Gyroscopic Investing

MediumTex wrote:

stuper1 wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: I'm sure the dead, the maimed, and their survivors will be put at ease Obama's reluctance.

Well, I think the idea is to reduce the number of dead/maimed by reducing the killing/maiming capacity of the Assad government.  Of course, there's no certainty in the calculation; it's just a guess on probabilities; and collateral damage may be unavoidable.  Having to make that calculation is one of the bigger reasons I would never want to be president.

What about the idea that as President you shouldn't do things that you don't have the legal authority to do?

"When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
Richard M. Nixon, TV interview with David Frost, May 20, 1977

And we know how that turned out, don't we?

MediumTex wrote:
What about the idea that as President you shouldn't do things that you don't have the legal authority to do?

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying he has the explicit legal authority.  I'm just saying that this seems a lot different to me than Bush going into Iraq.  When somebody gets to be president, I imagine they stop worrying much about legal authority, and start worrying a lot more about their place in history.  Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.

stuper1 wrote:Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.

That being the case, he should publicly call on Congress to debate and decide what to do.  That way if they decide against, he's totally off the hook.

Xan wrote:

stuper1 wrote:Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.

That being the case, he should publicly call on Congress to debate and decide what to do.  That way if they decide against, he's totally off the hook.

Or maybe it's as simple as he's just worried that Assad will gas thousands.  And he knows that if he goes to Congress, it will just turn into an endless debate.

stuper1 wrote:

Xan wrote:

stuper1 wrote:Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.

That being the case, he should publicly call on Congress to debate and decide what to do.  That way if they decide against, he's totally off the hook.

Or maybe it's as simple as he's just worried that Assad will gas thousands.  And he knows that if he goes to Congress, it will just turn into an endless debate.

The solution to that is to have a dictator, not a Constitutional head executive.
I'm sure Obama would agree.

Maybe he would agree.  I wouldn't mind too much if he was dictator.  At least he can put three words together into a halfway intelligible sentence.  I'm just glad that Bush is gone.

stuper1 wrote: Maybe he would agree.  I wouldn't mind too much if he was dictator.  At least he can put three words together into a halfway intelligible sentence.  I'm just glad that Bush is gone.

I'm not. Obama is in the lead for 4th worst president, pushing Bush out of the way.

Libertarian666 wrote: I'm not. Obama is in the lead for 4th worst president, pushing Bush out of the way.

Who are the other 3?  He's gotta be worse than Carter. 

I have a good friend who liked Bush.  He said at least with Bush, even if he doesn't speak eloquently, you can trust the words that come out of his mouth.

I was too nice to mention how obvious it was that Bush took us into Iraq based on lies about WMDs.

Benko wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I'm not. Obama is in the lead for 4th worst president, pushing Bush out of the way.

Who are the other 3?  He's gotta be worse than Carter.

FDR, Wilson, Lincoln.

stuper1 wrote: even if he doesn't speak eloquently, you can trust the words that come out of his mouth.

I would suggest, that it is the slick ones e.g. Clinton who you can be very suspect they are not telling the truth vs the unelequoent ones who are much more likely to be telling the truth.

I once had a slick new dentist who found evidence of decay under numerous fillings and told me I needed many crowns.  Fortunately I can interpret x-rays and asked him to show me where on the x-rays.  He told me you couldn't see them but he was sure they were there 

Libertarian666 wrote: FDR, Wilson, Lincoln.

Thanks.  Figured FDR was in there.

Benko wrote: I would suggest, that it is the slick ones e.g. Clinton who you can be very suspect they are not telling the truth vs the unelequoent ones who are much more likely to be telling the truth.

Agreed.  But Bush proves that just because someone is uneloquent doesn't mean they don't lie.

stuper1 wrote: Maybe he would agree.  I wouldn't mind too much if he was dictator.  At least he can put three words together into a halfway intelligible sentence.  I'm just glad that Bush is gone.

Some of the most ruthless dictator/killers in history have been great orators.

BTW, have you heard him speak without his teleprompter?

I said "halfway intelligible".

stuper1 wrote:

Xan wrote:

stuper1 wrote:Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.

That being the case, he should publicly call on Congress to debate and decide what to do.  That way if they decide against, he's totally off the hook.

Or maybe it's as simple as he's just worried that Assad will gas thousands.  And he knows that if he goes to Congress, it will just turn into an endless debate.

Assad's dad gassed thousands in the 1980s and no one blamed Reagan for letting it happen.

Why would anyone blame Obama for something that a cruel tyrant did to his own people on the other side of the world?  Why wouldn't they blame Turkey, Jordan or maybe Israel for "letting it happen"?

MediumTex wrote:

stuper1 wrote:

Xan wrote: That being the case, he should publicly call on Congress to debate and decide what to do.  That way if they decide against, he's totally off the hook.

Or maybe it's as simple as he's just worried that Assad will gas thousands.  And he knows that if he goes to Congress, it will just turn into an endless debate.

Assad's dad gassed thousands in the 1980s and no one blamed Reagan for letting it happen.

Why would anyone blame Obama for something that a cruel tyrant did to his own people on the other side of the world?  Why wouldn't they blame Turkey, Jordan or maybe Israel for "letting it happen"?

Maybe he's not worried about blame.  Maybe he really believes he can save some people from getting gassed.

More likely he doesn't want to look like a wimp after warning Assad not to cross the red line.

stuper1 wrote:

Benko wrote: I would suggest, that it is the slick ones e.g. Clinton who you can be very suspect they are not telling the truth vs the unelequoent ones who are much more likely to be telling the truth.

Agreed.  But Bush proves that just because someone is uneloquent doesn't mean they don't lie.

Bush did tell the truth on occasion, although perhaps not intentionally:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _hits.html)

The thing I find really funny about that is that the whole thing sounds scripted right up until that last slipup.  It's almost like his speechwriters were imbeciles too, unless he just couldn't help himself and went off script to add that last bit.

stuper1 wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

stuper1 wrote: Or maybe it's as simple as he's just worried that Assad will gas thousands.  And he knows that if he goes to Congress, it will just turn into an endless debate.

Assad's dad gassed thousands in the 1980s and no one blamed Reagan for letting it happen.

Why would anyone blame Obama for something that a cruel tyrant did to his own people on the other side of the world?  Why wouldn't they blame Turkey, Jordan or maybe Israel for "letting it happen"?

Maybe he's not worried about blame.  Maybe he really believes he can save some people from getting gassed.

If he wants to save people, though, why not just take a break from the drone attacks for a few weeks?  There are innocent people killed by drone attacks all of the time.

And, really, it's not like there won't be some collateral damage from firing hundreds of cruise missiles at various targets around Syria, some of which will surely be in urban locations near residential areas.

More likely he doesn't want to look like a wimp after warning Assad not to cross the red line.

I guess, but it sounds like now we're talking about one man's insecurities and poorly considered earlier statements as a basis for taking a whole country to war.

You must remember, too, that war against Syria isn't about missiles and bombs and diplomacy.  Rather, it's a matter of them hunkering down while we are attacking, and then proceeding to wage asymmetrical warfare against us for years and years after using things like international terrorism.

Libya did the same thing and it's what caused the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie to get blown up based upon a chain of events that Reagan set in motion when he ordered a military strike on Libya so that HE wouldn't look like a wimp.

The whole thing is so tiring.  I like Eisenhower's response to pleas from the French for the U.S. to help them out in Vietnam.  He just said no.

In February 1954, President Eisenhower refused to commit American troops to the Franco-Vietnamese War. In a press conference he stated, "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions."

Obama to address nation at 1 PM, about 15 minutes from now.

I don't know about the rest of you but when I hear Obama speak I get the impression that he always tells the truth and always has the situation perfectly under control.

(Sarcasm intended - actually I will not be listening as it hurts my ears).

I just bookmarked this website called StoryLeaks.  Don't know how new it is but it strikes me as a less paranoid version of Alex Jones.

Quote from a piece on the difficulty of waging modern war....

“[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people,”? said Brzezinski during a 2010 Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal.

Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/brzezinski-glo ... z2dZKkuX1R

One more post on Syria before I get ready to catch a plane to attend my father's funeral (I have posted in the past about the situation and how it was draining my mother's remaining finances at the alarming rate of > $8k month. It finally ended Monday morning at about 5:00 AM after nearly two years).

Any way, Eric Margolis is fast overtaking Pat Buchanan as my favorite columnist for clear-headed and factual information on what's really going on in world affairs....

"The Syrian conflict is a proxy war being waged against Iran by the United States, conservative Arab oil producers, and three former Mideast colonial powers, Britain, France and Turkey who are seeking to restore their domination in the region.  Israel, hoping to isolate Hezbollah and cement its annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights, cheers from the sidelines.  Syria and Hezbollah are  Iran’s only Arab friends."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/eric ... ar-crimes/

notsheigetz wrote: One more post on Syria before I get ready to catch a plane to attend my father's funeral (I have posted in the past about the situation and how it was draining my mother's remaining finances at the alarming rate of > $8k month. It finally ended Monday morning at about 5:00 AM after nearly two years).

Any way, Eric Margolis is fast overtaking Pat Buchanan as my favorite columnist for clear-headed and factual information on what's really going on in world affairs....

"The Syrian conflict is a proxy war being waged against Iran by the United States, conservative Arab oil producers, and three former Mideast colonial powers, Britain, France and Turkey who are seeking to restore their domination in the region.  Israel, hoping to isolate Hezbollah and cement its annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights, cheers from the sidelines.  Syria and Hezbollah are  Iran’s only Arab friends."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/eric ... ar-crimes/

I am very sorry to hear of your loss. Memory eternal.

I see that Obama is going to get a congressional vote on the Syria thing.

Unless it turns into one of those Obamacare-style votes, the vote on whether the U.S. should attack Syria should easily fail.  I would be shocked if it's even close.

And hopefully that will be that.

Maybe at some point Putin will be the one to ask Assad to stop gassing his own people.

Obama has handled this thing remarkably clumsily.  He just looks like a total amateur who has misread world support, congressional support and support from the American people.

I'm no Obama fan, and he's obviously in way over his head (the Russians must be laughing), but this whole part of the world is set up to make US Presidents look bad.

There really are no good answers for that part of the world.