Narcissist In Chief's F-ed up Proxy War

Posted by not-you 8 years, 9 months ago to Government
23 comments | Share | Flag

If ObeyMe wants to fight an effective proxy war against ISIS why in the hell doesn't he do this for the Kurds. They don't need billions of dollars worth of 'training," ...all they need are the arms because the Peshmerga can DO the rest. He's is going to dick-around and get the US into a shooting incident with Putin. Nothing more dangerous than a Moron Narcissist.
SOURCE URL: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/politics/syria-rebel-groups-ammunition-50-tons/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
    There is nothing rational or pro-freedom in our intervention or involvement in the Mid-east.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      You are exactly correct, Zenphamy. The USA should never had intervened in that area to start with--either with by open warfare or covert CIA manipulations--as both of these methods have done nothing but destabilize the region and cause untold human misery. That having been said, the US has done the deed and continues to meddle...so why not be an equal opportunity meddler?

      In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned the nation about the dangers of foreign policy entanglements and participating in foreign wars. I expect old George would have taken it even further than your sainted Rand, and not even intervened to liberate, "slave pens," [But then Ms. Rand while having many good ideas about individual rights undercut a chunk of her credibility with me when I learned that she advocated elective abortions purely for reasons of convenience.]
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
        Damn, that's one heck of a leap. From involvement in the Mid-east to Rand's opinion of abortions. I won't even try to keep up with that kind of thinking.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
          Sad for you that you can't follow the leap. Perhaps I think much faster than you. The bottom line is that Rand (while quite accomplished) was not always right. She was emphatic about the immorality of force and violence being used to abrogate the rights of others--most especially the taking of someone's life not in self-defense. Then she turns around and endorses abortion on demand for reasons other than to save the mother's life. Think about it long enough and hard enough and maybe even some of you will realize that she contradicted her own philosophy and premises about the unalienable right to life of humans. Well..unless some humans are not humans OR there is some mystic "Birth Fairy" who lurks in the birth canal and makes a "fetus" human during the couple of minutes it takes to pass through. Yep, this was the pivotal issue that caused her to lose some of he credibility with me. I can't write it any clearer that this--well unless English is a second language for some of you and I suspect that is true in some cases here. And, conscious, you are exactly correct my screen name was very carefully chosen to convey that I think for myself. Great that you caught that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
            It's important to Objectivists (I understand that's not you, no pun intended) to understand the principles and values from which Rand drew her opinion on abortion. It derives from a human exists and has an identity and has a mind that can reason and in order to survive, must use that mind and owns themselves and the output of that rational mind. Life without a mind is not a human and a fetus doesn't have a mind, only the cells and biological support to potentially develop into a human with a mind. It also derives from the self ownership of the woman. She owns her self and has the right of self determination and a right can not be taken away nor abrogated for any reason whatsoever. It as well derives from the morality of non-altruism, that a human has no obligation to another for any reason, only to their own individual life.

            While I understand that you don't agree with that, it is where an Objectivist derives their opinion on the subject. It has nothing to do with passing through the birth canal. Some Objectivist will even opine that it's nearly a year before the mind of a baby really makes enough neural connections and development to be considered a complete human.
            Just a little pedanticism, for fun.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 9 months ago
            Thinking for yourself is an admirable quality that typically doesn't advertise speed or independence. Those attributes are easily observed when present and are not distinguished by condescension.

            I hope it's clear that whether someone agrees or disagrees with Rand doesn't indicate they think for themselves.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago
    He won't do this with the Kurds because they are good people, many like us, appreciate freedom and wouldn't go for the new world disorder government which is exactly what bo bo is puppet to.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 8 years, 9 months ago
    Syria is about a Russian oil pipe line pure and simple. Putin will play both sides to achieve his goal, Remember, chess is the Russian national past time - not basketball or golf.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    Celebrating his peculiar military leadership style along with you one more thumbs up and the observation on one todays headlines. ObaMao honors traitor ignores hero.

    To follow one of Limbaughs greatest lines. "Let's be fair about this. You have a deserter and traitor on the one hand and a military combat veteran on the other. Given your anti-military stance which one would you honor? Just be glad former Janet Napolitano wasn't around. She's the one that claimed the governments greatest enemy is former and present members of the military. Look at the way his congress takes care of them. The same one percent diss-missile given to the elderly and retirees.

    In light of that. Then look at his lack of morals, values and standards. Hell hath no fury like an unhonorable failure and wannabe man.

    What else could he have done. By his low standards it is a wonder the hero wasn't stood in front of firing squad and the traitor wasn't made Secretary of State. Just to follow past examples.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo