Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 93

Thread: US Prepares for Possible Cruise Missile Attack on Syria Government Forces

  1. #11
    It kinda looks like we are sending in the cruise missiles. Kerry is claiming that there is indisputable proof of a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government and Biden is on the news saying the same--before the UN inspectors have seen test results. Isn't that what both of these jackasses accused Bush of doing with Iraq? I distinctly remember Kerry saying, "War should always be the last resort, not the first resort."

    Viewpoints sure do change when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Estimated cost per cruise missile in 2011: US$1,410,000

    Cruise missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I wonder how many hundreds of cruise missiles they will launch and how many civilians will be slaughtered in the process.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    It kinda looks like we are sending in the cruise missiles. Kerry is claiming that there is indisputable proof of a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government and Biden is on the news saying the same--before the UN inspectors have seen test results. Isn't that what both of these jackasses accused Bush of doing with Iraq? I distinctly remember Kerry saying, "War should always be the last resort, not the first resort."

    Viewpoints sure do change when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Estimated cost per cruise missile in 2011: US$1,410,000

    Cruise missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I wonder how many hundreds of cruise missiles they will launch and how many civilians will be slaughtered in the process.
    Well, it looks like "deja vu". Iraq was about crude oil and export trade made in $ currency according to many independent journalists. After reading a lot on this subject, it seems like in Syria there is:

    - Syria's exports of crude oil and petroleum products.

    - Syria has proven natural gas reserves of 8.5 trillion cubic feet.

    To make it short (because there are many other things), according to some other independent journalists, there is in this region the world biggest natural gas reserves (which would be the future next source of energy) , so now it makes sense that everybody are fighting for it. The rest, is just smoke and mirror.

    Like you said: "how many civilians will be slaughtered in the process". I guess that's the saddest part of this war game.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  3. #13
    "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -- Barack Hussein Obama in 2007
    Even so, Bush and Clinton did go to Congress for approval to attack another country. Obama has not.

    Obama and his team contradict past statements on war powers | The Daily Caller

    I did not know that Syria could have the largest natural gas reserves. I can solve their problems. Got a match?
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  4. #14
    Just to clarify, when I am talking about region, it includes the Mediterranean basin, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. They all have natural gas resources on their lands and in their territorial waters, which represent the biggest world natural reserves. Syria natural gas reserves were secured by Russia, and it makes sense because more they are securing the natural gas reserves and more they control their own natural reserves price, or get other potential supply sources.

    The causes of all of these conflicts are about controlling the resources for decades.
    Last edited by Franc Tireur; 29 August, 2013 at 02:55 AM.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  5. #15
    Not a recent article, but very interesting.


    Be Careful: Russia is Back to Stay in the Middle East


    Russia is back. President Vladimir Putin wants the world to acknowledge that Russia remains a global power. He is making his stand in Syria. The Soviet Union acquired the Tardus Naval Port in Syria in 1971 without any real purpose for it. With their ships welcomed in Algeria, Cuba or Vietnam, Tardus was too insignificant to be developed. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia lacked the funds to spend on the base and no reason to invest in it.


    The Russian return to the Middle East brought them first to where the Soviet Union had had its closest ties. Libya had been a major buyer of arms and many of the military officers had studied in the Soviet Union. Russia was no longer a global power, but it could be used by the Libyans as a counter force to block domination by the United States and Europeans.


    When Gaddafi fell, Tardus became Russia’s only presence in the region. That and the discovery of vast gas deposits just offshore have transformed the once insignificant port into a strategic necessity.
    Earlier at the United Nations, Russia had failed to realize that Security Council Resolution 1973 that was to implement a new policy of “responsibility to protect” cloaked a hidden agenda. It was to be turned from a no-fly zone into a free-fire zone for NATO. That strategic blunder of not vetoing the resolution led to the destruction of Gaddafi’s regime and cost Russia construction contracts and its investments in Libyan gas and oil to the tune of 10 billion dollars.


    That was one more in a series of humiliating defeats; and something that Putin will not allow to happen again while he is president. Since his time as an officer in the KGB, he has seen the Soviet Empire lose half of its population, a quarter of its land mass, and most of its global influence. He has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as a “geopolitical catastrophe.”


    In spite of all of the pressure from Washington and elsewhere to have him persuade Bashar Al-Assad to relinquish power, Putin is staying loyal to the isolated regime. He is calculating that Russia can afford to lose among the Arabs what little prestige that it has remaining and gain a major political and economic advantage in Southern Europe and in the Eastern Mediterranean.

    http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Be-Careful-Russia-is-Back-to-Stay-in-the-Middle-East.html


    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  6. #16
    In recent years the Russians have been much smarter than US presidents when it comes to waging war. We saw this most recently in Georgia.

    They get in quickly, kick ass, destroy everything they can, and then withdraw to let their enemies lick their woulds and think about what might happen the next time they piss off the Russians. There is no talk of reparation or nation rebuilding. Their enemies suffer. Our enemies frequently end up in a better position and we have pissed away so much money that we are weaker.

    Obama does not hold a candle to Putin when it comes to military tactics or political might. I have no idea what our idiot president thinks he will accomplish by defending al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Muslims have never shown appreciation for anything we have done for them over the years.

    There are still a lot of questions to answer before we do anything. It is very possible that if a gas attack did occur, it was staged by the rebels to drag a gaggle of fools into the conflict to help them defeat Bashar al-Assad.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  7. #17
    White House: U.S. Interests To Guide Syria Decision, Suggests U.S. Could Act Alone

    The White House says President Barack Obama's decision on a possible military strike against Syria will be guided by America's best interests, suggesting the U.S. may act alone if other nations won't help. National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said Thursday that Obama believes there are core U.S. interests at stake in Syria. She said countries who violate international norms about chemical weapons must be held accountable.
    The White House was responding to a failed vote in Britain's Parliament on Thursday to endorse military action against Syria over an alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week. That means Britain won't play a direct role in any U.S. attack.


    The defeat dealt a major blow to Obama's efforts to build an international coalition for a strike against the Syrian government.
    White House: U.S. Interests To Guide Syria Decision, Suggests U.S. Could Act Alone

    What are the America's interests in Syria?

    Perhaps President Obama should ask Congress to vote on this, if they reject the vote for war, at least he wouldn't lose credibility on the front of the people. That's exactly what PM Cameron did.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  8. #18
    David Cameron tonight ruled out UK involvement in military action against Syria after his authority and international standing were dealt a severe blow by defeat on the issue in the Commons.

    This is what scares buck ofama.
    if he goes to congress and loses the vote (which he will), he will look like he has no power in the USA and will look like the loser he really is throughout the world!

  9. #19
    President Obama has yet to say what course of action he'll take to respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by President Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria, but his administration has previewed the justification it will use if Mr. Obama decides to take military action.

    Mr. Obama on Wednesday said he has "no interest in any open-ended conflict in Syria." However, he added, "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."


    To launch an assault against the Assad regime that meets domestic legal standards, Mr. Obama's actions would have to pass constitutional muster and meet the statutory requirements set by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.




    Before taking over the executive branch, Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden strongly asserted that the president's ability to use military force is constrained by Congress. Yet since Mr. Obama took over the White House, the administration hasn't shied away from unilaterally deciding to take limited military action.


    Mr. Obama's approach follows one that presidents have taken since the end of World War II, when administrations started exercising their war powers more independently. Some administrations have argued the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has never weighed in on the issue -- leaving the extent of the president's war powers an open question.


    "Part of the problem is these are legal issues, and legal issues are settled in court at the end of the day," James Lindsay, a senior vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations, told CBSNews.com. "And when courts choose not to adjudicate it, people are free to lay down their interpretation of the rules."
    Predictably, when it comes to war powers, the president has the political advantage -- he is, after all the commander in chief. Congress, however, has the constitutional authority to declare war, so legislators do their best to keep the president's powers in check.


    As a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, Mr. Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

    Biden, also a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, said he would move to impeach President Bush if he unilaterally attacked Iran because of its nuclear programs.
    Can Obama strike Syria without Congress' consent? - CBS News

    Interesting to check back their records!

    The same people in power today do exactly the opposite from what they said when they weren't in power.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  10. #20
    Mr Nigel Farage speaking the truth.

    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •