Livestream out of Syria

Chabon said:
Absolutely nothing in that article backs up your assertions or questions my claims. It even manages to include the fact that al-Zawahiri has no authority whatsoever over the groups claiming allegiance with his organisation. You literally think Al Qaeda can be compared to an army, so I have no idea why I'm continuing to debate these issues with you. It's like listening to a six year old explain physics.

And I never accused you of being part of a conspiracy, you clown, I pointed out that your beliefs about the nature of this conflict firmly align with propaganda, not because you're part of the creation of it, but because you're a useful idiot. Newsflash, chucklefeck, you're why they make the propaganda, not part of it. And unlike myself, you clearly do love a good conspiracy theory, because you believe that rebel groups would kill 1500 of their own people on the off-chance it would draw a half-hearted response from the West. If that's 'straightforward reasoning' then I suggest you seek medical attention.



*sigh* 'Act of war' is purely a reactive expression. If the nation attacked does not regard a military action as such, and declare war in response, then that military action simply isn't an act of war. I gave you several examples of this and could give hundrreds more. If/when the US bombs Syria as a punitive measure relating to the regime's chemical weapon use, the two countries will not be at war, unless Assad is truly insane.

Anyway, I offered you a reasonable, well-sourced debate and you continued being a tedious prick, so I'm out. I hope you continue to enjoy cheerleading for a man who has murdered tens of thousands of civilians because that's what Daddy did.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in what you say but your posting style is so childish it's putting me off, which is a shame.
It's hard to say this without sounding like an insult, I promise it's a genuine request - just try and be a bit more adult so I can read what you say.
 
Angry and abrasive, clearly, ranting, maybe, but I'm not sure about 'childish'. To be blunt, I don't frequent a football forum to be erudite and thoughtful.
 
So the inspectors are gone, time to bomb the shit out of the place now is it?
 
Chabon said:
And unlike myself, you clearly do love a good conspiracy theory, because you believe that rebel groups would kill 1500 of their own people on the off-chance it would draw a half-hearted response from the West. If that's 'straightforward reasoning' then I suggest you seek medical attention.
Click to expand...


I'm not into conspiracy theories but I do believe that the rebels would kill their own in order to provoke a reaction. Not sure how much the rebels even consider the civilian population of a Damascus suburb 'their own'. People who throw their enemies from building rooftops, cut off their heads and occasionally eat their organs should have not much trouble murdering even their own, if it suits their agenda. As for the numbers, they range from 300-1800, so no one can say with certainty how many actually died that tragic day.
 
Stalin as an example would have sacrificed that many in a blink, with a few noughts added on. And he wasn't even a religious loon, just a regular one.
It's a possibility, no more.
 
Not sure i see this getting through either chamber. The house will be the bigger problem as there are Dems who don't want action. Will be interesting to see Pelosi and Reid being hawks.....
 
To go to Congress is incredibly risky by Obama. If it doesn't get through it will be an even bigger disaster for him than Parliament's rejection of Cameron's motion was for the PM.
 
rednev said:
To go to Congress is incredibly risky by Obama. If it doesn't get though it will be an even bigger disaster for him than Parliament's rejection of Cameron's motion was for the PM.
Click to expand...
Yep. He's completely boxed in now. If he doesn't get the vote and goes anyway he's going against public will, international will and the congress. There would have to be some overwhelming evidence or another massive attack.

Could he have done this knowing it'll not get through and gave him his way out of attacking?
 
He can put it on the House/Senate if they approve military air strikes which would be hilarious to hear how the rightwingers spin their own side approving it.

If not approved, he can say he used the constitutional action and then either abide with the decision or go his own executive decision (which could cause friction within his own party and give the rightwing loons more ammo to attack him).

Will defense contractors have their lobbyists making some calls/visits this weekend?
 
If he goes on his own, and it goes badly he's doomed the house to be solidly Republican and maybe even lose ground in the Senate. Presidency is still easily Democrat.

If they approve the strike it will be because "we've seen the intelligence and its time to act".
 
Cali Red said:
Yep. He's completely boxed in now. If he doesn't get the vote and goes anyway he's going against public will, international will and the congress. There would have to be some overwhelming evidence or another massive attack.

Could he have done this knowing it'll not get through and gave him his way out of attacking?
Click to expand...


I can't imagine that to be the case, such is the damage a rejection by Congress will do to his presidency. For the US not to attack after the President has said that an attack is his intention (he has gone even further than his 'red line' comment by declaring this in today's address) will damage the credibility of the United States and it will all be down to Obama. I say this under the assumption he will accept the will of Congress, by the way.

The only way he can come out of this without suffering major damage is by going through with military action with Congress's approval.
 
Jeremy Bowen on the BBC said there's a good chance he will lose the vote.
 
MrMarcello said:
Charles Kraufthammer and Peter King just echoed exactly what holyland red stated. That's not good company, HR.
Click to expand...

I have no idea who those two are.

As I already said, I don't have any preference between the two murderous sides in Syria. I have no doubt the rebels would have gassed Alawite women and kids if they had the means to do that. It's US credibility, or lack of, which worries me. In this political climate the Iranians will have zero incentive to rethink their nuclear program. Citing his concern for his allies, including Israel, was quite cynical on Obama's part too. Israel's security isn't compromised by Syrians gassing each other. Try harder.
 
Cali Red said:
Ok, but then why is it the US seems to be the only nation hell bent on doing something? The rest of the world doesn't care about it? The UK, Germany, et al think it's ok for Syria (or anyone else) to use chemical weapons?

And they've been used before by other nations, that was fine then?


The current political path is illogical when looking at the rest of the worlds reaction thus far. I can't believe the US is the only nation on moral high ground (as much as we seem to think we are).
Click to expand...

I thought the UK said the opposite to that, well the PM did. Exactly the same as the US.
 
Red Dreams said:
puts the ball back to Congress. He has made his case to attack.

I think Congress will approve the attack.
Click to expand...

Things have changed since 2003. Here in conservative, pro-military Fresno/Clovis California (my son's high school has lost more troops in Iraq/Afghanistan than any other school in this country--although my kid did return safely), the last poll was 78% opposed to intervention. That isn't just GOP opposition to Obama, it's a realization that getting involved in yet another adventure in the Middle East without sufficient evidence as to the necessity of participation isn't what this country needs. If Congress listens, we aren't wasting tax dollars and American lives/armaments on this civil war that needn't concern us.
 
FresnoBob said:
Things have changed since 2003. Here in conservative, pro-military Fresno/Clovis California (my son's high school has lost more troops in Iraq/Afghanistan than any other school in this country--although my kid did return safely), the last poll was 78% opposed to intervention. That isn't just GOP opposition to Obama, it's a realization that getting involved in yet another adventure in the Middle East without sufficient evidence as to the necessity of participation isn't what this country needs. If Congress listens, we aren't wasting tax dollars and American lives/armaments on this civil war that needn't concern us.
Click to expand...

Desert Storm
Serbia
Shock and Awe
Afghanistan
Libya
Drones


Yeah you could say many in the US on both sides of the political fence are getting a bit tired of it all. In fact one could argue that a big reason Obama got swept into office was a desire to put and end to the endless wars and interventions. Change indeed.
 
US general says Syria action could be 'more substantial than thought'

A former US army chief has claimed that Barack Obama is eyeing intervention in Syria that would go beyond a mere deterrent against chemical weapons to damage the military capacity of the Assad regime.

By Hannah Strange, agencies
03 Sep 2013

General Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the US Army, told BBC Radio 4 that he had spoken to senior Republican senators who had been briefed by the US president on Monday, and had been assured that Mr Obama planned to do significant damage to the forces of Bashar al-Assad.

The Obama administration has previously said that military strikes would not be aimed at toppling Assad's government nor altering the balance of the conflict. Instead, the White House has suggested, they would be intended to punish Assad for the alleged gas attack in Damascus on Aug 21 and to reinstate Washington's "red line" against the use of chemical weapons.

But Gen. Keane said he understood Mr Obama was planning a more substantial intervention in Syria than had previously been thought, with increased support for the opposition forces, including training from US troops.

He said the plans could involve "much more substance than we were led to believe".

After speaking to Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who attended the briefing with Mr Obama, Gen. Keane said: "What he won't do is topple the regime. There's a distinction here.

"What he has told the two senators is that he also intends to assist the opposition forces, so he is going to degrade Assad's military capacity and he is going to assist and upgrade the opposition forces with training assistance."

Gen. Keane said any training would probably be done in neighbouring Jordan rather than in Syria itself.

The US general, who retired in 2003, attributed Mr Obama's surprise decision to seek congressional support for intervention to David Cameron's "humiliating defeat" in the Commons.

He said the US would "much rather" have British backing for any strikes against Bashar Assad's regime.

Gen. Keane explained: "We operate side by side with the UK and we know who our closest ally is. We certainly would much rather do this with the UK side by side, that's how the military feels, I really think the leaders of the country feel.

"I think, if I may use some rich language here, the humiliating defeat the Prime Minister suffered in Parliament, I can only surmise was stunning to the President and I think it impacted on him.

"I think that's one of the motivations that introduced what I call palpable fear and one of the reasons why he is seeking political cover himself."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...n-could-be-more-substantial-than-thought.html



If that had been the intention all along yet parliament had voted for a punitive strike Cameron would have found himself in some serious hot water. As it is i think this would only hinder any second vote here in Britain, Cameron never made the case for intervention of that sort.
 
Chabon said:
Angry and abrasive, clearly, ranting, maybe, but I'm not sure about 'childish'. To be blunt, I don't frequent a football forum to be erudite and thoughtful.
Click to expand...

Pity that you're in the CE forum where a little bit more respect in one's debating style is encouraged.
 
Emails fired off to all my representatives (Congresswoman and two Senators) expressing my desire that they vote NO on any resolution to use force in Syria. It will not help at all, but at least I let them know how I feel.
 
JustAFan said:
Yeah you could say many in the US on both sides of the political fence are getting a bit tired of it all. In fact one could argue that a big reason Obama got swept into office was a desire to put and end to the endless wars and interventions. Change indeed.
Click to expand...

Much of the World was of the opinion that Obama was elected to prevent further military adventures, after all, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for not being George W. Bush.
 
JustAFan said:
One wonders how that prize will be viewed a decade or two down the road?
Click to expand...

I don't suppose there'll be much embarrassment. Choosing politicians as the recipients is always dodgy.

Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were awarded the prize jointly in December 1973 for negotiating the Paris Peace Accords, which 'ended' the Vietnam War. Within two years Tho's regime had renewed the war, invaded South Vietnam, and driven their tanks through the gates of the presidential palace in Saigon. That ended the war.
 
JustAFan said:
So back on subject, Hagel now saying Syria's use of chem weapons is a threat to US Security. Oh here we go again.
Click to expand...
I saw a line on it today and it seemed fitting.

Republicans can't say no to war.
Democrats can't say no to Obama.

With both Pelosi and Boehner both seemingly on board with this I'm guessing the Tomahawks are being fueled and warmed up right now. Finally something both Democrats and Republicans can agree on.......war in the middle east.
 
And keeping weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists...hold on i better double check that one. :angel:

Have you noticed that in the space of 48-72 hours the scope of the strike has expanded from punitive and deterrent oriented to all but a ground invasion with the aim of regime change? And whereas with the more limited strike Obma was struggling for support he now looks increasingly likely to carry the day.

In other news Hague has commented on the humanitarian situation [nice of him to notice] and also alluded to the possibility of talks between Cameron and Putin on Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.