It's to establish and maintain credibility.
The lesson is that in order for people to fear you, you have to break legs.
What we're seeing is the chickens coming home to roost for the fucked up blunders of Bush's foreign policy. After a decade of war, no one is willing to wage it anymore. Obama knows that in order to maintain credibility that we're still a democracy that follows international norms, that we can't just bomb Syria because he says so. He has to do what the Constitution demands, and ask permission. He also has to build a coalition. And no one is very willing to go along with us after the fucking disaster that was Iraq, and Congress won't be very anxious to give him permission.
What this means is that the USA will no longer have any credibility on the international stage. If you're forbidden to break legs, then no one will fear you. And if no one fears us, then others will feel free to attack our interests, or perhaps even attack us.
Just as the UK is an extension of USA's sphere of influence, Syria is Russia's extension of their sphere of influence. We're not happy that Russia has disobeyed us with regards to this whole Snowden thing, and so we want to give Russia a slap in the face, but it can't be so hard that they will wage war with us.
So that is where we're at. We're losing influence in Central and South America, we're losing influence with China, and we need to demonstrate to Russia that we are still ready, willing, and able to break legs.
Trust me, this has little to nothing to do with chemical weapons. It's all about credibility. Chemical weapons are just a handy cover to allow us to behave like a Mafia boss.
Can we still break legs? Stay tuned.
Obama stupidly painted himself into a corner, now he is playing politics and trying to dig himself out of the whole he dug himself into.
You are right about it being all about credibility, and that fact of the matter is, Obama has no credibilty, either here or abroad.
I know you are no fan of Obama, why are you still making excuses for him after five years in office?
To use your own analogy, if you are forbidden to "break legs" it should follow that threatening to do so will only be interpreted as an empty threat. Obama owns this one, just like he owns the Libya debacle.
This guy will never, ever accept responsibility for anything.
Obama: 'I didn't set a red line' on Syria
Recasting his role in setting a “red line” on Syria, President Barack Obama insisted on Wednesday that Congress and the world will lose credibility if Bashar Assad’s alleged chemical weapons massacre goes unpunished.
“My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line,” Obama said during a visit to Stockholm, Sweden.
You are right about it being all about credibility, and that fact of the matter is, Obama has no credibilty, either here or abroad.
I know you are no fan of Obama, why are you still making excuses for him after five years in office?
To use your own analogy, if you are forbidden to "break legs" it should follow that threatening to do so will only be interpreted as an empty threat. Obama owns this one, just like he owns the Libya debacle.
I go to prison . Obama says shit on camera and then says he didn't say it and liberal homos drop to their knees and blow him.
And it's all of them who don't responsibility for shit .
Infact violence is a Illegitimate way to enforce your will on people.,..
It does not work, people don't like being bombed or thrown in jail.. Which IMHO, is a form of violence and aggression against "we the people"
THIS will be the heart of the coming revolution willy...
THIS will be what the people are fighting for
http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/violence.php
The people of the world will ALL rise up soon willy...
you sound like a slave... excepting violence as an effective way to control people...
Recently you wrote a post about how humans are as advanced and evolved more spiritually now then ever, I beg to differ with you... and I site this reason..
Using Violence is not a legitimate way to control people, the only reason you believe that it is, is because you've accepted the role as the slave controlled by this violence
Anarchy is the belief that violence is illegitimate, and not how you should be controlled...
This is the way the world is about to turn willy...
MOST people lose credibility when they use violence, all except for the state...
-- Modified on 9/4/2013 9:47:09 AM
willy, you sound JUST LIKE a fuckn bully.
-- Modified on 9/4/2013 9:49:13 AM
It has been since the beginning of time, and I haven't seen anything that will change that fact.
Even anachists use violence, they only think it's wrong when it's used against them. Using other means of control besides violence is only effective when you are stronger and capable of using violence to overwhelm any resistance to your other means of control.
Don't believe me, try and starve Russia or cut off China's oil and see how violent they get, and the same applies to us.
But look how fucked up the world is... Obviously, this violence needs to stop... For our own good...
And we are not an evolved species until violence is no longer needed in order to be controlled...
SLAVES get whipped around when they dont act right, and it works; because of submission.. The slave submits to its masters violence... as an effective way to be controlled...
Obviously the world needs to change, and if we don't we will see to humanity's destruction, FOR SURE...
Will we destroy ourselves in ww3? Are we just gonna play defeatist?
I see a MAJOR movement occurring across the planet right now.. This is JUST the beginning gg, this is the idea who's time has come, so this idea is spreading across countries and boarders as I type this message to you right now.
really freedom is it?
Therefore we can not possibly really be "free" people right now.. Because if we do NOT obey the state we're thrown in jail... This is NOT what real freedom looks like
and we are not really free to do as we please.. You just believe that you are...
"I could of freed 1000's more slaves if only they knew they were slaves
If so, you and the FBI have a lot in common. Members of the anarchist cell, Animal Liberation Front describe all of their "actions" with the catch phrase, "No animals were harmed, human or otherwise." Yet they have remained on the FBI's list of top "domestic terrorist" threats FOR YEARS.
How The Pursuit Of Animal Liberation Activists Became Among The FBI's 'Highest Domestic Terrorism Priorities'
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2012426
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front
What about the SHAC 7?? They ran a freaking website and did bad, bad things like send black faxes. Gasp. The horror. THE HORROR. Yet four of them were sentenced to between three and six years, and ordered to pay a joint restitution of $1,000,001.00!
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/tag/shac-7/
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Huntingdon_Animal_Cruelty
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Protection_Act
-- Modified on 9/4/2013 3:26:23 PM
than the state!...
Are you trying to say anarchist are dangerous? Is it anarchists that perpetuate war? Or, are the anarchists perpetuating this economic crisis? NO, it is not... It is the corrupt state...
Democide (when govts kill the people) has been the biggest killer of humanity EVER, governments and their wars destroy more property than ANY group of anarchists EVER have.... and it is also governments that destroy more wealth than ANY group of anarchists , EVER have...
On the general board, I have likened my political leanings to those of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism. What does that tell you about MY political leanings?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky's_political_views
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
I find your reactive posting amusing. Did it ever occur to you that PERHAPS I know so much about the government's treatment of animal rights activists because, I DON'T KNOW, maybe I watched my own friends get photographed at rallies and conventions, have their phones tapped, have their mail tampered with and read, have tracking devices put on the bottom of their cars, etc...??!!
I mean, HONESTLY. *shakes head*
The overwhelming MILITARIZATION of US police forces is partially being blaimed on radical activists on both the left and the right. My posts clearly illustrate that my views on what constitutes "violence" and "terrorism" differs GREATLY with the views of the US government. But if you want to bicker about semantics for some reason, be my guest!
-- Modified on 9/4/2013 8:16:55 PM
YOU are the one who cant take critism, or anyone disagreeing with you with out getting your panties in a knot... K?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky's_political_views
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
I find your reactive posting amusing. Did it ever occur to you that PERHAPS I know so much about the government's treatment of animal rights activists because, I DON'T KNOW, maybe I watched my own friends get photographed at rallies and conventions, have their phones tapped, have their mail tampered with and read, have tracking devices put on the bottom of their cars, etc...??!!
I mean, HONESTLY. *shakes head*
The overwhelming MILITARIZATION of US police forces is partially being blaimed on radical activists on both the left and the right. My posts clearly illustrate that my views on what constitutes "violence" and "terrorism" differs GREATLY with the views of the US government. But if you want to bicker about semantics for some reason, be my guest!
-- Modified on 9/4/2013 8:16:55 PM
I replied to the post that ONLY had a tittle and no body, that post was unclear what you were talking about...
This current post you have up now, is a little more clearer
You're the one spouting off good griefs in YOUR reactive posting ..
I see you as on my side WE ARE BOTH AWAKE, so STOP taking what I say so personally, I am a vegan, OK?
I agree with what you CHANGED your post to, but it didnt say that when I replied....
and your ENTIRE last post to me PROVES YOU are the reactive poster
FYI, I do not see you as a libertarian... You're for healthcare, unlike ANY other libertarian..
NO libertarians I know think the government should fix healthcare, this makes YOU are a statist., not libertarian, . This is my opine, and I am allowed to have one that differs from you? YOU seem to be the one who is uncomfortable when people disagree with you, NOT ME....
Once you wake up to how fucked up our government is, how in the hell could you really want them to fix healthcare?
I mean come on hooker? How do you hold such conflicting ideas? How does the same government that kills people for sport have ANY business in YOUR healthcare?
-- Modified on 9/5/2013 3:43:31 AM
And posts sentence fragments before I'm done typing. The "back button" and the "enter button" are an eighth of an inch away from eachother, and I have nails. Because this is a moderated forum, edits sometimes post in delay. I thought that that was clearly a partial post that I was in the proccess of editing, but I guess not.
I say "good grief" ALL THE TIME. I've been vegan for almost 15 years- wanna fight and have a competition over who is the BETTER vegan... or who has been vegan for LONGER?! Lol.
As far as socialized medicine, recently posted that while I support it in THEORY (and admire the systems of some European countries,) I am fearful that in will become one more tool of oppresion and suvielance IN THIS COUNTRY!
You have it in your mind that all libertarians are social-darwinists. THEY'RE NOT.
Please see the FIRST definition on UD. The second definition is written by smart ass who is calling social libertarians vegetarian Communists! LMFAO. If I didn't know better I would think someone from THIS forum added that "definition" as a prank after reading my post. They are definitely NOT communists! LMFAO.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social%20libertarian
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/g/Libertarian-Socialism-Definition.ht
I am still entitled to my opine, ven tho you did a good job at trying to explain it to me.. You are VERY awake, like me...
Seems like the solution is pretty simple, government ALL AROUND THE WORLD need to go now... and humanity can get back on track with out this hinderance... IMHO, it is the solution... and the government is the problem...
No worries about premature ejaculation... I actually sympathize, and have done it before too..LOL
to live....
Humanity DOES NOT need a government, no more so, than animals need a farm...
and while I did see you, in your post about healthcare say that in theory you supported healthcare, but that it would never work because of the corruption, you still assumed we needed ANY government to fix the problem that they have caused...or helped cause...
My line of thinking, at this point in "my awakening" would have NEVER gone in that direction... and so, all though, you did see that in our current condition of plutocracy and corruption it would never work, you still think we need a government to fix ANY of the issues..
and, their have been a few other times, but I am to old to remember exactly what it was you said that I, believed was a bit "statist"
BUT, that is just my own opinion, based on my own conclusions...
The state has done a REALLY good job at instilling this negative image in peoples minds about anarchy, and they have done this BECAUSE, this idea is a threat to them...
-- Modified on 9/6/2013 4:45:07 AM
it would mean the world to me if you'd check out these podcasts..
Thei is gonna be a "new world order" weather we like it, or not... the ONLY question I have is will this new world be made of TOTAL DOMINANCE, or TOTAL FREEDOM...
and the answer to this, is up to us... What will humanity do right now? do we submit to the elites version of the new world order? Or, do we create our own?
Either way the world is about to change...
-- Modified on 9/6/2013 8:15:40 AM
We end up where we are now.
Sadly, they seemed to be populated mostly by trustfund kids (or at least comfortably middle class kids) who wanted to spend a couple of years being downwardly mobile, and live a neo-hobo lifestyle, before assimulating back into mainstream society! Not that I judge...
Okay. That's a crock of shit. I TOTALLY judge! Lol.
Though they did give me an excelent early tutorial on police engagement. For that I am truly grateful.
No way, violence does not work... Some people fight back, not everyone submits to violence, only the ones willing to be controlled by it... AKA the slave.. The slave submits to violence, but, as current events would show us now, everybody does not submit to violence...
If we insist on controlling people with violence we will self destruct...
I would expect you to address more of the points in an article, and not to attack it's source... You just surprised me... The article had good points about of violence as a mean of control..
-- Modified on 9/4/2013 10:44:10 AM
to the violence of nature. Unless you can out live nature.
Violence doesn't always have to be enforced through punishment. Violence can also be enforced through reward.
I had two screens up of ter, and my cat walked across my keyboard and then I made an accidental post, and asked that it be removed, however they removed all our posts, and that wasn't my intention..
I can debate you, and your silly statist logic any day 
The removal of those posts was a mistake I didnt request that.. just the one, and I guess al replies went too..
My bad
-- Modified on 9/4/2013 11:59:27 AM
And, all that does is piss someone off enough to try and take your head off! That is what Iran, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan has taught us; we can't break anyone's legs, just kick them in the shins!
What you're seeing are the chickens coming home to roost for fucking Benghazi !!!
I promise you that piece of shit now wishes he had picked the phone up that night .
Since then we've seen Putin slouched in his chair with a mocking look on his face , our oldest friend in the world turn their backs on us for the first time since 1812 and a leader of Syria laugh when a US President called him out.
You need to stick to whatever the fuck it is you do because you are clueless when it comes to this game .
The lesson is that in order for people to fear you, you have to break legs.
What we're seeing is the chickens coming home to roost for the fucked up blunders of Bush's foreign policy. After a decade of war, no one is willing to wage it anymore. Obama knows that in order to maintain credibility that we're still a democracy that follows international norms, that we can't just bomb Syria because he says so. He has to do what the Constitution demands, and ask permission. He also has to build a coalition. And no one is very willing to go along with us after the fucking disaster that was Iraq, and Congress won't be very anxious to give him permission.
What this means is that the USA will no longer have any credibility on the international stage. If you're forbidden to break legs, then no one will fear you. And if no one fears us, then others will feel free to attack our interests, or perhaps even attack us.
Just as the UK is an extension of USA's sphere of influence, Syria is Russia's extension of their sphere of influence. We're not happy that Russia has disobeyed us with regards to this whole Snowden thing, and so we want to give Russia a slap in the face, but it can't be so hard that they will wage war with us.
So that is where we're at. We're losing influence in Central and South America, we're losing influence with China, and we need to demonstrate to Russia that we are still ready, willing, and able to break legs.
Trust me, this has little to nothing to do with chemical weapons. It's all about credibility. Chemical weapons are just a handy cover to allow us to behave like a Mafia boss.
Can we still break legs? Stay tuned.
how the "the chickens coming home to roost for fucking Benghaz" is connected to Syria?
We should be up to speed in no time, if we study real hard!
An American using an alias handle with the initials DDD! Lol.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs.
I'm not a real political man.
I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell
You the difference in Iraq and Iran."
Blind nationalism and a lack of even the MOST BASIC sense of geography/world history... these are things to be ASHAMED OF and have a desire to rectify, NOT write braggadocious songs/posts about, as if your ignorance somehow makes you MORE patriotic!
Just saying.
back when I first started reading your posts Ray Parkins ! If you don't know who she is look up the characters from the movie Sudden Impact. She was the loud-mouth bar whore.
are the best ones. I'll rent Casablanca , Citizen Kane and On the Waterfront for you .
Obama rolled over and made himself and the entire country look weak when he didn't do jack and allowed our diplomats to be murdered when help was a short flight away. Instead he chose to not answer the phone .
I'm sorry you don't understand how it works . Maybe if you had tried being a man for at least one day in your life you would get it .
and in that context, makes perfect sense. When discussing image.
I'm not sure how world leaders look at such incidents. How ever Putin portrays a very masculine image. Along with the Arab world, and I would through all organized religion in there, as God is a predominately masculine figure.
I fail to see your point. I know men can be petty and prone to male posturing, but I HIGHLY doubt that Obama, Putin, Assad, Kerry, et al are going to start World War III over a freaking DICK SIZE COMPETITION that got out of hand! Lol.
400 US surface-to-air missiles were 'STOLEN' from Libya during the Benghazi attack and are 'now in the hands of Al Qaeda', claims whistleblower
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2390642/400-surface-air-missiles-STOLEN-Libya-Benghazi-attack-says-whistle-blowers-attorney.html
400 SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES WERE STOLEN FROM LIBYA AND ARE NOW ‘IN THE HANDS OF SOME VERY UGLY PEOPLE’, SAYS WHISTLEBLOWERS’ ATTORNEY
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/12/400-surface-to-air-missiles-were-stolen-during-benghazi-attack-and-are-now-in-the-hands-of-some-very-ugly-people-says-whistleblowers-attorney/
-- Modified on 9/4/2013 11:25:32 PM
I assume there was an issue at customs. 
This isn't the first time American war ships have pulled grid squares off the coast of Syria. The President at the time told the Syrians to back off and they complied because they knew that President would make good on his promise to act if they didn't .
Our current President " drew a red line in the sand " and Assad laughed and still used the chemical weapons. He wouldn't have done it if he respected our current President and his red line. The entire world watched how Benghazi was handled and now we have zero credibility with those animals .
Bin Laden said they knew a shit storm would come after 9-11 but they welcomed it because it was
a chance to kill even more Americans. As much as he hated us he still knew we would come
in a proxy war .
And he was more the financial warrior not a grunt throwing rocks off cliffs and bringing down Soviet helicopters with them.
and alias.
I do get it! I get you're very invested in hating Obama.
I do get it! Obama hasn't handled Syria very adroitly.
I do get it! One has to look at the Middle-east situation from a lot bigger view, starting at our CIA's job at helping to overthrow the Shah of Iran, or even before that!
It only took them 60 years.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
Anyone who had a mind to could connect the dots revealed in many memoirs of politicians, diplomats and other government workers.
sign of pussy right ?
after being on this board for several years, that when a person reverts to challenging someone's manhood, or name calling, that person reverting to such behaviors has lost his legs!
I'm just saying what the facts are. I'm not saying I'm in favor of one thing over the other. My OP was not a defense of Obama, nor was it a criticism of him.
What I am in favor of is the USA taking a more passive role in international affairs. We should only wage war when it's to defend ourselves. Unless the United States is directly attacked, we shouldn't use our military. We shouldn't bomb Syria unless Syria bombs us.
I'd vote to stay out of Syria and let them kill each other.
IMHO The truth is in who benefits the most by removing Assad. Look no further than the Penninsual .