We should not lift the ban because it keeps our natural resources here in this country. Where they belong. When Big oil bought those mineral rights....it was with that fact that it was for domestic consumption. Should all the folks that sold their mineral rights get to renegotiate with big oil to reflect the change you advocate?I could go along with this if we only sold houses to Americans, and foreigners couldn't buy them or build them.
Next ... if we have plenty of oil in this country...it makes War'ing in the Middle East over that resource , pointless. Understand? No Iraq war. No point. We have plenty of oil.
Should we sell our Western water overseas ... when we have California in a drought? California , which supplies much of our fruits and vegetables? Would it benefit , the person with the water rights? Yes, I suppose , but at the expense of all. We do not do stupid shit like that. Or we used to not before these large Companies washed your pea brain with CaCa.
We are talking about natural resources....not something produced. We limit sales of other things to other countries all the time in the name on national interests.
Are you advocating selling centrifuges to Iran in the name of Free Trade?
Come on lustladyboy....thinking before you ask a stupid question will save us all a little time. Originally Posted by WTF
- DSK
- 10-06-2015, 05:13 PM
- DSK
- 10-06-2015, 05:18 PM
you d o understand that there is a certain business sector that does not want that embargo lifted.Obviously the refiners want to restrict their suppliers from selling abroad so they can refine it and sell it abroad at a greater profit - bunch of monopolists you fucking anti-American flop house builder.
I will provide counter links when I get home Originally Posted by WTF
- WTF
- 10-06-2015, 05:30 PM
- WTF
- 10-06-2015, 05:35 PM
Obviously the refiners want to restrict their suppliers from selling abroad so they can refine it and sell it abroad at a greater profit - bunch of monopolists you fucking anti-American flop house builder. Originally Posted by DSKMillion dollar flop houses you can't afford. ..
You boys are free market MoFo's except when it comes to stem cell research! Then it is a human being and you get your moral outrage on and turn off your free market radar!
- DSK
- 10-06-2015, 08:41 PM
- DSK
- 10-06-2015, 08:43 PM
Million dollar flop houses you can't afford. ..I would create a free market for kidneys and such, as well as stem cells, but then you motherfuckers would make up some bullshit about Asian slaves.
You boys are free market MoFo's except when it comes to stem cell research! Then it is a human being and you get your moral outrage on and turn off your free market radar! Originally Posted by WTF
- Guest040616
- 10-06-2015, 08:47 PM
I could go along with this if we only sold houses to Americans, and foreigners couldn't buy them or build them. Originally Posted by DSKYou dumb shit, if our forefathers would have taken this approach, only a Native American would be able to buy a home in America.
That is especially true of those of the Jewish Welsher persuasion. Look in the friggin' mirror!
Idiot!
- lustylad
- 10-06-2015, 10:36 PM
President ‘Mumbo-Jumbo’
Obama’s preferred method for dealing with disagreement is denigration.
By BRET STEPHENS
Oct. 5, 2015 7:23 p.m. ET
David Petraeus testified last month to the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Regarding Syria, the former general and CIA director urged a credible threat to destroy Bashar Assad’s air force if it continues to bomb its own people. He also recommended “the establishment of enclaves in Syria protected by coalition air power, where a moderate Sunni force could be supported and where additional forces could be trained, internally displaced persons could find refuge, and the Syrian opposition could organize.”
But Barack Obama does not agree. At his Friday press conference, the president described such views as “mumbo-jumbo,” “half-baked ideas,” “as-if” solutions, a willful effort to “downplay the challenges involved in the situation.” He says the critics have no answers to the questions of “what exactly would you do and how would you fund it and how would you sustain it.”
America’s greatest living general might as well have been testifying to his shower drain for all the difference his views are going to make in this administration.
So it is with this president. It’s not enough for him to stake and defend his positions. He wants you to know that he thinks deeper, sees further, knows better, operates from a purer motive. His preferred method for dealing with disagreement is denigration. If Republicans want a tougher line in Syria, they’re warmongers. If Hillary Clinton thinks a no-fly zone is a good idea, she’s playing politics: There is obviously a difference,” the president tut-tutted about his former secretary of state’s position, “between running for president and being president.”
You can interpret that jab as a sign Mr. Obama is urging Joe Biden to run. It’s also a reminder that Mr. Obama believes his Syria policy—the one that did nothing as 250,000 people were murdered; the one that did nothing as his own red lines were crossed; the one that allowed ISIS to flourish; the one that has created the greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century; the one currently being exploited by Russia and Iran for geopolitical advantage—is a success.
That’s because the president’s fundamental conviction about American foreign policy is that we need less of it—less commitment, less expense, less responsibility. Winston Churchill once said that the U.S. could not be “the leading community in the civilized world without being involved in its problems, without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes.” Mr. Obama sees it differently. He is the president who would prefer not to. He is the Bartleby of 21st century geopolitics.
As for what a serious Syria policy might look like, the U.S. proved it was capable of creating safe havens and enforcing no-fly zones in 1991 with Operation Provide Comfort, which stopped Saddam Hussein from massacring Kurds in northern Iraq the way he had butchered Shiites in southern Iraq.
This is how we wound up preventing what might otherwise have been a refugee crisis that would have rivaled the current exodus from Syria. It’s how we got an Iraqi Kurdistan—the one undisputed U.S. achievement in the Middle East in the past 25 years. It’s how we were later able to stop ISIS from swallowing northern Iraq and eastern Syria whole.
Reprising that formula in Syria won’t be simple, but what’s the alternative? John Kerry wants another grand conference in Geneva so the warring parties can settle their differences in a civilized way. Will ISIS be invited to the table? Donald Trump says that if the Russians “want to hit ISIS, that’s OK with me”—except the Russians are hitting U.S.-backed rebels instead of ISIS. There’s a view that staying out of Syria is the best way to get bad guys on all sides to fight their way to mutual extinction. But the lesson of the Syrian war is that chaos does not annihilate the forces of jihad. It turbocharges them.
“It is frequently said that there is no ‘military solution’ to Syria,” Gen. Petraeus said in his testimony. “This may be true, but it is also misleading. For, in every case, if there is to be hope of a political settlement, a certain military and security context is required—and that context will not materialize on its own.” Is this, too, mumbo-jumbo?
In the meantime, note what Vladimir Putin, lectured by Mr. Obama for getting Russia “stuck in a quagmire,” is achieving in Syria.
For a relatively trivial investment of some jet fighters and a brigade-sized support force, Moscow extends its influence in the eastern Mediterranean, deepens a commercially and strategically productive alliance with Iran, humiliates the U.S., boosts Mr. Putin’s popularity at home, and earns a geopolitical card he can play in any number of negotiations—Ukraine, gas contracts, Mr. Assad’s political future, you name it. If things don’t work out, he can pull up stakes within a week without much loss of money, lives or prestige. It’s a perfect play.
I spent some time staring at press pool photos of Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin at their recent encounter at the United Nations. The Russian seems to gaze at the president the way a good chess player approaches an inferior opponent—somewhere between delighted and bored by the intellectual mismatch. We’ve got 16 more months of this to go.
.
Obama’s preferred method for dealing with disagreement is denigration.
By BRET STEPHENS
Oct. 5, 2015 7:23 p.m. ET
David Petraeus testified last month to the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Regarding Syria, the former general and CIA director urged a credible threat to destroy Bashar Assad’s air force if it continues to bomb its own people. He also recommended “the establishment of enclaves in Syria protected by coalition air power, where a moderate Sunni force could be supported and where additional forces could be trained, internally displaced persons could find refuge, and the Syrian opposition could organize.”
But Barack Obama does not agree. At his Friday press conference, the president described such views as “mumbo-jumbo,” “half-baked ideas,” “as-if” solutions, a willful effort to “downplay the challenges involved in the situation.” He says the critics have no answers to the questions of “what exactly would you do and how would you fund it and how would you sustain it.”
America’s greatest living general might as well have been testifying to his shower drain for all the difference his views are going to make in this administration.
So it is with this president. It’s not enough for him to stake and defend his positions. He wants you to know that he thinks deeper, sees further, knows better, operates from a purer motive. His preferred method for dealing with disagreement is denigration. If Republicans want a tougher line in Syria, they’re warmongers. If Hillary Clinton thinks a no-fly zone is a good idea, she’s playing politics: There is obviously a difference,” the president tut-tutted about his former secretary of state’s position, “between running for president and being president.”
You can interpret that jab as a sign Mr. Obama is urging Joe Biden to run. It’s also a reminder that Mr. Obama believes his Syria policy—the one that did nothing as 250,000 people were murdered; the one that did nothing as his own red lines were crossed; the one that allowed ISIS to flourish; the one that has created the greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century; the one currently being exploited by Russia and Iran for geopolitical advantage—is a success.
That’s because the president’s fundamental conviction about American foreign policy is that we need less of it—less commitment, less expense, less responsibility. Winston Churchill once said that the U.S. could not be “the leading community in the civilized world without being involved in its problems, without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes.” Mr. Obama sees it differently. He is the president who would prefer not to. He is the Bartleby of 21st century geopolitics.
As for what a serious Syria policy might look like, the U.S. proved it was capable of creating safe havens and enforcing no-fly zones in 1991 with Operation Provide Comfort, which stopped Saddam Hussein from massacring Kurds in northern Iraq the way he had butchered Shiites in southern Iraq.
This is how we wound up preventing what might otherwise have been a refugee crisis that would have rivaled the current exodus from Syria. It’s how we got an Iraqi Kurdistan—the one undisputed U.S. achievement in the Middle East in the past 25 years. It’s how we were later able to stop ISIS from swallowing northern Iraq and eastern Syria whole.
Reprising that formula in Syria won’t be simple, but what’s the alternative? John Kerry wants another grand conference in Geneva so the warring parties can settle their differences in a civilized way. Will ISIS be invited to the table? Donald Trump says that if the Russians “want to hit ISIS, that’s OK with me”—except the Russians are hitting U.S.-backed rebels instead of ISIS. There’s a view that staying out of Syria is the best way to get bad guys on all sides to fight their way to mutual extinction. But the lesson of the Syrian war is that chaos does not annihilate the forces of jihad. It turbocharges them.
“It is frequently said that there is no ‘military solution’ to Syria,” Gen. Petraeus said in his testimony. “This may be true, but it is also misleading. For, in every case, if there is to be hope of a political settlement, a certain military and security context is required—and that context will not materialize on its own.” Is this, too, mumbo-jumbo?
In the meantime, note what Vladimir Putin, lectured by Mr. Obama for getting Russia “stuck in a quagmire,” is achieving in Syria.
For a relatively trivial investment of some jet fighters and a brigade-sized support force, Moscow extends its influence in the eastern Mediterranean, deepens a commercially and strategically productive alliance with Iran, humiliates the U.S., boosts Mr. Putin’s popularity at home, and earns a geopolitical card he can play in any number of negotiations—Ukraine, gas contracts, Mr. Assad’s political future, you name it. If things don’t work out, he can pull up stakes within a week without much loss of money, lives or prestige. It’s a perfect play.
I spent some time staring at press pool photos of Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin at their recent encounter at the United Nations. The Russian seems to gaze at the president the way a good chess player approaches an inferior opponent—somewhere between delighted and bored by the intellectual mismatch. We’ve got 16 more months of this to go.
.
- lustylad
- 10-06-2015, 10:55 PM
Define "disaster". Originally Posted by timpageAre you fucking kidding me? Every day under this Capitulationist-in-Chief is a disaster in the making! How bad does it need to get for you to acknowledge that?
Syria’s Radiating Danger
Russia’s incursions into Turkey risk tension with NATO.
Oct. 6, 2015 7:14 p.m. ET
Another day, another Mideast surprise for the Obama Administration. Russian warplanes twice violated Turkish—meaning NATO—airspace over the weekend, a provocation that “does not look like an accident,” according to NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. What will the U.S. do if Russia shoots down a Turkish jet, thereby testing NATO’s Article 5 provision that an attack on one Alliance member is an attack on all of them?
This follows Russia’s bombing of U.S.-backed rebel groups in Syria, which in turn comes on the heels of an intelligence-sharing deal between Moscow, Tehran, Damascus and Baghdad. Immediately preceding that was news that the U.S. training of Syrian rebels has been a $500 million debacle, which coincided with news the Pentagon’s Inspector General had opened an investigation into allegations that someone has been air-brushing intelligence assessments of the campaign against Islamic State.
That’s merely the past two weeks. At this rate don’t be surprised if Moscow locks a missile radar on a U.S. fighter, or shoots down an American drone. When an American President indicates he’d rather accept humiliation than responsibility, you can be sure he’s going to be humiliated some more.
None of this was the Mideast painted earlier by Mr. Obama: al Qaeda was on a path to defeat, Bashar Assad’s days “are numbered,” and Syria had been stripped of its chemical arsenal. The President has become an oracle in reverse: Every forecast about the Middle East must be treated as the opposite of what is likely to happen.
Also now exposed as false is the Administration’s hope that the Iran deal would open avenues of regional cooperation with the ayatollahs. Instead, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has read the agreement as capitulation and is now doubling down on his Syria bets. Moscow and Tehran, now openly coordinating their joint intervention on behalf of Mr. Assad, are marching through the open door of U.S. abdication.
The danger is that every unanswered incursion and provocation tempts the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis to further test U.S. limits. What happens when Bashar Assad resumes using sarin gas against his own people, using Russian air power as protection against potential reprisals while blaming the attacks on ISIS?
It’s worth noting that Russian air-space incursions happened over the Turkish border province of Hatay, which has a large Alawite population and which the Assad regime has never recognized as part of Turkey. As former U.S ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey noted Tuesday, the Russian incursions can be read as a warning to Ankara not to meddle in Syria—or that the Russian military is ignorant of the sensitivity of the province and is bumbling into danger. Either way, the chances of a fateful miscalculation are growing.
It would be nice to think that Susan Rice and her team at the U.S. National Security Council are doing some kind of serious contingency planning in the event Moscow decides to pick a bigger fight or truly blunders. Mr. Obama has made it clear he won’t get drawn into a proxy war in Syria, which may be read as the final betrayal of the U.S.-supported forces now being bombed by Russia. Sounding similarly hollow are the Administration’s promises that it will continue to oppose Iran’s regional bids despite the nuclear deal.
In 1947, as Britain’s status as a global power was coming to an end, then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Dalton warned that his government was “drifting in a state of semi-animation, toward the rapids.” For the Obama Presidency, the rapids are in earshot.
.
- WTF
- 10-07-2015, 02:23 PM
- WTF
- 10-07-2015, 02:27 PM
- Jackie S
- 10-07-2015, 03:51 PM
Perhaps President Obama's master plan is to simply confuse the Russians. They have been lead to believe that US Presidents have balls and will not let America be denigrated and humiliated among it's friends.
They must be thinking......."what's he up too. Nobody this naive, and stupid, could be elected President of The United States".
They must be thinking......."what's he up too. Nobody this naive, and stupid, could be elected President of The United States".
- DSK
- 10-07-2015, 04:49 PM
You want a free market for kidneys, stem cells and Asian Slaves!I think you are being negatively influenced by the childish and insufferable asshole Ekim008 and his puerile repetitiveness.
You are essentially forcing your subcontractors to enslave underpaid illegal aliens, in direct contravention of US labor law. It is constructive enslavement and you are criminally and civilly culpable.
- WombRaider
- 10-07-2015, 05:03 PM
Perhaps President Obama's master plan is to simply confuse the Russians. They have been lead to believe that US Presidents have balls and will not let America be denigrated and humiliated among it's friends.This isn't a tough-man contest. Geopolitics requires a deft hand. Let Putin huff and puff. You can't overreact every time someone 'denigrates' you.
They must be thinking......."what's he up too. Nobody this naive, and stupid, could be elected President of The United States". Originally Posted by Jackie S
- WombRaider
- 10-07-2015, 05:07 PM
Are you fucking kidding me? Every day under this Capitulationist-in-Chief is a disaster in the making! How bad does it need to get for you to acknowledge that?This is a perfect example of why someone like you, of such questionable intelligence, reason and judgement, will never sniff the Oval Office. This is not a fucking mafia war or some schoolyard confrontation. It requires a deftness you could never hope to possess. You react to every single thing. You would have us in the middle of a shitstorm quicker than I can say 'LustyTard is a gay dwarf'. Let them fight their own wars. It's not worth an American life.
Syria’s Radiating Danger
Russia’s incursions into Turkey risk tension with NATO.
Oct. 6, 2015 7:14 p.m. ET
Another day, another Mideast surprise for the Obama Administration. Russian warplanes twice violated Turkish—meaning NATO—airspace over the weekend, a provocation that “does not look like an accident,” according to NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. What will the U.S. do if Russia shoots down a Turkish jet, thereby testing NATO’s Article 5 provision that an attack on one Alliance member is an attack on all of them?
This follows Russia’s bombing of U.S.-backed rebel groups in Syria, which in turn comes on the heels of an intelligence-sharing deal between Moscow, Tehran, Damascus and Baghdad. Immediately preceding that was news that the U.S. training of Syrian rebels has been a $500 million debacle, which coincided with news the Pentagon’s Inspector General had opened an investigation into allegations that someone has been air-brushing intelligence assessments of the campaign against Islamic State.
That’s merely the past two weeks. At this rate don’t be surprised if Moscow locks a missile radar on a U.S. fighter, or shoots down an American drone. When an American President indicates he’d rather accept humiliation than responsibility, you can be sure he’s going to be humiliated some more.
None of this was the Mideast painted earlier by Mr. Obama: al Qaeda was on a path to defeat, Bashar Assad’s days “are numbered,” and Syria had been stripped of its chemical arsenal. The President has become an oracle in reverse: Every forecast about the Middle East must be treated as the opposite of what is likely to happen.
Also now exposed as false is the Administration’s hope that the Iran deal would open avenues of regional cooperation with the ayatollahs. Instead, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has read the agreement as capitulation and is now doubling down on his Syria bets. Moscow and Tehran, now openly coordinating their joint intervention on behalf of Mr. Assad, are marching through the open door of U.S. abdication.
The danger is that every unanswered incursion and provocation tempts the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis to further test U.S. limits. What happens when Bashar Assad resumes using sarin gas against his own people, using Russian air power as protection against potential reprisals while blaming the attacks on ISIS?
It’s worth noting that Russian air-space incursions happened over the Turkish border province of Hatay, which has a large Alawite population and which the Assad regime has never recognized as part of Turkey. As former U.S ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey noted Tuesday, the Russian incursions can be read as a warning to Ankara not to meddle in Syria—or that the Russian military is ignorant of the sensitivity of the province and is bumbling into danger. Either way, the chances of a fateful miscalculation are growing.
It would be nice to think that Susan Rice and her team at the U.S. National Security Council are doing some kind of serious contingency planning in the event Moscow decides to pick a bigger fight or truly blunders. Mr. Obama has made it clear he won’t get drawn into a proxy war in Syria, which may be read as the final betrayal of the U.S.-supported forces now being bombed by Russia. Sounding similarly hollow are the Administration’s promises that it will continue to oppose Iran’s regional bids despite the nuclear deal.
In 1947, as Britain’s status as a global power was coming to an end, then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Dalton warned that his government was “drifting in a state of semi-animation, toward the rapids.” For the Obama Presidency, the rapids are in earshot.
. Originally Posted by lustylad