Obama will unilaterally attack Syria Thursday

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,064
Reaction score
2,047
Obama proceeds in Syria without popular support


A Reuters poll last week found popular support for entering the Syrian war was 9 percent. When Obama orders what is now seen as an inevitable attack on government forces there, he will be initiating what will likely be the first-ever military campaign of the modern era launched without popular support.
Click to expand...

Wait a second! Is this the same Obama who said in 2007 that the Constitution does NOT allow the president to authorize a military attack?

It’s amazing what can change in a few years. In 2007, Senator Obama stated the following: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Click to expand...

Didn't Biden once threaten to impeach Bush if he did the same thing?!??

I will wait here to see your outrage.
 
It makes sense to do it before the UN files a report on the latest chemical weapons incident.
 
It hasn't actually happened so any dislike at this point is speculative.

But, playing your game and assuming it has happened my response will be what it's been here. Obama has turned out to be the 3rd Bush Era.
 
Remember that daily mail story about the leaked email concerning faking chemical weapons attacks in Syria? Turns out it was part of quite a large leak - larger than I had realized. That doesn't prove it was not a forgery embedded into a large leak - but it's an interesting point.

So, Syria invited the UN to come in and investigate the alleged attack (as they did before and both the UN and Russian investigations seemed to indicate the rebels were to blame). Obama told Syria it's too little too late and told the UN not to send inspectors. Ban Ki Moon said - sorry Obama, you're not the boss of me - sop Obama said just find out if chemicals were used, not who used them. The inspectors went in and, despite sniper fire trying to keep them out of the areas they made it in.

Western Experts are skeptical weapons grade chemicals were used.

Of course, attacking Syria would be a war crime (as is supplying rebels who use chemical weapons on civilians) but Obama has nothing to worry about. No-one will prosecute him and besides, he's already got his peace prize.
 
Tomorrow? I doubt it.

I see the issue of poison gas as a distraction. Assad needs to go for many other reasons.
 
Glaucus said:
Tomorrow? I doubt it.

I see the issue of poison gas as a distraction. Assad needs to go for many other reasons.
Click to expand...

Like for example he is a friend of Russia and an ally of Iran and he's in control of a lot of land that could be used to run US controlled pipelines.
 
Glaucus said:
Assad needs to go for many other reasons.
Click to expand...

Where is the UN? The US has *NO* business going to war with Syria. There is not even a pretense of a national threat from Syria.

91% of Americans polled are against it. Why now when the slaughter has been going on for months and deaths from potential chemical weapons are minimal? Why Syria at all? People have been slaughtered worse in other countries in recent years.

Let the UN handle it, period. If the UN wants to send troops in or bomb away, they can do it without US involvement.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Like for example he is a friend of Russia and an ally of Iran and he's in control of a lot of land that could be used to run US controlled pipelines.
Click to expand...
Pretty much, at least the first two, the pipelines are far less important than you think, if important at all. Assad has exploited his own people for external interests. He was happy to be a proxy for Iran and Russia and used their money and weapons to oppress the majority of the country (not to mention extending the proxy to Lebanon). It was always a matter of time before the people rose up against him. There is no other way for this to end.
 
redrumloa said:
Let the UN handle it, period. If the UN wants to send troops in or bomb away, they can do it without US involvement.
Click to expand...
The UN needs to block foreign aid to Al Qaeda but they can't do it because the US is the primary offender. The US is fully involved even if they aren't using their own people to do the bombing and killing. The only reason the US is thinking of going in now is that they figure they've bled Assad enough that it should be safe enough to launch an attack now without Assad being able to retaliate beyond his borders and later the US hopes that they can also deal with the Al Qaeda guys they've been funding and using to prevent them from actually getting control of any new government. Good plan - arm Al Qaeda then double cross them. But, at the same time, the US can't back down without losing face.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The UN needs to block foreign aid to Al Qaeda but they can't do it because the US is the primary offender. The US is fully involved even if they aren't using their own people to do the bombing and killing. The only reason the US is thinking of going in now is that they figure they've bled Assad enough that it should be safe enough to launch an attack now without Assad being able to retaliate beyond his borders and later the US hopes that they can also deal with the Al Qaeda guys they've been funding and using to prevent them from actually getting control of any new government. Good plan - arm Al Qaeda then double cross them. But, at the same time, the US can't back down without losing face.
Click to expand...
Why do you come up with this stupid bullshit when you should just tell us the reason you support the murderous Assad is because of his anti-Israel politics. It's no great secret.
 
Glaucus said:
He was happy to be a proxy for Iran and Russia and used their money and weapons to oppress the majority of the country.
Click to expand...
He was also happy to cooperate with the US in torturing people for the CIA and helping out against Iraq. But, hey, there's no honour among thieves.

As for the pipelines - the only reason for extending power is economic. It costs resources to gain territory and the only thing that makes it feasible (not just worth while but actually do-able) is that you end up controlling more resources afterwards. All empires have used their armies to support their wealthy class (and in the last 3 hundred years or so that's been through ownership of the corporate entities). Assad has been wanting to get pipeline deals for years and Russia has been interested in crossing that territory too but other local US aligned parties are happy to not have Syrian competition cutting into their cartel. Real competition would drive down profits (and transit fees).

Increasing wealth is the only reason wars are fought (or, at least, the only reason that successful war fighters fight war). Any entities that fight wars for reasons wholly other than profit end up extinct. Any entities that misjudge the costs of wars end up extinct. War is business, but the people would never fight for someone else's profit so wars have always been sold as bringing freedom to others or bringing the "Good News" or civilizing the savages or for God and Country. War between international powers is no different from turf wars between street gangs, or the mob families or the biker gangs, except in scale and the fact that we are forced to participate by funding it.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
He was also happy to cooperate with the US in torturing people for the CIA and helping out against Iraq. But, hey, there's no honour among thieves.
Click to expand...
Like I've said before, Assad, like Mubarak and Gaddafi are remnants of the cold war. They all need to go. The Middle East is likely to go through a lot more shake ups than this. I see a rise in Islamism and I think the best thing to do is to let them have it. Eventually they will get sick of it and find something else. However, the more effort we put into stamping out the islamists the stronger they will be and the more extreme they will become.

I understand the political motivation of natural resources and you've been trumpeting that since at least 2003, but so far I see very few gains made by the US. Iraq was conquered and then given away. Not much good news coming out of Afghanistan either. You've made suggestions in the past that the CIA or FBI has helped (or looked the other way) al-qaeda with their 9/11 attacks so that they can get their hands on the all important oil fields. And they had their chance and then walked away? It doesn't add up. If it was all orchestrated to achieve a goal, you don't abandon the goal when it's within your grasp. Now you're making similar claims with al-Qaeda in Syria, claiming al-Qaeda is an extension of US foreign policy to achieve a US strategic goal. Well, I sure hope they get it right this time and not walk away in the end. :rolleyes:
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Remember that daily mail story about the leaked email concerning faking chemical weapons attacks in Syria? Turns out it was part of quite a large leak - larger than I had realized. That doesn't prove it was not a forgery embedded into a large leak - but it's an interesting point.

So, Syria invited the UN to come in and investigate the alleged attack (as they did before and both the UN and Russian investigations seemed to indicate the rebels were to blame). Obama told Syria it's too little too late and told the UN not to send inspectors. Ban Ki Moon said - sorry Obama, you're not the boss of me - sop Obama said just find out if chemicals were used, not who used them. The inspectors went in and, despite sniper fire trying to keep them out of the areas they made it in.

Western Experts are skeptical weapons grade chemicals were used.

Of course, attacking Syria would be a war crime (as is supplying rebels who use chemical weapons on civilians) but Obama has nothing to worry about. No-one will prosecute him and besides, he's already got his peace prize.
Click to expand...


how perfect is that? the republiicans are in no place to complain about anything he does and the die hard dems cant really do that either so the elites have marginalized the rational again.... :lol:
 
oh and just so we all remember... whats passing for a "chemical weapon" is riot control gas (cs) concentrate of the same variety as was used on the occupy people... less diluted but not sarin either... not even close... and it's lethal too... if their government are dirty bastards then so is ours...
 
This won't always be accurate but there's a fair chance that for the remainder of my time it probably will be:
1186903_10151876373226495_1656364650_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top