has given the army lobby something to ponder over. They should be neutralized for a while. I call that strategy not weak, but clever.
    Obama's my man again.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • retpdguy
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    He did the wrong thing by drawing a line in the sand. There has evidence of gas being used for months. All he did was sit on his hands. He looks weak and unpresidential.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • retpdguy
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    Republicans have filibustered bills filled with pork.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1312) | Send Message
     
    Oh, I'm thrilled he's asking Congress for permission. He should have asked them a week ago when he actually DID intend to strike Syria.

     

    The rug got pulled out from under Obama when the British people, and the Arab League, said NO to a strike.

     

    Obama's still a spineless muppet like the rest of us.
    2 Sep 2013, 07:56 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Precisely,

     

    Pigs are against pork being served.
    2 Sep 2013, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4635) | Send Message
     
    One never is too old to repent.
    The US has a bad reputation when it comes to usurping the executive powers by the president.
    I don't have to give you examples of the past. They're ample. When Obama changes this bad habit, for whatever reason, I have reason to be thrilled.
    BTW, better be a spineless muppet with brains than a shooting no-brainer. The trouble with Americans often is that they don't calculate unintended consequences when they make up plans for gunning at other people. They always think "well, we beat the Germans, nobody can resist us".
    'Nam should have taught you better.
    3 Sep 2013, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • rungrandpa
    , contributor
    Comments (274) | Send Message
     
    Did you mean congressional powers?
    3 Sep 2013, 04:21 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4635) | Send Message
     
    run,
    All right, C.P.'s.
    4 Sep 2013, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • rungrandpa
    , contributor
    Comments (274) | Send Message
     
    I agree with you. I am happy to see restraint regardless of the reason.
    4 Sep 2013, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4635) | Send Message
     
    run,
    I can see clearly a "Carthago delenda est"-syndrom in US politics.
    And yet, when I look at what's at stake (Iran, NG pipeline...) I wonder if I would advice any different than Obama, Kerry and the US Senate.
    I mean, this probably is a calculated bet and it comes to "them or we", "them" standing for obscurantism. I can only hope the tomahawks shoot at the right persons (not necessarily Assad's troops) and don't cause too much collateral damage.
    I find it a pity though that US officials used that "Chemical weapons" argument. They really think we're naive.
    5 Sep 2013, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9112) | Send Message
     
    So much for leadership. A president looking to congress to cover his ass after stupidly shooting off his mouth. International reaction is as expected. Putin must laughing out loud.
    At least we got a new best friend in France thanks to our esteemed sec of state.
    31 Aug 2013, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1084) | Send Message
     
    You were just criticizing the President for being a war monger wanting to bomb Syria without congressional approval, now he wants to get feedback from congress and you attack him for being weak.

     

    Some people just aren't happy unless they are complaining.
    31 Aug 2013, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • Regarded Solutions
    , contributor
    Comments (20530) | Send Message
     
    so be happy, keep complaining about others opinions. YES BO is being weak. He should have just said, NO to military action....this way he can look like he is strong by passing the buck. YOU know this will not be OK'd by congress and so does he.

     

    Pure Chicago politics at work.
    31 Aug 2013, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9112) | Send Message
     
    Jake
    Not true. He should not have "drawn a line in the sand" and then showed weakness by backing off. I disagreed with his original statement and still do. The statement was not thought through and it shows how amateur he is on the world stage.

     

    He could have gotten congressional approval for whatever weeks ago. Now he looks weak and there will be consequences associated with his weakness.

     

    Bottom line, he is in far over his head and being advised by likewise people.

     

    All those years as a neighborhood coordinator didn't prepare him for this.
    31 Aug 2013, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1084) | Send Message
     
    What are you talking about "showing weakness", is Syria planning an attack on us? Is anyone planning an attack on us. You seem to think so, but I'm not sure you have a clue what you are talking about. It sounds like you suffer from Stage 5 Obama Derangement Syndrome.

     

    Most Americans give President Obama shining approval ratings when it comes to foreign policy, so once again you seem completely clueless and incapable of anything but hurling shallow personal insults dripping with latent racial prejudice. Spending a little time as a community organizer might actually cure you of such ignorance.
    1 Sep 2013, 12:41 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Jake,

     

    I'd have to disagree. The president has kind of dug his own hole on this issue. He made a mistake when he issued his red line comment last year prior to the election. Even if its his private opinion that chemical attacks should trigger a military response - better to keep it close to the vest.

     

    Now that a chemical attack has happened - it certainly appears that he's looking for some cover. First the administration spent the week claiming the president could respond militarily without gaining formal approval from Congress - now its the opposite?The speech today reeked of an attempt to come up with an excuse to not act. And it looks like he's counting on Congress to deny him the approval to act militarily - he'd be far better off to simply say he's changed his mind or that the situation on the ground is different, etc, etc. Saying your going to do XYZ and then not doing XYZ and creating a false reason for not doing so - well that does make you look weak.

     

    Personally, I'd prefer not to get involved at all in Syria. I'd prefer we take any and all evidence of chemical weapon usage to the UN and put pressure on the Russians and the Gulf states to address the issue. But I'd prefer also that our President carry some clout in the international arena - and I'm afraid that after the 8 years of Bush antagonism - we now have had 6 years of pretty words. Being somewhere in the middle of the two extremes would be a better place.

     

    And finally, a majority of Americans can't pick out Syria on a world map. And I haven't seen any polls related just to foreign policy that would indicate Americans even know what Obama's foreign policy is in regards to Syria.

     

    Being president involves almost constant criticism and second-guessing - always has and always will - There is no need to invoke the idea of racism into a debate on how the president is/has handled a specific policy action.

     

    Being a community organizer (or being involved in your community in general), makes one more sympathetic to those around you - more grounded - more humble, etc - but it does not give you executive experience. And IMO, that is the reason Obama has struggled - had he spent 4 or 6 years as a mayor and then 8 years as a governor I believe he'd have had a much better chance at being a very successful president. Unfortunately, I think folks in general now simply tolerate his speeches and understand there will be little to no acting on them - the bureaucracy will do their best to carry out the agenda but that's about it.
    1 Sep 2013, 04:03 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    "Showing weakness" does not mean looking narrowly at "attacking us".

     

    Read some history, start with Chamberlain/Hitler.
    1 Sep 2013, 07:20 AM Reply Like
  • rungrandpa
    , contributor
    Comments (274) | Send Message
     
    Germans invaded Poland; Syria of course is a civil war. I think the situations are not comparable.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    @ Jake

     

    The president is being weak by babbling off at what he saying. It is not our fault that Syria, China and Russia actually live in a real world where politicians cannot just get up and give a speech and turn you into a war supporter overnight.

     

    He wrote a check that nobody believes he will cash and now to cover himself up, he will let congress vote no. His camp knew this one was dead from day 1.

     

    It is so funny your caught up in politics, while a truly amazing event is going on in the Middle East, the US dollar and the Russia/China growing force.

     

    Your talking about how people view our "Community Organizer" president and I am concerned with who will get paid off of this phony conflict.

     

    The most profitable business has got to be politics. You can truly send a guy like Obama on stage and in 90 minutes have a $500 billion dollar war.

     

    He can rush it and call for immediate action to play on the momentary emotional high of the country and the selective marketing to induce the populace to act and if it were not for the confounds of outside reality of this bubble then it would have worked.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Chicago politics= Renaissance Italian city state politics
    1 Sep 2013, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    @ Jake

     

    I think your to gone on the kool aid to understand what is going on.

     

    Just go on thinking it is because we hate Obama and we are all racists. It is a blissful ignorance.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    "Read some history..."

     

    This statement has got to be so generic and useless.

     

    It is indicative of the shallow style of arguments that enable things like a war in Syria to happen.

     

    Please stop using these, they do not further the debate at all.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4635) | Send Message
     
    wyos,
    "Now he looks weak and there will be consequences associated with his weakness."
    I don't call it weakness when a person changes his mind and by doing so saves lives.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4635) | Send Message
     
    david,
    "had he spent 4 or 6 years as a mayor and then 8 years as a governor I believe he'd have had a much better chance at being a very successful president."
    I know of no other US president in history who got such a lousy inheritance as Obama has. Being a mayor or a governor would not have changed that.
    If you doubt that, read some good book on crisis economics, like, well like Crisis Economics:
    http://amzn.to/14j4YaZ
    1 Sep 2013, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4635) | Send Message
     
    Reel,
    "Read some history, start with Chamberlain/Hitler."
    .... or with some good book on the Vietnam War:
    http://bit.ly/14j5Axm
    History repeats itself, and yet, it's always different.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • retpdguy
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    And where were you when Obama was bombing Libya without congressional approval.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi rungrandpa,

     

    The issue is whether one turns their back on aggression and is a commendable method.

     

    You cannot negotiate with a despot and expect to escape unharmed. Plain and simple.
    1 Sep 2013, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    I'd repeat "Read some History" to you, but it is obvious from your comments that you prefer to try and bully others in a shameful way rather than try to learn something.

     

    Too bad
    1 Sep 2013, 03:25 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi filipo,

     

    Thanks for the Vietnam link. I lived through it, I think I have a pretty good idea what it's about. Don't need Wiki to remind me.

     

    As far as history repeating itself.... George W> insisted that Iraq was no Vietnam. Sure is as similar as it is different.

     

    Thank you.
    1 Sep 2013, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • kata
    , contributor
    Comments (1395) | Send Message
     
    I think he behaved downright cowardly after pretending to be strong on foreign policy. And I think he punted and he will pay for it. No one in the world, save France of all countries, seems to trust our word anymore and can you blame them. And after four years of almost dictatorial domestic policy and national security leaks and IRS shenanigans and who knows whatever else the Washington crowd thinks it can get away with. I don't think anyone has ever quite seen anything like it. But OB and his merry men aside (and I actually leave out Secy Kerry, for whom I have never had any deference whatsoever before but who gave perhaps the best articulation of what we face in the Mideast in Syria and surrounds and kudos to him for it), the questions confronting the world and the US who is still the leader of the free world (yes we are, OB aside) are dire and concern the use of weapons of mass destruction by those that would destroy us and our friends. Is that a good enough definition of self interest? And then he was off for another golf game, lol.
    2 Sep 2013, 01:48 AM Reply Like
  • kata
    , contributor
    Comments (1395) | Send Message
     
    I think the line goes something to the effect that History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.
    2 Sep 2013, 01:55 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi kata,

     

    People seem to like to pretend that all these things are a result of Obama.

     

    Fact is, D.C. has been in decline for decades. It is all about money and power. The culture at the IRS has been brooding for decades.

     

    It's just that now, with cameras, "leaks" and information everywhere, there's no way to keep it under wraps.

     

    We are simply seeing what's been there for a long time.

     

    Sort of like Filner episode. He's been doing this for 20+ years, but only now has it surfaced.
    2 Sep 2013, 06:26 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1312) | Send Message
     
    "changes his mind" to save lives.

     

    Um, Obama said he still wants to strike Syria, right?
    2 Sep 2013, 07:59 AM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4635) | Send Message
     
    mick,
    There's a difference between saying and doing.
    With the gun of the weaponry lobby in the back, you better say the right things.
    If lives can be safed though by letting Congress debate and probably cancel the operation, I'm more interested in the doing.
    Or, there's something Obama wants from Assad and it has something to do with Iran. Build the pressure in the hope he'll give in.
    2 Sep 2013, 11:52 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4635) | Send Message
     
    He stood not alone. The Brits and the Belgians fought at his side.
    3 Sep 2013, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • fafatooey
    , contributor
    Comments (432) | Send Message
     
    Think again, Partner. NBC poll from last week:

     

    ." President Obama’s approval numbers on foreign policy are the lowest they have been in more than four years. Just 41 percent of approve of Obama’s handling of foreign policy while 49 percent disapprove."
    4 Sep 2013, 12:34 AM Reply Like
  • leopardtrader
    , contributor
    Comments (3624) | Send Message
     
    Congress not likely to OK without UN inspectors report. Time provided also for Syria to vigorously prove innocent here. So real facts ( of what actually happened in Syria) could ultimately help in the decision.

     

    This is the right thing to do to avoid "confirmatory biases" and ultimately a climb down. I dont expect any Military action in the long run
    31 Aug 2013, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • Val Halla
    , contributor
    Comments (305) | Send Message
     
    disagree completely. the vote will be yes. it would be interesting if the vote was no however. "the President proposes Congress disposes." is there a war supplemental on the table here?
    1 Sep 2013, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    HI val halla,

     

    Everyone seems to dismiss the idea that the evidence may be so overwhelming Obama is confident that Congress will have no option but a YES.

     

    It can very well be a move of supreme confidence, not one of weakness.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2326) | Send Message
     
    Hi Val Halla -- of course, we shall see, but I don't know that a Yes vote is a slam dunk, especially in the House. If the GOP has proven anything since Jan 09, it's that their ONLY mission in life is to make Obama look bad. But it will be interesting to see how that balances out against the desires of their military-industrial complex paymasters. And Big Oil is enjoying the hire prices.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Tricky, of course nobody can predict any future event with any certainty but I would suspect that the President's own party will desert him in this situation. The support the GOP may or may not provide Obama is far more difficult to predict but he will definitely get many GOP votes.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi aretailguy,

     

    Is your prediction based on the fact that you have seen all the evidence he is slated to present to Congress and find it inadequate?

     

    Or, are you flying by the seat of your ants?

     

    Or, something else?
    1 Sep 2013, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Reel, I do not believe I made a prediction. I do believe that I "suspected" a certain future action but that is hardly a prediction.

     

    If it is your desire to degrade this conversation down to the personal level, have fun.

     

    If the GOP votes against the war, they are a bunch of anti-Obama racists. If they vote for the war, they are a bunch of warmongers. Isn't living in a binary world wonderful?
    1 Sep 2013, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Dear Christ, you guys think all of these organizations and such are going to tell us what happened in Syria?

     

    Lets investigate ourselves! That sounds like a true criminal investigation! I guess you people think that the police genuinely investigate themselves and that the finance companies self regulate their markets for the goodwill of the general economy.

     

    Government organizations, on any level, are supportive of war and government spending. The "I pat your back, you do mine" mentality exists between government organizations. Everyone wants us to go to war. The Chinese, Russians and Iranians, it will drain is further and they can profit off of it. The War complex wants is to rush in, they will make a good deal and have huge influences in government positions and lobbyists and not to mention Wall Street and the Hedge Funds!

     

    Just use your freaking head!

     

    We did it, we planned it all for TV and we are fighting another war in the Middle East over nothing more than a staged act!

     

    If we did not do it, which I seriously doubt after the families of 9/11 victims documentaries and other evidence that we have planned these things before (Iran, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan to name a few), then we should kick do what we do for every other of the millions of tragedies that occur yearly that you guys seem ignorant of because it is not on CNN, NOTHING.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • kata
    , contributor
    Comments (1395) | Send Message
     
    please already, give the racism bit a rest. Let Sharpton run with that one. Its been a long summer. The vote on this one is going to be pure politics, no matter that its an important decision. If OB really wants to do it and wants support, he's going to have to pay for it. That means a deal on the budget and I mean taxes, a deal on immigration and a deal on Obamacare. I think he wanted that anyway and is looking for cover. Always the consummate politician. This way they can all pretend they have a grand bargain to save the world. And if it works, it can pay down the debt, protect the border, make illegals have to get legal and postpone implementation of Obamacare until next year while it bombs the bejesus out of Assad and warns off Iran and maybe finds a way to punish Putin. If they can do that and get it past the American public, well, stranger things have happened. Did I forget the big Infrastructure bill they all want? Heck throw that and all the earmarks in too.
    2 Sep 2013, 02:07 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9112) | Send Message
     
    Can anyone explain just what is the "policy" of the administration?

     

    If anyone tries, please provide specific links and quotes to back up. My money says there is no policy.
    31 Aug 2013, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi wyostocks,

     

    <A president looking to congress to cover his ass after stupidly shooting off his mouth> Are you so sheltered that you haven't noticed that Congress asked to be consulted?

     

    <If anyone tries, please provide specific links and quotes to back up. My money says there is no policy.> Please provide specifics as to exactly how much of your money is in play and the terms of your challenge.

     

    Please include Who makes the determination whether the statements constitute policy? You? ME? For instance, when both the Secretary of State and President says our policy is to deter the use of WMD would you consider that a policy statement and "pay off". If not, what does it constitute and what type of quote will qualify for payment?

     

    Also links, etc with specifics that would indicate no policy is in place. Seems there have been an abundance of statements of our policy. Maybe you could think about listening to the actual statements made by our elected and appointed officials and turn off FOX News for a minute. Thank you
    31 Aug 2013, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (1077) | Send Message
     
    Obama's foreign policy, like his domestic policy, is to make Obama look good.
    31 Aug 2013, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    What makes Obama look good is pretty simple..

     

    Just needs to stand next to a picture of George W.

     

    If he doesn't have one handy, just about any Republican (especially those in the Tea Party) will work nearly as well. .
    31 Aug 2013, 08:56 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (1077) | Send Message
     
    Reel Ken, I'm sure Obama will find a way to blame Bush for this, if he hasn't already.
    1 Sep 2013, 12:44 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1084) | Send Message
     
    If America had a problem with President Obama and his foreign policy they could have elected someone else in 2012.

     

    Guess what? They didn't.

     

    And nothing hurts his haters more than knowing that America is happy with their commander in chief and prefer his foreign policy to Bush Village Idiot.

     

    The President is restoring honor to the Office of the Presidency, by signaling a reestablishment of the old precedent that the executive must consult congress before military action is taken.
    1 Sep 2013, 12:51 AM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (2561) | Send Message
     
    Like Lybia?
    1 Sep 2013, 01:35 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Reel,
    I agree that standing next to Bush makes you look good - but I'd also state that its looking more and more like its about even.

     

    And weren't we aiming a bit higher than slightly better than a guy whose 2nd term was a complete disaster?

     

    I happen to think Syria is a no-win situation. But the president seems intent on finding a way to definitively lose.
    1 Sep 2013, 04:07 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Jake,
    Yes we chose Obama over Romney.

     

    But really, can you name someone you'd have chosen Romney over? Ok, so maybe people that can't read and write - but other then those folks?

     

    I am in favor of Congress having to vote on military action that is not emergency oriented. And I would have much preferred to see it happen starting with the president's first use of military action....... say Libya? This just looks like an attempt to find a way to not act.... but to blame others for the inaction.

     

    Is the decision to exempt congressional staffs (and I assume presidential staffs) from Obamacare in the vein of signaling that our "public servants" are there to serve the people - and are no better nor worse than those they serve? Or does it signal that they are the "elite", there to deign what you and I will have, do, say and think?

     

    The president isn't to blame for Syria, there are no easy solutions nor pain free solutions. But he has not distinguished himself nor the United States with the manner in which he seeks cover for his own words - far better to simply say he was wrong and the situation doesn't allow for a simple solution.
    1 Sep 2013, 04:13 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi Bouchart,

     

    If you believe history is a bunch of unrelated events, then you're right.

     

    On the other hand, I see history as a series of inter-connected and inter-related casual and effectual events.

     

    Most certainly, Bush's war has at least some casual relationship to this mess.
    1 Sep 2013, 07:24 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi david,

     

    I agree with much of what you say. Reminded of Laurel and Hardy... "This is another fine mess we've gotten into".

     

    There is no win/win.

     

    We must keep in mind that this doesn't mean Obama has failed or anything like that. The world is complex and has many over/undertones. One is often faced with taking an action that simply mitigates a bad position.

     

    So, don't blame the situation on Obama, to lose. As soon as Assad used WMD, the world was put into a losing position. Do something=consequences, or do nothing=consequences. It is similar to someone being forcibly raped. From that point on you can only hope to make things better, but they will never be the same.

     

    In this regard it is much like investing (which after all, is what this site is supposed to be about). We are often faced with incomplete information and future variables we cannot hope to anticipate. We often just take a long term perspective, hoping that our principles are sound and we can execute them appropriately. Only with the passage of time can we evaluate the proficiency of our guiding principles.
    1 Sep 2013, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Jake: How many Executive Orders bypassing Congress has President Obama signed? I need this information for an article I am writing on hypocrisy. Thanks in advance.
    P.S. I bought Ratheon stock when I heard the news that chemical weapons might have been used in Syria. I guess I'll hold on to it while Iraq builds a nuke. The President said he wouldn't allow that.
    1 Sep 2013, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    So, don't blame the situation on Obama, to lose. As soon as Assad used WMD, the world was put into a losing position.
    ----------------------...

     

    Obama contributed to the situation. He fenced himself in during the campaign - trying to sound tough and ready to act.

     

    So did he create the civil war? No. Did he willingly and carelessly add an element to that war? Yes he did. And he has had a year to take it back, but hasn't.

     

    And how do we know Assad used WMD? Was is a renegade unit somewhere pinned down by rebels and using them as a last resort? Did the rebels find and bribe a unit with access to Gas to use it - presenting them with the ultimate - a guarantee of outside military action aimed at Assad?

     

    Should we then act to aid Islamic rebels - many of whom are openly in favor of wiping out the Christian population in Syria? Or is the slaughter of Christians using guns and bombs acceptable but the deaths of Muslims by gassing unacceptable? How to explain a decade of slaughter in Sudan by the government - done strictly on the basis of religion? The systemic slaughtering of 500,000 Christians by a Muslim regime is ok and doesn't demand action, but the death of 1000 Muslims by other Muslims demands action????

     

    Oh, and since you accuse anyone criticizing the President as being racist - I'd point out those were 500,000 Black Christians in the Sudan that were slaughtered. I guess you value Arab children as being more important that Black African children.

     

    Are you a racist?

     

    Which deaths are ok and which are not?
    1 Sep 2013, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • retpdguy
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    What makes Obama look good is standing next to a picture of Carter. LOL.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    I get your point of view. No matter what is said or shown we can count on only one thing---it's Obama's fault.

     

    Tells me all I need to know about you.
    1 Sep 2013, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • fafatooey
    , contributor
    Comments (432) | Send Message
     
    When exactly was military action taken in the past without consulting congress? Oh, you must mean Libya.
    4 Sep 2013, 12:39 AM Reply Like
  • Regarded Solutions
    , contributor
    Comments (20530) | Send Message
     
    wow what a load of crap from BO. He ran on a get out of war platform and Bush was a mess in Iraq, and now he does a 180 and wont even take full responsibility for the 180!!!!. He knows congress will vote no, and now BO can do what he has done best...shrug his shoulders and blame Congress.

     

    This is a damn joke.

     

    I do not care which side of the fence you are on, this is shameful IMO.
    31 Aug 2013, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2326) | Send Message
     
    Whatever one thinks about striking Syria, it was stupid to declare a "red line" to a dictator who is literally in a fight to the death, if Obama wasn't 100% willing and able to back up the threat.
    31 Aug 2013, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1084) | Send Message
     
    Even Republicans are complimenting President Obama for seeking congressional approval, so the only person on the wrong side of the fence here are the racist Obama haters who are incapable of anything but bigotry and hate.

     

    "We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised," John Boehner said.

     

    "The President's role as commander-in-chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress," agreed the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
    31 Aug 2013, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • Regarded Solutions
    , contributor
    Comments (20530) | Send Message
     
    RACIST? You're nuts. PLUS, I hate NO-ONE. It sure sounds like YOU do however.
    31 Aug 2013, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Regarded Solutions,

     

    There are two kinds of racists--- those that know and readily accept the role, and those that are so blind that they don't see it in their words and actions.

     

    Either way, they're easy to spot.

     

    p.s. Since you hate no one, can you help me get over how I feel about Hitler and the 911 terrorists ?
    31 Aug 2013, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • rungrandpa
    , contributor
    Comments (274) | Send Message
     
    Criticizing a chaotic foreign policy is not racist. Calling someone a racist for criticizing foreign policy is promoting racism.
    31 Aug 2013, 11:33 PM Reply Like
  • EquityInvestor1
    , contributor
    Comments (87) | Send Message
     
    Reel Ken,

     

    I find it interesting that you didn't mention Pearl Harbor, the only true attack by a foreign attack on US soil. We responded to that with a hammer and the world respected us for it. Off shore, WWII and putting a stop to a maniac called Hitler was also substantiated and once again the world respected us for it. Confronting communism during both hot and cold war years, successfully at the most part, was also something to be proud of.
    None of that applies to Syria, none of it. The so called Arab spring that ignited revolt in one country after another with our support (Libya), pulling our support (Egypt) or supporting the wrong side (Egypt again) accomplished nothing for us or the countries citizens that had their revolutions hijacked by well armed militants that god knows who financed and armed them. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan where we have sizable armies and spent hundreds of billions or over a trillion dollars the last 10 years, not including the American soldier blood and limb that was spent, accomplished nothing! Daily inter-faction bombings takes place and a higher multiple of the citizens whose life ended during the rule of the tyrant prior governments saw their lives cut short by violence after we interfered.
    I ask you who would benefit from repeating the same mistakes over and over and when for Christ sake we will learn from our previous missteps? I refuse to be manipulated by videos and photos of the dead and trade the assumed 1400 victims lives with 140,000.
    I love my country and will contact both my state senator and US rep to express my opinion and make sure that they know that the cost of passage of this action will be my vote next elections.
    1 Sep 2013, 03:28 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    There are two kinds of racists--- those that know and readily accept the role, and those that are so blind that they don't see it in their words and actions.

     

    Either way, they're easy to spot.
    ----------------------...

     

    I see, they are easy for YOU to spot. And you base it on whether or not they agree with policy decisions. Because if anyone stands for freedom and liberty first and foremost they must have some sort of hidden agenda (which of course you can see).

     

    Other than perhaps Washington, I am aware of no presidents that haven't been subject to withering attacks from those opposed to their policies. It is the president himself that has chosen to not engage with Congress in a meaningful way - to somehow blame those opposed to his policies as being racist as a way to excuse the President's inability to be a strong executive - is simply shallow - and frankly pathetic.
    1 Sep 2013, 04:19 AM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1296) | Send Message
     
    Since when does the good Rev. Sharpton post on SA boards? It's always racism when you don't agree with someone.. it's the liberal default logic.
    1 Sep 2013, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • canderson2000
    , contributor
    Comments (68) | Send Message
     
    Are you filled with bigotry and hatred ?? those are angry words to anyone who disagrees with you.. Or do you stoop to name calling when you do not get your way?
    1 Sep 2013, 08:12 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9112) | Send Message
     
    Jake
    Ironic that you are the first and only person to mention race and also the first and only to post personal critical comments about other posters.
    Perhaps you need to look in a mirror.
    1 Sep 2013, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi Equity investor,

     

    First a history lesson--- Pearl Harbor was not the only true attack by a foreign country on US soil. (hint= War of 1812)

     

    Second history lesson--- the citizenry of the US resisted involvement in WW11. The anti-war contingent far exceeded the pro war contingent. FDR had to find "off ledger" ways to keep England and Russia afloat. We stayed on the sidelines until we were dragged into it. Had it not been for the foolishness of Japan, we'd all be speaking German. That is, what's left of us.

     

    Third history lesson---Vietnam and Korea fits none of your criteria, which is...1)direct attack 2) Stopping a maniac 3) Something to be proud of.

     

    Agree we shouldn't make the same mistakes. As I see these...

     

    1) Let the slaughter of innocents go on under the illusion that it will not spread to our shores

     

    2) Put "boots on the ground" to secure natural resources

     

    3) Assume that WMD will not proliferate and reach the hands of our enemies.

     

    4) Recognize that if Russia is on one side our best interests are likely on the other side

     

    I love my country too, and recognize that this is a tough call. I think that there is no winning move. But this is because Assad has made it so, not Obama.
    1 Sep 2013, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi david,

     

    I have no problem with those opposed to Obama's policies. Heck, who knows what's right, anymore.

     

    However, when someone elevates the opposition to attack the man, himself, rather than his policies, there is a reason.

     

    When a debate ignores facts... better yet, makes up its own facts... there is a reason.

     

    Now, regarding the issues.... let's open up debate and discuss it. That's what we're supposed to be doing. That's what Obama is doing... opening up the issue for us and Congress to debate.

     

    Why is opening up the issue to debate a weakness? Most educated people would consider it a strength.

     

    I suggest you re-read the relevant posts and see for yourself.

     

    You can start with your own statement... "the President's inability to be a strong executive ..."

     

    Failing to act in a strong way is very different from "inability to".

     

    What is your basis for determining he is unable?

     

    You see, that simple statement is there for all to see. Of course, some people are blind to it (Q.E.D)
    1 Sep 2013, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Reel Ken: Perhaps you could comment on what connection the Sykes Pichot Agreement might have to do with the situation in the ME.
    1 Sep 2013, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    If you criticize President Obama, you are a racist. If you criticize entitlement programs and don't support Obamacare, you are a racist because your positions are detrimental to the entitlement class, many of whom are of African descent. Similarly, if you are sympathetic toward some of the Tea Party positions, you are ignorant and racist.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi geoffster,

     

    I think we all know that it was all about oil.

     

    The unfortunate part is that the area is rich in fundamentalist religions that have been at odds for thousands of years. Drawing lines on paper does not solve the problems.

     

    But if you want to get at the root cause of the problem the West faces with the East, you need to turn the clock back a few centuries to the Crusades.

     

    The real question is not how we got here, is how do we get out of it? The Time Machine doesn't seem possible.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:13 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    You know your stuff. The Seven Sisters advised Truman not to recognize Israel, but he didn't want to lose the Jewish vote. The US and UK certainly screwed up in Iran by overthrowing a democratically elected President and replacing him with a dictator. To coin a phrase, follow the oil.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Reel,
    We would all be speaking German?

     

    Wrong, Hitler had no designs on North America. It was Japan that viewed the US as a military target in the Pacific. Germany wanted Europe.

     

    The only person that seemingly wants to ignore facts seems to be yourself. Obama has had 6 years to form a working partnership with Congress. A Congress I'd not that his party had full control for the first two years of his administration. He has resorted to issuing executive orders on virtually all policies that he desires. Dream Act get passed in Congress? Nope we'll just have the Justice Department implement it. Want to reform sentencing standards for drug related offenses? We'll just issue an order on that.

     

    When the president travels the country openly saying he'll act without Congress - it is his own admission that he has failed in one of his key roles. He walked away from his own deal with Boehner on the budget - and that was a huge huge mistake. One that an experienced executive would have understood that there would be longer term ramifications.

     

    He has gotten two major initiatives passed in Congress - Dodd/Frank and ObamaCare - both with Democratic control of both houses of Congress - and both being very poorly written bills. And we are seeing problems having both of them being implemented in ways that will benefit the average person. Why? Because Obama didn't realize that these bills (and the so-called Stimulus) weren't practical. He as the leader of the Democratic party needed to push for smaller bills that would meet his objectives and allow for further future action to build on those successes.

     

    Six Years of not engaging with Congress is an inability. Sorry for those that would cry racist for holding the President to account for his actions.

     

    And as for your accusing me of being a racist, I'd suggest its something you wouldn't easily do were I in the room with you.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi david,

     

    I guess the fact that Hitler was developing an ICBM meant nothing

     

    The fact that he declared war on the U.S. means nothing.

     

    Next, maybe six years of Congress not engaging with the President is their inability.

     

    What about Mitch's..."My job is to....".

     

    Blind. Sorry you can't see it.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi rungrandpa,

     

    You need to parse what is being said.

     

    It is not a matter of criticizing his actions or policy. Everyone has an opinion and not everyone can be right.

     

    The world is complicated and how anything plays out, is anybody's guess.

     

    It's when people attack him on a personal level, such as "he's incapable of making intelligent decisions" that opens up the issue. And similar attacks on his character.

     

    When one cannot distinguish between a person and the persons actions it evidences something more than a simple difference of opinion.

     

    If it isn't racist behavior, then please explain what it is, because it isn't simply a matter of differing points of view.
    1 Sep 2013, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • dcfleck
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    "When one cannot distinguish between a person and the persons actions it evidences something more than a simple difference of opinion."

     

    "If it isn't racist behavior, then please explain what it is, because it isn't simply a matter of differing points of view."

     

    I think when you conflate a person's arguments with the person, it's called an 'ad hominem' argument. It's bad logic, but there's nothing inherently racist about it.
    1 Sep 2013, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi dcfleck,

     

    Thank you.

     

    You simply, and accurately, define the activity, but offer no explanation as to the forces giving rise to the conflation.

     

    In a sanitized world, the mistake of confusing the action with the person is nothing more than bad argument.

     

    But this begs the question... is there something more giving rise to this or is it just faulty thinking?

     

    Now, it is very possible that when a reader says that Obama lacks the intelligence or the ability to make a decision, it is not related to racist factors, but rather just faulty reasoning..

     

    I'm simply searching for the answer as to why those that so oppose everything Obama does are also so consistent in their personal attacks on him.

     

    What specifically is it about him they don't like? Again, not his policies...him. They just don't seem to be able to separate the two.

     

    So I ask is it racism or ignorance?
    1 Sep 2013, 04:55 PM Reply Like
  • dcfleck
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    You realize that somebody could make the same comment about you, and your opinions regarding Bush?

     

    You don't seem to admit that anybody could legitimately disagree with Obama, or not loathe Bush.
    1 Sep 2013, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi dcfleck

     

    You need to point it out, specifically.

     

    I believe I've criticized only what he said or what he did. I never questioned his motives.
    1 Sep 2013, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    I guess the fact that Hitler was developing an ICBM meant nothing

     

    --------

     

    Yeah, he wanted to bomb Britian and then Russia.

     

    He declared war due to the Axis Tripartite Pact. And most historians believe that the fact we were already attacking German U-boats led Hitler to believe a declaration of war from the USA was forthcoming.

     

    Hitler had previously agreed upon Japanese pressure that he would join a war against the US but he didn't know how that war would actually happen. The Germans were unaware that Pearl Harbor would be attacked.

     

    So I guess your ignorance means nothing. Perhaps your the one that might want to read a history book that is thicker than a flyer.

     

    Your the one that is blind and ignorant. Now its the all the fault of those in Congress that the president can't lead????? Hmmm. I thought he was the president and they are representatives and senators?

     

    Poor Obama - Mitch said something bad. And what did Típ O'Neill say about Reagan? Yet somehow things still got done.

     

    When exposed - read history - your a racist - whatever other throw-away line comes to mind.

     

    Just as weak as the guy you worship.
    1 Sep 2013, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi david,

     

    You may distort the truth, but you will not change it.

     

    ICBM, by definition is INTER-CONTINENTAL. There is no historian that has ever doubted his intention. He stated it over and over again--- World Dominance. "Heute Deutschland, morgen die Welt!" dates back to the 20's

     

    Hitler could, and did, reach England with V-2's. Suggest you do real research. I'll help you on your way, check out the A10 project and von Brauchitsch , goes back 6 months to a year before Pearl Harbor. Intention---bomb the US.

     

    You may also want to check out his development of a long range bomber (Amerika Bomber) dating back before he even invaded Poland.

     

    I'd offer you more, but it will take away too much time from your worshiping (oops ---watching) FOX news.
    1 Sep 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi David,

     

    p.s. I forgot to mention that the Tripartite Act was to defend each other against an attack by another country---not to join in an attack against another country.

     

    Suggest you look into the Oshima --Von Ribbentrop affair. It was clear that Germany was under no obligation to enter against US by virtue of Pearl Harbor.

     

    Twist, distort, as you will, but you can't change.

     

    Of course you can reject all Historical evidence in favor of a blind sided view of the world. Would fit right in with the rest of your comments.
    1 Sep 2013, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Yeah the tripartite act was to defend - which is exactly why Germany had no plans to attack America. No evidence exists that Hitler contemplated for a minute attacking the USA prior to Pearl Harbor - he was unaware. He wanted Europe. The A9/10 rocket research that you refer to started in 1940 - only in the design stage - with the idea of being able to hit cities in North America. It was done due to Roosevelt's support of the UK. It was but one of a great number of military research projects taken up in Germany.

     

    There are no known documents with any plan that involved Germany invading North America nor agitating for a way to start a war with the US.

     

    I don't need to look into Von Ribbentrop since I'm already familiar with his role in the Third Reich. Prior to Pearl Harbor the Japanese had asked Hitler if he would join a war with them against the US - he gave his consent - but he also didn't know how a war would be drawn. Von Ribbentrop didn't feel obliged to the Japanese since they attacked but Hilter overruled him as he believed Roosevelt was intent on declaring war on Germany - and he wanted to beat him to the punch.

     

    Your not the only person familiar with world history.

     

    You do seem to be the only person that uses the crutch of throwing around accusations of racism when your ideas are challenged.

     

    So you can stop suggesting what I might do. Nice try sharing your entry level understanding of world history to look "smart". Too bad its just a distraction from the failure of Obama to lead. Not one example do you provide. Diversion and name-calling. Attempt to show you are somehow "smarter". Wow.

     

    Shallow and pathetic. There is no real need to continue the exchange - I have no real respect for those that attempt to denigrate when their opinion is challenged.
    1 Sep 2013, 11:10 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi david,

     

    Nice spin, nice twist, but you're on the wrong side of the history books.

     

    At least you now admit that the Tripartite was not what caused Hitler to declare war on the US. APOLOGY ACCEPTED.

     

    I actually typed chapter and verse about your other errors, so you could back-track this latest post but decide not to post it...after all one apology is sufficient. No need to bring you to your knees.

     

    So if you want to go on believing that Hitler never intended war with the USA---go ahead. Your ignorance is not my problem. I feel no need to try and enlighten you.
    2 Sep 2013, 07:03 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    There is no apology.

     

    Any other comments you'd like to make to me please arrange to do so in person.
    3 Sep 2013, 02:43 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi david,

     

    An admission of being wrong without an apology, a new low for you.
    3 Sep 2013, 02:49 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    I admitted nothing. And I apologize for nothing.

     

    Your understanding of WWII looks paper thin - perhaps you read the cliff-notes.

     

    You can live in your make-believe world and spew all the hatred you'd like.

     

    Hitler did declare war due to the Triparte Act - his desire to beat Roosevelt to the punch - his interpretation of the Treaty and the Japanese previously approaching him - the Act was the basis of their alliance - and it made clear where the parties stood in regards to each other. So you can parse that however you'd like.

     

    There are millions of archived documents from WWII - show one - that shows Hitler plotting attacking the US prior to our supporting Great Britain in an open manner. You won't find it.

     

    You can parse whatever you'd like. You can call names. Its just more deflect and obscure. Fancy words with nothing behind them.

     

    Tell yourself whatever you like. Tell yourself your the only person that knows world history. Tell yourself your the smartest guy in the room - that one is likely correct - of course the flip side is your also likely the dumbest.
    3 Sep 2013, 03:52 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi David,

     

    Let's recap

     

    1) I said Hitler was bent on World Conquest which included plans to invade USA
    2) You said no..." He declared war due to the Axis Tripartite Pact"
    3) I said that the Tripartite act did not cover Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
    4) You admit "...Yeah the tripartite act was to defend "
    5) I say Hitler started planning to attack the USA before he ever even invaded Poland---witness the A10 (1940)and Amerika Bomber (1938) AND he said so much earlier than that.
    6) You say "...The A9/10 rocket research that you refer to started in 1940 - only in the design stage - with the idea of being able to hit cities in North America. It was done due to Roosevelt's support of the UK. It was but one of a great number of military research projects taken up in Germany."
    7) You do not address the Amerika Bomber at all, which actually reached prototype before it had to be scrapped.

     

    The rest is easy... you admit that these projects were taken up in 1940 (Amerika Bomber =1938) AND you admit that they were designed to hit American Cities (actually NYC) AND you say it was retaliatory for FDR's support of UK.....

     

    So, let me get this right----- Something he planned doesn't constitute a plan because it wasn't a completed plan?

     

    So, let me get this right---- It was planned in 1940 to stem USA's support of UK, when USA didn't support UK till 1941 and Germany wasn't even at war with UK in 1938 when the Amerika Bomber was planned.

     

    So, let me get this right...somehow if I plan something, have a reason for planning it and actually undertake it, it is not a plan because... you lost me, I can't complete the sentence.

     

    Now, I promised not to make you a fool, as you are doing pretty good by yourself, but let's get the last part done...

     

    There are mounds and mounds of documents from the Reichstag that detail Hitler's strategic Plan. In early 1940 he planned to be at war with the USA in 1943.

     

    Additionally please see Gerhard L. Weinberg the author of A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II (Cambridge University Press, 1994). He says...

     

    " As early as the summer of 1928 he (Hitler) asserted in his second book (not published until I did in 1961) that strengthening and preparing Germany for war with the United States was one of the tasks of the National Socialist movement. Both because his aims for Germany's future entailed an unlimited expansionism of global proportions and because he thought of the United States as a country which with its population and size might at some time constitute a challenge to German domination of the globe, a war with the United States had long been part of the future he envisioned for Germany either during his own rule of it or thereafter."

     

    Q.E.D.
    3 Sep 2013, 07:36 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    when USA didn't support UK till 1941
    ----------------------...

     

    Oops, you mean our oil embargo against the Japanese wasn't in support to trying to prevent Japanese attacks on British interests in the Pacific (prior to Pearl Harbor)?

     

    You mean the Billion Dollars (in 1940 dollars) given directly to Britian through the Land-lease prior to Pearl Harbor?

     

    You mean like Roosevelt giving orders that any German ship in the Eastern Atlantic be shot on sight (again prior to declaration of war against anyone)?

     

    You mean like the over 400% increase of America's Army personnel from early 1940 to end of 1941??

     

    Yes, its easy to parse little tidbits and ignore the message and make myself look smart!!! WOW. Wow - aren't I smart. Aren't you dumb for not knowing we helped Britain and did things to prepare for war before Pearl Harbor???????

     

    Your summary is childish.

     

    I stand by my statements. Hitler himself called his ambition the New Order of EUROPE. Like in the countries on the other side of the Atlantic. And he viewed that then Germans would have their "rightful" place in leading the world.

     

    He wrote in general terms of future generations of Germans engaged in a struggle between the Old World (ie Europe under German rule) and the New World (North America - primarily the USA). But he was writing not about conquest but about World leadership.

     

    Again, Hitler wanted conquest of Europe. He had no plans to attack the USA. Your contention that because Germany had a large rocket program with many experiments and one was based on being able to send a rocket to north America - is like saying the USA wanted to invade Russia during the Cold War because we kept developing weapons that could hit them from North Dakota. If you believe someone may take military action against you - you spend a little time and effort on what you might be able to do about it.

     

    So keep trying to get it right - you have a long long way to go.
    4 Sep 2013, 01:52 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi david,

     

    You can look up all the wiki you want and try to twist whatever you want.

     

    I particularly enjoyed your diversionary tactic that concluded Hitler's plans to attack the USA, don't count as they were just a part of a bigger plan. I guess by this reasoning, he had no plans to attack anyone, anytime. Nice, real nice.

     

    A plan, that is part of a bigger plan is a plan. You are not only on the wrong side of History you are logically deficient.

     

    Problem is, you continue to skirt the absolutely unequivocal proofs of Hitler's plans... events, all of which occurred before the invasion of Poland in 1939. Can't interject dual meanings on them.

     

    1: The Amerika Bomber (and similar LRB) which was started in 1938, which went beyond design and into production

     

    2: Hitler's own written words, written in his hand.

     

    Now let me add a few more....

     

    3.The military archives in Potsdam, there were discovered plans for the transatlantic bombing of the United States. The plan, conceived in 1940, was complete by April 1942, and included maps with projected flight paths and targets. The list of targets included a number of businesses which manufactured vital military equipment including the Pratt & Whitney plant at East Hartford, Connecticut, which made aircraft engines; the Sperry Gyroscopes factory in Brooklyn, New York, which built instrumentation for aircraft; and the Curtiss Wright Corp. works at Caldwell, NJ, which machined airplane propellers. In all, 21 factories up and down the east coast were listed as potential targets of military value.

     

    4.In 1938 Herman Goering in a speech to aircraft manufacturers.... "I completely lack the bombers capable of round-trip flights to New York with a 5-ton bomb load. I would be extremely happy to possess such a bomber which would at last stuff the mouth of arrogance across the sea."

     

    So, David, lets' see how you twist these around.
    4 Sep 2013, 07:27 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi David,

     

    Not enough room in last post, so here---deal with it..

     

    Excerpt from Chapter 3---"Target America: Hitler's Secret Plan to Invade America"

     

    UNTIL RECENTLY, little was known about Hitler’s long-range bombing and transportation plan. Many military historians and researchers doubted the very existence of an actual plan for a transoceanic bombing campaign. Those who believed the plan existed assumed it had been destroyed or lost as the war came to a close. Not until its discovery in the Military Archives at Potsdam by German historian Olaf Groehler could the world know what Hitler’s Luftwaffe was hoping to accomplish beyond the European continental limits.

     

    Noted historian Holger H. Herwig suggests that the plan was the result of discussions by Hitler in November 1940 and again in May 1941 of his desire to “deploy long-range bombers against American cities from the Azores.” Because Germany did not have a bomber capable of making the round-trip from Europe to America and back without a refueling stop, Hitler saw the Azores as his “only possibility of carrying out aerial attacks from a land base against the United States.” In November he ordered a study to determine whether the Azores port and aircraft landing facilities could meet his needs. On May 22, 1941, Hitler returned to the subject of launching bombing raids against American cities, especially from the Azores.1

     

    Herwig believes the discovery of the plan “confirms that Hitler had every intention of bringing the war to the United States” after he had conquered the Soviet Union.2

     

    The Luftwaffe experts completed work on the plan on April 27, 1942. They submitted it to Reichsmarshal Hermann Goring on May 12, 1942. The final version of the plan runs thirty-three pages. Attached to it is a map of the world showing various targets and flight patterns. The flight patterns include notations of the types of long-range aircraft to be used

     

    Now, David, I can give you more, but do I need to?
    4 Sep 2013, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    You can't see the forest for the trees.

     

    "all of which occurred before the invasion of Poland in 1939."

     

    And then you reference something in 1940. And the reference is actually to a plan put together in 1942 (when is also when the Amerika Bomber plan was submitted by the way - 1942 - oh, and yes 2 bombers were produced in 1944 and then the program scrapped) - the documents from Potsdam are very clear - they were presented in 1942 - that would be after we were fighting. And it was a plan with no capabilities - similar to a list of hypothetical targets you'd like to hit - and I think they were all or almost all aircraft manufacturing targets. And unless you think Vancouver Canada is on the US east coast then that part of your summary is fantasy also - and its not just Vancouver - Detroit - Indiana - Pittsburg PA - all had sites on the list. But when creating pure fantasy I guess little details like that don't matter.

     

    And that proves what exactly? In 1942 a plan was drawn up to degrade our military capabilities. Well that seems the normal course of war. One of the main aims of the Amerika Bomber was to force the US to spend our manufacturing capabilities on defense rather than planes and equipment for Britain and in Africa. And again 1942 we were at war with Germany.

     

    It is you that continues to deflect and parse and give examples that have nothing to do with anything. Stating things I didn't say and offering childish summaries.

     

    Hitler's own words are well laid out in my previous post - New Order of EUROPE. And my analogy to the Cold War and the US developing military capabilities is a good one. We had no plans to invade and conquer the USSR - but we certainly prepared ourselves for a potential military confrontation if it came.

     

    Hitler certainly didn't doubt the outcome of any of his plans. So any plan to invade and conquer the US certainly would have succeeded (in his mind). And yet, he constantly writes about future German generations engaged in a struggle of the Old World (Europe led by Germany) with the New World (North America) - and not in military sense - but in a larger struggle for world leadership. How could there be future generations of Germans struggling with the US for World supremacy if he had a plan to attack and conquer it?

     

    Keep parsing and trying to show how smart you are. Next time at least properly state the facts you trot out to show how smart you are - it doesn't look good when you claim Vancouver, Detroit, Indiana, Pittsburgh are on the US East Coast - or that 1942 is prior to 1939.

     

    Your the one twisting the entire debate around - first way from your guy Obama's failings - and now away from Hitler's plans to what took place in WWII.

     

    I'm not a big internet nor technology guy ( I still read books ), but I took a look at your Wiki - and big surprise I find your quote from Goering!!! Hey, if your going to denigrate someone you should at least refrain from doing what your supposedly denigrating them for. But I guess that's kind of the liberal mantra - the rules we create are for others to follow.
    4 Sep 2013, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi David,

     

    So, just to keep you on track, here's your comment that started all this.....

     

    "...Wrong, Hitler had no designs on North America."

     

    The evidence as I presented, directly from respected historians clearly indicates otherwise.

     

    I listed events that took place pre-Poland AND events that occurred pre- Pearl Harbor.

     

    As far as your wiki/Goering remark, it makes me laugh. Instead of refuting it, or offering evidence that it isn't relevant, you poo-poo on the grounds that it is also wiki. So now, am I stuck with supplying evidence that doesn't exist on wiki?

     

    Historians and researchers seek out data, facts and evidence with the goal of reaching whatever conclusions they lead to.

     

    Your method, on the other hand, starts with a premise and selectively sifts through data, facts and evidence, picking only those that, even in the smallest sense, support your premise and discarding those, no matter how overwhelming, that do not.

     

    You claim no plans existed, yet there are books and books about the plans. 33 pages from Potsdam alone outlining his plans. You choose to ignore this, because it isn't a plan if it didn't occur before Poland.

     

    Now, I could have made the same kind of conjecture statements that you make, and said something like "... Potsdam plans were a direct result of the Amerika Bomber that started in 1938 and predated 1940..." but I just presented the facts as they lie, without editorializing.

     

    You would like to make believe the dispute is with my interpretation, yet I offer reference and authority, sans interpretation.

     

    Your difficulty is with evidence discovered by historians such as Wenberg, Herwig, Groehler and others. These are the people that have written the history and they disagree with your premise.

     

    So, it seems that you can continue attempts to rewrite history, but I stand firmly with those that have already written the history.

     

    So, instead of making personal attacks or vague statements, why don't you come up with something that says their evidence is disputed?

     

    Can you say the Potsdam Plan was forged?

     

    Can you say Goering never said what he said?

     

    Can you say Hitler's second book was fabricated?

     

    Can you say that the Amerika Bomber was a misnomer.. .he meant the Afrika Bomber? Oh, and if it was just designed to degrade our capabilities, why 1937? there was no war and the USA was a pacifist nation that posed no threat to Hitler.

     

    I thought about adding much more evidence, such as the Amwer documents, or more chapter and verse from historians books,but until you can come to grips with what has already been offered.... statements, not from me, but from historians, what purpose would more historian statements do?

     

    p.s. You should consider taking a course in reading comprehension. I never said "...In 1942 a plan was drawn up to degrade our military capabilities..."

     

    The Potsdam plans were completed in 1942, tracing their origins to 1940, well before Pearl Harbor
    4 Sep 2013, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    I can say that your full of yourself.

     

    The only person making personal attacks is your yourself with claims of knowing who is a racist.

     

    I don't agree at all with much of anything you've written. What took place during the course of war has nothing at all to do with Hitler's designs prior to the war for German expansion. I've read the material several times in my life and I stick with the opinion I've outlined.

     

    There is no sense in continuing since you respond to nothing and simply offer more irrelevant items - like the kid in school that thinks if they write enough then they'll get a good grade..... irregardless of what they write.
    5 Sep 2013, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi david,

     

    First, I'd like to remind you that most of what I've written is facts backed up with citations and presented in the historians words...not mine.

     

    Second, you say things are irrelevant without even the courtesy of itemizing them... were Hitler's own words irrelevant? Was Goering's words irrelevant? Was the Amerika Bomber Irrelevant? Was the Potsdam Papers irrelevant? Were the historians articles irrelevant?

     

    What's truly amazing is you now want to dismiss ALL the facts and evidence presented, by pretending they are all post-Poland. In fact, at least half the facts and citations I provided did, in fact occur prior to the war AND it was you that drew the "red line" at theTripartite Pact....not me.

     

    It all reminds me of the "Birther" issue.

     

    No matter what evidence is provided, short form, long form, birth certificates posted on the web, hospital records and newspaper birth announcements, the "birthers" stick to their guns. Because, simply, let's not let facts get in the way of what we want to believe.

     

    So, when you re-write history and have a book published, then I'll give you your due. You' can stand proudly with the historians I have provided you. Until then, you can just line up with the "birthers", non-climate changers, and all those others that ignore facts and evidence in their misguided quest to affirm their ego.

     

    What I find most surprising, is why a fellow with your outlook even looks to site such as SA for information. For certainly you filter out information that does not coincide with your position.

     

    But in the end, that's fine with me, I do very well siphoning money from those investors that deny facts and research and, instead, just want to be right. For skilled investors have learned that weighing all sides of a position, is better than dismissing facts.
    5 Sep 2013, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2326) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like President Barack Obama realized that he lost the debate to his most "formidable opponent" (for you Colbert Report fans)... Senator Barack Obama

     

    Even as recently as 2007, while campaigning for president, Obama told The Boston Globe that “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”
    31 Aug 2013, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9112) | Send Message
     
    Jake
    Take note of Tricky's comment.
    31 Aug 2013, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • medzjohn
    , contributor
    Comments (482) | Send Message
     
    The Obstructionists have been screaming for war. Let them vote their bloody heart's desire and the taxes to pay for it while they're at it.
    31 Aug 2013, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    medzjohn, I am confused by your comment. Are you calling Kerry an obstructionist? Who else is beating the drums of war?
    31 Aug 2013, 11:46 PM Reply Like
  • medzjohn
    , contributor
    Comments (482) | Send Message
     
    Fair question, aretailguy. Kerry is playing the Colin Powell diplomatic puppet this time. The media has inflamed passions with saturation video of gassed children. Democrats like Pelosi have fallen into line. Republicans could be the party of restraint. Will they be?
    1 Sep 2013, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • BruceInKY
    , contributor
    Comments (444) | Send Message
     
    The good news is that Samantha Power is not more powerful than the polling data.
    31 Aug 2013, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • tiger8896
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    I will be sadly disappointed but not surprised if Congress does vote for a military response, too many Americans favor some kind of action to rule out a strike on Syria.

     

    I am bitterly disappointed at Obama for supporting a unilateral military response. He should have taken the stance that Syria's actions were an affront to the entire international community and that he would side with an internationally coordinated response but would not act alone.
    31 Aug 2013, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1084) | Send Message
     
    Predictable response would be "President is leading from behind"

     

    It's easy for people to criticize the President from the sidelines, but most don't have a clue what's its like and their solutions are inferior to the Presidents.
    31 Aug 2013, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9112) | Send Message
     
    Jake
    You are sounding more and more like a DNC troll.
    Too bad your guy can't vote "here" anymore.
    31 Aug 2013, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • optionsexpert
    , contributor
    Comments (482) | Send Message
     
    Wyo - if anyone's a troll it's you bud. You critique behind anonymity of a computer of someone who's life is in the constant eye of the public. You act like you have all the answers but you don't have a clue.
    31 Aug 2013, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • Regarded Solutions
    , contributor
    Comments (20530) | Send Message
     
    you should share your deep knowledge sir, oh please do so.
    31 Aug 2013, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1084) | Send Message
     
    That's the thing, we aren't the ones criticizing the President every time he looks left, right, up, down and then thumping our chests like we exactly know what to do and could have done everything better. Give me a break. You are just trying to politicize this event. You just want to tell everyone unlucky enough to have to read your comments how much you hate the President.

     

    We get it you hate the President, but at least have some respect for his situation.
    1 Sep 2013, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    I would like to play golf with the President. You can tell a lot about a person by how they line up a put.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9112) | Send Message
     
    And how they keep score.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • Bioalchemy
    , contributor
    Comments (175) | Send Message
     
    one thing I don't understand is why Syria government force used chemical weapon at capital area, which they should absolutely overwhelm the rebels..Anyway, Obama has put the United states at a terrible dilemma, get either ignored or mired down.
    31 Aug 2013, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Are you sure the Syrian government was responsible? I was persuaded that Iraq had WMDs. Could Saudi Arabia have had a hand in this? Are there ulterior motives for an American attack. Might a wider war be in the interest of certain financiers? Did President Obama come to the realization that his "Red Line" was being used to force him into doing his masters' bidding? Riddle me that.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately President Obama keeps forgetting that he is no longer the junior senator from Chicago. He kept yapping about red lines and discovered that he had boxed himself into a corner with red lines. Next thing caused by his inaction was to discover the only support for military action was from the senile Republicans such as John McCain. Obama's only way out of his self-created box was to punt the hot potato to Congress which will thankfully decline approval.

     

    When two organizations in Syria that both hate America are in a death-match struggle, what is the national security interest of America in intervening in the conflict? For those folks that say that Syria is a genocide situation (it is), I suggest that this is exactly why we have the United Nations. If the United Nations can not take action in this kind of situation, perhaps we need to re-evaluate our participation in such a worthless organization.
    31 Aug 2013, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi aretailguy,

     

    Your comment reads equally accurate if you were discussing George W and Iraq.

     

    Only difference, is that the whole world saw Georgie's mistake in plan. Obama is unwilling to follow that lead.

     

    If you can't understand the need to stop the brutal mass killing of citizens and the consequences of a failure to act, I have 6 million plus reasons to share with you.
    31 Aug 2013, 09:06 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2326) | Send Message
     
    Then we need to "do something" about North Korea, given that it has starved (what?) hundreds of thousands or millions of its own people to death.

     

    How many African countries are we going to "do something" about, given the hundreds of thousands or millions who have died in civil wars there?

     

    I guess we should have "done something" about China when they were cracking down on rebels/protesters their wild west. Or Russia when they get nasty in Chechnya.

     

    Thanks for the heads-up that once al-Assad defeats the Syrian rebels, he intends to embark on a world conquest tour. Nice to see that someone finally fulfilled Godwin's law in this comment stream, LOL
    http://bit.ly/rztitO
    31 Aug 2013, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Reel, history revisionism again. Please check the voting record on the congressional record for congressional approval for the action in Iraq.

     

    Why is it so difficult to not let the UN do what its charter demands? We are NOT the world's policeman. Dems and Reps alike when residing in the white house seem so taken with the power they possess. We should be demanding UN action in Syria.
    31 Aug 2013, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • dcfleck
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    As far as I've heard, nothing that has been proposed will do anything to "stop the brutal mass killing". Essentially, the administration is proposing to deliver a military slap on the wrist to Syria for killing some people *in the wrong way*.
    31 Aug 2013, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    You forgot the Killing Fields of Cambodia.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • retpdguy
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    President Bush had a coalition of the British and just about every European country backing him against Saddam.
    Obama hasn't gotten a one.
    1 Sep 2013, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi retpdfguy,

     

    Maybe you should insert facts into your assertions.

     

    Last I looked, France was a country, so is Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan and Australia.

     

    Not that it all means that much to the overall discourse, but foolish, inaccurate comments such as yours add nothing.
    1 Sep 2013, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • retpdguy
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    Reel ken= TROLL
    2 Sep 2013, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi retpdguy,

     

    Mature, real mature.

     

    You make an mistake and your answer is that I'm a troll because I notice it.

     

    Notice that my exposure of your mistake made no attack on you personally. Just because you make a stupid comment, does not make you stupid. But you're closing in on a reassessment.

     

    Sticks and stones......
    3 Sep 2013, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • kongen1
    , contributor
    Comments (168) | Send Message
     
    1) I am relieved that the President will go to Congress for approval before he takes military action. Right decision.

     

    2) This helps him escape from the box he made for himself when he drew a “red line” a year ago. That was a bad move.

     

    3) It is not clear to me that imposing more violence on Syria now will improve matters there. I believe that such a move should only be taken on the basis of strong evidence and with broad international support. These conditions may eventually be met, but not in the near term.
    31 Aug 2013, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • Viper740
    , contributor
    Comments (466) | Send Message
     
    1) There are no good guys in Syria. There's Assad the dictator, various Al-Qaeda associated factions, and various ethnic factions, almost none of which get along. Like the entire middle east, nothing but extremist losers to choose from.
    2) This war is being imposed on the US by Neocons, whose goal is to get America into endless war in the middle east.
    3) Obama is against a Syria strike, smartly, but can't say so publicly for fear of appearing weak to war-mongering Americans. So he wisely will let Congress vote NO.
    4) I can't believe this is coming out of my mouth, but Putin is right. There is absolutely no evidence that Assad ordered this attack. My personal opinion is that the rebels did it deliberately in a bid to blame Assad. They may have had the help of the Israelis.
    31 Aug 2013, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Viper, you will have a very hard time convincing me that the Neocons are controlling Pelosi and Obama and Kerry. Likewise, it sure sounds to me like Obama can't wait to fire missiles and play war. Regarding evidence, who knows? .All of the Dems lined up behind Bush to get into Iraq. Iraq had gassed the Kurds and attempted to build a nuke. Did we ever find hard evidence on the ground in Iraq? No. Only the history revisionists have attempted to change the historical record. Please check to see who voted to go to war in Iraq.

     

    I, as an American, do not believe that the USA has a moral responsibility to be the worlds policeman. Lets protect our own national security interests and support the UN to be the worlds policeman. If the UN can't do its job, then lets do the obvious.
    31 Aug 2013, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • Viper740
    , contributor
    Comments (466) | Send Message
     
    Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 1980's, long before Bush accused them of having WMDs. And Saddam probably destroyed the poison gas that was used, as directed by the UN. So, at the time that Bush (and various Democrats and Republicans) made the accusation that Iraq had WMDs, they in fact did not have them. Likewise, in this case there is no evidence that the Syrian gov't used this gas. In fact, both the UN as well as Russian intel are saying the evidence shows the rebels are the ones who likely used it. The Syrian rebels have used poison gas before, but Assad has not.

     

    I blame neither Obama nor Bush for the problems in the middle east. The place always has been and always will be a mess. The job of American leaders is to simply make sure we do not get entangled in it, something which Bush and Obama failed us at. But at least Obama is redeeming himself by refraining from a Syria strike (he also probably has pressure from the US military who, unlike Democratic and Republican politicians, actually put the interests of the US first, and are therefore standing against a Syria attack).
    31 Aug 2013, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi Viper,

     

    Suggest you review the evidence that was released.

     

    There is plenty of evidence that the attack came from Assad's forces. They may not be able to pin it directly to an order by Assad, but it is pretty clear that it was his forces.

     

    I'm not sure it really makes a difference where in the chain of command the order originated.
    31 Aug 2013, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi aretailguy,

     

    You make some good points.

     

    I think our national security interests are threatened by proliferation of WMD. But, if you want to "Monroe Doctrine" your concept of National Security ... well that's what makes horse races.
    31 Aug 2013, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • mpcascio
    , contributor
    Comments (245) | Send Message
     
    I pray for this president and for the progressives as Jefferson did for Henry.
    31 Aug 2013, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • Regarded Solutions
    , contributor
    Comments (20530) | Send Message
     
    really, why would that be kind sir?
    31 Aug 2013, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative+(RIP)
    , contributor
    Comments (651) | Send Message
     
    Carter 2016!
    31 Aug 2013, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Amy?
    1 Sep 2013, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • Peteresmond
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    Now we see the absurdity of Republicans, conservative commentators, and the conservative media: for the first time in 5 years, Obama has chosen to do the right thing, the Constitutional thing, and what do we see from the "right": crticism, complaints, accusations of lack of fortitude - my word: we should be celebrating a president who has done the right thing and made the correct constitutional decision!
    It is time to end this incesant partisanship and for the Congress to debate and decide - if the decission is to reject action, then so be it. But decide they shall, and hopefully, we will see the light of a unified and not divided country emerge!
    31 Aug 2013, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Sen. Rand Paul completely agrees with you.

     

    http://fxn.ws/16ZI5wH
    31 Aug 2013, 09:07 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Peter,
    I think its a bit ingenuous to decide now "to do the right thing". Where was this when we supported military action in Libya?

     

    I personally, don't want to get involved in Syria - I hope Congress votes it down.

     

    But I also don't for a second believe this is being done to "do the right thing". Its being done to provide the President cover.

     

    I'd rather the president simply say that while the US condemns the chemical attacks in the strongest terms, that he shouldn't have said what he said - and that the death of 1000 people isn't a justification for attacking Syria. Heck - say we don't know if the Syrian regime gave the order and we are demanding Assad ensure it doesn't happen again - but lets not try to find contrived ways not to act.

     

    If 1000 deaths is the threshold - then we will be fighting endless wars in Africa and the Middle East. Approximately 500,000 (if not more) were killed in South Sudan under a policy directly implemented and supported by the Sudanese government in an attempt to wipe out Christians - I saw nor heard any voices for military action. How does the use of chemicals differ from the use of machine guns and machetes? Congo? Sierre Leone anyone? Algeria? Somolia? Burma? The list is very long.
    1 Sep 2013, 04:35 AM Reply Like
  • retpdguy
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    Finally Obama makes a good choice. Carter looks like a genius compared to him.
    31 Aug 2013, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (991) | Send Message
     
    Obama drew a line "not to be crossed or there will be consequences" and Assad called his bluff. The world knows he's weak and all talk.
    31 Aug 2013, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1296) | Send Message
     
    Could have told you this guy was weak at the start of the first term.. agree with your comment though.
    1 Sep 2013, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • User 8947811
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I guess some of the politicians that voted no on Syria were holding BP stock,, so again I guess you gota blame Judge Carl Barbier and his lynch mob of dodgy legal wigs for the US going it alone in middle east
    1 Sep 2013, 08:07 AM Reply Like
  • ct_yankee57
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    No President wishes to "go it alone" when it comes to Foreign Policy, in fact the War Powers act gives the President authority to act unilaterally for ninety days if he can prove a threat to National Security pending approval of the Senate intelligent committee. Is he hunting for cover, damn right he is. Civil wars are nothing short of a proxy war for the super powers to try out new weapons and technology. Besides he be going against Vladimir Putin, not some Afghans with RPGs in a mountain pass.
    1 Sep 2013, 08:09 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2326) | Send Message
     
    I'm non-partisan. I'm just enjoying the hypocrisy of the various players in Bush/Iraq vs. Obama/Syria

     

    Then:
    * Senator Obama against military action and insisting that the President must get Congressional approval because it didn't affect the national interest
    * Senator Kerry mocking the "Coalition of the Few"
    * Conservative Rep's growling about how anyone against the invasion was a traitor and anyone who doesn't want to send soldiers out to die, separated from their families for extended periods of time, on multiple rounds of psychologically damaging tours "doesn't support the troops"
    * Oh, and Senator Obama making lots of noise about how Gitmo ca and should be closed

     

    Now:
    * President Obama initially sending his minions out to make the case for why Congressional approval not needed, before backpedalling
    * Sec. of State Kerry (this morning on CNN) defending the awesome coalition we've built up -- we don't even have UK, but thank heavens the French are on board, LOL
    * Republicans continuing their strategy of "whatever Obama's for, we're against it". The dumbest comments so far coming from Imhoff
    * About Gitmo...

     

    I'm not anti-Obama per se. I'm anti politician. They ALL suck.
    1 Sep 2013, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    I tricky,

     

    Politicians not my favorite either.

     

    So I guess the answer to most of you is that a President should set policy before he's elected and then, regardless of what happens, or where it happens, be inflexible.

     

    For me, I want a President that is willing to weigh every situation and willing to make a determination of the best course of action.

     

    For me, I want a President that doesn't operate on "gut feeling" (read George W.) and seeks input from other sources.

     

    For me, I want a President that recognizes there is a time and place for just about everything and not get stuck in some ideological trap.

     

    Now we may debate if Obama meets this or not. That's fair. But this is what I want.
    1 Sep 2013, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Reel, I believe that a debate over George W's meeting your criteria is also possible but you have already made up your mind so I will not waste my time.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi aretailguy,

     

    George W. is the antithesis of the criteria.

     

    If you can't make that connection, I give up.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2326) | Send Message
     
    "So I guess the answer to most of you is that a President should set policy before he's elected and then, regardless of what happens, or where it happens, be inflexible."

     

    The primary purpose of election campaigns is for the candidates to put forth what they stand for, what their "guide posts" are, and yes, specifics for specific situations.

     

    So I will admit to a certain amount of schadenfreudy glee at watching Obama squirm now that he has to confront some of the things he mouthed off about prior to becoming POTUS (*cough* Gitmo *cough*). But hey, it sounded good at the time.

     

    Anyway, at the risk of being repetitive -- I think it's entirely appropriate for Obama to see Congressional approval for (whatever) on Syria. My complaint is how he unnecessarily painted himself (and by way of extension, the US) into a corner with careless remarks that, ahem, "felt good at the time". And my belief is that he's only seeking this approval now as a way to squirm out of his self-painted corner -- how fortunate for him that Congress is not in session and the House probably won't even take it up this coming week -- when in trouble, play for time hehe
    1 Sep 2013, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    I can't comment for awhile, I'm off to church. Don't start any wars until I get back.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi tricky,

     

    It's fine and dandy for all of us to second guess his "red Line" statement.

     

    Of course, we're not burdened with the intelligence reports and advisors he had at the time.

     

    Perhaps he was advised that WMD use was a real possibility. If so, it would force what we now have. Maybe he was trying to stop the no-win predicament.

     

    For certainly, everyone knows its a no-win, then and now.

     

    But no-win doesn't mean no-action. Sometimes it just means no-win.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2326) | Send Message
     
    "Of course, we're not burdened with the intelligence reports and advisors he had at the time.

     

    Perhaps he was advised that WMD use was a real possibility."

     

    Are you talking about Obama... or W? ;-)

     

    But let me switch gears to prove my non-partisanship. I agree that it's easy to carp from the sidelines. Really good example -- Egypt. I guess we *could* have destroyed our moral credibility (a major part of our power, we haven't squandered it ALL away yet) by quietly sitting on our hands and blithely continuing the $1.5bil/yr aid while Mubarak henchmen slaughtered students in Tahrir Square. So I totally dismiss the squawking about "Obama handed Egypt to terrorists". I'm not going to play Monday Morning Quarterback on how he handled Mubarak.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    ok guys

     

    1. Israel
    2. US dollar

     

    These are the only reasons we go to war.
    1 Sep 2013, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9112) | Send Message
     
    And just when was the last time the USA went to war for Israel?
    1 Sep 2013, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi Morrison,

     

    Thanks,

     

    It's great that we can now skinny down all the complexities into such a nice two-issue bundle.

     

    Saves me a lot of time, as I no longer have to actually digest information, evaluate information and try to make sense out of things.

     

    Best yet, if I don't know which of these two issues are operative at any one time, I can flip a coin.

     

    Do you have a "two-fer" that can help me figure out my wife's actions? Much appreciated
    1 Sep 2013, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • temenem
    , contributor
    Comments (539) | Send Message
     
    Okay guys, politics aside, is this going to bury the market on Tuesday? Should we like sell everything or hold?
    1 Sep 2013, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Sell everything. I need a big correction before I put more cash to work.
    1 Sep 2013, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • temenem
    , contributor
    Comments (539) | Send Message
     
    Hmm, maybe not, the Asian and European markets are up today (Monday), the US futures are quite up too, so Tuesday might be a good day for the markets after all. Anyhow, I'm trading 3D Printing stocks, and they have a mind of their own... :-)
    2 Sep 2013, 07:47 AM Reply Like
  • Dividend Duck
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    For those who want to "watch some history," there's a good piece on Syria by BBC available on you tube--done recently, so brings you up to date After watching it, I think we have bout as much of a chance there as we did in Iraq.
    1 Sep 2013, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1741) | Send Message
     
    Time for everyone in Congress to stand up and be counted.
    1 Sep 2013, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • RS055
    , contributor
    Comments (5274) | Send Message
     
    They are infact standing - ya just caint see em - because dey be midgets!
    1 Sep 2013, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • RS055
    , contributor
    Comments (5274) | Send Message
     
    Since Sept 2001 - we have lost a number of constitutional rights, have little privacy and endure all manner of inconveniences and worse on a daily basis at airports etc. and are more financially vulnerable at a personal level than ever before.
    If you dont care to get to the bottom of what exactly happened - then just give it up trying to get a handle on what is going on now- have a chocolate sundae and watch TV.
    Or - worse- maybe you actually believed the tripe doled out on the media - enjoy your fantasy .
    1 Sep 2013, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi RS,

     

    Exactly which Constitutional Rights did we lose?

     

    Every other point you raise is the result of technological advancements made that have had overwhelmingly positive impact on our lives.

     

    The biggest loss of privacy will be discovered to trace its origins to an addiction to Social Media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn. If you doubt that, just wait, the best is yet to come.

     

    It would be an interesting project to quantify the risk to our financial system and find out which of "too big to fail" , Corporate Greed, cyber attacks, or the governments (domestic and foreign) etc. represents the potential for most harm.

     

    Too big a project for me. I'll take a sundae and TV instead.
    1 Sep 2013, 09:07 PM Reply Like
  • RS055
    , contributor
    Comments (5274) | Send Message
     
    Surely you are not denying that the events of sept 2001 have had far reaching consequences and continue to. An atmosphere of constant fear mongering, of paranoia, a constant state of emergency that enables the govt to justify anything and everything based on that fear.
    Surely it would behoove us to understand what exactly happened? I dont believe we do and until we do - we cant understand the present geopolitics.
    1 Sep 2013, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi RS055,

     

    So, is it your position that .... "An atmosphere of constant fear mongering, of paranoia, a constant state of emergency that enables the govt to justify anything and everything based on that fear" ..... constitutes a violation of our Constitutional Rights?

     

    Again, I ask, exactly what Constitutional rights did we lose?

     

    As for the rest of your concerns post 9/11...sure...we've given up some flexibility and convenience. My take is simply that we were naïve before 9/11 and underestimated the dangers of a hi-tech society. So, we now need to draw back a little to reflect the reality.

     

    For instance, airport checks simply acknowledge a risk factor in air travel. We had it before when hi-jacking was "in". Seat belts and air bags acknowledge a risk factor in auto-travel.

     

    Are you proposing that risk factors should not be mitigated?

     

    Maybe we could develop a two-tiered system. No mitigation on some flights and intensive mitigation on others. Makes it easier for the libertarians and the terrorists.
    2 Sep 2013, 07:18 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Someone more famous and intelligent than I made the statement, "People willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither".

     

    Paraphrase from Ben Franklin....
    1 Sep 2013, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi aretailguy,

     

    Sometimes paraphrasing distorts the meaning...in this case, I think so. Especially when it is taken out of context.

     

    Here's the exact quote.....(taken out of context)

     

    "They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

     

    Please note that it is "temporary safety" not, as you state .."security"

     

    In this part alone, there is big, big difference.

     

    Now, I have no problem with you making any statement you want. Just let's not attribute your statement to someone as iconic as Ben, without fully understanding the different meanings.

     

    Instead of splitting hairs over the other differences, let's understand the context.

     

    Ben was urging colonists not to take money from the King in return for the King's rule.

     

    But, lest I not be accused of paraphrasing... here's the full context so you can discover yourself how very different in meaning Ben's quote is, from how the paraphrase represents it...

     

    "In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them. "
    2 Sep 2013, 07:34 AM Reply Like
  • Marine85
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    Obama is a complete disaster. Iraq was not for oil as Ken has stated. If so, where is it. Same nonsense uttered by leftist since oil was discovered

     

    Iraq was a destabilizing force in the region. It started two wars, gassed its people and supported terrorism. And thanks to the cowardice of Clinton, our enemies were emboldened and struck wordwide as they are doing again. This is the what weakness begets.
    1 Sep 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi Marine,

     

    "Iraq was not for oil". Congratulations and WOW. That is so off the wall, I'm speechless and that doesn't happen often.

     

    Since it is unlikely you'll actually do some research, I offer this instead....

     

    "Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

     

    President George W. Bush said in 2005 that keeping Iraqi oil away from the bad guys was a key motive for the Iraq war:

     

    I know I should stop here, but it's such fertile ground, I can't help myself., but I must, there's just too many Republican Statements to pick just a few.

     

    Your logic is further flawed... just because we couldn't get the oil, doesn't mean that wasn't what we wanted.

     

    "Shoot anybody and everybody " Cheney even claimed that the oil would pay for the war.
    2 Sep 2013, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • Marine85
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    Ken is incapable of learning. He is a leftists. His arguments are the same stale ones used since they were constructed. What I do know is that Obama has been found by a Federal court to have violated the Constitution with his recess appointments, bypassed laws with Executive Orders authorizing illegal immigartion, the Benghazi fiasco where he played spades while Americans fought, the IRS scandal, Fast and Fusrious where hundreds of Mexicans and a few Americans were killed, and the NSA spying. I could go on too. Ken will ignore it all because he too is a radical leftist, though a calmer one.
    1 Sep 2013, 11:21 PM Reply Like
  • rungrandpa
    , contributor
    Comments (274) | Send Message
     
    I like everything you said except the first two sentences. No reason to attack a person for different views.
    1 Sep 2013, 11:26 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1912) | Send Message
     
    Marine85, first, thank you for your service. I agree with everything you stated. However, I truly believe that we have reached a point in our collective national lives where we can not any longer serve as the world's policeman. It is not America's responsibility to slap down all the bullies across the world. We are too small and the world is too large. We are broke. This is up to the United Nations. If the United Nations proves to be worthless, lets abandon/replace it. We can't have trigger happy/power thirsty folks like W or Obama sending America's best into viper pits around the world. Folks like Ken that have not seen what you have seen and do not understand the world and still long for singing Kumbaya around the campfire will never understand. If one's sole source of information is Fox, or MSNBC or the Jon Stewart Show, understanding reality is a practical impossibility. If Ken were to listen to equal portions of MSNBC and FOX, he might have some basis for making reasonable judgments.
    2 Sep 2013, 01:08 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi Marine,

     

    Much of what you say about Obama is accurate. It is a shame that you will be ignored by any intelligent person because of the hateful way you present it.

     

    If you want to know what's wrong with this country it is not just the people at the top. It is people that have no tolerance for other people's views.

     

    I have said over and over (just read this thread alone) that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and who knows what's right. But attacking someone personally is a sign of intolerance.

     

    If you are willing to learn something , look up "ad hominem" and you'll see how you have degraded your argument and yourself.

     

    For your information, I'm not a "leftist" I'm an AMERICAN. As such I have the unfettered right to any opinion I want, as do you.

     

    After you're done putting labels on people, is the next progression for you..armbands?

     

    Furthermore, I am independent in voting and am old enough to have voted for JFK, Nixon (my bad), Reagan and George HW, both times (not Clinton). George W. turned my stomach, so it's been Obama since.

     

    This country will continue its decline until people, such as yourself, are willing to be tolerant of others and accept the will of the majority, even though their views differ. Obama was elected by a convincing majority (TWICE) and it is shameful that his programs are being held hostage by a few swing radicals.

     

    So, Marine, if you want to play the "patriot card" I ask you.....

     

    Do you believe in a democracy, or just a democracy that believes in you?
    2 Sep 2013, 08:00 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi aretailguy,

     

    The United Nations is flawed. Russia is on the Security Council and no action can be taken. It has morphed into a relief agency not a police agency.

     

    You might be interested to know that I can't stand FOX or MSNBC. It is the same poop, just coming from two different sides.

     

    I'm against anything that purports to be news but twists it. It is a tell-tale sign of a society in decline. I remember when news was just news. Oh well.

     

    As for Jon Stewart and Colbert... I like them. They at least make no bones about the fact that they are a comedy show.

     

    But, I must admit, I do understand how troubling Jon Stewart is to some hard-liners. The hard-liners are just more ridiculous than the moderates so they get more comedy punches.

     

    So blame the liberal media, if you will, but I do find these guys funny. (p.s. Apparently so do a significantly large number of Americans, many more than watch FOX or MSNBC.)
    2 Sep 2013, 08:14 AM Reply Like
  • Marine85
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    Aretailguy...I agree with you completely and thank you. Ken I have heard it before how people like you claim to be indepedent. I work with a guy who said the exact thing until he was exposed. Not buying anything you say for a minute. Unlike you, I am objective and open minded. You are not. And I support our REPUBLIC.
    2 Sep 2013, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • Marine85
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    By the way, Ken, the system put in place by our Founders was a system of checks and balances. You must have been on holiday when the Dems blocked everything Bush did from 2006 and on. So much for your idependence.
    2 Sep 2013, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi Marine,

     

    Guess you didn't look up "ad hominen". Do you own a dictionary?

     

    Glad to see you support Republican govt. Did you dig up an old copy of the Training Manual. I thought they were all destroyed years ago?

     

    Would never have guessed you would be for LBGT, gay marriage and pro choice.

     

    My bad, you're bigger than I thought.
    2 Sep 2013, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • Reel Ken
    , contributor
    Comments (6396) | Send Message
     
    Hi Marine,

     

    Hmmm. Very interesting thought pattern.

     

    You know some one who once lied, therefore those that claim the same thing are also liars..

     

    Question....

     

    If I know an ex-marine that claimed he was straight until he was exposed as being gay, does that mean Marines that claim to be straight are all gay?

     

    Would certainly change the meaning of "Thank you for your service".

     

    Not to mention "Always Faithful"

     

    Semper Fi
    3 Sep 2013, 02:53 AM Reply Like
  • dcfleck
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    "Obama was elected by a convincing majority (TWICE) and it is shameful that his programs are being held hostage by a few swing radicals."

     

    Obama wasn't elected King of America. Those 'radicals' (I assume you're talking about the House of Representatives) were also elected, even more frequently than the President, and Congress was never intended to be a rubber stamp for the Presidency. As far as I know, nobody has suggested the House is behaving in an unlawful or unconstitutional manner.
    2 Sep 2013, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • kata
    , contributor
    Comments (1395) | Send Message
     
    Aside from all the personal snarky comments and unanswered accusations from all sides, how does the fact that we no longer need Middle Eastern oil (we have plenty of it in North America, or gas for that matter) play into any of this? We're not going to war or any semblance of it for anyone for oil anymore, if we ever did in the first place (and I highly doubt it even if some political types cynically opined it).

     

    If we do go, or any semblance of it, it will be for other reasons wont it? Personally, I am beginning to believe it was an act of pure genius, from a President I do not care for to bail out his political butt from a misstep (the red line) and get the following out of it :

     

    1) a deal for his embarrassing Obamacare fiasco, a one year postponement, 2) an immigration agreement for which all sides can claim victory ( essentially an amnesty but no citizenship and a border deal) 3) a foreign policy reclaiming the moral upper hand (united US and associates bomb and delivers arms under the auspices of an Arab ally 4) a way to raise taxes and broaden the base and make everyone in the public think they won on a tempestuous issue and actually really raise more revenue (limiting the amount of deductions to i.e. 50k per return) aka Romney idea.

     

    And as an aside, you also get no govt shutdown, lifting the debt limit for one year, a predicable 2014 and a huge infrastructure bill that everyone gets rich on.

     

    You gotta admit, it works.
    2 Sep 2013, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • kata
    , contributor
    Comments (1395) | Send Message
     
    And how could I leave out the most obvious benefit of all, OB's legacy, a grand bargain. Bulls Eye.
    2 Sep 2013, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • tiger8896
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    When you have saber rattlers like McCain saying it will be a "catastrophe" if the US does not respond you know there is a good chance the US will say world opinion be damned and bomb Syria.
    2 Sep 2013, 07:23 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs