Revenge

[woodchip]

If you had any doubts about the psychotic nature of the Obama administration then the release by the pentagon of Israels nuke program ought to lay those doubts to rest:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ ... RQ_go68ics

[callmeslick]

use of the word psychotic says it all. You need professional help.

[vision]

How dare US citizens use the Freedom of Information Act! The US government must keep the secrets of other countries (secrets from decades ago that everyone knows about anyway)!

[Z..]

I think it's a good thing! Hell, if they have those types of weapons then they don't need us to start a fight for them. Good information to have! Thanks Obama!

[Tunnelcat]

Heck, Israel's nuke program was essentially an open secret anyway. Nukes aren't good deterrents unless your enemies already know you have them.

[Spidey]

I think if Obama waved his dick out of the front door of the White House, some people would make an excuse for it.

[Nightshade]

Heck, Israel's nuke program was essentially an open secret anyway. Nukes aren't good deterrents unless your enemies already know you have them.

The reason for this disclosure- is to justify the upcoming 'deal' with Iran. It certainly is a deal for Iran- the mullahs get to keep their nuclear weapons program without any real concessions. In fact, any 'concessions' made by Iran will almost certainly be ignored and tossed away by Iran once the sanctions are lifted.

Again- Obama's legacy will be devastating war- more dead bodies and the final destruction of "Pax Americana." The relative calm of the last few decades is completely broken and Obama has let slip the dogs of war by way of his symbolic 'peacemaking.'

[Vander]

Again- Obama's legacy will be devastating war- more dead bodies and the final destruction of "Pax Americana." The relative calm of the last few decades is completely broken and Obama has let slip the dogs of war by way of his symbolic 'peacemaking.'

Huh? So we should invade Iran, right? That would TOTALLY avoid "devastating war."

wtf

[Nightshade]

Again- Obama's legacy will be devastating war- more dead bodies and the final destruction of "Pax Americana." The relative calm of the last few decades is completely broken and Obama has let slip the dogs of war by way of his symbolic 'peacemaking.'

Huh? So we should invade Iran, right? That would TOTALLY avoid "devastating war."

wtf

Yes Vander, that's EXACTLY what I meant.

No- sanctions should have remained in place and in fact tightened further. There should have been no 'deal' until Iran agreed to destroy all of its nuclear facilities. Simple as that.

[Vander]

Does Iran have the right to pursue civilian/peaceful nuclear energy? I'm not asking if you think that's what they're doing.

[Nightshade]

Does Iran have the right to pursue civilian/peaceful nuclear energy? I'm not asking if you think that's what they're doing.

Ask yourself this- do you really think Iran is developing nuclear capability for peaceful civilian use?

Do they really need nuclear energy?

[Vander]

Ask yourself this- do you really think Iran is developing nuclear capability for peaceful civilian use?

I think their nuclear ambitions probably include both civilian and defense use.

Do they really need nuclear energy?

Nuclear energy may very well be a key source going forward. So, quite possibly.

Now, again, does Iran have the right to pursue civilian/peaceful nuclear energy?

[Will Robinson]

Hell they have 'a right' to pursue nuclear weaponry as well as energy on general principle.

But the powers that be, the U.S. being one of them, have decided they can't be trusted with the weaponry part and there were some much stronger measures in place that would have likely slowed the acquisition down and was looking like it could lead to massive revolt that might have even unseated the religious nutbag hold on the government there. Obama decided to back off.

Now in light of Obama's decision to go and topple other tyrannical leaders in the region (Muammar al-Qaddafi)...or even to poke at them and then leave them in power (Bashar al-Assad)...and pulling out prematurely from Iraq...all of those choices creating all sorts of problems in the region like a huge vacuum for ISIS to fill....it is kind of hard to suggest he was in favor of the effort 'but had to back off because it was destabilizing the region. He obviously wasn't too concerned with that scenario in a general sense.

No, in fact Iran is ultimately going to be filling the vacuum as well as fueling the fires that burn in the region while starting new ones and will likely become the biggest, baddest, nuclear-weapon-weilding player in the middle east. Their long term goal for establishing themselves as the Supreme Authority of Islamic law to dominate the region made much more possible now because of Obama's decisions.

So you have to ask yourself, is he that dumb...or is he that smart? The answer depends on which result you think he was after.

[woodchip]

Does Iran have the right to pursue civilian/peaceful nuclear energy? I'm not asking if you think that's what they're doing.

Don't know if you remember, there was a time that we were talking about someone like the Russians supplying Iran with the fuel they needed to run nuclear reactors. Haven't heard much about that lately so the question is, why do they need the centrifuges to make their own. It is not like they don't have enough oil reserves for their energy needs (unless you think they want to go green and protect the environment)

What Iran needs are the refineries to turn that oil into something useful. Last I heard they had to import their gasoline. In short Iran has a right to pursue nuclear energy. Unfortunately, Iran has avowed to destroy other countries and since the IAEA does not have free rein to inspect there, I'd say their peaceful intentions for nuclear power is highly suspect. As such we need to prevent them from getting it.

[vision]

Don't know if you remember, there was a time that we were talking about someone like the Russians supplying Iran with the fuel they needed to run nuclear reactors.

You can't have cheap, affordable nuclear power when you have to buy it from your neighbor. I wouldn't exactly trust the Russians, who are doing their best to use resources they supply to the EU as leverage in their takeover of Ukraine.

It is not like they don't have enough oil reserves for their energy needs (unless you think they want to go green and protect the environment)

Yes, it's only in the US and Australia where conservative morons don't believe in global warming. Also, nuclear is way cheaper, cleaner, and efficient than fossil fuels.

[Vander]

Now in light of Obama's decision to go and topple other tyrannical leaders in the region (Muammar al-Qaddafi)...or even to poke at them and then leave them in power (Bashar al-Assad)...and pulling out prematurely from Iraq...all of those choices creating all sorts of problems in the region like a huge vacuum for ISIS to fill....it is kind of hard to suggest he was in favor of the effort 'but had to back off because it was destabilizing the region. He obviously wasn't too concerned with that scenario in a general sense.

The Arab Spring destabilized Qadaffi and Assad. Bush destabilized Iraq with his fools errand to remake the region. I don't know what the right decision is for any of this, I just know that a lot of it isn't really our decision to make.

I'm not saying I want more countries with the ability to produce nuclear weapons, but we're not going to keep that lid on forever. And when that time comes, I don't want our legacy to be the guys who bombed the ★■◆● out of everything. It may be a bit late for that, but we don't have to keep throwing in good money after bad.

I don't know, I'm just a starry eyed liberal who doesn't want America to dominate the world to plunder its resources to sustain our short sighted way of life. I'm trying to think further down the road than just a few generations. We all have to live together on this little rock floating in space.

[Will Robinson]

The Arab Spring wasnt without plenty of Obama administration manipulating. It is completely wrong in the context of this conversation to point to it as something removed from his policy.

'America plundering' isn't the only alternative to opening doors to Iranian Shia domination of the most dangerous cultures boiling over as they do. We have no choice but to be a part of the end result so what we do or refuse to do is creating the outcome regardless of the concerns you raised.

[Vander]

The rise of Fundamentalist Islam is a direct result of our manipulations in pursuit of their resources. I get that it's spilled milk, and we don't get to go back and change history. That we now get to take a big ole bite of that sh!t sandwich.

But we continue to do it in pursuit of their resources. I don't see how continuing to repeat these mistakes does anything but make that sandwich bigger. We wouldn't give two sh!ts about stability in the area if we didn't need that stability to suck them dry. If only they'd just peacefully bend over and let us have our way with them, right?

So yeah, lets continue to shape the region how we see fit. It's worked out great so far.

[callmeslick]

good to see Vander gets it.

[Will Robinson]

The rise of Fundamentalist Islam is a direct result of our manipulations in pursuit of their resources...

Is that "pursuit" a bunch of western thugs stealing the resources so the 'fundamentalist' are merely victims rising up to protect their neighbors oil reserves?

Or, is that pursuit a consumer base and the fundamentalists are rising up to kill their neighbors for becoming corrupted by western influence and gold?

The simplification, for rhetorical purpose, that 'plundering' narrative depends on is not conducive to honest discussion. Fundamentalists are not 'the result of oil business', be it respectable or dirty. That is hyperbole.

Fundamentalism in the Islamic world is almost as old as the oil itself. It is a tool that is used to rally the people to do the clerics bidding, to justify the punishments delivered by the authority....'doing Allahs will' ... and the clerics are usually aligning themselves with a warlord type/dictator or they are one themselves.

And that is why the place is violent in comparison to the west because 'God' is in charge as interpreted by the stronger bullies instead of human rights being the test for any laws validity regardless of what any God might have said. That dynamic, that fundamental, has nothing to do with how much we pay for oil....

When you understand that is when you 'get it' for real. Instead of 'getting what slick is selling'.

[callmeslick]

Will now thinks he understands how Islam and the Muslim world operate, and moreover, the historical tendencies. This is getting too funny to read with beverages in hand!!

[Vander]

Is that "pursuit" a bunch of western thugs stealing the resources so the 'fundamentalist' are merely victims rising up to protect their neighbors oil reserves?

Or, is that pursuit a consumer base and the fundamentalists are rising up to kill their neighbors for becoming corrupted by western influence and gold?

The simplification, for rhetorical purpose, that 'plundering' narrative depends on is not conducive to honest discussion. Fundamentalists are not 'the result of oil business', be it respectable or dirty. That is hyperbole.

The "pursuit" is the endeavor to control the resource. The more moderate Islamicists tended to be more socialist. In the context of the cold war, we just couldn't have that. So a vastly over-simplified history would be we teamed up with and promoted the more fundamentalist Islamicists to gain control of the resource, or at least keep that control from going to the Soviets. If there's one thing an Islamic fundamentalist hates more than a Christian, it's an athiest.

Yes, fundamental Islam has a long history. But we actively promoted it after WWII to control the resources. Those machinations and clashes of culture have bred a lot of the hatred we see today.

I agree that the Christianity-dominated west seems more predisposed to a government where church and state are separate than Islam is, but don't kid yourself. There are plenty of Americans who believe government should be run by the strict dictates of Christian theology.

One of the great bonuses about being an athiest is that I can say they're all crazy.

[vision]

One of the great bonuses about being an athiest is that I can say they're all crazy.

Ramen, brother.

[Will Robinson]

...
I agree that the Christianity-dominated west seems more predisposed to a government where church and state are separate than Islam is, but don't kid yourself. There are plenty of Americans who believe government should be run by the strict dictates of Christian theology.

And yet there are no official State issued fatwah's condemning non believers to death....prison time for people bringing the Koran into the country....etc. etc.
So the distinction I made still stands up strong in spite of you citing our own fundamentalist citizens. Because, unlike the fundamentalists in the middle east, ours don't have the power to interpret our Constitution to legalize their crazy preferences nor do they have the manpower to force that change.

It's the cultural differences that are rooted in where we draw the authority that creates such a stark difference between the roles our nutbags play and the role theirs do.

And regardless of how we have propped up bad actors in the past to keep Soviets from owning the region/resources we still have to play a role in the future or else things will be much worse for us and lots of other Western nations. As Colin Powell said to G.W. Bush, if you break it you own it. Well we broke it long ago, before G.W. was even out of kindergarten, so now we own it and that includes our current President be held responsible for his role. And it includes a lot of his fans making ridiculous excuses for him.

[Nightshade]

One of the great bonuses about being an athiest is that I can say they're all crazy.

The problem is that some atheists seem to be blind to muslim 'craziness' because islam is not Christianity. Unreformed islam AS IT IS WRITTEN and PRACTICED is a barbaric 7th century ideology. It may not exactly be a 'religion' as it is an entire social and governmental system- whereas other religions are NOT.

I'm an atheist that sees which 'religion' presents the most current and lethal threat to secular free thinking- and islam is IT.

[Spidey]

The rise of Fundamentalist Islam is a direct result of our manipulations in pursuit of their resources.

We may have opened Pandora’s Box, but we didn’t create what came out, the potential for that was there already.

[Vander]

And yet there are no official State issued fatwah's condemning non believers to death....prison time for people bringing the Koran into the country....etc. etc.
So the distinction I made still stands up strong in spite of you citing our own fundamentalist citizens. Because, unlike the fundamentalists in the middle east, ours don't have the power to interpret our Constitution to legalize their crazy preferences nor do they have the manpower to force that change.

It's the cultural differences that are rooted in where we draw the authority that creates such a stark difference between the roles our nutbags play and the role theirs do.

Yeah? You aren't exactly going to get me to disagree with you that our form of government is better, but that didn't really do much good for black people in the Jim Crow south living under the exact same form of government. Or the native americans we slaughtered while conquering this land.

The simple fact is that knocking over a government and installing our Constitution and laws does not change the culture of the people.

And regardless of how we have propped up bad actors in the past to keep Soviets from owning the region/resources we still have to play a role in the future or else things will be much worse for us and lots of other Western nations. As Colin Powell said to G.W. Bush, if you break it you own it. Well we broke it long ago, before G.W. was even out of kindergarten, so now we own it and that includes our current President be held responsible for his role. And it includes a lot of his fans making ridiculous excuses for him.

"You break it you own it" is ridiculous and is hardly any sort of truism. We may bear responsibility for some of the breaking, but that does not mean we can just do whatever we want with it. As I said earlier, a lot of those decisions are not ours to make.

Please don't interpret my comments as making excuses for Obama. While I do think he's a serviceable centrist President, and an obvious step up from Smirk, he's not my tribal leader.

The problem is that some atheists seem to be blind to muslim 'craziness' because islam is not Christianity. Unreformed islam AS IT IS WRITTEN and PRACTICED is a barbaric 7th century ideology. It may not exactly be a 'religion' as it is an entire social and governmental system- whereas other religions are NOT.

I'm an atheist that sees which 'religion' presents the most current and lethal threat to secular free thinking- and islam is IT.

I have blindspots, but I don't think this is one of them. Once belief turns into action, it's subject to moral judgement. Not everything is morally equivalent, even taking into account cultural differences. Some things are just wrong, even if they're the norm.

[Will Robinson]

And yet there are no official State issued fatwah's condemning non believers to death....prison time for people bringing the Koran into the country....etc. etc.
So the distinction I made still stands up strong in spite of you citing our own fundamentalist citizens. Because, unlike the fundamentalists in the middle east, ours don't have the power to interpret our Constitution to legalize their crazy preferences nor do they have the manpower to force that change.

It's the cultural differences that are rooted in where we draw the authority that creates such a stark difference between the roles our nutbags play and the role theirs do.

Yeah? You aren't exactly going to get me to disagree with you that our form of government is better, but that didn't really do much good for black people in the Jim Crow south living under the exact same form of government. Or the native americans we slaughtered while conquering this land.

Actually, the unique fundamental core of what became american culture...the inalienable rights of all men, government subservient to the citizens, etc. is exactly why it ultimately worked out for the slaves.
The founders couldn't get slavery abolished in the founding documents outright, plenty of slave holders were fighting that from being put in and in order to get all the states on board the anti slavery faction had to leave it to the future to change it. The foundation was there though to undermine the practice, and the conflicting stipulations were hashed out, slavery abolished.

Where as the slavery and oppression of class systems, racial segregation, religious divisions, etc. flourished elsewhere around the globe. So 'our form of government' ultimately prevailed. Again, because it was never up for interpretation by 'god's spokesmen', no 'ayatohllas'. It was from an authority above men that the right for all men to be considered equal was 'recognized' (not established) and it resonated within the people. That is the cornerstone of our culture.

The simple fact is that knocking over a government and installing our Constitution and laws does not change the culture of the people.

We have never done that. We've knocked over some but I can't think of anywhere we have a mirror of our Constitution. I don't think it can be done.

And regardless of how we have propped up bad actors in the past to keep Soviets from owning the region/resources we still have to play a role in the future or else things will be much worse for us and lots of other Western nations. As Colin Powell said to G.W. Bush, if you break it you own it. Well we broke it long ago, before G.W. was even out of kindergarten, so now we own it and that includes our current President be held responsible for his role. And it includes a lot of his fans making ridiculous excuses for him.

"You break it you own it" is ridiculous and is hardly any sort of truism. We may bear responsibility for some of the breaking, but that does not mean we can just do whatever we want with it. As I said earlier, a lot of those decisions are not ours to make.

You totally misunderstood the comment. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Powells use of the phrase. I was referring to his warning Bush that the mess you make by destroying Saddams reign will become the U.S.'s responsibility and the negative outcome that he said was certain to result would be Bush's fault.
I wasn't implying we have rights to do bad things there because we won a fight. Not at all.
I was saying we made the mess, we own the blame and have a responsibility to not scurry away now.

Obama broke Libya. Tried to break Syria. He owns the mess he helped create. He had plenty to do with the vacuum and rise to power of bad actors. He would like to turn tail and say he has just been trying to retreat the Bush advance but only a fool would let him make that excuse.

Please don't interpret my comments as making excuses for Obama. While I do think he's a serviceable centrist President, and an obvious step up from Smirk, he's not my tribal leader.

I don't think you are making excuses, per se, but there are some here, as you have no doubt noticed, who have already tried to co-opt your voice because they sense a legitimacy and honesty there that they sorely lack themselves.

I particularly despise the tactic. It's like a cancer trying to find a healthy host so I aggravate them for it.

[Ferno]

And yet there are no official State issued fatwah's condemning non believers to death....prison time for people bringing the Koran into the country....etc. etc.
So the distinction I made still stands up strong in spite of you citing our own fundamentalist citizens. Because, unlike the fundamentalists in the middle east, ours don't have the power to interpret our Constitution to legalize their crazy preferences nor do they have the manpower to force that change.

It's the cultural differences that are rooted in where we draw the authority that creates such a stark difference between the roles our nutbags play and the role theirs do.

Yeah? You aren't exactly going to get me to disagree with you that our form of government is better, but that didn't really do much good for black people in the Jim Crow south living under the exact same form of government. Or the native americans we slaughtered while conquering this land.

The simple fact is that knocking over a government and installing our Constitution and laws does not change the culture of the people.

And regardless of how we have propped up bad actors in the past to keep Soviets from owning the region/resources we still have to play a role in the future or else things will be much worse for us and lots of other Western nations. As Colin Powell said to G.W. Bush, if you break it you own it. Well we broke it long ago, before G.W. was even out of kindergarten, so now we own it and that includes our current President be held responsible for his role. And it includes a lot of his fans making ridiculous excuses for him.

"You break it you own it" is ridiculous and is hardly any sort of truism. We may bear responsibility for some of the breaking, but that does not mean we can just do whatever we want with it. As I said earlier, a lot of those decisions are not ours to make.

Please don't interpret my comments as making excuses for Obama. While I do think he's a serviceable centrist President, and an obvious step up from Smirk, he's not my tribal leader.

The problem is that some atheists seem to be blind to muslim 'craziness' because islam is not Christianity. Unreformed islam AS IT IS WRITTEN and PRACTICED is a barbaric 7th century ideology. It may not exactly be a 'religion' as it is an entire social and governmental system- whereas other religions are NOT.

I'm an atheist that sees which 'religion' presents the most current and lethal threat to secular free thinking- and islam is IT.

I have blindspots, but I don't think this is one of them. Once belief turns into action, it's subject to moral judgement. Not everything is morally equivalent, even taking into account cultural differences. Some things are just wrong, even if they're the norm.

Nicely done.

[vision]

Obama broke Libya. Tried to break Syria.

Revisionist history already at work. Nice.

[Vander]

Actually, the unique fundamental core of what became american culture...the inalienable rights of all men, government subservient to the citizens, etc. is exactly why it ultimately worked out for the slaves.
The founders couldn't get slavery abolished in the founding documents outright, plenty of slave holders were fighting that from being put in and in order to get all the states on board the anti slavery faction had to leave it to the future to change it. The foundation was there though to undermine the practice, and the conflicting stipulations were hashed out, slavery abolished.

Where as the slavery and oppression of class systems, racial segregation, religious divisions, etc. flourished elsewhere around the globe. So 'our form of government' ultimately prevailed. Again, because it was never up for interpretation by 'god's spokesmen', no 'ayatohllas'. It was from an authority above men that the right for all men to be considered equal was 'recognized' (not established) and it resonated within the people. That is the cornerstone of our culture.

Legal interpretation, just like religious interpretation, is performed by man. The same text can be interpreted differently depending on the interpreter, and is usually subject to the same prevailing cultural bias. And just like religion, it derives it's power from the people who practice and adhere to it. I mean, we've had some pretty abhorant Supreme Court decisions. Is it really all that different from a group of ayatollahs interpreting scripture? We're just a Supreme Court Justice here and there away from a pretty different country.

As an athiest, I'm probably misjudging the distance in weight and fervor between the two.

You totally misunderstood the comment. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Powells use of the phrase. I was referring to his warning Bush that the mess you make by destroying Saddams reign will become the U.S.'s responsibility and the negative outcome that he said was certain to result would be Bush's fault.
I wasn't implying we have rights to do bad things there because we won a fight. Not at all.
I was saying we made the mess, we own the blame and have a responsibility to not scurry away now.

I think I did misunderstand you, but I still don't necessarily agree. Take Lybia for example. Would it be any better there if we put boots on the ground after air strikes helped overthrow Gaddafi? Maybe, I don't know. We'd be in the middle of another civil war. What if we just let them fight it out amongst themselves? They seem pretty content to do that with or without us there. I'd prefer without us. But then, I probably would've intervened in the first place. I guess most around the world were sick of Gaddafi.

I don't think you are making excuses, per se, but there are some here, as you have no doubt noticed, who have already tried to co-opt your voice because they sense a legitimacy and honesty there that they sorely lack themselves.

I particularly despise the tactic. It's like a cancer trying to find a healthy host so I aggravate them for it.

Noted.

I was digging through the archives reading through some of my old posts from 10 years ago. I wanted to see if my opinions and thoughts held up. I think they do! Too bad it only goes back to 2004. I was hoping to read the 9/11 - Iraq era.

[woodchip]

Obama broke Libya. Tried to break Syria.

Revisionist history already at work. Nice.

Perhaps you are the revisionist. The Pentagon did not want us backing the rebels in Libya yet that is what we did. The red line was Obama's attempt to break Syria but we all saw how that turned out.

[callmeslick]

[

The simple fact is that knocking over a government and installing our Constitution and laws does not change the culture of the people.

We have never done that. We've knocked over some but I can't think of anywhere we have a mirror of our Constitution. I don't think it can be done.

that was essentially the whole nation building ideal of the neo-conservative movement and precisely what was proposed for Iraq.

[Will Robinson]

[

The simple fact is that knocking over a government and installing our Constitution and laws does not change the culture of the people.

We have never done that. We've knocked over some but I can't think of anywhere we have a mirror of our Constitution. I don't think it can be done.

that was essentially the whole nation building ideal of the neo-conservative movement and precisely what was proposed for Iraq.

I look at what we actually did there and don't see any attempt to install our representative republic. The Iraqis formed their government...actually they just reformed it without Saddam and his Sunni bias which was plenty of stupid in my opinion but not close to trying to remake Iraq in our image.

You look at the event and then try to characterize events to fit the party narrative. It's no wonder we see things differently.

[Will Robinson]

Obama broke Libya. Tried to break Syria.

Revisionist history already at work. Nice.

You are the same guy who wanted to convince us Iran had no role in spreading terrorism around the region.
So I'll dismiss your attempt to excuse Obama and his role in the Syrian and Libyan revolts as more of the same nonsense.

[callmeslick]

since you never showed one shred of proof that Iran ever did anything past set up an armed resistance against Israel in Lebanon, thirty years ago, I'll
just assume you haven't gotten much of a grasp on the rest.

[woodchip]

since you never showed one shred of proof that Iran ever did anything past set up an armed resistance against Israel in Lebanon, thirty years ago, I'll
just assume you haven't gotten much of a grasp on the rest.

Since you have obviously not been following, I'll just assume your grasp of reality is lacking.

[vision]

Obama broke Libya. Tried to break Syria.

Revisionist history already at work. Nice.

Perhaps you are the revisionist. The Pentagon did not want us backing the rebels in Libya yet that is what we did. The red line was Obama's attempt to break Syria but we all saw how that turned out.

First, most of you morons have either forgotten or ignored that our action in Libya was at the request of their ambassador and was under UN charter. We did exactly what was requested of us by the International community and not a single thing more. This is exactly how our foreign policy should work. Syria is another perfect example of excellent foreign policy in action, but you goons get too caught up in political rhetoric to think straight. Any lone action by the US in Syria would be a catastrophe, then and now. We do it together or not at all.

You guys all know the facts but can't get over your ridiculous obsession with the president. Here are the facts again in case you forgot: Keep the Middle East unstable enough that we can control the flow of oil, but not so much that everything goes to ★■◆●. This is the extent of our "good will" in that region and it has nothing to do with this president or any other for the last 100 years.

[Will Robinson]

Can you please show us where the U.N asked us to gather surface to air missiles there and allow them to be shipped to Islamic rebels in Syria?
Otherwise I think you are the moron generating rhetoric.

[Ferno]

that was essentially the whole nation building ideal of the neo-conservative movement and precisely what was proposed for Iraq.

The only way that would have worked is if the populace actually wanted it.