Author Topic: Syria: The Next Stop?  (Read 21479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #120 on: August 31, 2013, 01:05:03 PM »
Zorg International

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #121 on: August 31, 2013, 02:36:42 PM »
Here's Paper Boy's "wrecking ball" doing exactly what he should be doing and going to Congress:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0

Cannot wait to see the spoiled brats in the House stammer and sputter their way through this debate.
The Senate's John McCain and Lindsay Graham vs. the House's Eric Cantor and Louie Gohmert. 
A veritable clash of titans!!
The fate of the region hangs in the balance and now the peanut gallery gets its one chance to get it right...

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #122 on: August 31, 2013, 03:39:26 PM »
Ask yourself why he's going to Congress on this, and why now.  Look at all the other times he has just done what he pleased and ruled by decree.  Why is this different.  The jig is up on this one.  He found himself alone (internationally and domestically) and in the wrong.  It's a face saving way to wiggle away. 

A good move on his part


It will be interesting to see how this plays out from here, what the UN inspectors report, and whether they are believed.


After they go through their shenanigans leading up to the vote, we should be able to tell whether a 'No' vote was arranged ahead of time by how Obama reacts afterward


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #123 on: August 31, 2013, 03:47:14 PM »
Was Mr. Obama watching the Florida/Toledo football game?  He began his statement about a half-hour late and just as halftime began in the game.  He finished his statement, and ran inside without taking questions, just as halftime was over.

He said Boehner, Pelosi, Reid and McConnell were in favor of blasting.


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #124 on: August 31, 2013, 04:25:17 PM »
Ask yourself why he's going to Congress on this, and why now.  Look at all the other times he has just done what he pleased and ruled by decree.  Why is this different.  The jig is up on this one.  He found himself alone (internationally and domestically) and in the wrong.  It's a face saving way to wiggle away.  And the right thing to do. 


Well, I think he's realised his (badly advised) utterance of "a red line" was too late in the game (by at least a year), or should never have been said. He backed himself into a corner and has had to follow it through, because not doing so, makes him look either posturing or just very very badly advised. It wouldn't at all surprise me if Israel has been instrumental (or at the very least a joint advisor) in the statements.

He's fallen into the idiotic trap that Bush Jnr did, and that's standing in the school playground and shouting the odds over what will and won't happen without finding out what it is he's intending to shout the odds about; or even to bother to get the rest of the schoolkids on his side.

Quote
It will be interesting to see how this plays out from here, what the UN inspectors report, and whether they are believed.

The inspectors have said that chemical weapons have been used. But it brings it back to the argument, why is the death of 100 000 people by conventional means tolerable; yet not sarin? In my book, both are disgusting.


Quote
After they go through their shenanigans leading up to the vote, we should be able to tell whether a 'No' vote was arranged ahead of time by how Obama reacts afterward

Whatever the vote; it still begs the question, what next?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #125 on: August 31, 2013, 04:36:19 PM »
... The inspectors have said that chemical weapons have been used...


Yes, but by who.  And from who were they obtained.



... why is the death of 100 000 people by conventional means tolerable; yet not sarin? In my book, both are disgusting...



Gas is against the Geneva convention.  Dead is dead, but rules against using the worst weapons and tactics are good things and should be respected and followed. 




Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #126 on: September 01, 2013, 01:56:14 AM »
It's a horrible thing to say, but it comes down to a cost vs. benefit analysis. Syria is not a country filled with a majority of the people that want freedom and democracy. It's far more murky. Like Egypt, it's a country that has people that want an Islamist government, people that have a motive to want Assad in power, people that are simply scared that a democratic government would be ineffectual in dealing with ethnic violence, al-Qaeda, and ten other kinds of unsavory.

So what would an intervention, even minimal, cost in Syria? A lot. Millions leading to billions, all borrowed. What is the benefit? I can't see one in "punitive" attacks. You can't bomb a chemical stockpile without releasing the chemicals on whomever is nearby, so that one is out. You can't favor either side, because they both suck as far as western interests are concerned. You can't accomplish anything by dropping a few more bombs into a civil war that's going to continue to be atrocious no matter what you do. So what does Obama expect to get out of it? As far as I can tell we'd be spending whatever amount so Obama can save face on his "red line" comment.

Yeah, it's sad that terrible things happen in the world. But it's only sad because there were pictures. For the atrocities that occur on earth that don't have pictures, or the media is unwilling to air them, they just go on with relatively few in the public knowing enough to care. So do I really want to spend that debt so Obama can save face for his statements? Not particularly, no. Are there cases where we should intervene? Sure, an Islamist government should not have the power to cripple civilization with a nuclear weapon--but that's of a degree much higher than this Syria situation.

I just can't see the point. You can drop some bombs--and doubtless kill civilians--in retaliation for killing civilians, but the end result is the same in either case: you kill civilians. Just let them fight it out on their own and only bother with it if they present a real threat to us which they currently do not.

Your last paragraph said it all. We rightly have a day of mourning for young victims of school shootings, but people seem unfazed by thousands of fatalities in other countries. It's human nature because the former hits closer to home, but other people know the victims of military actions across the world. Folks seem so cavalier when it comes to potential deaths and injuries. You've heard yahoos say, "bomb 'em back to the Stone Age" or "turn their country into a sheet of glass. You wonder if they would feel that way if their loved ones were close to targets of bombing campaigns. We all know that civilian deaths are unavoidable at times of pitched war, which is why war should be as rare as unicorns. When are we going to grow up as a species?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #127 on: September 01, 2013, 02:06:13 AM »
Yes, but by who.  And from who were they obtained.





Gas is against the Geneva convention.  Dead is dead, but rules against using the worst weapons and tactics are good things and should be respected and followed.

All good points. Now, there's word that a rogue in Assad's forces launched the attack on his own against his superiors' wishes. A scary side note to the main news is that some neoconservatives may want to attack Assad's bases and forces in the hopes that it will provoke Iran into taking some foolish action, giving them a shot at regime change. Don't put such a Machiavellian scheme past a few people.

The Geneva Conventions have it right. Chemical weapons are uniquely sadistic and torturous, and *all* governments (cough) should ban them. The horrors of trench warfare in World War I illustrated the necessity for doing so quite well. That's not to say that there aren't other tactics, weapons, etc. that are just as bad.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #128 on: September 01, 2013, 02:25:17 AM »
Ok everybody. Be a pal and do me a favor will you? Take a look at this diagram, figure out the right moves in Syria, then get back to me k? Peace out!

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #129 on: September 01, 2013, 02:30:44 AM »
When are we going to grow up as a species?

The answer to that is a blowin in the nuclear wind...

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #130 on: September 01, 2013, 06:15:05 AM »
I must confess I read this and burst out laughing.
Quote
The forcible removal of America's oldest enemy (John Kerry pointedly referred to the French on Friday as "our oldest ally - they were helping the Americans fight the British from 1778-83) from the world stage meant Obama needed some more moral support for his case.

Politicians never miss an opportunity to forget the past and capitalise on the possibilities when it suits them.

Mark stole my Brutus analogy.. Damn him. ;)
Quote
But it is sensible to make sure the responsibility for unpopular action is shared with other politicians, as Caesar's assassins knew.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23918088

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #131 on: September 01, 2013, 09:16:50 PM »
Ok everybody. Be a pal and do me a favor will you? Take a look at this diagram, figure out the right moves in Syria, then get back to me k? Peace out!

You should send that to Obama. He could use the help.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #132 on: September 02, 2013, 05:35:03 PM »
John McCain and Lindsey Graham, prominent Republicans In Name Only, support the president's warmongering. Surprise. These dicks should just switch parties and be done with it.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #133 on: September 02, 2013, 05:58:29 PM »
Ok everybody. Be a pal and do me a favor will you? Take a look at this diagram, figure out the right moves in Syria, then get back to me k? Peace out!


OK after giving your intelligence careful consideration we should move on Russia, No one is looking at them.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #134 on: September 03, 2013, 06:05:47 AM »
Obama's background is that of a 'street organizer' - the people that threaten businesses or government agencies with boycotts or demonstrations or lawsuits or media exposure, with the target ultimately caving in.

So here he is, issuing treats and 'red lines' and such, and expecting the target to cave in.  Now he's telling Assad 'maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe next month'.  How they must be laughing at him in Damascus, Beijing, Tehran, Moscow. People like Putin and Assad are a little tougher than people that run malls or insurance companies.



While the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare war, Presidents have always claimed the right to carry out 'minor' actions without getting Congresses approval.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 - passed over Nixon's veto - has been considered 'Un-Constitutional' by every President since.  To date neither the Congress nor the President has wanted to risk a loss over the Resolution at the Supreme Court, so each time something like this comes up they've worked it out without the Congress insisting on a vote and the President adamant about not having one.

Obama has shown considerably less regard for Constitutional niceties and the rule of law than his predecessors, yet now he goes to the Congress for authorization on this strike (while claiming he still retains the power to act unilaterally).  Very unusual.  There had been some rumbling about consulting with Congress, but I don't think anyone had even brought the War Powers Act up.

Either he wants them to help him save face and vote no, or he is cleverly trying to pull them in with him.  If he wants them to vote no, it's a dangerous game, as people like McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Boehner get seemingly more stupid by the day.


They should do him a big favor and vote no.  If there is a way to help the Syrian civilians without becoming al-Qaeda's air force, they should look into that.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #135 on: September 03, 2013, 06:27:05 AM »
Obama's background is that of a 'street organizer' - the people that threaten businesses or government agencies with boycotts or demonstrations or lawsuits or media exposure, with the target ultimately caving in.

So here he is, issuing treats and 'red lines' and such, and expecting the target to cave in.  Now he's telling Assad 'maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe next month'.  How they must be laughing at him in Damascus, Beijing, Tehran, Moscow. People like Putin and Assad are a little tougher than people that run malls or insurance companies.



While the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare war, Presidents have always claimed the right to carry out 'minor' actions without getting Congresses approval.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 - passed over Nixon's veto - has been considered 'Un-Constitutional' by every President since.  To date neither the Congress nor the President has wanted to risk a loss over the Resolution at the Supreme Court, so each time something like this comes up they've worked it out without the Congress insisting on a vote and the President adamant about not having one.

Obama has shown considerably less regard for Constitutional niceties and the rule of law than his predecessors, yet now he goes to the Congress for authorization on this strike (while claiming he still retains the power to act unilaterally).  Very unusual.  There had been some rumbling about consulting with Congress, but I don't think anyone had even brought the War Powers Act up.

Either he wants them to help him save face and vote no, or he is cleverly trying to pull them in with him.  If he wants them to vote no, it's a dangerous game, as people like McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Boehner get seemingly more stupid by the day.


They should do him a big favor and vote no.  If there is a way to help the Syrian civilians without becoming al-Qaeda's air force, they should look into that.

But it won't be AQ's airforce. It's more to do with showing Israel that if push came to shove, they won't be abandoned. AQ shouldn't be confused with the original rebellion; that AQ is in Syria doesn't mean the people who are still there want them there or even sympathise with their aims.

I agree the red line crap was a silly thing and probably something he's regretting saying. As for the rest, asking Congress to vote is exactly how it should be. If he took the autocratic route and simply went ahead and pressed the button he'd be condemned for being a war mongering go it alone, who doesn't take the representatives of the people into consideration.. But as I said before, it's diluted somewhat by it now being seen only as face saving. The time to do anything was two years ago, now is too late. It can only in my opinion end very badly.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #136 on: September 03, 2013, 08:20:17 AM »
I think it's time to send in AldousBurbank's Peyote Squad.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #137 on: September 03, 2013, 11:20:04 AM »
I am asking because I'm non the wiser; is this significant?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23950253

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #138 on: September 03, 2013, 12:45:28 PM »
It may or may not be significant.  It looks like the leadership of both parties favors a strike.  However, non-leadership Representatives from both parties have said they are opposed.  It looks like this will be one of those rare votes that does not follow party lines.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #139 on: September 03, 2013, 01:34:07 PM »
Obama's background is that of a 'street organizer' - the people that threaten businesses or government agencies with boycotts or demonstrations or lawsuits or media exposure, with the target ultimately caving in.

So here he is, issuing treats and 'red lines' and such, and expecting the target to cave in.  Now he's telling Assad 'maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe next month'.  How they must be laughing at him in Damascus, Beijing, Tehran, Moscow. People like Putin and Assad are a little tougher than people that run malls or insurance companies.



While the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare war, Presidents have always claimed the right to carry out 'minor' actions without getting Congresses approval.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 - passed over Nixon's veto - has been considered 'Un-Constitutional' by every President since.  To date neither the Congress nor the President has wanted to risk a loss over the Resolution at the Supreme Court, so each time something like this comes up they've worked it out without the Congress insisting on a vote and the President adamant about not having one.

Obama has shown considerably less regard for Constitutional niceties and the rule of law than his predecessors, yet now he goes to the Congress for authorization on this strike (while claiming he still retains the power to act unilaterally).  Very unusual.  There had been some rumbling about consulting with Congress, but I don't think anyone had even brought the War Powers Act up.

Either he wants them to help him save face and vote no, or he is cleverly trying to pull them in with him.  If he wants them to vote no, it's a dangerous game, as people like McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Boehner get seemingly more stupid by the day.


They should do him a big favor and vote no.  If there is a way to help the Syrian civilians without becoming al-Qaeda's air force, they should look into that.

We really care if Shirtless Vlad or Half ass Assad are "laughing" at us? Really? Because, what? Vlad's going to steal Art Modell's Super Bowl ring?!? Assad' s going to shake a menacing fist at Israel?
You think we're "weak"? Tell me just what the hell Vlad's going to do? Or China? Or Iran? NOTHING!
If we're weak they're comatose.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #140 on: September 03, 2013, 03:08:53 PM »
Yossef Bodansky has written a piece saying the Syrian rebels released the gas with planning help from the US.  True?  Who knows, but interesting reading for those who will read.  He says something similar happened in Bosnia to get the West to come in on the side of the Bosnians.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #141 on: September 03, 2013, 04:08:36 PM »
Yossef Bodansky has written a piece saying the Syrian rebels released the gas with planning help from the US.  True?  Who knows, but interesting reading for those who will read.  He says something similar happened in Bosnia to get the West to come in on the side of the Bosnians.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542

Hmmm, the link poses it as a question. Which means it's being posed as a hypothesis, without any firm evidence. What did he say about 9/11?

I read it; it begins as a hypothesis and finishes with an absolute. Obama did it. No surprises there then.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #142 on: September 03, 2013, 06:54:02 PM »
... You think we're "weak"? Tell me just what the hell Vlad's going to do? Or China? Or Iran? NOTHING!
If we're weak they're comatose.



You don't get that our enemies are emboldened and our allies become concerned when we act this weak?  And would-be friendly countries are reluctant to join us if we were to ask for assistance on something?

How much more aggressive will China become in the Eastern Pacific, how much more mischief will Russia cause us (which they love doing after we foolishly got involved opposing their interests in the elections in Georgia and Ukraine)?  Or Iran?  Or the Taliban?

Do you realize one of the reasons the Russians are helping Iran develop their nukes, and support Hezbollah and Syria is because the US has been pushing NATO eastward and now has member nations that are on Russia's border?

Since Obama froze when our embassy in Benghazi was attacked, later helped the Brotherhood steal the revolution in Egypt, and is doing the same for al-Qaeda in Syria - and is now looking weak with his talk loudly policy on chemical weapons, or maybe even ends up lobbing a few missiles at them - how about the Islamists, do you think that gives  them pause, or does it embolden them?



So yeah, when the US projects weakness this publicly, this dramatically, it matters.



Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #143 on: September 04, 2013, 01:35:55 AM »
John McCain and Lindsey Graham, prominent Republicans In Name Only, support the president's warmongering. Surprise. These dicks should just switch parties and be done with it.

Color me "Casablanca" shocked. Folks act like Obama and those two guys are strange bedfellows. It's just a rare peak behind the curtain to catch a glimpse of the War Party. They likely play poker (ahem) on Friday nights.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #144 on: September 04, 2013, 09:30:49 AM »


You don't get that our enemies are emboldened and our allies become concerned when we act this weak?  And would-be friendly countries are reluctant to join us if we were to ask for assistance on something?

How much more aggressive will China become in the Eastern Pacific, how much more mischief will Russia cause us (which they love doing after we foolishly got involved opposing their interests in the elections in Georgia and Ukraine)?  Or Iran?  Or the Taliban?

Do you realize one of the reasons the Russians are helping Iran develop their nukes, and support Hezbollah and Syria is because the US has been pushing NATO eastward and now has member nations that are on Russia's border?

Since Obama froze when our embassy in Benghazi was attacked, later helped the Brotherhood steal the revolution in Egypt, and is doing the same for al-Qaeda in Syria - and is now looking weak with his talk loudly policy on chemical weapons, or maybe even ends up lobbing a few missiles at them - how about the Islamists, do you think that gives  them pause, or does it embolden them?



So yeah, when the US projects weakness this publicly, this dramatically, it matters.
No, it really doesn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655

I'll save you the trouble - Shirtless Vlad is shaking his fist saying unilateral US action in Syria would be "an aggression".  OH,NO!! NOT "AN AGGRESSION"!! PLEASE VLAD FORGIVE US!
China is so "emboldened" that they're going to send their half finished one aircraft carrier into the South China Sea to sputter around and scare the Vietnamese.  Yeah, because the Vietnamese are so terrified of the Chinese. 1979 , anyone?
Do you realize that the Russians have been goading us and provoking us ever since our involvement in their Civil War early last century?  Our insistence on helping the "White Russians" (like your friend Ayn Rand) after a populist movement dethroned the Czar has caused tension ever since.  Are you ignorant or naive to put credence in our involvement in Ukranian elections being the motivator behind his support of Iran? Syria? anything else evil?
He is a KGB dirtbag thug and you keep exalting him as this wise world leader!
He is not strong, not when he picks on gays and Pussy Riot! 
Just what the hell is he going to do to us, anyway?  Not allow us to adopt Russian babies?!?
Thanks for the favor.
You cons are always worried about "projecting power"  and "showing American strength" and "weakness" like it's some kind of boardgame.  To what end?!?  Better oil prices? Then you should project "power" to the CME or NYMEX.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #145 on: September 04, 2013, 11:37:15 AM »
There was a time when people protested war even when conducted by Democrats



Or the more musical version


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #146 on: September 04, 2013, 06:35:38 PM »

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #147 on: September 05, 2013, 10:16:55 AM »
Russia releases a 100-page report saying the rebels used the poison gas, not Assad.  I just don't know who to believe, and as a result can't support doing anything at this point.  I know this makes me a racist and an Obama hater and probably a Tea Bagger, but I guess I have to care more about lives than politics.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uiifuz-ZZ8F

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #148 on: September 05, 2013, 10:25:34 AM »
Russia releases a 100-page report saying the rebels used the poison gas, not Assad.  I just don't know who to believe, and as a result can't support doing anything at this point.  I know this makes me a racist and an Obama hater and probably a Tea Bagger, but I guess I have to care more about lives than politics.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uiifuz-ZZ8F

I dont trust the russian ( wait is it the 80's again) Assad is putins pocket. But I agree I dont trust anyone about anything in this whole Syria mess.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #149 on: September 05, 2013, 10:27:23 AM »
Russia releases a 100-page report saying the rebels used the poison gas, not Assad.  I just don't know who to believe, and as a result can't support doing anything at this point.  I know this makes me a racist and an Obama hater and probably a Tea Bagger, but I guess I have to care more about lives than politics.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uiifuz-ZZ8F

Pretty simple; don`t believe any of them.

Act accordingly.