Obama Bout To HAM On Syria - Where My War Mongers At?

[Koolaid_Man]

to be honest...republicans / neocons should be dancing in the streets and lighting swisha sweets :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

to be honest...republicans / neocons should be dancing in the streets and lighting swisha sweets :lol

There is already a Syria thread discussing it. Perhaps you might look there to see what the forum is saying on the subject. Don't you have some homoerotic fiction to go read or something anyway?

[hehateme]

There is already a Syria thread discussing it. Perhaps you might look there to see what the forum is saying on the subject. Don't you have some homoerotic fiction to go read or something anyway?

and that's /endthread

[Koolaid_Man]

There is already a Syria thread discussing it. Perhaps you might look there to see what the forum is saying on the subject. Don't you have some homoerotic fiction to go read or something anyway?

If I called myself Fuzzy Lumpkins I'd be the last person mentioning homoerotic fiction :lol tbh

[Clipper Nation]

There is already a Syria thread discussing it. Perhaps you might look there to see what the forum is saying on the subject. Don't you have some homoerotic fiction to go read or something anyway?
:lol Butthurt that Obama is a neocon
:lol Democrats
:lol Gullible

[scroteface]

i feel like im living in the twilight zone...everyone around me just lumbers around like zombies, concerning themselves with trivial shit like football, tv, etc. while meanwhile i'm furiously refreshing drudge report fearing the worst that these knuckleheads have done it again...each time slightly relieved to see that nothing has happened yet, but still nervous.

so basically the stage is setting for ww3, with the the west, sunni muslims, and israel vs the east (russia, possibly china getting drawn in) and the shites, persians and various other minority sects...any of you younger guys on this forum realize we don't currently have enough men enlisted to fight such a war on this scale? oh yeah, that means draft time. i'm not giving up my life for the greedy motherfuckers, it's the same shit they pulled last time with Germany. demonize the opposition, make them out to be the aggressors, say they committed some atrocities, and boom. i won't have any part in it my hands are clean...if i fight itll be on the other side im sick of this particular brand of bullshit.

[spursncowboys]

i feel like im living in the twilight zone...everyone around me just lumbers around like zombies, concerning themselves with trivial shit like football, tv, etc. while meanwhile i'm furiously refreshing drudge report fearing the worst that these knuckleheads have done it again...each time slightly relieved to see that nothing has happened yet, but still nervous.

so basically the stage is setting for ww3, with the the west, sunni muslims, and israel vs the east (russia, possibly china getting drawn in) and the shites, persians and various other minority sects...any of you younger guys on this forum realize we don't currently have enough men enlisted to fight such a war on this scale? oh yeah, that means draft time. i'm not giving up my life for the greedy motherfuckers, it's the same shit they pulled last time with Germany. demonize the opposition, make them out to be the aggressors, say they committed some atrocities, and boom. i won't have any part in it my hands are clean...if i fight itll be on the other side im sick of this particular brand of bullshit.
Although I'm pretty sure you're a troll, this is completely accurate. Most of the soldiers who have passed on lessons learned through the decade of war, are gone. The Army wants to go back to Cold War training and do not want to adjust SOP's for the more likely enemie-Insurgents. I doubt they'll be a draft. I also doubt BHO will do anything more than drop some bombs on abandoned buildings.

[scroteface]

I also doubt BHO will do anything more than drop some bombs on abandoned buildings.

i kind of think differently and have been saying this for about a week now, it's on and it's eminent


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10265765/Navy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html

[Koolaid_Man]

i feel like im living in the twilight zone...everyone around me just lumbers around like zombies, concerning themselves with trivial shit like football, tv, etc. while meanwhile i'm furiously refreshing drudge report fearing the worst that these knuckleheads have done it again...each time slightly relieved to see that nothing has happened yet, but still nervous.

so basically the stage is setting for ww3, with the the west, sunni muslims, and israel vs the east (russia, possibly china getting drawn in) and the shites, persians and various other minority sects...any of you younger guys on this forum realize we don't currently have enough men enlisted to fight such a war on this scale? oh yeah, that means draft time. i'm not giving up my life for the greedy motherfuckers, it's the same shit they pulled last time with Germany. demonize the opposition, make them out to be the aggressors, say they committed some atrocities, and boom. i won't have any part in it my hands are clean...if i fight itll be on the other side im sick of this particular brand of bullshit.

boiled down...a black man is in office now so you won't fight....:lol don't worry I'm more than sure you're a pussy like Justin Bieber you won't qualify on the basis of your feminism

[scroteface]

boiled down...a black man is in office now so you won't fight....:lol don't worry I'm more than sure you're a pussy like Justin Bieber you won't qualify on the basis of your feminism

we're having a serious conversation of which the consequences are over your head n!gger

[Koolaid_Man]

we're having a serious conversation of which the consequences are over your head n!gger

:lol Do realize I like watermelon and chicken. Do you want to see the sex tapes of all the white women I've fucked...next time I think I will do a scene where I wipe my load into a Confederate flag after pulling out Lisa's ass..that will be a special vid just for you

[ElNono]

Drones IMO...

[spursncowboys]

:lol Do realize I like watermelon and chicken. Do you want to see the sex tapes of all the white women I've fucked...next time I think I will do a scene where I wipe my load into a Confederate flag after pulling out Lisa's ass..that will be a special vid just for you
you have a confederate flag?

[Koolaid_Man]

you have a confederate flag?

I may order one online just to denigrate it with nasty sexcapades :lol

[Jacob1983]

Old but so true http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jEDDVN9qriA/Tf62sMzNg7I/AAAAAAAAAS0/6NKSO7SRm4I/s1600/winter_ross_charlton_report_obama_bush_on_steroids 300.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Butthurt that Obama is a neocon
:lol Democrats
:lol Gullible

You referring to me?

[spursncowboys]

I'm officially a Neo-con now.
hundreds of thousands innocent people killed.
Using chemical weapons. which if we don't do something, every dictator in the world will see it as open season.

Not saying boots on the ground, because America lost it's balls (funny how people who's lives were affected in no way, cannot stand the idea of us in another war). Also I don't think the rebels would be any better. But we as a country should do something.

America isn't perfect. But far better than all the other realistic countries. If we fell out, and didn't take a moral stand- Other countries will.

[spursncowboys]

Change now to again.

If any kind of engagement would constitute as neo-con.

[Clipper Nation]

I'm officially a Neo-con now.
You already were one before :lol


Not saying boots on the ground, because America lost it's balls
So having a sane foreign policy would be ballless, whereas continuing to ruin our economy and our reputation on the world stage is somehow "manly" and "tough"? :lol


(funny how people who's lives were affected in no way, cannot stand the idea of us in another war).
War affects everybody, not just the troops.... we don't want our civil liberties to be trampled on any more in order to support more nation-building and meddling, end of story....

[Clipper Nation]

By the way, polls show that only 9% of Americans support a war with Syria.... so unpopular, even Congress has a better approval rating....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

[spursncowboys]

By the way, polls show that only 9% of Americans support a war with Syria.... so unpopular, even Congress has a better approval rating....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

:lol

[spursncowboys]

You already were one before :lol
Negative


So having a sane foreign policy would be ballless, whereas continuing to ruin our economy and our reputation on the world stage is somehow "manly" and "tough"? :lol
didn't mean manly/girly. What is our foreign policy? It's sane? How?


War affects everybody, not just the troops.... we don't want our civil liberties to be trampled on any more in order to support more nation-building and meddling, end of story....
war affected you how? Who's civil liberties are you talking about? :lol wtf does that even mean?

[spursncowboys]

I agree though that our protection of every major water routes, for free, is a great policy. I doubt any other country would do it for free though.

[Clipper Nation]

This has to be an act, right? There's no way spursncowboys can truly be this dumb :lol

[pgardn]

By the way, polls show that only 9% of Americans support a war with Syria.... so unpopular, even Congress has a better approval rating....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

What exactly is going to war?

France has already stated the evidence is in and doing nothing would be the real crime. Something will be done by the West possibly thru NATO. So is a no fly zone that requires taking out Syrian anti aircraft weapons a war?

Is preventing the further use of chemical weapons a war? What means of prevention would and would not constitute a war?

Are we still at war in Iraq? How about Somalia? Why or Why not if you please.

[spursncowboys]

This has to be an act, right? There's no way spursncowboys can truly be this dumb :lol
Nothing shows your intel more than posting a poll that you had previously not been able to understand. :lol
BTW: Newflash: 9 percent is less than congresses approval. :lol

[spursncowboys]

What exactly is going to war?

France has already stated the evidence is in and doing nothing would be the real crime. Something will be done by the West possibly thru NATO. So is a no fly zone that requires taking out Syrian anti aircraft weapons a war?

Is preventing the use of further use of chemical weapons a war? What means of prevention would and would not constitute a war?

Are we still at war in Iraq? How about Somalia? Why or Why not if you please.
Yeah good points. :toast

[pgardn]

If the question involved something along the lines of " should the US and its allies act in response to Syria gassing 3000 of its own people?" the numbers would not be 9%.

Its a blatantly simplistic leading question just like mine.

[DMC]

All that "old man" talk doesn't sound so cool now does it? Old man ain't gettin' drafted.

[scroteface]

What exactly is going to war?

France has already stated the evidence is in and doing nothing would be the real crime. Something will be done by the West possibly thru NATO. So is a no fly zone that requires taking out Syrian anti aircraft weapons a war?

Is preventing the further use of chemical weapons a war? What means of prevention would and would not constitute a war?

Are we still at war in Iraq? How about Somalia? Why or Why not if you please.

the consequences, you imbecile

so we take out a sovereign country's air forces and defenses, allowing al qaeda forces to overrun the country. then what? did you even think that far ahead? just naive? seriously, what's wrong with you?

[DMC]

It would become several UN resolutions before the next Conservative president went to war to end the billions being bled out on maintaining no fly zones.

[pgardn]

the consequences, you imbecile

so we take out a sovereign country's air forces and defenses, allowing al qaeda forces to overrun the country. then what? did you even think that far ahead? just naive? seriously, what's wrong with you?

I am not John Kerry you fucktarded square head...

[scroteface]

I am not John Kerry you fucktarded square head...

so stop playing the part with your shitty political strategies

assad may be bad but al qaeda is 10000000000000000x worse. these guys are massacring christians chopping their heads off and throwing them off buildings, and eating soldiers hearts on the battlefield. not to mention executing children. if assad used chemical weapons it still probably wouldn't be even as far as atrocities committed.

[scroteface]

and i like how somehow the US britain and france are the self appointed moral authority whenever they started both world wars and teamed up with the biggest mass murdering psychopath in human history joseph stalin and buddied up to them just because it suited their interests. fuck the inbred ass crown straight to hell.


i just feel sorry for the innocent israeli's who aren't zionists who will get hit with the chemical weapons as soon as we attack. then that psychopath netan-neocon will probably respond with nukes. this could get really really shitty.

[pgardn]

so stop playing the part with your shitty political strategies

assad may be bad but al qaeda is 10000000000000000x worse

Those are not my strategies you piece of shit wannabe Himmler...

Its a terribly tough situation, I am not an expert, but I can ask questions after reading the papers from all over the world.
Unlike your dumbass shock pussy rants.

We will act as soon as the evidence is complete. It's obvious when strategies are already released to the public via the press.

Inbred squalid kraut shit...

[Jacob1983]

How can Obama lovers defend their guy on this? They bitched 24/7 about Bush and the war in Iraq but when their guy does it, it's okay. It's time for Obama lovers and supporters to man up and admit that their guy is Bush 2.0 on steroids. :lol

[ElNono]

I'm officially a Neo-con now.
hundreds of thousands innocent people killed.
Using chemical weapons. which if we don't do something, every dictator in the world will see it as open season.

The civilian casualties are terrible, but at this point if they don't like Mr dictator, they can leave. A lot of these people are going to be displaced by a full blown war anyways.


Not saying boots on the ground, because America lost it's balls (funny how people who's lives were affected in no way, cannot stand the idea of us in another war). Also I don't think the rebels would be any better. But we as a country should do something.

The debt burden for the money that pays these nation-building expeditions is coming off those people, so they're definitely affected. The question then becomes why not use that money in the US instead? To me, it's a matter of economics, not balls.


America isn't perfect. But far better than all the other realistic countries. If we fell out, and didn't take a moral stand- Other countries will.

I agree with the first part, the "moral stand" part, not so much. Countries go through internal fighting all the time, especially dictatorships. In the past 30 years, there's countless dictatorship-rebels/government-guerrilla cycles. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, former Yugoslavia, Spain, Ireland, Russia, Iraq, Egypt, now Syria (just off the top of my head). Some eventually settle down, some flare up again. America is exceptional in this aspect. You probably have to go back to the American Civil War.

Then there's Iraq to look back and remember what that "moral stand" ended up looking like. Our intervention eventually triggered a massive ethnic cleansing, still ongoing. Not to mention that there's little sympathy for the US in that region, the whole "winning hearts and minds" giving candy to kids after leveling their villages isn't really convincing. Bottom line, chemical weapons or not, they don't want us there. I don't see how Syria is any different in that aspect.

[SnakeBoy]

I'm officially a Neo-con now.
hundreds of thousands innocent people killed.
Using chemical weapons. which if we don't do something, every dictator in the world will see it as open season.

Not saying boots on the ground, because America lost it's balls (funny how people who's lives were affected in no way, cannot stand the idea of us in another war). Also I don't think the rebels would be any better. But we as a country should do something.

America isn't perfect. But far better than all the other realistic countries. If we fell out, and didn't take a moral stand- Other countries will.

Your take really doesn't make any sense. People are being killed in a civil war so we should step in and kill some more of them and then step back and let them continue killing each other. How does this constitute a moral stand?

[boutons_deux]

what would be the objective of bombing military+govt targets and no-fly zone? make the Assad govt fall or just "punish" him but leave him in power?

[Wild Cobra]

to be honest...republicans / neocons should be dancing in the streets and lighting swisha sweets :lol
We can't police the world. Syria has done nothing to us.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll bet that Syria hit one of the rebels arsenals, and that's where the chemicals came from. The rebels were known to have chemical weapons.

Funny... Inspectors invited in to see, Obomba refuses...

[Clipper Nation]

Nothing shows your intel more than posting a poll that you had previously not been able to understand. :lol
BTW: Newflash: 9 percent is less than congresses approval. :lol
Hey dumbshit, learn to read.... I clearly said "even Congress has a better approval rating"....

[pgardn]

World leaders via the UN has decided the use of chemical weapons is the wrong way to kill people, the death is apparently very unpleasant and the gas a wanton killer.

What occurs after we do, whatever we do, will not necessarily guarantee any outcome in who eventually governs. We will talk to this group and that group but it appears we know the situation is too fluid to predict. We are past the point of nation building as an excuse. Syria could be 4 or 5 separate countries in 20 years, who knows...

We will act. Gas was used. Kerry has already jumped to prepare the public.

[DMC]

It's all Jerry Dantana's fault. That faggot.

[TDMVPDPOY]

World leaders via the UN has decided the use of chemical weapons is the wrong way to kill people, the death is apparently very unpleasant and the gas a wanton killer.

What occurs after we do, whatever we do, will not necessarily guarantee any outcome in who eventually governs. We will talk to this group and that group but it appears we know the situation is too fluid to predict. We are past the point of nation building as an excuse. Syria could be 4 or 5 separate countries in 20 years, who knows...

We will act. Gas was used. Kerry has already jumped to prepare the public.

still havnt found out who use the WMD and let alone the snipers who shot at the UN vehicles...

Assad is not that stupid to go shoot at UN vehicles, as for the rebel fighters it doesnt hurt them to elevate it to the next stage of the conflict by shooting at the UN convoy and blaming Assad

[boutons_deux]

either side can/will blame the other for crimes its own side committed.

the first casualty of war is truth, next is innocence.

USA's old friends China and Russia will block any Security Council from attacking Syrian govt.

[AntiChrist]

" I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth "

lol

[symple19]

This whole scenario is hilarious to me. On both sides there are numerous groups which the leadership of each faction cannot fully control. Militias and Hezbollah on the Assad side, and who the fuck knows on the rebel side (Islamists, Kurds, many random Sunni groups, some hardline, some not). I think its possible any one of the fringe elements could have used chemical weapons...The rebels have reason, as do Assad elements. We all know that groups like the Nusra front et al will do whatever it takes to further their goals, so to discount the possibility that they would do it to innocents is absurd. On the other end, we know that militias and Hezbollah give zero fucks about innocent Sunnis and would be happy to gas a bunch of babies and women. I wouldn't put it past Assad to let them do the dirty work so he can flail about denying everything.

All we've seen is circumstantial evidence of who actually used the weapons, and that's because it's probably impossible to find out for sure. The only way would be to have artillery radar that could triangulate where the rockets were launched from, and to then confirm who was operating in that area... Even then, in an urban warzone with no real front lines, it would be iffy at best.

Here is the COTJC, Dempsey, on Syria: http://news.yahoo.com/dempsey-syrian-rebels-wouldnt-back-us-interests-070802647.html


Engel, another advocate of more forceful U.S. action, joined the debate by proposing the use of cruise missiles and other weapons against Syrian government-controlled air bases in an Aug. 5 letter to Dempsey. The congressman said such strikes would ground Assad's air force and reduce the flow of weapons to his government from Iran and Russia, while costing less to U.S. taxpayers and requiring no American troops on the ground in Syria or in its airspace.
Dempsey said this approach wouldn't tip the balance against Assad and wouldn't solve the deeper problems plaguing Syria.
"We can destroy the Syrian air force," he said. "The loss of Assad's air force would negate his ability to attack opposition forces from the air, but it would also escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict. Stated another way, it would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict."


He is basically discouraging military intervention because he knows it would create an even bigger clusterfuck. I like Dempsey a lot, he's one of the best we've had in a while at the top of the brass. He's thoughtful and hesitant to commit troops into a murky situation with no clear endgame. Obama better listen to him and quit listening to the idiotic politicians in both parties that want to further line the pockets of the MIC with another misguided adventure.

Endgame?

We further destabilize Syria and possibly tilt the balance in favor of the Sunnis. If the rebels win, it will open up Assads arsenal of chemical/conventional weapons to a multitude of groups with varying interests, almost none of which align with ours.

Kurds, christians, and shia will be slaughtered. Guaranteed

Exacerbate an already critical refugee crisis

Once the Sunnis have consolidated in Syria, many of those fighters will pour into Iraq and further destabilize that country. What do you do if you're Iraq???? Cozy up even more with Iran while sectarian violence deepens. If a full blown civil war breaks out in Iraq, it will make Syria look like candyland

Hezbollah will be pissed and probably start raining rockets on Israel, possibly starting another border war and deepening problems in the West Bank and Gaza as well as Lebanon

The insurgency in the Sinai will also get worse, as some of those fighters from Syria head over to Egypt.

^^^^This is worst case, and just my opinion, but is it unreasonable? I don't think so.

[velik_m]

I'll bet that Syria hit one of the rebels arsenals, and that's where the chemicals came from. The rebels were known to have chemical weapons.

Funny... Inspectors invited in to see, Obomba refuses...

I bet this chemical attack was a false flag operation. This is the only way USA gov immediately "knew" who the culprit was. Why would Asad even use the chemical weapons when he was winning? This is all pre-scripted. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

[velik_m]

This whole scenario is hilarious to me. On both sides there are numerous groups which the leadership of each faction cannot fully control. Militias and Hezbollah on the Assad side, and who the fuck knows on the rebel side (Islamists, Kurds, many random Sunni groups, some hardline, some not). I think its possible any one of the fringe elements could have used chemical weapons...The rebels have reason, as do Assad elements. We all know that groups like the Nusra front et al will do whatever it takes to further their goals, so to discount the possibility that they would do it to innocents is absurd. On the other end, we know that militias and Hezbollah give zero fucks about innocent Sunnis and would be happy to gas a bunch of babies and women. I wouldn't put it past Assad to let them do the dirty work so he can flail about denying everything.

All we've seen is circumstantial evidence of who actually used the weapons, and that's because it's probably impossible to find out for sure. The only way would be to have artillery radar that could triangulate where the rockets were launched from, and to then confirm who was operating in that area... Even then, in an urban warzone with no real front lines, it would be iffy at best.

Here is the COTJC, Dempsey, on Syria: http://news.yahoo.com/dempsey-syrian-rebels-wouldnt-back-us-interests-070802647.html



He is basically discouraging military intervention because he knows it would create an even bigger clusterfuck. I like Dempsey a lot, he's one of the best we've had in a while at the top of the brass. He's thoughtful and hesitant to commit troops into a murky situation with no clear endgame. Obama better listen to him and quit listening to the idiotic politicians in both parties that want to further line the pockets of the MIC with another misguided adventure.

Endgame?

We further destabilize Syria and possibly tilt the balance in favor of the Sunnis. If the rebels win, it will open up Assads arsenal of chemical/conventional weapons to a multitude of groups with varying interests, almost none of which align with ours.

Kurds, christians, and shia will be slaughtered. Guaranteed

Exacerbate an already critical refugee crisis

Once the Sunnis have consolidated in Syria, many of those fighters will pour into Iraq and further destabilize that country. What do you do if you're Iraq???? Cozy up even more with Iran while sectarian violence deepens. If a full blown civil war breaks out in Iraq, it will make Syria look like candyland

Hezbollah will be pissed and probably start raining rockets on Israel, possibly starting another border war and deepening problems in the West Bank and Gaza as well as Lebanon

The insurgency in the Sinai will also get worse, as some of those fighters from Syria head over to Egypt.

^^^^This is worst case, and just my opinion, but is it unreasonable? I don't think so.

This is far from "worst case", remember Turkey also borders Syria and is not all that stable either...

But yeah, this will back fire on USA eventually, it always has, but it will be some other president's problem by then.

[symple19]

Oh, and don't forget that the Russians would, in all likelihood, lose their only Mediterranean base as well as a major trading partner if the rebels win. They will not be happy, to say the least, and work even harder to stymie our efforts in every other part of the globe

I'm flabbergasted at the consistent ineptitude of our foreign policy. There is nobody who has any long term goals in mind...And when I say long term, I mean 20+ years down the road. Everything is a knee-jerk reaction. That goes for republicans, the Obama administration, and the state department

[symple19]

This is far from "worst case", remember Turkey also borders Syria and is not all that stable either...

But yeah, this will back fire on USA eventually, it always has, but it will be some other president's problem by then.

imo, the Turkish army is highly competent and can keep things contained to the border area. They have decades of experience fighting the Kurds. More dangerous would be the humanitarian situation concerning refugees pouring out of Syria after the Sunnis take over.

[Bill_Brasky]

I'm officially a Neo-con now.
hundreds of thousands innocent people killed.
Using chemical weapons. which if we don't do something, every dictator in the world will see it as open season.

Not saying boots on the ground, because America lost it's balls (funny how people who's lives were affected in no way, cannot stand the idea of us in another war). Also I don't think the rebels would be any better. But we as a country should do something.

America isn't perfect. But far better than all the other realistic countries. If we fell out, and didn't take a moral stand- Other countries will.
did you just try to say that America has some sort of moral high ground to stand on here, you fucking idiot?

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

[velik_m]

imo, the Turkish army is highly competent and can keep things contained to the border area. They have decades of experience fighting the Kurds. More dangerous would be the humanitarian situation concerning refugees pouring out of Syria after the Sunnis take over.

Sure it it breaks out at the border, but imagine if they smuggle chemical weapons in Turkey and shit breaks out in Istanbul. Unlikely, sure, but if we're discussing worst case scenarios, i can think of few worse than just more unstable Iraq...

[boutons_deux]

"If we fell out, and didn't take a moral stand-"

:lol Holy SHIT! You chauvinist Super Patriots are 100% lost in the American-mythical fog.

[symple19]

Sure it it breaks out at the border, but imagine if they smuggle chemical weapons in Turkey and shit breaks out in Istanbul. Unlikely, sure, but if we're discussing worst case scenarios, i can think of few worse than just more unstable Iraq...

Oh yeah, of course that would be worse. I'm trying to keep it fairly reasonable, though

[diego]

The civilian casualties are terrible, but at this point if they don't like Mr dictator, they can leave. A lot of these people are going to be displaced by a full blown war anyways.

----

I agree with the first part, the "moral stand" part, not so much. Countries go through internal fighting all the time, especially dictatorships. In the past 30 years, there's countless dictatorship-rebels/government-guerrilla cycles. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, former Yugoslavia, Spain, Ireland, Russia, Iraq, Egypt, now Syria (just off the top of my head). Some eventually settle down, some flare up again. America is exceptional in this aspect. You probably have to go back to the American Civil War.




Seriously Nono?

First off, the "they can leave" argument is terrible. Even assuming your local dictator/rebels/global super power is going to give fair warning and your own country's borders as well as neighboring countries' borders will remain open, it is extremely difficult to leave. Its not a matter of just booking a flight and leaving. Most of the people you are talking about are so poor that they would literally have to walk out of their country and leave the only things they have (identity, place, family and friends) to be treated like shit wherever they ended up. Its not impossible to do and it happens, but if it were that easy then everyone would "just leave" till they found a place to be happy and live in peace right? Please. Dont be naive.


And your countless cycles? What the hell are you talking about? Be specific. Are you really saying that dictatorship in Argentina and 2001 default and social unrest are part of the same cycle? I'm pretty sure they are quite different phenomenons, even if there are connections. What was the cycle in Chile pre 1973? AFAIK it was over a hundred years of stable democracy, what suddenly changed? You do realize that of the conflicts you listed, the US played a critical role in the majority of them? And if you are going to list Venezuela as a country with internal fighting alongside several countries that went through actual civil war, why shouldnt I list the US too? Are there no protests in the US? no police crackdowns to defend unpopular govt decisions, no economic turmoil provoking clashes between state and populace? No domestic terrorism and no questionable elections? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you misspoke or I misunderstood but from here what you wrote reeks of 1st world naivete and 3rd world brown nosing.

The reason the US gov is more stable than Egypt/Syria/Chile/Yugoslavia is the same reason that the Chinese gov is more stable than Argentina/Iraq/Spain/Ireland. That is because they have thousands of times the resources as their counterparts and because their populations have for the most part enjoyed growth and well-being the others have not. It also helps that they dont have foreign super powers inciting divisions for their own political/economic gain the way the others do.

[spursncowboys]

The civilian casualties are terrible, but at this point if they don't like Mr dictator, they can leave. A lot of these people are going to be displaced by a full blown war anyways.
I agree with the post above. This is a tribal area. They don't really have a culture of just leaving like that



The debt burden for the money that pays these nation-building expeditions is coming off those people, so they're definitely affected. The question then becomes why not use that money in the US instead? To me, it's a matter of economics, not balls.
I'm not talking about nation-building. I agree that we have hurt the future of the next generations but that's not just from defense spending.



I agree with the first part, the "moral stand" part, not so much. Countries go through internal fighting all the time, especially dictatorships. In the past 30 years, there's countless dictatorship-rebels/government-guerrilla cycles. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, former Yugoslavia, Spain, Ireland, Russia, Iraq, Egypt, now Syria (just off the top of my head). Some eventually settle down, some flare up again. America is exceptional in this aspect. You probably have to go back to the American Civil War. I agree that we shouldn't butt our heads in every conflict. We shouldn't be some older kid refereeing little kids fighting. But the use of chemical weapons should not be allowed. We should make a stand. Every dictator should know that genocide and wmd's are unacceptable.



Then there's Iraq to look back and remember what that "moral stand" ended up looking like. Our intervention eventually triggered a massive ethnic cleansing, still ongoing. Not to mention that there's little sympathy for the US in that region, the whole "winning hearts and minds" giving candy to kids after leveling their villages isn't really convincing. Bottom line, chemical weapons or not, they don't want us there. I don't see how Syria is any different in that aspect.
Actually, AQIZ created the civil war for instability. But I don't think we should take a vote of the public before we decide if we should help. Yes (even though your example is so generalized it's hard to take serious) there is collateral damage. That is the military. Regardless of what politicians want us to be, we are soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen. Not police, humanitarian workers, or social counselors. The military's main job is to destroy stuff. IMO we are the best. But once again I'm not talking about rescuing the Syrians from Assad. I'm talking about taking a stand against the use of chemical weapons. 1. To keep other Syrians from dieing from this and 2. Serve as a deterrent to other dictators.

I'm not trying to presume that this is an easy open and shut case. But I am now siding with the side who thinks something should be done.

[spursncowboys]

Your take really doesn't make any sense. People are being killed in a civil war so we should step in and kill some more of them and then step back and let them continue killing each other. How does this constitute a moral stand?
that's not my take

[Michael Jordan.]

No Boots on the gound. Good.

[spursncowboys]

did you just try to say that America has some sort of moral high ground to stand on here, you fucking idiot?

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

That article cites infowars.

[angrydude]

All those bombs we have aren't going to blow themselves up dammit. It's the moral thing to do.

[angrydude]

That article cites infowars.

So does Drudge?

[pgardn]

I bet this chemical attack was a false flag operation. This is the only way USA gov immediately "knew" who the culprit was. Why would Asad even use the chemical weapons when he was winning? This is all pre-scripted. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Why do we want in this?
Who wanted this and how was this pre-scripted? I know the military was told to be ready but you are saying we wanted or even produced a massive chemical attack? I am not buying this much stupidity on our part.

Afghanistan and Iraq are easy explanations. This one is not.
And after Libya we were just waiting to make Syria a mess?
This makes the situation in Israel even more tenuous.
At least Israel knew who to deal with when Assad had full control.

[cheguevara]

US and it's puppets are in complete denial mode and lying to their citizens on a daily basis. They say they are absolutely convinced Syria govt used Chems last week and totally disregarding the fact that in March or this year it was the rebels who used the Chems first and to cover it up massacred hundreds of unarmed Assad loyalists:

the proof is there. anyone who believes US and it's puppets is acting on good faith of Syrians needs to be checked into the nearest mental hospital.

r1txOkCn9Y4

m-WPdRQmpBk

good going Obama. You are not only helping a mostly foreign force invading Syria but also mostly members of Al Qaeda. :tu

[spursncowboys]

So does Drudge?
and...

[pgardn]

US and it's puppets are in complete denial mode and lying to their citizens on a daily basis. They say they are absolutely convinced Syria govt used Chems last week and totally disregarding the fact that in March or this year it was the rebels who used the Chems first and to cover it up massacred hundreds of unarmed Assad loyalists:

the proof is there. anyone who believes US and it's puppets is acting on good faith of Syrians needs to be checked into the nearest mental hospital.

r1txOkCn9Y4

m-WPdRQmpBk

good going Obama. You are not only helping a mostly foreign force invading Syria but also mostly members of Al Qaeda. :tu


This is BS based on what I deem the most reliable sources.

The rebels used gas and covered it up? I admit I rely on the large news from the West. I believe them to be least likely to be bullied by the govt., yet not some little conspiracy outlets trying to gain the attention of people like you who automatically dismiss anything and everything from the US.

So where do you go for news?

And the bolded has not flown over the experts heads if you mentioned it.

[cheguevara]

This is BS based on what I deem the most reliable sources.

The rebels used gas and covered it up? I admit I rely on the large news from the West. I believe them to be least likely to be bullied by the govt., yet not some little conspiracy outlets trying to gain the attention of people like you who automatically dismiss anything and everything from the US.

So where do you go for news?

And the bolded has not flown over the experts heads if you mentioned it.

- A chemical attack happened in Khan Al-Assal before it was overrun by rebels
- Syria and Russia were the first to report this attack and asked UN for inspections
- UN delayed the inspections while UK and France drafted a request to not only see this site, but unlimited access to all of Syria, knowing Syria would refuse. (delay tactic)
- Meanwhile rebels execute hundred+ in Khan Al-Assal and destroy any evidence

feel free to draw your own conclusions. that is what the board is for :tu

[Wild Cobra]

I bet this chemical attack was a false flag operation. This is the only way USA gov immediately "knew" who the culprit was. Why would Asad even use the chemical weapons when he was winning? This is all pre-scripted. Just sit back and enjoy the show.
Maybe.

I especially have a problem with Obomba saying "we don't need inspectors to confirm our allegation."

[Koolaid_Man]

We can't police the world. Syria has done nothing to us.

so if you knew for a fact your neighbor was raping his 5 yr old daughter (after seeing him sodomize her in the backyard) you turn around go in your house and close the blinds? With Power comes responsibility.... a wel lthought out and measured response...

[spursncowboys]

so if you knew for a fact your neighbor was raping his 5 yr old daughter (after seeing him sodomize her in the backyard) you turn around go in your house and close the blinds? With Power comes responsibility.... a wel lthought out and measured response...
I agree with your stan lee quote.

[TSA]

so if you knew for a fact your neighbor was raping his 5 yr old daughter (after seeing him sodomize her in the backyard) you turn around go in your house and close the blinds? With Power comes responsibility.... a wel lthought out and measured response...

So I take it you are heading to Syria to help fight?

[cheguevara]

So arming and deploying your son to your neighbor's house to impose justice is a better idea? You would be violating countless laws and would be acting as judge and jury. What would be especially troubling once the authorities seize and try you for the death of the neighbor is them finding out the fact that the same neighbor is one you publicly have despised and is one of the few that stands against you ruling the entire neighborhood. In the real world, you'd be lucky if you get anything less than a life sentence for those crimes.

[Th'Pusher]

So arming and deploying your son to your neighbor's house to impose justice is a better idea?.
The US employs a paid VOLUNTEER standing army dude. I get you're not for intervention but ^ is idiotic.

[ElNono]

Seriously Nono?

First off, the "they can leave" argument is terrible. Even assuming your local dictator/rebels/global super power is going to give fair warning and your own country's borders as well as neighboring countries' borders will remain open, it is extremely difficult to leave. Its not a matter of just booking a flight and leaving. Most of the people you are talking about are so poor that they would literally have to walk out of their country and leave the only things they have (identity, place, family and friends) to be treated like shit wherever they ended up. Its not impossible to do and it happens, but if it were that easy then everyone would "just leave" till they found a place to be happy and live in peace right? Please. Dont be naive.

I realize there's people that won't leave no matter what happens, but those people assume the risk of living in a country with a dictator that has chemical weapons. The reality is that once a full blown war starts, a lot of these same people end up moving anyways, because their places are blown to bits. Take a look at the displaced on almost any armed conflict.


And your countless cycles? What the hell are you talking about? Be specific. Are you really saying that dictatorship in Argentina and 2001 default and social unrest are part of the same cycle? I'm pretty sure they are quite different phenomenons, even if there are connections. What was the cycle in Chile pre 1973? AFAIK it was over a hundred years of stable democracy, what suddenly changed? You do realize that of the conflicts you listed, the US played a critical role in the majority of them? And if you are going to list Venezuela as a country with internal fighting alongside several countries that went through actual civil war, why shouldnt I list the US too? Are there no protests in the US? no police crackdowns to defend unpopular govt decisions, no economic turmoil provoking clashes between state and populace? No domestic terrorism and no questionable elections? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you misspoke or I misunderstood but from here what you wrote reeks of 1st world naivete and 3rd world brown nosing.

I'm talking about guerrillas, coups, etc. Some countries eventually settle down, some do not. Let me be more specific about the countries I listed:
Argentina - Dictatorship ends after the failed Falklands war. There were at least two military coup attempts after that (Rico, Seineldin, et all).
Chile - After Pinochet finally stepped down, Chile battled with guerrillas well into the mid-90's (FPMR, MJL, etc)
Colombia - Constant struggle with FARC, still ongoing.
Venezuela - Chavez eventually won the presidency democratically, but he first attempted to do so through a military coup, which failed.
Yugoslavia - Yugoslav Wars
Spain - Had to deal with guerrilla/separatist ETA
Ireland - Dealing with all the splinter groups from the old IRA (PIRA, CIRA, etc). Still ongoing.
Russia - Chechnya, etc
Iraq - There were always shia-sunni tensions, but the removal of Saddam escalated it. Still ongoing.
Egypt - This is recent enough, shouldn't need to add much. Still ongoing.

I don't dispute there was US involvement in one or more of the above.


The reason the US gov is more stable than Egypt/Syria/Chile/Yugoslavia is the same reason that the Chinese gov is more stable than Argentina/Iraq/Spain/Ireland. That is because they have thousands of times the resources as their counterparts and because their populations have for the most part enjoyed growth and well-being the others have not. It also helps that they dont have foreign super powers inciting divisions for their own political/economic gain the way the others do.

I'm not comparing. I'm simply stating this kinda of stuff is fairly common.

[ElNono]

I agree with the post above. This is a tribal area. They don't really have a culture of just leaving like that

When you start dropping bombs, they're going to get moving anyways. You've seen what displaced people look like.


I'm not talking about nation-building. I agree that we have hurt the future of the next generations but that's not just from defense spending.

I disagree we've "hurt the future of the next generations", I simply think that money (right now) would be better spent in America.


I agree that we shouldn't butt our heads in every conflict. We shouldn't be some older kid refereeing little kids fighting. But the use of chemical weapons should not be allowed. We should make a stand. Every dictator should know that genocide and wmd's are unacceptable.

You're playing older kid deciding what little kids fight with. It's the same thing. A dead civilian killed with a bomb or a bullet is no different than a dead civilian killed with a chemical weapon.

I can see intervention if they're attacking another defenseless country and such country asks for help. This is an internal matter.


Actually, AQIZ created the civil war for instability. But I don't think we should take a vote of the public before we decide if we should help. Yes (even though your example is so generalized it's hard to take serious) there is collateral damage. That is the military. Regardless of what politicians want us to be, we are soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen. Not police, humanitarian workers, or social counselors. The military's main job is to destroy stuff. IMO we are the best. But once again I'm not talking about rescuing the Syrians from Assad. I'm talking about taking a stand against the use of chemical weapons. 1. To keep other Syrians from dieing from this and 2. Serve as a deterrent to other dictators.

I'm not trying to presume that this is an easy open and shut case. But I am now siding with the side who thinks something should be done.

IMO, cordon it off and let them figure out their own shit.

[TeyshaBlue]

When you start dropping bombs, they're going to get moving anyways. You've seen what displaced people look like.



I disagree we've "hurt the future of the next generations", I simply think that money (right now) would be better spent in America.



You're playing older kid deciding what little kids fight with. It's the same thing. A dead civilian killed with a bomb or a bullet is no different than a dead civilian killed with a chemical weapon.

I can see intervention if they're attacking another defenseless country and such country asks for help. This is an internal matter.



IMO, cordon it off and let them figure out their own shit.

^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^

[The Reckoning]

Reports- US SHIPS TO FIRE AN OPENING SALVO AT NIGHT, WAIT FOR SATELLITES TO ASSESS THE DAMAGE AND RE-STRIKE ANY TARGETS THAT WEREN'T DESTROYED.

[boutons_deux]

bombing Syria is a wonderful terrorist recruiting campaign.

Why Do They Hate Us? :lol

How many US$10Bs will be spent on this recruiting campaign?

And they, not me, have to keep it up until Assad and his govt are down and out. Then who takes his place?

[The Reckoning]

JORDANIAN AUTHORITIES CLEARING BORDERING AREAS WITH SYRIA AND IN PARTICULAR AL RAMTHA ASKING RESIDENTS TO LEAVE FOR SAFETY.

[cheguevara]

The US employs a paid VOLUNTEER standing army dude. I get you're not for intervention but ^ is idiotic.

the army is paid to protect the USA and it's citizens. Not go kill and maym innocent civiliants to topple leaders the US doesn't like. And most certainly not paid to go and help Al Qaeda.

The US and Obama are puppets of the corporations who are using the army like it's their own personal hitman. That is not what the army is for. And BTW any army intervention must be approved by Congress. What Obombama or Bush Jr did before him is violation of law.

sorry but the idiocy is on your side if you believe otherwise.

[The Reckoning]

LOCAL MEDIA REPORT LARGE EXPLOSION IN CENTRAL DAMASCUS IN THE MUHAJRIN AREA JUST A KILOMETER AWAY FROM PRESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE.

[SnakeBoy]

so if you knew for a fact your neighbor was raping his 5 yr old daughter (after seeing him sodomize her in the backyard) you turn around go in your house and close the blinds? With Power comes responsibility.... a wel lthought out and measured response...

Of course not, you go over there and slap your neighbor on the ass and say bad boy. Then you let him carry on raping his daughter while declaring some type of moral victory.

[Th'Pusher]

the army is paid to protect the USA and it's citizens. Not go kill and maym innocent civiliants to topple leaders the US doesn't like. And most certainly not paid to go and help Al Qaeda.

The US and Obama are puppets of the corporations who are using the army like it's their own personal hitman. That is not what the army is for. And BTW any army intervention must be approved by Congress. What Obombama or Bush Jr did before him is violation of law.

sorry but the idiocy is on your side if you believe otherwise.
Sorry, your anolgy was garbage. one thing I do agree with you on is that Obama needs to go through congress if he wants to intervene.

But, generally speaking you're a till-foil conspiracy nut not to be taken seriously.

[cheguevara]

Sorry, your anolgy was garbage. one thing I do agree with you on is that Obama needs to go through congress if he wants to intervene.

But, generally speaking you're a till-foil conspiracy nut not to be taken seriously.

I agree the analogy was garbage, I was making fun of whoever started it.

I have posted the facts and drawn my conclusions using logic and common sense. I'm sorry you are unable to do that and must get your thoughts from CNN and other media outlets.

Let me summarize to you again and please feel free to disprove the following facts:
- Al Qaeda is fighting Assad in Syria
- Many of those foreign rebels came from Libya and brought their weapons via Quatar
- It is known fact the Al Qaeda in Libya took possession of many Gadaffi chemical weapons
- There was a chemical attack on Assad held Khan Al-Assal
- There was outcry from Syria govt and Russia to investigate
- UN delayed the investigation
- Rebels massacred and destroyed evidence at Khan Al-Assal

again, feel free to disprove any of those fact.

based on that evidence I'm going to go ahead and conclude rebels had somethig to hide in Khan Al-Assal and US and puppets are blatantly ignoring those events.

[Th'Pusher]

I agree the analogy was garbage, I was making fun of whoever started it.

I have posted the facts and drawn my conclusions using logic and common sense. I'm sorry you are unable to do that and must get your thoughts from CNN and other media outlets.

Let me summarize to you again and please feel free to disprove the following facts:
- Al Qaeda is fighting Assad in Syria
- Many of those foreign rebels came from Libya and brought their weapons via Quatar
- It is known fact the Al Qaeda in Libya took possession of many Gadaffi chemical weapons
- There was a chemical attack on Assad held Khan Al-Assal
- There was outcry from Syria govt and Russia to investigate
- UN delayed the investigation
- Rebels massacred and destroyed evidence at Khan Al-Assal

again, feel free to disprove any of those fact.

based on that evidence I'm going to go ahead and conclude rebels had somethig to hide in Khan Al-Assal and US and puppets are blatantly ignoring those events.

It's not just Syria. You're lopping up every conspiracy out there. Sorry, you're just not credible. Maybe you should start over with a new username...

[symple19]

LOCAL MEDIA REPORT LARGE EXPLOSION IN CENTRAL DAMASCUS IN THE MUHAJRIN AREA JUST A KILOMETER AWAY FROM PRESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE.


Where are you getting your info?

[cheguevara]

It's not just Syria. You're lopping up every conspiracy out there. Sorry, you're just not credible. Maybe you should start over with a new username...

:lmao unable to dispute any of those facts

so forced to pull "conspiracy nut" trump card :lol

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao unable to dispute any of those facts

so forced to pull "conspiracy nut" trump card :lol

Actually those 'facts' are all your claims. The onus is on you to prove them, not on me to disprove them. You've yet to do that, which is why you're a gullible conspiracy nut.

[cheguevara]

Actually those 'facts' are all your claims. The onus is on you to prove them, not on me to disprove them. You've yet to do that, which is why you're a gullible conspiracy nut.

:lol they are facts, try to turn off CNN for a moment and use the power of the internet. I hope someday you can.

so because you don't have the capacity to verify whether my claims are true or false you go ahead and call me a conspiracy nut. that's pretty sad.

[cheguevara]

here is a little help. see how easy it is?

"And the report notes that “the lion’s share of foreign fighters who are dying in Syria are fighting with the most hardline organisation involved in the uprising: Jabhat al-Nusra,” which has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda’s central command in Pakistan."

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-many-foreign-fighters-are-in-syria-2013-6

[pgardn]

- A chemical attack happened in Khan Al-Assal before it was overrun by rebels
- Syria and Russia were the first to report this attack and asked UN for inspections
- UN delayed the inspections while UK and France drafted a request to not only see this site, but unlimited access to all of Syria, knowing Syria would refuse. (delay tactic)
- Meanwhile rebels execute hundred+ in Khan Al-Assal and destroy any evidence

feel free to draw your own conclusions. that is what the board is for :tu

Where did you read this?

I am reading the Guardian, Washington Post, NY Times, BBC., LA Times.... A decidedly liberal slant by US standards. Two of these news organization broke the NSA stories, so I would not call them tight with the current US administration.

[cheguevara]

Here is some more on the ideology of the "freedom fighters" Obama and co are willing to help:

The group is generally described as being made up of Sunni Islamist Jihadists. Its goal is to overthrow the Assad government and to create a Pan-Islamic state under sharia law and aims to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate.[19] It encourages all Syrians to take part in the war against the Syrian government.[20]

In an interview with a UAE newspaper, Abu Ahmed, a man identifying himself as the Al Nusra military commander for the Hasakah Governorate, described the organisation's goals as deposing Bashar al-Assad, and then establishing a state under the Quran and sharia.[21] Alcohol, tobacco and entertainment considered immoral would be banned, but the rules would be introduced gradually and after giving people advice first.

Members of the group are accused of attacking the religious beliefs of non-Sunnis in Syria, including the Alawis.[22]

Members of the group have referred to the United States and Israel as enemies of Islam[22] and warned against Western intervention in Syria.[19] Syrian members of the group claim they are only fighting the Assad government and would not attack Western states.[19] The United States accused it of being affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq;[23] in April 2013 the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq released an audio statement affirming this connection.[5]

what a lovely bunch!

[Th'Pusher]

Nobody is denying there are jihadists and AQ fighting with the rebels. Try linking your other claims.

[cheguevara]

Where did you read this?

I am reading the Guardian, Washington Post, NY Times, BBC., LA Times.... A decidedly liberal slant by US standards. Two of these news organization broke the NSA stories, so I would not call them tight with the current US administration.

read this detailed article, then we can discuss each item if you wish:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/was-the-syria-chemical-weapons-probe-torpedoed-by-the-west/5333671

[symple19]

Foreign Policy reporting that intercepted phone calls are the "proof" Assad carried out the attack http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syr ias_army_used_nerve_gas

[symple19]

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

[pgardn]

This is BS based on what I deem the most reliable sources.

The rebels used gas and covered it up? I admit I rely on the large news from the West. I believe them to be least likely to be bullied by the govt., yet not some little conspiracy outlets trying to gain the attention of people like you who automatically dismiss anything and everything from the US.

So where do you go for news?

And the bolded has not flown over the experts heads if you mentioned it.


read this detailed article, then we can discuss each item if you wish:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/was-the-syria-chemical-weapons-probe-torpedoed-by-the-west/5333671

This is not about the most recent events involving the possible use chemical weapons and our response based on evidence gathered. It's about the doubts of earlier much smaller incidents. Wrong time frame.

[diego]

...

IMO, saying people can just leave is a huge copout. Doesnt mean I think in this case that is justification for the US intervening (especially when said intervention is a euphemism for bomb the shit out of everything). I just dont like it when these topics come out and people argue that emigrating is a viable option for people. Just because it happens and people do make it out, doesnt mean that it was a normal option like just deciding to leave your country because its falling to shit. And i reiterate, especially in a dictatorship, getting out is not easy for those that do attempt it.

as for the other list...
Venezuela's had a couple of failed coup attempts, I wouldnt put that anywhere near CIVIL WAR which is essentially what most of the countries you listed went through (and secret police, state terrorism, terrorism, internal violence in a word). I still dont know what cycle you are referring to, its not as if the listed countries do this constantly in their history, they are tied to specific events. Once shits gets started and blood is spilled its not forgotten from one day to the next.
That said, most of those conflicts are over. The scars remain for a large part of the population that went through that, but the violence is pretty much over. Like in Chile you are saying the guerrillas were battling the gov. after the return to democracy... They assassinated one senator and freed a couple of their comrades from a jail. The rest of their activity was limited to... hosting conventions and congresses. By last count they are less than 5000 total between all groups, in a pop. of 15M. If that is cyclical internal violence on the scale of civil war, (like in Colombia which is still going. Even with the US on its side the govt. still hasnt been able to defeat the FARC. Maybe if the US butted the hell out the FARC would have won already and colombians wouldnt live in civil war).

I agree with you, the US has no business in Syria. Citing international law / un regulations as justification when the US flouts them all the time is BS, and this is an internal matter. That said, a dead civilian killed with gas is NOT the same as one killed by a bullet. All of these situations would play out very differently if its a true battle of strength going toe to toe vs who has the nukes/depleted uranium/killer gas to drop on a bunch of poor people fighting with rocks who are economically worth less than the weapons used to kill them.

[pgardn]

You're playing older kid deciding what little kids fight with. It's the same thing. A dead civilian killed with a bomb or a bullet is no different than a dead civilian killed with a chemical weapon.




The UN and the West has made it clear that death by projectile, shrapnel, structures falling on people, severe pressure waves is not the same as death by inhaling toxic blistering fumes (that also affect the eyes and skin in many cases) and leave toxic residue often poisoning the surroundings.

As silly as it seems, the way one dies in these conflicts does constitute a breach of the majority of the world's standards. China, Russia and India included. They have all signed off on this. For what it is worth.

[ElNono]

IMO, saying people can just leave is a huge copout. Doesnt mean I think in this case that is justification for the US intervening (especially when said intervention is a euphemism for bomb the shit out of everything). I just dont like it when these topics come out and people argue that emigrating is a viable option for people. Just because it happens and people do make it out, doesnt mean that it was a normal option like just deciding to leave your country because its falling to shit. And i reiterate, especially in a dictatorship, getting out is not easy for those that do attempt it.

What's the cop-out? I'm not playing it down, it's indeed a shitty situation. Personally, I happen to be a person that lived under a dictatorship during early childhood, and I'm also an immigrant, so I know first hand both situations and there's nothing easy about them. But ultimately what you do during potential life or death situations is up to you, what you think it's better for your family, etc.


as for the other list...
Venezuela's had a couple of failed coup attempts, I wouldnt put that anywhere near CIVIL WAR which is essentially what most of the countries you listed went through (and secret police, state terrorism, terrorism, internal violence in a word). I still dont know what cycle you are referring to, its not as if the listed countries do this constantly in their history, they are tied to specific events. Once shits gets started and blood is spilled its not forgotten from one day to the next.
That said, most of those conflicts are over. The scars remain for a large part of the population that went through that, but the violence is pretty much over. Like in Chile you are saying the guerrillas were battling the gov. after the return to democracy... They assassinated one senator and freed a couple of their comrades from a jail. The rest of their activity was limited to... hosting conventions and congresses. By last count they are less than 5000 total between all groups, in a pop. of 15M. If that is cyclical internal violence on the scale of civil war, (like in Colombia which is still going. Even with the US on its side the govt. still hasnt been able to defeat the FARC. Maybe if the US butted the hell out the FARC would have won already and colombians wouldnt live in civil war).

Some places are over, some places are still ongoing. Argentina and Chile settled down, but Egypt erupted again. Iraq was fairly calm for a long time until they decided to invade Kuwait, and then the shit hit the fan there. That's the cycles I'm talking about. Back in the 70's, early 80's, south america was a center for military juntas and rebels. That mostly went away in the 90's, but then around that time, the Balkans started with their own shit. The entire premise is that these peaks of internal struggle are pretty common, and they're not going away.


I agree with you, the US has no business in Syria. Citing international law / un regulations as justification when the US flouts them all the time is BS, and this is an internal matter. That said, a dead civilian killed with gas is NOT the same as one killed by a bullet. All of these situations would play out very differently if its a true battle of strength going toe to toe vs who has the nukes/depleted uranium/killer gas to drop on a bunch of poor people fighting with rocks who are economically worth less than the weapons used to kill them.

I disagree that a dead civilian by X weapon is any different than a dead civilian killed by Y weapon. It's a dead civilian, and it sucks no matter how that person meets his fate.
I'm also a firm believer there's much more than meets the eye in a lot of these struggles. If it would be such a David vs Goliath struggle, it probably would've been over a long time ago.

And as I told snc before, this isn't as much as having "balls" or a "moral high ground", etc... back in the 90's when Bush Sr went to Iraq, or Clinton's support against Milosevic, and you could even argue when Bush Jr went to Iraq again, we had generally a thriving economy. Right now that kind of cash would be much better spent in things like infrastructure projects (that we need) and would put more Americans to work.

[ElNono]

The UN and the West has made it clear that death by projectile, shrapnel, structures falling on people, severe pressure waves is not the same as death by inhaling toxic blistering fumes (that also affect the eyes and skin in many cases) and leave toxic residue often poisoning the surroundings.

As silly as it seems, the way one dies in these conflicts does constitute a breach of the majority of the world's standards. China, Russia and India included. They have all signed off on this. For what it is worth.

I understand there are trivial rules. For the dead civilian(s), it's death.

[pgardn]

I understand there are trivial rules. For the dead civilian(s), it's death.
Yeah but Obama called it a red line.

Now we gotta back it up or Putin will call him out for an MMA bout. Word and pride.

[ElNono]

Yeah but Obama called it a red line.

Now we gotta back it up or Putin will call him out for an MMA bout. Word and pride.

Putin isn't a Nobel Peace prize winner though.

[angrydude]

About that nerve gas claim from back in January . Variations of these stories are in basically every newspaper on earth

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2013/07/11/2003566872

[Jacob1983]

Why does America have to "liberate" Syria? Why does America have to fix that shitty country? Why not fix America first? It's a little shitty here.

[velik_m]

Foreign Policy reporting that intercepted phone calls are the "proof" Assad carried out the attack http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syr ias_army_used_nerve_gas

So NSA intercepted a proof that will start a war and take focus away from their scandal? How very convenient.

[boobie4three]

Does Obama Know He's Fighting on Al-Qa'ida's Side?

Posted GMT 8-27-2013 20:53:44



If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured -- for the very first time in history -- that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa'ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted "All for one and one for all" each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if -- or when -- the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House -- nor, I suppose, by al-Qa'ida -- though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa'ida's affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa'ida for intelligence help -- after all, this is the group with "boots on the ground", something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa'ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa'ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa'ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan -- along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians -- they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa'ida's enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa'ida or the Nusra front.

And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa'ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps -- since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments -- Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite enough evidence to make it stick.

In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it's war by YouTube. This doesn't mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members -- fighting alongside government troops in Damascus -- were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?

And while we're talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can't remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile -- Russian made, naturally -- and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about "ending the cycle of violence". Another American plane -- this time an A-7 -- was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.

Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That's what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect -- if Obama does go ahead -- that this one will run and run.

By Robert Fisk

http://www.aina.org/news/20130827155344.htm

[spursncowboys]

IMO, cordon it off and let them figure out their own shit.
that would be an act of war. cordon off with what?

[boutons_deux]

on NPR this morning:

WH is saying bombing Assad was only to send a msg that chemical warfare anyehere wouldn't go unpunished (USA: "The Punisher"), was not to bring Assad down, and was not endorsement of the opposition.

Russians in the Syrian govt offices and "on the ground" saying they know for sure the Syrian govt didn't do the sarin attack.

USA is gonna look really stupid if it bombs Syria and later, or sooner, it comes out it was the opposition that made the sarin attack to bring in foreign intervention, sarin being relatively easy to handle, obtain.

[spursncowboys]

What's the cop-out? I'm not playing it down, it's indeed a shitty situation. Personally, I happen to be a person that lived under a dictatorship during early childhood, and I'm also an immigrant, so I know first hand both situations and there's nothing easy about them. But ultimately what you do during potential life or death situations is up to you, what you think it's better for your family, etc.
It was probably a very difficult decision for you and your family. However you had America and other countries who were taking refugees. Most muslims don't meet our standards for political asylum. Or they are in an area where they might be considered a terrorist.



Some places are over, some places are still ongoing. Argentina and Chile settled down, but Egypt erupted again. Iraq was fairly calm for a long time until they decided to invade Kuwait, and then the shit hit the fan there. That's the cycles I'm talking about. Back in the 70's, early 80's, south america was a center for military juntas and rebels. That mostly went away in the 90's, but then around that time, the Balkans started with their own shit. The entire premise is that these peaks of internal struggle are pretty common, and they're not going away.

Most of those conflicts were from the cold war. Which gave incentive for both sides to aide them and you.



I disagree that a dead civilian by X weapon is any different than a dead civilian killed by Y weapon. It's a dead civilian, and it sucks no matter how that person meets his fate.
I'm also a firm believer there's much more than meets the eye in a lot of these struggles. If it would be such a David vs Goliath struggle, it probably would've been over a long time ago.
You disagree. but most countries have agreed that it is unacceptable. we should not allow a dictator to kill entire villages, cities, etc. Civil war/unrest should have rules. I'm not saying realistically trying to 'rid the world of evil'. but helping any group having a democratically elected govt. should be our policy. Not at any costs.

[diego]

You're playing older kid deciding what little kids fight with. It's the same thing. A dead civilian killed with a bomb or a bullet is no different than a dead civilian killed with a chemical weapon.




The UN and the West has made it clear that death by projectile, shrapnel, structures falling on people, severe pressure waves is not the same as death by inhaling toxic blistering fumes (that also affect the eyes and skin in many cases) and leave toxic residue often poisoning the surroundings.

As silly as it seems, the way one dies in these conflicts does constitute a breach of the majority of the world's standards. China, Russia and India included. They have all signed off on this. For what it is worth.

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I'm pretty sure that the US has signed but not ratified the Protocol I agreement which regulates this type of case. Point being, while I agree absolutely that its not the same to send soldiers with guns to quash an uprising as to bomb them or worse still gas them, the standards are not exactly rock solid. For ex, I'm sure people in the balkans are and Iraq (as well as many vets who fought there) are asking themselves why depleted uranium isnt considered a chemical/biological weapon for its lasting area effects; several countries consider them to be but most of the big players dont (coincidentally, the ones that have and use DU).

Nono, I already agree that from an economic standpoint, US has no business there, and even from a moral one as well. That doesnt mean the world shouldn't condemn / impose sanctions on the use of chemical weapons when it clearly carries much higher risks and kills more indiscriminately than conventional types of weapons (I could care less about the "humane" part of which is more painful, the point is that gas/poison is much more difficult to contain/direct). If the UN were offering to send peace keepers to verify the reality of whats going on I would support that. bombing a country thats in the middle of a civil war is totally counterproductive, in fact I liked it much more when the US would send soldiers to a country and deal with the situation directly instead of just bombing the shit out of everything which is the current trend.

[AntiChrist]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/the-absence-of-strategic_b_3824016.html

[boobie4three]

McCain scolds White House for 'crazy' leaks on Syria air strikes
By Lara Seligman - 08/28/13 09:18 AM ET


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday expressed outrage over leaks related to possible air strikes on Syria, calling them “crazy.”
McCain pointed to reports that say U.S. air strikes on Syria could begin as early as Friday.

The Republican senator, who has long called for more aggressive U.S. action against Syria, said the leaks are tipping the U.S. hand.
“But all of these leaks, when strikes are going to take place, where, what’s going to be used, if I were Bashar Assad, I think I would declare tomorrow a snow day and keep everything from work,” McCain said on Fox News. “This is crazy. These leaks are just crazy.”
McCain reiterated his long-standing criticism of President Obama’s Syrian policy, saying Assad was encouraged to do more chemical attacks when the U.S. failed to punish him for initial attacks.
He also said Obama’s policies have been inconsistent in that the goal of pending attacks would not be regime change even though Obama has said he wants Assad out of power.
“This is the same president that two years ago said that Bashar Assad must leave office and so where is America’s credibility? Where is our ability to influence events in the region?” McCain said on “Fox and Friends.” “What is the president’s policy?”
The White House said Tuesday that Obama is not seeking “regime change” in Syria, instead weighing a response to the violation of “an international standard” barring the use of chemical weapons.
McCain also slammed Obama’s policy toward Syria on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“Isn’t it contradictory that [Obama] said [Assad[ must go and now he is saying this isn’t aimed at regime change?” McCain said on Wednesday. “And if it isn’t aimed at regime change what is it named at?”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319107-mccain-slams-obama-over-policy-toward-syria

[ElNono]

that would be an act of war. cordon off with what?

"Cordon off" as in ensuring it doesn't spill on neighboring countries. If it does, you go in.


It was probably a very difficult decision for you and your family. However you had America and other countries who were taking refugees. Most muslims don't meet our standards for political asylum. Or they are in an area where they might be considered a terrorist.

Just to make clear, I didn't emigrate as a refugee, nor moved my family with me. I was merely pointing out that living under a dictatorship isn't a breeze, and emigrating isn't either. My situation was different though. I grew up during the dictatorship days (until I was about 10, when democracy made a comeback), then I emigrated much later, for a different reason (job offer).


Most of those conflicts were from the cold war. Which gave incentive for both sides to aide them and you.

I would agree with that for Eastern Europe countries. Secessionist movements like IRA or ETA predate the Cold War. Same with military juntas in south america.


You disagree. but most countries have agreed that it is unacceptable. we should not allow a dictator to kill entire villages, cities, etc. Civil war/unrest should have rules. I'm not saying realistically trying to 'rid the world of evil'. but helping any group having a democratically elected govt. should be our policy. Not at any costs.

Then you're playing referee again, with something that's completely internal to a country.

What if they don't want to have a democratically elected government at this time? You have the wisdom of many years of democracy, but they don't. It's a process they're going to have to go through on their terms, and it will include spilled blood. Forcing it upon them isn't a solution.

[ElNono]

Nono, I already agree that from an economic standpoint, US has no business there, and even from a moral one as well. That doesnt mean the world shouldn't condemn / impose sanctions on the use of chemical weapons when it clearly carries much higher risks and kills more indiscriminately than conventional types of weapons (I could care less about the "humane" part of which is more painful, the point is that gas/poison is much more difficult to contain/direct). If the UN were offering to send peace keepers to verify the reality of whats going on I would support that. bombing a country thats in the middle of a civil war is totally counterproductive, in fact I liked it much more when the US would send soldiers to a country and deal with the situation directly instead of just bombing the shit out of everything which is the current trend.

I'm not against condemning actions. The first thing I said was "The civilian casualties are terrible", and they are.

[TeyshaBlue]

Just to make clear, I didn't emigrate as a refugee, nor moved my family with me. I was merely pointing out that living under a dictatorship isn't a breeze, and emigrating isn't either. My situation was different though. I grew up during the dictatorship days (until I was about 10, when democracy made a comeback), then I emigrated much later, for a different reason (job offer).

Shup, terrorist.

[ElNono]

Shup, terrorist.

:lol TB
:lol human-american
:lol derp

[TeyshaBlue]

GIEDY

[pgardn]

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I'm pretty sure that the US has signed but not ratified the Protocol I agreement which regulates this type of case. Point being, while I agree absolutely that its not the same to send soldiers with guns to quash an uprising as to bomb them or worse still gas them, the standards are not exactly rock solid. For ex, I'm sure people in the balkans are and Iraq (as well as many vets who fought there) are asking themselves why depleted uranium isnt considered a chemical/biological weapon for its lasting area effects; several countries consider them to be but most of the big players dont (coincidentally, the ones that have and use DU).

Nono, I already agree that from an economic standpoint, US has no business there, and even from a moral one as well. That doesnt mean the world shouldn't condemn / impose sanctions on the use of chemical weapons when it clearly carries much higher risks and kills more indiscriminately than conventional types of weapons (I could care less about the "humane" part of which is more painful, the point is that gas/poison is much more difficult to contain/direct). If the UN were offering to send peace keepers to verify the reality of whats going on I would support that. bombing a country thats in the middle of a civil war is totally counterproductive, in fact I liked it much more when the US would send soldiers to a country and deal with the situation directly instead of just bombing the shit out of everything which is the current trend.

The lessons of WW I established the suffering part of gas felt by soildiers, not many innocent civilians were in the trenches. WW II saw very restricted use because of the memories of WWI. So while you could not care less, the rest of the world does. And the fact that one cannot control exactly where it goes is also significant. Seems people do care about the way humans die, silly or not.

[SA210]

Obama aiding Al Qaeda? Oh yea..I remember bringing that up a few times in this forum...heard nothing but crickets back then, tbh

rofl

[cheguevara]

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

so doesn't this prove it was not ordered by Assad, but a mistake or inside job to incite West response?

you know like when a US pilot dropped a 2 ton bomb in that Iraqi children's hospital?

[cheguevara]

Syria asks UN to immediately investigate three new ‘chemical attacks’ by rebels
http://rt.com/news/syria-investigate-un-chemical-116/

The Syrian government is demanding that the United Nations immediately investigate three alleged chemical attacks carried out by rebel groups on the outskirts of Damascus last week, Syria’s envoy to the UN said.

Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said he had requested UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that the team of experts currently in Damascus investigating an alleged use of chemical weapons last week also investigate these other attacks.

The attacks took place on August 22, 24 and 25 in Jobar, Sahnaya, and al-Bahariya, Bashar Jaafari told journalists Wednesday. The “militants” used toxic chemical gas against the Syrian army, the diplomat said.

[SA210]

https://sphotos-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/s720x720/532102_269397859851923_946730472_n.jpg

[cheguevara]

:wow truth bomb:

Bombing Syria would make US pilots ‘Al-Qaeda's air force’ – Kucinich

Twenty-one Republicans and one Democrat have signed onto a House letter to President Obama demanding that any military action must be signed off on by Congress.

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” says the letter, which was initiated by Republican Congressman Scott Rigell.

“Before engaging in a military strike against Assad’s forces, the United States must understand that this action will likely draw us into a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria,” said Senator Chris Murphy, urging the Obama administration to “continue to exercise restraint, because absent an imminent threat to America’s national security, the U.S. should not take military action without Congressional authorization.”

[SA210]

:wow truth bomb:

Bombing Syria would make US pilots ‘Al-Qaeda's air force’ – Kucinich

Twenty-one Republicans and one Democrat have signed onto a House letter to President Obama demanding that any military action must be signed off on by Congress.

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” says the letter, which was initiated by Republican Congressman Scott Rigell.

“Before engaging in a military strike against Assad’s forces, the United States must understand that this action will likely draw us into a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria,” said Senator Chris Murphy, urging the Obama administration to “continue to exercise restraint, because absent an imminent threat to America’s national security, the U.S. should not take military action without Congressional authorization.”


They should attach this meme to the House Letter, tbh :lmao

https://sphotos-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q73/s720x720/1233510_10151820053879695_2127585455_n.jpg

[cheguevara]

Looks like Saudi offered Russia a lucrative deal with their oil price fixing cartel (OPEC) + a promise to buy 15 billion worth of Russian arms + a promise of security for their Olympic games in exchange for walking away from Syria.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2013/0827/Did-the-Saudis-offer-to-pay-Russia-to-back-off-on-Syria-video

did Russia take it?

in other news:
Russia To Withdraw Personnel From Syria Naval Base :lol
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/russia-syria-base_n_3828972.html

Assad = fucked

Russia takes one on the chin but walks away with a bag of money

[lefty]

How To Intervene In A Foreign Country
--------------------------------------------------

1) Discover, contact and support anti-state elements in the target country.
2) Fund and train them to start peaceful protests.
3) Slowly turn them more violent.
4) Once the government interferes forcefully, give it full media coverage.
5) Start propaganda against the regime all over the world.
6) Provide anti-state elements with weapons to start a countrywide revolt.
7) If they fail, provide them light-weight chem. weapons to use on children and women.
8) Make accusations the regime is using chemical weapons against its own people.
9) Send UN inspectors there; but make sure they don’t complete their work.
10) Contact like-minded countries and prepare for a military intervention.

[cheguevara]

the US official that was quoted as saying 'Decision on Attacking Syria has passed the point of no return' '" has been identified:
http://www.matthewhunt.com/stanleykubrick/drstrangelove.jpg

[cheguevara]

"Syria 'crisis' pushes world oil prices way up"

http://muftah.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/King-Abdullah-Saudi-Arabia.jpg

[symple19]

so doesn't this prove it was not ordered by Assad, but a mistake or inside job to incite West response?

you know like when a US pilot dropped a 2 ton bomb in that Iraqi children's hospital?

Yeah, there are reports out there that it was his younger brother, who commands one of his elite Republican Guard brigades.

It's still murkier than a Louisiana swamp, if you ask me. And certainly not enough to run a limited Tomahawk strike, as seems to be the plan.

Really looking forward to the release of the "hard proof" that's supposed to be the basis for this action.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

"Syria 'crisis' pushes world oil prices way up"

http://muftah.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/King-Abdullah-Saudi-Arabia.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2qc1oco.png

[lefty]

http://www.seversonoil.com/wp-content/uploads/lubricants.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Why does America have to "liberate" Syria? Why does America have to fix that shitty country? Why not fix America first? It's a little shitty here.
This administration has already fucked up the USA. Now he wants to fuck up other nations.

[z0sa]

:lol Kool aid the new boutons
:lol Boutons fake black alter ego

[boutons_deux]

The easy way for Obama to get out of his tough-guy "red line" is to ask Congress to vote on it.

Even the neocon, blood thirsty, kill-ALL-the-Muslims House Repugs and tea baggers would vote against bombing Syria just because it's Obama's idea.

Anyway, the US health "care" system gasses to death a few every year.

"Each year in the United States, anesthesia/anesthetics are reported as the underlying cause in approximately 34 deaths and contributing factors in another 281 deaths"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697561/

[boutons_deux]

OBAMA PROMISES SYRIA STRIKE WILL HAVE NO OBJECTIVE

Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”

“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”

“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

While Mr. Obama clearly hoped that his proposal of a brief and pointless intervention in Syria would reassure the international community, it immediately drew howls of protest from U.S. allies, who argued that two days was too open-ended a timeframe for such a mission.

That criticism led White House spokesman Jay Carney to brief reporters later in the day, arguing that the President was willing to scale down the U.S. mission to “twenty-four hours, thirty-six tops.”

“It may take twenty-four hours, but it could also take twelve,” Mr. Carney said.

“Maybe we get in there, take a look around, and get out right away. But however long it takes, one thing will not change: this mission will have no point. The President is resolute about that.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/08/obama-promises-syria-strike-will-have-no-objective.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(160)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Obama aiding Al Qaeda? Oh yea..I remember bringing that up a few times in this forum...heard nothing but crickets back then, tbh

rofl

No, you got your normal 'youtube meme dumbass' due. I realize that you get your validation from the tin foil consortium but that is just sad.

[boutons_deux]

Yeah, Donny, you and your Repug team of criminal liars REALLY REALLY REALLY justified Iraq intervention! :lol

Donald Rumsfeld: Obama Administration Has Not Justified Syria Intervention

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/donald-rumsfeld-obama-syria_n_3836355.html

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Syria Conflict: Intelligence On Chemical Weapons Is No 'Slam Dunk,' Officials Say

The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture – a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" – intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/us-syria-conflict_n_3834544.html?ir=World&utm_campaign=082913&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-world&utm_content=Title

[SA210]

No, you got your normal 'youtube meme dumbass' due. I realize that you get your validation from the tin foil consortium but that is just sad.

:lol The butthurt continues. Hahaha

I'm so glad I got it right on Obama way before the morons like you ever understood anything about him. Love owning ur ass and some of the other butthurt trolls rofl

Now go..worship Al Qaeda and Obama lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol The butthurt continues. Hahaha

I'm so glad I got it right on Obama way before the morons like you ever understood anything about him. Love owning ur ass and some of the other butthurt trolls rofl

Now go..worship Al Qaeda and Obama lol

You didn't get anything 'right.' You just posted your typical Alex Jonesesque youtubes and memes.

If it makes you feel better thinking that I am mad and upset over here then that is just antisocial behavior. I am not mad at you. If anything I have something closer to pity for you.

You desperately want to fit me into this box of 'butthurt' or '<insert whatever> lover.' It's sad. You don't think for yourself either and instead spoonnfeed on this canned nonsense. That is sad too.

While it is true that I used to get mad at minions such as yourself, I realize now that there is no point. I will just comment when you misrepresent the truth. So go ahead and regurgitate the same slightly altered canned response of the same retort such as the above. I don't care much at all.

[SA210]

:lmao whoa whoa whoa...stop the meltdown there fuzzy. I know you're mad because you can't think for yourself and CNN does the thinking for you. Take off your tin foil hat for a change and realize there are things such as free thinking lol

I know it stings you that I was right about Obama being a fraud even before 2008 lol, but no need to get suicidal over it crofl

lol moron
lol Al Qaeda sympathizer

[SA210]

https://sphotos-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/527616_506362276067945_1945450231_n.jpg

[SA210]

What do Americans think about War with Syria


In this video Luke Rudkowski hits the streets of NYC to talk to random people about the current situation regarding Syria. This is an honest look into what random people think about the upcoming war. Everyone who was interviewed was included in this video and we did not edit out anyone who we talked to. As you can see the majority of people we spoke to were against the war, except for one person but a lot of people also seemed not to care about the situation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwxtt1y9NV0

[Blake]

:lmao whoa whoa whoa...stop the meltdown there fuzzy. I know you're mad because you can't think for yourself and CNN does the thinking for you. Take off your tin foil hat for a change and realize there are things such as free thinking lol

I know it stings you that I was right about Obama being a fraud even before 2008 lol, but no need to get suicidal over it crofl

lol moron
lol Al Qaeda sympathizer

your condescending tone doesn't hide your lack of intelligence.

[SA210]

:cry

[SA210]

Truth bombs

TYT: What's the REAL Reason the US Is Attacking Syria?


The United States is poised to launch a missile attack in Syria, alleging that the Assad government has crossed a "red line" by using chemical weapons against rebel factions in the Syrian civil war. But are the allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government credible? And what does it say about our democracy that the Obama Administration will likely launch cruise missiles against Syria despite very low levels of support for an attack among the American public? And if chemical weapons AREN'T behind the rush to war, what's the real reason driving the Administration's aggressive posture against the Assad regime?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syv4rQiGJUQ

[in2deep]

well all those bombs catching spiderwebs at the military wharehouses need to be used. otherwise how will military companies make more money?

[TSA]

well all those bombs catching spiderwebs at the military wharehouses need to be used. otherwise how will military companies make more money?

I'm close enough in San Diego to Camp Pendleton to tell you those bombs are not catching spiderwebs. They've been going nuts lately.

[in2deep]

I'm close enough in San Diego to Camp Pendleton to tell you those bombs are not catching spiderwebs. They've been going nuts lately.

well I'm sure the 3 aircraft carriers already deployed to the region are filled to the brim with bombs. and military procurement people are filling their online shopping carts with bombs to the brim

[cheguevara]

TYT: What's the REAL Reason the US Is Attacking Syria? [/B]


It's pretty simple.:
- Saudi is leading the charge against Syria mainly because of the Iran-Syria-Iraq pipeline plan deal that would sell Irani gas to Europe bypassing and taking market from OPEC(Saudis)
- Israel is right behind Saudi because Syria is the best friend of their mortal enemy Iran
- US and puppets are just trailing behind those 2 blindfolded and being guided by the oil companies and military complex

that pretty much sums up what is going on. The one leading the entire troupe of freaks into Syria is noone else but BANDAR BUSH, the leader and financer of all the Jihadist factions (including Al-Qaeda) in the region:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2012/07/21/86371_mainimg.jpg

now don't forget this Bandar Bush is not only the incarnation of Satan himself on this earth, he is also incompetent maybe more than his brother Bush Jr himself :lol

- he was the architect of the Iran-Contra fuckup. Scandal
- he was caught selling oil tankers for bribes to BAE-Margaret Thatcher. Scandal
- he was Saudi ambassador to Saudi during 911 and helped Bin Laden's family and other Saudi's escape US right after the attacks
- he's also been linked to financing 911 hijackers

yes. This demonic possession is leading the entire world as we speak.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao whoa whoa whoa...stop the meltdown there fuzzy. I know you're mad because you can't think for yourself and CNN does the thinking for you. Take off your tin foil hat for a change and realize there are things such as free thinking lol

I know it stings you that I was right about Obama being a fraud even before 2008 lol, but no need to get suicidal over it crofl

lol moron
lol Al Qaeda sympathizer

:lol free thinking from the guy that uses other people's meme's and youtubes to express their politics

and there you go making up things to provide your illusion of what the world is.

I don't watch TV much less cable news. I do not support Obama or the democratic party in any way.

You have to fit everything in your little boxes to make sense of them. I don't agree with you or your methodology so I must be <category A.> You do this with EVERYONE that disagrees with you. It's sad how many people in this world are just like you. Again I pity you.

[SA210]

:lol fuzzy with the lies

Let the butthurt flow thru you lol

[spursncowboys]

I'm close enough in San Diego to Camp Pendleton to tell you those bombs are not catching spiderwebs. They've been going nuts lately.
Everyone is trying to spend all the money they have in their budget so they won't lose it.

[thunderup]

:lol Hussein Obama about to dig this country a deeper hole

:lol worst president ever

[cheguevara]

:lmao Cameron gets his ass kicked in British Parliament. "No War for you!" :lol

:lol Putin tells Prince Bandar Bin Satan to fuck off with his Olympics terrorist threats and raises Russian Army readiness to "Regional War" Level

:lmao meanwhile the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Recipient posts a shoutout to JayZ on his facebook page :lmao :lmao

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/08-2/Cameron%20Obama_0.jpg

[Th'Pusher]

Everyone is trying to spend all the money they have in their budget so they won't lose it.
Yeah. We do this in private industry too. Is private industry more efficient?

[DMC]

:lol free thinking from the guy that uses other people's meme's and youtubes to express their politics

and there you go making up things to provide your illusion of what the world is.

I don't watch TV much less cable news. I do not support Obama or the democratic party in any way.

You have to fit everything in your little boxes to make sense of them. I don't agree with you or your methodology so I must be <category A.> You do this with EVERYONE that disagrees with you. It's sad how many people in this world are just like you. Again I pity you.

Someone who uses a name from the Powderpuff Girls cartoon cannot hold the "don't watch TV" ground very long.

[SnakeBoy]

You didn't get anything 'right.' You just posted your typical Alex Jonesesque youtubes and memes.

If it makes you feel better thinking that I am mad and upset over here then that is just antisocial behavior. I am not mad at you. If anything I have something closer to pity for you.

You desperately want to fit me into this box of 'butthurt' or '<insert whatever> lover.' It's sad. You don't think for yourself either and instead spoonnfeed on this canned nonsense. That is sad too.

While it is true that I used to get mad at minions such as yourself, I realize now that there is no point. I will just comment when you misrepresent the truth. So go ahead and regurgitate the same slightly altered canned response of the same retort such as the above. I don't care much at all.

:lol yeah you do and it's funny.

[cheguevara]

:lol US and British incompetence emboldens the Russians, they are sending multiple warships to the Mediterranean

omefUAf1j44

[HI-FI]

Bouton's boy trying to tap that WW3 ass.

[spursncowboys]

Yeah. We do this in private industry too. Is private industry more efficient?
Any org who does that is inefficient. Do you disagree?

[The Reckoning]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/syria-conflict-intensifies-as-bears-enter-war,33659/


:lmao

Syria’s ongoing civil war entered a new and dangerous phase today as tens of thousands of bloodthirsty bears reportedly descended on the strife-torn country, charging from city to city on a murderous rampage.

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/23/23307/original/700.jpg?0261

[Th'Pusher]

Any org who does that is inefficient. Do you disagree?
I absolutely disagree. It would obviously depend on what they spend the money on and the goals of the organization. Make a capital investment, an unplanned bonus to employees to boost morale, etc. There are literally hundreds of good reasons to spend all of the money in a fiscal budget.

[spursncowboys]

I absolutely disagree. It would obviously depend on what they spend the money on and the goals of the organization. Make a capital investment, an unplanned bonus to employees to boost morale, etc. There are literally hundreds of good reasons to spend all of the money in a fiscal budget.
Sure. That would be great. My problem with it is when an org will save the money up until it's time for them to get rid of it. It lacks real planning. A co. shouldn't feel like they will lose the money if they don't use it. It's stupid.

[boobie4three]

As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“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,” Obama responded.




http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-under-constitution-unilaterally-authorize-military

[TDMVPDPOY]

obama going ham on nfd 16trill

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol yeah you do and it's funny.

I care about the conversation. Sure. That particular antic is not worth a bother.

[cheguevara]

:lmao France bumping their chest crying for war: "France ready to strike Syria without British help, says President"

meanwhile the rest of the world ignores them "News: US gets ready to hit Syria alone" :lol :lol

:lmao pathetic french pussies nobody gives a shit about them and their pathetic army

[cheguevara]

Syrian air force no walkover, says Russia
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/syrian-air-force-no-walkover-says-russia/article5076279.ece

“Syria’s air defences are capable of giving an adequate response to strikes by the United States and its allies in the anti-Syrian coalition if they unleash war,” a former commander of Russia’s air defence forces told the Interfax news agency on Friday.

“Damascus today has about a thousand units of anti-aircraft rocket systems, and more than 5,000 anti-aircraft artillery systems of various types,” the former commander said.

The official did not rule out that Syria already has the advanced S-300 missiles, which could pose a serious threat to a Western air campaign.

“If Russia did not deliver the missiles, as its top leadership stated, Belarus or China could have done it on the quiet in 2010 or 2011,” he said.

Older Soviet systems, S-200 Angara and S-200V Vega “would be just as dangerous for U.S. aircraft and cruise missiles,” the Russian commander said, adding that the upgraded S-200V batteries constituted the backbone of the Syrian air defences.

The official described the long-range S-200 missile as “the best Russian system” developed to intercept the Pershing medium-range ballistic missiles the U.S. deployed in Europe during the Cold War.

“The modernised S-200V missile performs like a well-trained dog: just tell it ‘attack’ and it will get the enemy no matter what evasive action he tries,” he said.

[lefty]

Syrian air force no walkover, says Russia
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/syrian-air-force-no-walkover-says-russia/article5076279.ece

“Syria’s air defences are capable of giving an adequate response to strikes by the United States and its allies in the anti-Syrian coalition if they unleash war,” a former commander of Russia’s air defence forces told the Interfax news agency on Friday.

“Damascus today has about a thousand units of anti-aircraft rocket systems, and more than 5,000 anti-aircraft artillery systems of various types,” the former commander said.

The official did not rule out that Syria already has the advanced S-300 missiles, which could pose a serious threat to a Western air campaign.

“If Russia did not deliver the missiles, as its top leadership stated, Belarus or China could have done it on the quiet in 2010 or 2011,” he said.

Older Soviet systems, S-200 Angara and S-200V Vega “would be just as dangerous for U.S. aircraft and cruise missiles,” the Russian commander said, adding that the upgraded S-200V batteries constituted the backbone of the Syrian air defences.

The official described the long-range S-200 missile as “the best Russian system” developed to intercept the Pershing medium-range ballistic missiles the U.S. deployed in Europe during the Cold War.

“The modernised S-200V missile performs like a well-trained dog: just tell it ‘attack’ and it will get the enemy no matter what evasive action he tries,” he said.
http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31800000/Iron-Man-iron-man-3-31861395-250-272.gif

[RD2191]

Syrian air force no walkover, says Russia
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/syrian-air-force-no-walkover-says-russia/article5076279.ece

“Syria’s air defences are capable of giving an adequate response to strikes by the United States and its allies in the anti-Syrian coalition if they unleash war,” a former commander of Russia’s air defence forces told the Interfax news agency on Friday.

“Damascus today has about a thousand units of anti-aircraft rocket systems, and more than 5,000 anti-aircraft artillery systems of various types,” the former commander said.

The official did not rule out that Syria already has the advanced S-300 missiles, which could pose a serious threat to a Western air campaign.

“If Russia did not deliver the missiles, as its top leadership stated, Belarus or China could have done it on the quiet in 2010 or 2011,” he said.

Older Soviet systems, S-200 Angara and S-200V Vega “would be just as dangerous for U.S. aircraft and cruise missiles,” the Russian commander said, adding that the upgraded S-200V batteries constituted the backbone of the Syrian air defences.

The official described the long-range S-200 missile as “the best Russian system” developed to intercept the Pershing medium-range ballistic missiles the U.S. deployed in Europe during the Cold War.

“The modernised S-200V missile performs like a well-trained dog: just tell it ‘attack’ and it will get the enemy no matter what evasive action he tries,” he said.
:lmao

[Th'Pusher]

Syrian air force no walkover, says Russia
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/syrian-air-force-no-walkover-says-russia/article5076279.ece

“Syria’s air defences are capable of giving an adequate response to strikes by the United States and its allies in the anti-Syrian coalition if they unleash war,” a former commander of Russia’s air defence forces told the Interfax news agency on Friday.

“Damascus today has about a thousand units of anti-aircraft rocket systems, and more than 5,000 anti-aircraft artillery systems of various types,” the former commander said.

The official did not rule out that Syria already has the advanced S-300 missiles, which could pose a serious threat to a Western air campaign.

“If Russia did not deliver the missiles, as its top leadership stated, Belarus or China could have done it on the quiet in 2010 or 2011,” he said.

Older Soviet systems, S-200 Angara and S-200V Vega “would be just as dangerous for U.S. aircraft and cruise missiles,” the Russian commander said, adding that the upgraded S-200V batteries constituted the backbone of the Syrian air defences.

The official described the long-range S-200 missile as “the best Russian system” developed to intercept the Pershing medium-range ballistic missiles the U.S. deployed in Europe during the Cold War.

“The modernised S-200V missile performs like a well-trained dog: just tell it ‘attack’ and it will get the enemy no matter what evasive action he tries,” he said.

I thought you said the Russian government sold out Syria for a bag of cash.

[AaronY]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ym6u1yt5yi7gif/original.gif

[boutons_deux]

Why Syria Intervention Plan Is Being Pushed by Oil Interests, Not Concern About Chemical Weapon

US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

http://www.alternet.org/world/syria-intervention-plan-fueled-oil-interests-not-chemical-weapon-concern?akid=10868.187590.jyBw7M&rd=1&src=newsletter890083&t=12

[RandomGuy]

Although I'm pretty sure you're a troll, this is completely accurate. Most of the soldiers who have passed on lessons learned through the decade of war, are gone. The Army wants to go back to Cold War training and do not want to adjust SOP's for the more likely enemie-Insurgents. I doubt they'll be a draft. I also doubt BHO will do anything more than drop some bombs on abandoned buildings.

I think you are underestimating the scope of what is about to go down, by a couple orders of magnitude.

This post just reminds me of the sad fact that there are so many knee-jerk Obama haters who see all of reality through Fox-colored glasses without bothering to apply critical thinking to anything they see, hear, or believe. That makes me sad.

S'okay. You have me to say "I told you so". Maybe, just maybe, one day you might develop some willingness to question things a bit more critically.

[spursncowboys]

I think you are underestimating the scope of what is about to go down, by a couple orders of magnitude.

This post just reminds me of the sad fact that there are so many knee-jerk Obama haters who see all of reality through Fox-colored glasses without bothering to apply critical thinking to anything they see, hear, or believe. That makes me sad.

S'okay. You have me to say "I told you so". Maybe, just maybe, one day you might develop some willingness to question things a bit more critically.
Wow. So much nonsense. You didn't once, explain the part of my post that brought you to each conclusion. Maybe you can work on it and come to me with actual criticisms and perhaps reasons why I'm wrong.

[RandomGuy]

Why Syria Intervention Plan Is Being Pushed by Oil Interests, Not Concern About Chemical Weapon

US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

http://www.alternet.org/world/syria-intervention-plan-fueled-oil-interests-not-chemical-weapon-concern?akid=10868.187590.jyBw7M&rd=1&src=newsletter890083&t=12




Speaking of looking through colored glasses.

Answer this one question, what would a real attack look like in the age of cell phone cameras and the internet?

https://www.google.com/search?q=syria+gas+attack+pictures&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hT8iUr3EF-Gw2AXGhoDQCg&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=775

If there were a real attack, what would people think about it, even absent any interest pushing one line of action or another?

We are at a point where we have to ask ourselves, what do we do?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

[RandomGuy]

Wow. So much nonsense. You didn't once, explain the part of my post that brought you to each conclusion. Maybe you can work on it and come to me with actual criticisms and perhaps reasons why I'm wrong.

Your automatic assumption that only "empty buildings" would be hit.

The underlying implication is that a Democratic president that you don't like would be unwilling, or incapable of ordering a devastating military strike.

Is that essentially what you were getting at?

[TSA]

And do nothing we should.

[scroteface]

can't believe this has gotten to page 7 without anyone making fun of OP for his coon grammar. wtf is a war monger?

[Th'Pusher]

can't believe this has gotten to page 7 without anyone making fun of OP for his coon grammar. wtf is a war monger?

-monger
▶comb. form
denoting a dealer or trader in a specified commodity:
fishmonger |
cheesemonger.
■a person who promotes a specified activity, situation, or feeling, esp. one that is undesirable or discreditable:
rumormonger |
warmonger.
– origin
Old English mangere, from mangian ‘to traffic,’ of Germanic origin, based on Latin mango ‘dealer.’
New Oxford American Dictionary © 2010 Oxford University Press

[RandomGuy]

can't believe this has gotten to page 7 without anyone making fun of OP for his coon grammar. wtf is a war monger?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=war+monger

[RD2191]

We don't want another war but hey I love my car and I love using oil. Oh by the way I hate all major oil corporations but I sure do love using their oil. LOL. The stupidity of the American people never ceases to amaze me.

[scroteface]

It's one word "warmonger"

[spursncowboys]

Your automatic assumption that only "empty buildings" would be hit.

The underlying implication is that a Democratic president that you don't like would be unwilling, or incapable of ordering a devastating military strike.

Is that essentially what you were getting at?
no
I need to go back and reread and find how you could have come up with that.

[spursncowboys]

RandomGuy: I was only saying the boldened part was "completely accurate"

[spursncowboys]

Actualy there is no way of figuring out where you got any of that from my comments. The whole Clinton style bombing is stupid.

[boobie4three]

Krauthammer: Obama boxed himself in and now he's looking for a way out of attacking Syria




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTozBDR4esc

[boutons_deux]

Krauthammer: Obama boxed himself in and now he's looking for a way out of attacking Syria



der Krauthammer :lol long ago yielded any credibility as serious conservative commentator. He's nothing but right-wing tool and shill.

[scroteface]

der Krauthammer :lol long ago yielded any credibility as serious conservative commentator. He's nothing but right-wing tool and shill.

kind of like your zionist ass is for the left except on a tiny scale where only a few spurstalkers ever hear your shit

[hater]

masterful move by Obama imo. he is taking the issue to Congress. :lol the republicans heads will explode: vote for obama or vote against war

[boobie4three]

der Krauthammer :lol long ago yielded any credibility as serious conservative commentator. He's nothing but right-wing tool and shill.


You repeat your MediaMatters talking points very well. They should give you a rai$e.

[Th'Pusher]

You repeat your MediaMatters talking points very well. They should give you a rai$e.
Do you have an issue with Obama taking this to congress?

[spursncowboys]

Do you have an issue with Obama taking this to congress?
Maybe he should of took his comment about the red line to congress to make sure if they will support it.

[boutons_deux]

Maybe he should of took his comment about the red line to congress to make sure if they will support it.

chemical warfare has been internationally illegal, condemned for decades. Trying intimidate Assad into not gassing was worth a try.

Repugs said nothing as St Ronnie's ally Saddam gassed Iranians in the 80s. Now they have chance to let another chemical-warfare war criminal go unpunished.

[boobie4three]

Do you have an issue with Obama taking this to congress?

It's like the "Kraut" says in the video. 0bama knows he fucked up by acting like a tough guy and he's only doing this because Congress will bail him out by nixing any sort of military attack....Amateur Hour at the White House.

[Th'Pusher]

Maybe he should of took his comment about the red line to congress to make sure if they will support it.
Fuck. Conservatives have been whining that, per the constitution, Barry needs to run it through congress. He asks for congresses approval and you fucker still find a reason to whine.

[Th'Pusher]

It's like the "Kraut" says in the video. 0bama knows he fucked up by acting like a tough guy and he's only doing this because Congress will bail him out by nixing any sort of military attack....Amateur Hour at the White House.
Is it not the responsibility of the congress to declare war?

[scroteface]

chemical warfare has been internationally illegal, condemned for decades. Trying intimidate Assad into not gassing was worth a try.

Repugs said nothing as St Ronnie's ally Saddam gassed Iranians in the 80s. Now they have chance to let another chemical-warfare war criminal go unpunished.
Dude where have you been, the rebels already admitted guilt for the attack. They said it was an accident mishandling weapons from Saudi Arabia that they supposedly didn't know were chemical weapons.

[boobie4three]

Is it not the responsibility of the congress to declare war?

He should have went to Congress immediately after the chemical attacks. Instead he dithers and talks tough, embarrassing himself on the world stage by getting bitch slapped by the Brits, and pushing Russia to go on a state of alert. Dangerous shit. Going to Congress now is a joke. They're all on recess and won't get around to discussing this for a week or longer. We warned you clowns that this community organizer would make a lousy President.

[RandomGuy]

no
I need to go back and reread and find how you could have come up with that.


I also doubt BHO will do anything more than drop some bombs on abandoned buildings.

You have stated that the strike will be either ineffectual, either purposefully or unintentionally.

There really isn't another way to interpret it.

The implication, that BHO was either unwilling, or unable to do more than hit abandoned buildings was pretty clear.

Given your irrational dislike of him, it is logical to assume that the impetus for saying this was more emotional, than based on any information you had or have. This is par for the course in how you have, in the past, formed opinions that you vomit up here from time to time, then run the fuck away from when you get called on your bullshit.

Kinda like you are doing here.

[scroteface]

Random_cuckold you couldn't even keep your bitch muzzled while she ran around supporting polyamory, you have no right to call anyone out.

[RandomGuy]

Krauthammer: Obama boxed himself in and now he's looking for a way out of attacking Syria




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTozBDR4esc

LOL Krauthammer.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/stfu_arh.jpg

He has said anything and everything bad about any Democrat that you put in front of him. "Democrat bad! Republican good!"

Dude could be replaced with a 'bot.

He isn't wrong because he is a partisan hack of course, but one should be very very skeptical when he says things about Democrats.

People like them let their emotions cloud their analysis, and are not to be trusted about such things.

If you have sucked it up without any degree of skepticism... well, that's on you.

[scroteface]

Blah blah blah cuck cuck cuck

[RandomGuy]

Random_cuckold you couldn't even keep your bitch muzzled while she ran around supporting polyamory, you have no right to call anyone out.

LOL personal attacks.

When you have to fall back on that, you might as well be waving a giant white flag, trollboy.

It screams "I am outclassed intellectually and am really insecure about it, so let me change the subject to something I think I can win on!!!"

Sorry. Any personal failings I may or may not have will still not make you right about any given topic and me wrong.

Fail.

[RandomGuy]

:yield

:sleep

Let me know when you want to get back on topic. Until then, I see no need to feed some immature little boy's ego.


(edit)

And by this I mean, I am simply not going to give you any more attention, which is what you want.

[scroteface]

Who's right and who's wrong about what topic? This is my first time ever addressing you, I'm just calling it like it is bitch. Didn't even read what you two are arguing on about..I'm sure it wasn't any more interesting than any of your other posts mr plain vanilla cuck

[RandomGuy]

He should have went to Congress immediately after the chemical attacks. Instead he dithers and talks tough, embarrassing himself on the world stage by getting bitch slapped by the Brits, and pushing Russia to go on a state of alert. Dangerous shit. Going to Congress now is a joke. They're all on recess and won't get around to discussing this for a week or longer. We warned you clowns that this community organizer would make a lousy President.

Vice President Palin.

Those words make any regret I might have vanish in a puff of smoke.

The GOP then offered an elitist rich guy as an alternative that obviously didn't give two shits about anybody with less money.

Made the choice easy both times.

[scroteface]

Vice President Palin.

Those words make any regret I might have vanish in a puff of smoke.

The GOP then offered an elitist rich guy as an alternative that obviously didn't give two shits about anybody with less money.

Made the choice easy both times.

grow some balls and vote third party then cuck

[boobie4three]

Vice President Palin.

Those words make any regret I might have vanish in a puff of smoke.

The GOP then offered an elitist rich guy as an alternative that obviously didn't give two shits about anybody with less money.

Made the choice easy both times.

I got your Palin RIGHT here.

August 31, 2013
Dead is dead; let Allah sort it out

The usual war on women liberals who mocked vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (R) for not attending a prestigious college were baffled that she made it on her own, not with inherited wealth or her husband's influence.
And so they laughed when she predicted death panels under Obamacare; they're not laughing now. And they continued their laughter and their mockery over the past few years including more than two months ago, pre President Barack Hussein Obama's (D) allegedly broken "red line" in Syria, when she bluntly stated,

"Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We're talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we're doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he's doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren't even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, 'Allah Akbar,' I say until we have someone who knows what they're doing, I say let Allah sort it out," Palin said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference.


more
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/dead_is_dead_let_allah_sort_it_out.html

[RandomGuy]

It's like the "Kraut" says in the video. 0bama knows he fucked up by acting like a tough guy and he's only doing this because Congress will bail him out by nixing any sort of military attack....Amateur Hour at the White House.

So what happens to this opinion, if President Obama orders a large crushing military strike?

The people who pay attention to such things who don't have poltical axes to grind say that preparations for that are underway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/syria-evacuates-army-buildings_n_3829847.html

CCC buildigns will likely be hit, but I would guess that more likely targets will be air assets. Helicopters, airfields, AAA, ADA, and the like.

I think that what will be targeted will be similar to what happened in Libya. The kinds of heavy weapons and air power that give the Assad government the upper hand when fighting lightly armed rebels.

The most logical thing here would be to seriously degrade Assad's military capabilities.


President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sent out a Tweet on Friday, calling what happened "an apparent CW (chemical weapons) attack." And the commander of U.S. forces in the Mediterranean has ordered Navy warships to move closer to Syria to be ready for a possible cruise missile strike.

This is, to me, the most logical outcome.

Congress OK or no, I am pretty sure something will be done.

Assad has called, and we will get to see what Obama is holding.

[RandomGuy]

grow some balls and vote third party then cuck

I am rather comfortable voting for Democrats generally. I haven't seen anything in any third party candidate that has made me think that voting for them is a good idea.

When I was younger I thought Perot was a good idea (shudders). Now I subject such things to a wee bit more skepticism.

[RandomGuy]

It is also quite probable that any known caches of WMD's that have been identified to now will be hit, IMO.

Based on what the administration is saying and what observers are seeing in the movement of assets, it points to a strike, and likely not a small one. Anything less would be a serious loss of face for the US, and despite what Fox news wants people to believe to get better ratings, that is something that any presidency takes seriously, D or R.

[RandomGuy]

I got your Palin RIGHT here.

August 31, 2013
Dead is dead; let Allah sort it out

The usual war on women liberals who mocked vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (R) for not attending a prestigious college were baffled that she made it on her own, not with inherited wealth or her husband's influence.
And so they laughed when she predicted death panels under Obamacare; they're not laughing now. And they continued their laughter and their mockery over the past few years including more than two months ago, pre President Barack Hussein Obama's (D) allegedly broken "red line" in Syria, when she bluntly stated,

"Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We're talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we're doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he's doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren't even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, 'Allah Akbar,' I say until we have someone who knows what they're doing, I say let Allah sort it out," Palin said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference.


more
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/dead_is_dead_let_allah_sort_it_out.html

Meh. She jumped the shark years ago.

I can't think of anybody who takes anything she says seriously any more. Do you?

Its a bit like paying attention to a reality TV "star"

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/who_cares-coleman.jpg

[boobie4three]

It is also quite probable that any known caches of WMD's that have been identified to now will be hit, IMO.

Any significant targets have more than likely been moved because our blustery President thought it was a good idea to look and act tough without thinking things through. And what happens if we do hit a stockpile of Sarin gas and it spreads and kills scores of civilians? Will 0bama win another Nobel Peace Prize for that?

[boobie4three]

Meh. She jumped the shark years ago.

I can't think of anybody who takes anything she says seriously any more. Do you?

Its a bit like paying attention to a reality TV "star"

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/who_cares-coleman.jpg

Judging from that quote of hers, she has a better grasp of the situation than the Community Organizer in Chief.

[ElNono]

:lol Sarah Palin
:lol GOP

[ElNono]

:lol Joe Biden
:lol Dems

[Nbadan]

Maybe not brilliant, but...

Obama's 'Blink' On Syria Is Politically Brilliant

by Brett LoGiurato at Business Insider


"SNIP............................



Obama blinked, but he blinked with a dare. He is daring Congress to say no to limited action against a dictator for the brutal use of chemical weapons against his own people — an attack that the U.S. says killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.

"Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?" Obama said in a statement from the Rose Garden Saturday.

"What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?"

In taking this move, Obama answered the waning enthusiasm from the American public and his allies overseas for intervention. He answered the calls from more than 100 members of Congress who sent him a letter saying he needed their approval. And he answered the American public, 80% of whom want congressional approval.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-syria-congressional-authorization-boehner-2013-8

[boutons_deux]

BusinessInsider pegged it.

AmericanStinker, ignorant non-thinking right-wing toilet paper, still thinks pitbull bitch has ANY merit.

made it on her own? :lol Even Alaska doesn't want her now. :lol

toxic pitbull bitch single-handedly took McLiar out of the running :lol

death panels? :lol

[scroteface]

boutons stop denying my zionist allegations and stand trial like a man

[boobie4three]

In his speech Saturday, 0bama said he'll seek Congress's approval but also said that he doesn't NEED their approval. If he really believes Syria needs to be attacked why doesn't he just DO IT. By waiting for Congress to reconvene, 0bama is allowing Assad to kill thousands more of his own people. Don't think for a moment 0bama won't be asked that question.

[SA210]

RG: "Irrational dislike" (for a child mass murdering Nobel Peace Prize winner)

:rollin

[Nbadan]

Obama asks Congress to approve military strike against Syria
Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:10pm EDT
By Roberta Rampton and Jeff Mason


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama stepped back from the brink on Saturday and delayed an imminent military strike against Syria to seek approval from the U.S. Congress in a gamble that will test his ability to project American strength abroad and deploy his own power at home.

Before Obama put on the brakes, the path had been cleared for a U.S. assault. Navy ships were in place and awaiting orders to launch missiles, and U.N. inspectors had left Syria after gathering evidence of a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials say killed 1,429 people.

But Obama decided to seek the backing of U.S. lawmakers before attacking, as polls showed strong opposition from Americans already weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Approval will take at least 10 days, if it comes at all.

"Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move as one nation," Obama said in a dramatic shift he announced in the White House Rose Garden.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97K0EL20130901

[SA210]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUyPpT0_8Gg

:tu Putin bitch-slapping war criminal Obama lol

[Jacob1983]

Obama is a neocon disguised as a liberal. What a piece of shit. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

SA210 loves him some Putin. :tu

[velik_m]

CCC buildigns will likely be hit, but I would guess that more likely targets will be air assets. Helicopters, airfields, AAA, ADA, and the like.

I think that what will be targeted will be similar to what happened in Libya. The kinds of heavy weapons and air power that give the Assad government the upper hand when fighting lightly armed rebels.

The most logical thing here would be to seriously degrade Assad's military capabilities.



This is, to me, the most logical outcome.

Congress OK or no, I am pretty sure something will be done.

Assad has called, and we will get to see what Obama is holding.

And thus forcing Assad to turn to more unconvetional weapons like wmds, making this action a double fail of not only not making anything better, but also making it much worse.

[hater]

SA210 loves him some Putin. :tu

Putin is the greatest leader of this generation. Only a pussy would disagree imo

[Wild Cobra]

Putin is the greatest leader of this generation. Only a pussy would disagree imo

I don't have to like the asshole to agree he's a great header. I didn't like Clinton either, but he was a great leader.

Leaders can be good or bad.

[hater]

I don't have to like the asshole to agree he's a great header. I didn't like Clinton either, but he was a great leader.

Leaders can be good or bad.

:tu

[pgardn]

Putin is the greatest leader of this generation. Only a pussy would disagree imo

Yeah.

He has been great at squashing opponents. Hitler was a great leader as was Mao. Look where that got them.
Idiot. Russia has more mineral and land wealth than any country and they cannot even feed their own people. The inefficiency of Russia is something to behold. Leader... Yes indeed. Holding on to power makes a GREAT leader. Maybe Obama can become a great leader by winning a third and fourth term and dissolve the constitution while he is at it?

[pgardn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUyPpT0_8Gg

:tu Putin bitch-slapping war criminal Obama lol


Do you suck his teats while his shirt is off?

There are lots of opportunities.

[SA210]

I don't have to like Putin to know he just dropped some truth bombs on neo con war criminal Obama, tbh. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I don't have to like Putinbut it helps.

[boobie4three]

Obama puts politics over morals in abdicating presidential authority in Syria

By MICHAEL GOODWIN
Last Updated: 9:45 AM, September 1, 2013
Posted: 12:33 AM, September 1, 2013
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/politics_over_morals_in_audacity_F9fbiQz9wZeF7fJFO TbqsM

As the scheduled time for President Obama’s address on Syria came and went yesterday, reporters in the Rose Garden could see him through the Oval Office windows, talking on the telephone.

He was probably talking to political guru David Axelrod about the latest polls — just before he demanded that Congress rise above partisanship.

You don’t have to be a cynic to scoff at Obama’s claim that his sudden decision to seek approval for a military strike shows his loyalty to the Constitution. In truth, it is all about saving his own bacon. He talked himself into no-man’s land and is now desperately seeking an escape hatch.

Boxed in from the left and right, at home and abroad, heckled as a hypocrite and a flip-flopper, he didn’t have a single friend, let alone a coalition. So he kicked the can to Congress and challenged its members to make the unpopular decision he’s not willing to make as commander in chief.

The 11th-hour reversal is a Gilda Radner moment — “Never mind!” She did it as comedy; Obama does it as farce.

For the last week, White House aides have engaged in relentless fear mongering about the dangers of inaction and delay. Even yesterday, Obama warned that Bashar al-Assad is a global menace, said the use of chemical weapons is a moral outrage that must be punished and warned that potential proliferation is a grave threat to our national security and our allies.

And then he said . . . But.

Or, as the professor in chief put it, he’s decided a military strike is necessary and that he has the authority to launch one, but insists a strike “is not time-sensitive.”

“It will be effective tomorrow, next week or one month from now,” he declared. That silly, happy talk bears no relation to the reality that Syrian troops were said to be moving chemical weapons to protected sites even as Obama spoke. Whatever plans our military has cannot possibly survive a delay of weeks or months.

Obama’s casual abandonment of the urgency that Secretary of State John Kerry had articulated so forcefully Friday also happens to be convenient for him. The president’s failure to summon Congress for an emergency session is surely tied to the fact that Obama leaves Tuesday for a European summit and won’t return to Washington until next Friday.

He couldn’t very well demand a congressional debate on what he describes as a crucial test of Western values while he’s out of the country. Note that he didn’t think the issue was important enough for him to skip the international gabfest.

So, in the end, he concocted a Rubik’s Cube strategy designed to make him look both tough and principled while also protecting him politically: Preen about morality, delay action and hand the responsibility to somebody else. That way he’ll have a handy scapegoat if it all goes south.

If Congress, like Britain’s Parliament, says no, well then, what can Obama do? And if Congress says yes, then he’s not alone in the foxhole.

In its own way, his strategic concoction perfectly reflects who and what he is as a president — clever without being wise. He’s got an answer for everything and a solution for nothing.

Remember, Obama put himself in this no-win situation by passively watching the bodies pile up in Syria. His declaration of a “red line” on chemical weapons aimed to make him look resolute but it amounted, as Sen. John McCain said, to a green light on wholesale slaughter with every other kind of weapon.

So it was no surprise that Assad, in a fight to the death, crossed the red line. In fact, reports say he has done it more than a dozen times.

He did it without fear of the United States and has been proven right. Indeed, Obama’s statement last week that the military strike he had planned would only be a “shot across the bow” would have been a pointless provocation. Assad would have survived and rallied his troops and jihadists against the US “invasion.”

Now that Obama has blinked on even a limited strike, Assad will claim victory, secure that he’s free to keep the slaughter going.

The rebels and the innocents will have to look elsewhere for a savior.

You can also bet that Iran, North Korea and all other genocidal maniacs celebrated the president’s punt. They know, better than he, that abdication of leadership is not easily reversed.

At one point yesterday, Obama noted that: “Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning.”

He’s right about that but seems not to understand that the global order is crumbling largely because America is no longer willing to enforce the rules.

Or, more to the point, that America’s current president is no longer willing to enforce the rules.

[ChumpDumper]

lol now you don't want congressional approval.

[boobie4three]

lol now you don't want congressional approval.

Go back and read the last couple of pages if you really care to know my arguments.

[ChumpDumper]

So you just posted that article for no reason?

[boobie4three]

So you just posted that article for no reason?

The author pretty much concurred what I've been posting here about the situation. I just wanted to post his article here in order to lay the groundwork for a lawsuit when I sue the bastard for plagiarism.

[cheguevara]

:lmao genocidal maniacs.

the only genocidal maniacs are the Bush including the adoptive Saudi son Bandar Bush Bin Satan

USA is nothing but a puppet of the Saudi-Israeli coalition

"Saudi is on board with the attacks" - John Kerry :lmao

they won't even let US refuel or take off their jets from Saudi :lol

[cheguevara]

"France cannot go it alone,"French Interior Minister Manuel Valls told Europe 1 radio. "We need a coalition."

:lmao France. cannot lift a finger without daddy USA behind them

what a joke of a nation France is

[Jacob1983]

France used to be a badass country. What the fuck happened? Obama just needs to give up and accept defeat. This is a clusterfuck and he knows it. He needs to just forget about trying to nation build in Syria.

[Nbadan]

PBS: Syria Behind the Lines...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/syria-behind-the-lines/

[pgardn]

France used to be a badass country. What the fuck happened? Obama just needs to give up and accept defeat. This is a clusterfuck and he knows it. He needs to just forget about trying to nation build in Syria.

A horrible civil war. The British. Napolean, Two world wars. And I believe thy are still involved in Mali right now. Apparently it sucks to be in the middle of all the action and spread yourself thin. They are an older country and have been through a hell of a lot more. So they know more than we do.

Sincerely,

Your average French citizen in full retreat

[pgardn]

"France cannot go it alone,"French Interior Minister Manuel Valls told Europe 1 radio. "We need a coalition."

:lmao France. cannot lift a finger without daddy USA behind them

what a joke of a nation France is

This is so wrong.
They like to oppose us more than any in the west.
Practically everything we do, they criticize.

[SA210]

https://sphotos-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/1175341_3451851992346_695730457_n.jpg


:lmao:rollin

[angrydude]

https://sphotos-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/1175341_3451851992346_695730457_n.jpg


:lmao:rollin

lol