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

[spursncowboys]

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

Nothing shows your intel more than posting a poll that you had previously not been able to understand.
BTW: Newflash: 9 percent is less than congresses approval.

[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 cons ute a war?

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

Yeah good points.

[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 cons ute 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 ed square head...

[scroteface]

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

so stop playing the part with your ty 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. the inbred ass crown straight to .


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 ty.

[pgardn]

so stop playing the part with your ty political strategies

assad may be bad but al qaeda is 10000000000000000x worse

Those are not my strategies you piece of 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 ...

[Jacob1983]

How can Obama lovers defend their guy on this? They ed 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.

[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 cons ute 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

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.
BTW: Newflash: 9 percent is less than congresses approval.

Hey dumb , 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 got.

[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 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 s 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 cir stantial 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...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 cluster . 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 mul ude 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 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 s 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 cir stantial 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...070802647.html



He is basically discouraging military intervention because he knows it would create an even bigger cluster . 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 mul ude 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.