|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Accounatability /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1377706841 Message started by Paraquat on 08/28/13 at 09:20:41 |
|
Title: Accounatability Post by Paraquat on 08/28/13 at 09:20:41 In 2007, two Democratic presidential candidates came out forcefully against unleashing America’s military might without explicit authorization from Congress. Today, Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama see things in a different light. Six years ago, Biden vowed to impeach President George W. Bush if the Republican bombed Iran without first getting congressional approval. "The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," Biden said at the time. Meanwhile, Obama flatly told the Boston Globe in 2007 that no president can use military force absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nation” without getting Congress' approval. The Libya intervention stretched Obama’s commitment to the breaking point. The PolitiFact organization, which rates politicians’ claims for accuracy, ruled that his decision to commit American forces to that effort was a “full flop” from his previous position. But the question seems to turn on what constitutes an “actual” threat. The looming U.S. response to Syria’s alleged massacre of civilians with chemical weapons threatens to expose some of the same tensions. White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Tuesday that Obama “absolutely” still holds by his answer to the Boston Globe. Left unchecked, Carney said, Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons poses an actual threat to U.S. national security. “Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security interests,” Carney said. And Biden made clear in a rousing speech to the American Legion that the time for action is now. “There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: The Syrian regime,” the vice president said. “The president believes — and I believe — that those who use chemical weapons against defenseless men, women and children should and must be held accountable.” He did not, however, mention Congress. http://news.yahoo.com/-past-comments-dog-obama--biden--as-syria-response-looms--210329764.html --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Starlifter on 08/28/13 at 19:14:26 I agree completely! No more military interventions in the Middle East. Period. They are gassing their own people?? Horrible!! But wait, where are all the other wealthy Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia on this issue? Where do they stand? Why don’t they speak out and take action to deal with such atrocities in their own back yard?? Horrible regional crimes against humanity? Yes. But where are they?? If Mexico were gassing their people along the US border would we expect only Middle Eastern countries to intervene??...while we sat around going “oh my”, “tisk tisk”, while counting our oil money?? These Middle Eastern military adventures do nothing but pad the pockets of the arms industry robber barons while the blood and sacrifice falls on the shoulders of the poor middle and lower class working people who enlist their children into the military in the hope that will find opportunity and a better life there. Absolutely disgusting. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/29/13 at 00:25:39 You GO, Lifter..tell them! Save me th trouble. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Pine on 08/29/13 at 13:49:24 495650574A4D7C4C7C44565A11230 wrote:
wait .. is the sarcasm font on... I cant tell. Actually.. I am with Star on this (mostly). Its someone elses turn to be the world police. UAE is as good as any. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Starlifter on 08/29/13 at 15:57:39 Bombing Syria to make a point about observing internationally sanctioned methods of warfare (Geneva Convention) is laughable!!! It's fall down funny hearing our government discuss war crimes. These governmental hypocrites have no sense of decency…they are already as morally corrupt as Syria could ever be and maybe even more so considering our invasion of and mass murder in Iraq. Ha! the torturing of detainees, the lies about WMD, the “collateral damage” the killing of innocents in drone attacks etc. …Uh-huh, we take the moral high ground and want to engage in more killing to prove it. Left or right...What shameful hypocrisy! |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by raydawg on 08/29/13 at 19:49:38 113623302E2B24362730420 wrote:
Spot on dude! Which, begs the question(s), doubly so when Obama used the arguments against war, etc, in his campaign to win his office, to just who in the hell really runs our foreign policies? Can these pukes just abandon their testimony (beliefs ?) so quickly upon such shallow reasoning to claim we are threatened? Could this be a push by the powers that be to "stimulate" our economy with a war? I just don't know, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are good we are just witnessing the hypocrisy of our elected officials, AGAIN! |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Tony S on 08/29/13 at 21:08:20 Constitutionally, Congress has the power to declare war. As a practical matter, presidents - especially modern presidents - have wide latitude to respond to threats. Both are needed. Neither should be abused. It does not appear that Obama's administration intends to go to war with Syria. It's been clear that unlike Lybya, the policy planners and strategists would prefer to not get directly involved in Syria. It is worth noting that a good number of high profile and influential Republicans (lSenator McCain for instance) having been calling for US intervention in Syria for over a year now. Neither Lyba or Syria is anything like what was done in Iraq. We did not "invade" Libya. Rather a NATO lead campaign of air and missle strikes nullified the Libyan' armies airforce ana hampered thier mechanized infantry. Ths ultimately tipped the scales to the opposition. Unlike Iraq, American ground forces never fought against the Libyan army. A coalition of western powers - France, Britianm, probably Germany and the Arab League for sure - intend to "punish" Syria for using chemical weapons. This is probably a good idea. It is in our best interests for world leaders to be afraid of the response should they ever do such. Assad will wake up one day in the near future to find that several command and control centers, maybe a few air wings are gone - and have to weigh if the use of chemical weapons was worth it. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Midnightrider on 08/29/13 at 23:05:16 Selling our oil to Japan and sending our youth to fight and die for middle eastern oil makes no sense except for the oil companies. Japan and the other countries we sell to pay more for our oil than the American companies do. Our kids are getting maimed and dying while the oil companies who pay no taxes, get subsidies from the government are getting richer while our kids lose it all. We have enough oil to sustain ourselves if we would quit selling to other countries! I'm with you Star! That's why I'm against the pipeline. Its headed straight for the gulf and on its way overseas. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by raydawg on 08/30/13 at 03:27:54 676B696D67626865776C35040 wrote:
From Seattle headlines..... US readies possible solo action against Syria The story: By Associated Press Published: Aug 29, 2013 at 8:11 PM PDT WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Thursday prepared for the possibility of launching unilateral American military action against Syria within days as Britain opted out in a stunning vote by Parliament. Facing skepticism at home, too, the administration shared intelligence with lawmakers aimed at convincing them the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people and must be punished. Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own. "The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. Even before the vote in London, the U.S. was preparing to act without formal authorization from the United Nations, where Russia has blocked efforts to seek a resolution authorizing the use of force, or from Capitol Hill. But the U.S. had expected Britain, a major ally, to join in the effort. Top U.S. officials spoke with certain lawmakers for more than 90 minutes in a teleconference Thursday evening to explain why they believe Bashar Assad's government was the culprit in a suspected chemical attack last week. Lawmakers from both parties have been pressing Obama to provide a legal rationale for military action and specify objectives, as well as to lay out a firm case linking Assad to the attack. A number of lawmakers raised questions in the briefing about how the administration would finance a military operation as the Pentagon is grappling with automatic spending cuts and reduced budgets. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a participant on the call, said in a statement that the administration presented a "broad range of options" for dealing with Syria but failed to offer a single plan, timeline, strategy or explanation of how it would pay for any military operation. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a call participant, told reporters that administration officials are in the process of declassifying the evidence they have of the Syrian government using chemical weapons. "When they do that, we'll understand. But it's up to the president of the United States to present his case, to sell this to the American public. They're very war weary. We've been at war now for over 10 years," McKeon told reporters at a post-call news conference at his office in Valencia, Calif. It remained to be seen whether any skeptics were swayed by the call, given the expectation in advance that officials would hold back classified information to protect intelligence sources and methods. "The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad's forces used chemical weapons," New York Rep. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a supporter of Obama's course, said after the briefing. But he said the officials did not provide much new evidence of that. "They said they have (intercepted) some discussions and some indications from a high-level official," he said, and that they possess intelligence showing material being moved in advance of the attack. He called the tone "respectful. There was no shouting. No one was accusing the administration of doing anything wrong." Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the briefing "reaffirmed for me that a decisive and consequential U.S. response is justified and warranted to protect Syrians, as well as to send a global message that chemical weapons attacks in violation of international law will not stand." In London, Prime Minister David Cameron argued a military strike would be legal on humanitarian grounds. But he faced deep pressure from lawmakers and had already promised not to undertake military action until a U.N. chemical weapons team on the ground in Syria released its findings about the Aug. 21 attack. The prime minister said in terse comments after the vote that while he believes in a "tough response" to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons. Caitlin Hayden, Obama's National Security Council spokeswoman, said the U.S. would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on "the best interests of the United States." It was not certain the U.S. would have to act alone. France announced that its armed forces "have been put in position to respond" if President Francois Hollande commits forces to intervention against Syria. Hollande does not need French parliamentary approval to launch military action that lasts less than four months. Obama discussed the situation in Syria with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who wrote to the president earlier this week seeking a legal justification for a military strike and the objectives of any potential action. Assad, who has denied using chemical weapons, vowed his country "will defend itself against any aggression." Some of the U.N. chemical weapons experts will travel directly from Syria on Saturday to different laboratories around Europe to deliver "an extensive amount of material" gathered, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said. While the mandate of the U.N. team is to determine whether chemical agents were used in the attack, not who was responsible, Haq suggested the evidence — which includes biological samples and witness interviews — might give an indication of who deployed gases. Obama and other top officials have not revealed definitive evidence to back claims that Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians. U.S. officials say the intelligence assessments are 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. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the intelligence publicly. Despite shortcomings in the intelligence, the White House signaled urgency in acting, with Earnest, the White House spokesman saying the president believes there is a "compressed time frame" for responding. "It is important for the Assad regime and other totalitarian dictators around the world to understand that the international community will not tolerate the indiscriminate, widespread use of chemical weapons, particularly against women and children as they're sleeping in their beds," he said. But many Congress members were pressing Obama to explain the need for military action and address fears that such a move might draw the U.S. deeper into the Syrian civil war. The White House has not responded directly to Boehner's letter seeking more answers about Syria operations and the speaker's office appeared unsatisfied after the president's call Thursday. "Only the president can answer these questions, and it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said. Washington Rep. Adam Smith, senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, cautioned that an attack might be ineffective and might draw the United States into the Syrian civil war, now in its third year. "Simply lashing out with military force under the banner of 'doing something' will not secure our interests in Syria," Smith said in a statement. Thursday's briefing for lawmakers was expected to include only unclassified intelligence, meaning that key details that could more clearly link Assad to a chemical attack might not have been part of it. A similar intelligence report is also expected to be released publicly on Friday. Obama continued making his case for a robust response to world leaders, speaking Thursday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. With national elections scheduled in Germany for next month, Merkel is unlikely to pull her country into a military conflict. Merkel also discussed Syria by phone Thursday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that the attack "requires an international reaction," Merkel spokesman Steffen Seibert said. Obama has ruled out putting American forces on the ground in Syria or setting up a no-fly zone over the country. He's also said any U.S. response to the chemical weapons attack would be limited in scope and aimed solely at punishing Assad for deploying deadly gases, not at regime change. "We do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable," he said during a television interview. The most likely military option would be Tomahawk cruise missile strikes from four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. At a minimum, Western forces are expected to strike targets that symbolize Assad's military and political might: military and national police headquarters, including the Defense Ministry; the Syrian military's general staff; and the four-brigade Republican Guard that is in charge of protecting Damascus, Assad's seat of power. Assad's ruling Baath Party headquarters could be targeted, too. U.S. officials also are considering attacking military command centers and vital forces, communications hubs and weapons caches, including ballistic missile batteries. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/30/13 at 07:53:20 Facing skepticism at home, too, the administration shared intelligence with lawmakers aimed at convincing them the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people and must be punished. Absolute load of crap. Assads people were winning.. No NEED to do this. It was a rebel maneuver or screw up, Ive seen one report that states theymis-handled some weapons & they went off,, |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Tony S on 08/30/13 at 10:50:54 The rebels don't have chemical weapons. We know that Libya's military does. Neither have the rebels overrun any military bases housing such weapons. Saying the rebels did it is like in the 1950's southern sheriffs saying that black people committed suicide by jumping in water with concrete blocks and chains. Perhaps no chemical weapons were used at all - so far the only proof offered publicly has been the symptoms of 350 or so people that died at the local hospital. The UN investigators were not allowed in until almost a week later - a week of constant artillery bombardment that would destroy evidence. No way any one should buy into "the rebels did it to themselves". If you don't want the US involved, just say it's not vital to US interests and leave it at that. But taking seriously claims that rebels with little more than small arms managed to come up with chemical weapons just jumps the shark. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/30/13 at 11:40:18 YEs,they do, They didnt make them. Are you unaware of the support we are giving them? We are seeing to it they GET what they need, |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by WebsterMark on 08/30/13 at 11:40:48 Just read some of the declassified sections of the report that's online now. Seems pretty clear it was a chemical attack. Also seems clear the rebels had no capability of doing this. 1426 fatalities is what they're listing as confirmed. Let's say for the sake of argument it's conclusive that he used chemical weapons against the rebels. Now what do we do? |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Starlifter on 08/30/13 at 12:27:47 How about we demand that other Middle Eastern countries take action NOW! Or we cut off all their funding, munitions sales, imports etc. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 08/30/13 at 12:42:12 Star - For once ( write down this date in your calendar ) you and I are in exact agreement. Have a good Labor Day weekend. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Pine on 08/30/13 at 13:01:04 66415447595C53415047350 wrote:
+1 |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by WebsterMark on 08/30/13 at 13:05:32 Dammit! I agree too! |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by WD on 08/30/13 at 14:21:27 is like in the 1950's southern sheriffs saying that black people committed suicide by jumping in water with concrete blocks and chains. Actually, those were swimming contests... At least according to Forrest County MS. Among others... |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by raydawg on 08/30/13 at 15:39:05 77504556484D42504156240 wrote:
You want to offer a reason as to why we don't? To me your suggestion makes a lot of sense, and they must be at more of a threat from them than us, so what am I, or more to point, Obama missing that he doesn't see it the same way we do? |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Starlifter on 08/30/13 at 17:26:19 Could it be that the arms industries (as the other wars wind down) are finding themselves ‘overstocked’ with certain items like …oh say, multi-million dollar cruise missiles?? And could it be that the Military Industrial Complex has more to say in who calls the shots in foreign policy than the president or the congress?? ...Nah, not here in today’s Amerika. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. The old general's wisdom has gone unheeded. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Serowbot on 08/30/13 at 18:24:31 I've seen enough of what that guy's doing to innocent children... I don't want troops, or 10 years of occupation,... but, blow that sum'itchin' giant sloth into the afterlife... Yours sincerely, the peacenick, liberal pacifist... Serow :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/30/13 at 19:19:37 http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ Assads forces were winning... why DOthat? |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Serowbot on 08/30/13 at 23:30:14 2C3A2D30283D302B5F0 wrote:
PS... I know what's coming... and don't even go there... Saddam gassed people... (horrible)... but it was 10 years prior to our "outrage"... At the time,... we gave a wink and a nod,... and PappyBush sent Rumsfeld to shake on it... We did nothing... but help... This is happening now... and we should smack that hand, now... Political disagreements... we should negotiate... Human travesties... we must condemn... and in a timely manner... 10 years before the Iraq invasion... we could have scolded Saddam... threatened to revoke billions in support... or even threatened to put a bullet in his head... We didn't... We shook his hand... We wanted his oil... We weren't outraged until he attacked our bigger oil supplier... Kuwait... (they were side drilling into Saddam's oil fields)... That started the feud... Saddam wanted revenge on Bush... Bush II found an excuse to get back... 911,... nope... Weapons of mass destruction... nope... Invasion of Kuwait,... nope... Harboring Osama,... nope... Genocide of his own people,... Bingo!...(10 years late, but, who cares)... This is happening now... it is real... It isn't some conspiracy... We smack that hand... It's time to be good guy again... We strayed, but we are on the right track again... Conventions of war have become necessary in the modern age... Mass violence is too easy... |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by WebsterMark on 08/31/13 at 05:07:41 If we're not going to specifically target and kill Assad, then what's the point of blowing up military installations and killing low level ground troops and janitors? |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by WebsterMark on 08/31/13 at 05:09:41 .....and your Middle East history lesson is a bit out of wack, but the bigger point is when dictators gas children, yes, it's our responsibility to send them on to the next world. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by WebsterMark on 08/31/13 at 06:05:05 As usual, a brilliant piece if writing by Mark Steyn I see the Obama “reset” is going so swimmingly that the president is now threatening to go to war against a dictator who gassed his own people. Don’t worry, this isn’t anything like the dictator who gassed his own people that the discredited warmonger Bush spent 2002 and early 2003 staggering ever more punchily around the country inveighing against. The 2003 dictator who gassed his own people was the leader of the Baath Party of Iraq. The 2013 dictator who gassed his own people is the leader of the Baath Party of Syria. Whole other ball of wax. The administration’s ingenious plan is to lose this war in far less time than we usually take. In the unimprovable formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” That would make a great caption for a Vanity Fair photo shoot of Obama gamboling in the surf at Martha’s Vineyard, but as a military strategy it’s not exactly Alexander the Great or the Duke of Wellington. And it’s trickier than it sounds: I’m sure Miley’s choreographer assured her she was “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” and one wouldn’t want to see the United States reduced to twerking arrhythmically to no avail in front of an unimpressed Bashar Assad’s Robin Thicke. Okay, okay, that metaphor’s as thinly stretched as Miley’s talent, so what does unmockable musculature boil down to? From the New York Times: “A wide range of officials characterize the action under consideration as ‘limited,’ perhaps lasting no more than a day or two.” Yeah, I know, that’s what Edward III said about the Hundred Years’ War. But Obama seems to mean it: An American official said that the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are. The list includes command and control centers as well as a variety of conventional military targets. Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site. Got that? So, if you’re a Syrian air-base commander, you might want to think about moving those Russian helicopters, or at least yourself — perhaps to that black-eyed cutie’s apartment, above the restaurant where the kibbeh with the pomegranate sauce is to die for, just for the night, until the Great Satan has twerked his ordnance at you twice or thrice and gone away to threaten the Yemenis or Somalis or whoever’s next. In the world’s most legalistic culture, it was perhaps inevitable that battle plans would eventually be treated under courtroom discovery rules and have to be disclosed to the other side in your pre-war statement. But in this case it doesn’t seem to be impressing anyone. Like his patrons in Tehran and Moscow, Assad’s reaction to American threats is to double up with laughter and say, “Bring it, twerkypants.” Headline from Friday’s Guardian in London: “Syria: ‘Napalm’ Bomb Dropped on School Playground, BBC Claims” — which, if true, suggests that even a blood-soaked mass murderer is not without a sense of humor. Napalm, eh? There’s a word I haven’t heard since, oh, 40 years ago or thereabouts, somewhere in the general vicinity of southeast Asia. The BBC footage is grisly; the British media have been far more invested in the Syrian civil war than their U.S. colleagues. But what’s the net effect of all the harrowing human-interest stories? This week, David Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer recess to permit the people’s representatives to express their support for the impending attack. Instead, for the first time since the British defeat at Yorktown in 1782, the House of Commons voted to deny Her Majesty’s Government the use of force. Under the Obama “reset,” even the Coalition of the Willing is unwilling. “It’s clear to me that the British Parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” said the prime minister. So the Brits are out, and, if he goes at all, Obama will be waging war without even Austin Powers’s Union Jack fig leaf. “This House will not fight for king and country”? Not exactly. What the British people are sick of, quite reasonably enough, is ineffectual warmongering, whether in the cause of Blairite liberal interventionism or of Bush’s big-power assertiveness. The problem with the American way of war is that, technologically, it can’t lose, but, in every other sense, it can’t win. No one in his right mind wants to get into a tank battle or a naval bombardment with the guys responsible for over 40 percent of the planet’s military expenditures. Which is why these days there aren’t a lot of tank battles. The consummate interventionist Robert Kagan wrote in his recent book that the American military “remains unmatched.” It’s unmatched in the sense that the only guy in town with a tennis racket isn’t going to be playing a lot of tennis matches. But the object of war, in Liddell Hart’s famous distillation, is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks (or Russian helicopters) but his will. And on that front America loses, always. The “unmatched” superpower cannot impose its will on Kabul kleptocrats, Pashtun goatherds, Egyptian generals, or Benghazi militia. There is no reason to believe Syria would be an exception to this rule. America’s inability to win ought to be a burning national question, but it’s not even being asked. Let us stipulate that many of those war-weary masses are ignorant and myopic. But at a certain level they grasp something that their leaders don’t: For a quarter-century, from Kuwait to Kosovo to Kandahar, the civilized world has gone to war only in order to save or liberate Muslims. The Pentagon is little more than central dispatch for the U.S. military’s Muslim Fast Squad. And what do we have to show for it? Liberating Syria isn’t like liberating the Netherlands: In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy. Yes, those BBC images of schoolchildren with burning flesh are heart-rending. So we’ll get rid of Assad and install the local branch of al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood or whatever plucky neophyte democrat makes it to the presidential palace first — and then, instead of napalmed schoolyards, there will be, as in Egypt, burning Christian churches and women raped for going uncovered. So what do we want in Syria? Obama can’t say, other than for him to look muscular without being mocked, like a camp bodybuilder admiring himself in the gym mirror. Oh, well. If the British won’t be along for the ride, the French are apparently still in. What was the old gag from a decade ago during those interminable U.N. resolutions with Chirac saying “Non!” every time? Ah, yes: “Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.” Oddly enough, the worst setback for the Islamic imperialists in recent years has been President Hollande’s intervention in Mali, where, unlike the money-no-object Pentagon, the French troops had such undernourished supply lines that they had to hitch a ride to the war on C-17 transports from the Royal Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force. And yet they won — insofar as anyone ever really wins on that benighted sod. Meanwhile, the hyperpower is going to war because Obama wandered off prompter and accidentally made a threat. So he has to make good on it, or America will lose its credibility. But he only wants to make good on it in a perfunctory and ineffectual way. So America will lose its credibility anyway. Maybe it’s time to learn the accordion.... |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by raydawg on 08/31/13 at 08:20:01 It's time to be good guy again... We strayed, but we are on the right track again... Conventions of war have become necessary in the modern age... Mass violence is too easy... AND...... violence begets violence. always has, always will. that is "mass" thinking realized and justifying of hate. I say arm the whole world.... this one is toast and an ark won't make no difference this time ;D |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/31/13 at 08:44:34 All this in spite of the evidence Assadhad nothingto do withit. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Tony S on 08/31/13 at 13:22:07 Now what you all got to say? If we go, can't cry constitutional crisis flip-flopping talk out one side of your mouth do the other impeach the bastich' http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-1-15-p-m--statement-on-syria-161723103.html |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/31/13 at 21:45:13 302F292E33340535053D2F23685A0 wrote:
Permission to attack the wrongpeople,, whoopee |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by WebsterMark on 09/02/13 at 05:02:07 Seems very unlikely it was a rebel accident. The problem is 1) the world's media went all in on the Iraq WMD mistake, 2) Hopey inspires zero trust with our allies, 3) he "bleeds" incompetence, so our enemies smell blood in the water and 4) they don't have a left wing media that's spent the last 5 years lying about how wonderful this smuck is. Russia doesn't give a crap about hope and change other than he's a boy out-matched on the world stage. If congress says no, hopey's presidency is done. As much as I'd love to see him rendered useless so he can't do anymore harm, I'd rather see Assad on a slab. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/02/13 at 19:50:18 Unli9kely it was a rebel accident, but somehow MORE likely Assad( who has been WINNING) & who was warned,, you just declare what is more likely like you are some kinda whiz,, basedon what? |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Paraquat on 09/02/13 at 20:06:15 http://https://sphotos-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/7859_10151854200082603_74762336_n.jpg --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Tony S on 09/02/13 at 21:42:30 637C7A7D60675666566E7C703B090 wrote:
You keep saying that Assad was winning and that is some sort of proof he wouldn't use his chemical questions. Great example of "rabbit reasoning" - just hop from one conclusion to another. Some people exceed the speed limit because they are running late so in a hurry. But lots of people speed for other reasons or no reason at all. So to - even if Syrian Goverment forces are winning doesn't mean they will restrict what weapons they will use. But then who says they are winning? What do you base this "Assad is winning" on? If you look at the uprising from beginning to now, Assad winning doesn't hold up. The civil war war has been going on for what, 2.5 years now? The goverment forces managed to retake some rebel held areas in offensives waged April to June of this year. But since then the government forces have actually lost some pretty big fights, including the Menagh Miliatry Airbase and with the rebel capture of Kanasir the rebels have virtually cut off the city of Aleppo. Assad's forces are not winning. At great cost they push the rebels out of one area - only to lose nother. The FSA now controls enough area that they have moved their headquarters out of Turkey into Syria. Assad's forces aren't winning. They are very slowly LOSING. Being worn down. The FSA is recognized as the legitimate goverment by the Arab League. Goverment forces, while they still have the ability, have tried to deliver a knock out punch by way of using chemical WMD. And they will be punished for doing so. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by WebsterMark on 09/03/13 at 04:28:34 Sadam Hussain was "winning" and gassed his people. Dictators are not like normal people, they don't see things clearly. Kim jun whatshisname, claimed he had something like 10 hole-in-ones and the whole country celebrated! Assad is not normal in any sense of the word. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Starlifter on 09/03/13 at 15:09:52 Did Assad gas his own people? Probably. Intelligence gathered so far suggests he did. Somebody surly did. But they say we can’t bomb the stockpiles of gas as this would spread gas all over the place killing thousands of people. Can we bomb Assad? Again they say no. With Assad gone terrorist factions will take over the country… So who or what are we supposed to bomb?? Will killing yet more people with bombs bring back the children gassed and burned? No. Remember the children in Vietnam screaming and burning when we used napalm all over the country? Remember the children bombed and burned in Iraq? We did that too for no good reason… Lets not go there again, lets learn from history. This so-called “intelligence” claimed by the Israelis as a U.S. intercept raises a question about the integrity of this intelligence. The entire Iraq debacle started with coc*k-sure “intelligence” about WMD. How’d that work out for us? The Israelis have an interest in promoting a U.S. attack on Syria, and the authenticity of the alleged “intelligence” cannot be assumed. What makes Syria important enough to step in? Countries are barbaric toward people all the time, and we usually don't step in. We didn't step in with Rwanda, Iran, or North Korea. Here’s some “intelligence that CAN be verified. The people at the Pew Research Center is reporting on a poll showing that, by a 48 to 29 percent margin, more Americans oppose than support military airstrikes against Syria. An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds even stronger opposition to a missile strike, with nearly six in 10 opposed. So what are these ongoing “hearings” to bring the case of intervention before the American people all about? Are the American people going to get to vote on intervention after the hearings? No. I think we need to drastically reduce our interference in countries half way around the world. We don't have the money for this. The US had dam*d well consider the consequences of utilizing ambiguous intelligence to justify an act of war. Postscript: For lack of healthcare, we have people starving for lack of food, we have people living on the streets for lack of a house... Yet we are preparing to spend billions on attacking Syria for humanitarian reasons? ...give me a break. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/03/13 at 20:43:31 For lack of healthcare, we have people starving for lack of food, we have people living on the streets for lack of a house... Yet we are preparing to spend billions on attacking Syria for humanitarian reasons? ...give me a break. TRUTH! &, help me unnerstand this.. Assds forces are the cause of How Many Dead? Why is it that Chemical weapons are somehow WORSE than being shot or blown up by amortar?m |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/03/13 at 20:44:30 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100232698/syria-why-would-assad-invite-a-western-intervention-by-using-wmds-in-a-war-he-was-winning/ syria-why-would-assad-invite-a-western-intervention-by-using-wmds-in-a-war-he-was-winning/ |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Tony S on 09/04/13 at 00:04:49 Just to redirect a bit. The OP's original post was about Obama and Biden preparing a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval. Something they had both criticized Bush for doing in 2007 as they campaigned for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Obama has gone to Congress asking for authorization. Yesterday House leaders Boehner and Cantor indicated their support. It's all over but the crying.... |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by WebsterMark on 09/04/13 at 05:00:24 you're correct Tony; they made some deals in the backroom and the GOP leadership has fallen in step. I wonder what Hopey gave up in return, because he surely did. We will probably never know for sure until someone writes a book 10 years from now. So, now what? Just like our 'rush' to war with Iraq; Syria has moved everything that was a target into neighborhoods. Intelligence has been tracking as best they can, but there is no element of surprise. You can predict what's going to happen next: the US blows up a few things, news reports show dead children, wailing mothers, shock and outrage at what the US did, Assad remains in power another few months and status quo continues. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Paraquat on 09/04/13 at 06:06:22 I believe you to be spot on, Web. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/04/13 at 07:18:48 Ohh, you KNOW there were favors traded..or, maybe just whispers in ears, explaining what dirt they had on them,, |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by RatdogWillie on 09/04/13 at 07:42:34 5E6C6B7A7D6C7B44687B62090 wrote:
You and Tony S fell for the reckless prewar hucksterism. The rebels are responsible for the attack, not Assad. The attack was not a military grade chemical. The American backed Al Qaida Sunni rebels fired a homemade locally manufactured rocket containing a form of chlorine known as CL17, easily available as a swimming pool cleaner. Syrian soldiers were among those killed in the town of Khan al-Assal whose population is mostly Shia. Any thinking person should ask why would Assad use chemical weapons when he was winning? Why would he use chemical weapons on the day that the UN chemical weapons inspectors that he invited arrive? .... and arrive in the same area near the attack? Your source of info must be those darned "official propaganda sources" that have so badly misinformed you so often in the past. I bet you miss Syrian Danny, don't you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lWB5ssifTg I say to you and any others that support starting WWIII, print this form, fill it out, sign it, then run, hurry, don't diddly daddle, get to the nearest recruiter and get your target azz over there. http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/military_enlistment.pdf |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/04/13 at 07:48:58 The FIRST story they heard & Believed was Assad used chemicals They cant look past it. ImeanREALLY,, America, KNOWN for using its military says Use chemicals & We are coming & then he does it? Giveme a break, |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by RatdogWillie on 09/04/13 at 07:52:07 382721263B3C0D3D0D35272B60520 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Dane Allen on 09/04/13 at 15:56:35 7A484F5E59485F604C5F462D0 wrote:
Obama doesn't have to give anything, he just whips the gimps and they fall into line. The RINOs are desperate to join the big government party and Obama can easily manipulate establishment Republicans to do his bidding and then cast them aside once he's done. Tea Party is the last real hope but I am with the majority concensus that we are done. |
|
Title: Re: Accounatability Post by Starlifter on 09/04/13 at 20:46:09 Not sure what you're saying here, but I’ll bet you think if you were president, you could fix the world on your first day. ;D |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |