Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 93

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

  1. #31
    Still trying to figure out how Syrians attacking Syrians = urgent national security threat,
    but Libyans attacking Americans = "Phony scandal".

    It's been damned near a year since our guys were attacked and NOBODY has paid a price except anyone on our team that tried to help or failed to stick to the administration's script.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Franc Tireur View Post
    Unfortunately, it seems like our elites are rushing to make war without thinking about the consequences, they don't even wait the reports from the UN inspectors. Why the Congress isn't called back in emergency from recess? It is important that when engaging the country into war that the elected politicians representing the people must vote for it like the Constitution stipulates.
    I guess we'll find out around September 9th:
    White House officials say they are confident that Congress will authorize limited use of force, but the president also insisted Saturday that he has the authority to act alone, and, of course, if Congress does turn him down he'll be able to blame them for whatever comes next.

    Source: CBCNews (last paragraph)
    As long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you otherwise might.
    -- Marian Anderson

  3. #33
    I think he is finally getting Congress involved as a way to back out of his sabre rattling and save face. He initially called it a NATO act (like he did with Libya), but now that the other NATO members have dropped out, he can no longer go that route. He has not given any clear goal for even a limited attack. Sending in a few dozen cruise missiles accomplishes nothing. He needs a way out. As has become the norm with this goon, he prefers a route that allows him to criticize Congress in the process.

    He can act on his own, but it would be illegal. A president can only legally launch an attack on his own when there is an imminent threat to the USA. Although Jay Carney has called it an imminent threat, no one has told us what the threat to the USA is.

    It appears that everything that Obama and Biden criticized Bush for doing, Obama is doing to a much greater degree, but without any regard for the law. Long live the tyrant.
    "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. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by robjones View Post
    Still trying to figure out how Syrians attacking Syrians = urgent national security threat,
    but Libyans attacking Americans = "Phony scandal".

    It's been damned near a year since our guys were attacked and NOBODY has paid a price except anyone on our team that tried to help or failed to stick to the administration's script.
    Libya was the epicenter of the mess that showed that these djihadists were uncontrollable, and what followed is an extension of conflict spell over countries like Mali, Nigeria and Algeria. From what I have read, the Libya mess was about getting back missiles to send it via Turkey for the Syrian resistance. Nobody wants to talk about a black ops mess that was mismanaged by the top people in charge at that time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebecca View Post
    I guess we'll find out around September 9th:
    Well, at least it will be debates and analyses.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    I think he is finally getting Congress involved as a way to back out of his sabre rattling and save face in the process. He initially called it a NATO act (like he did with Libya), but now that the other NATO members have dropped out, he can no longer go that route. He has not given any clear goal for even a limited attack. Sending in a few dozen cruise missiles accomplishes nothing.

    He can act on his own, but it would be illegal. A president can only launch an attack on his own when there is an imminent threat to the USA. Although Jay Carney has called it an imminent threat, no one has told us what the threat to the USA is.

    It appears that everything that they criticized Bush for doing, Obama is doing to a much greater degree, but without any regard for the law.
    If the US and a few other allies engage directly in whatever ways in Syria, it will be a much bigger conflict involving many other countries and perhaps will finish in a WW3, simple as that.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  5. #35
    I'm ready for WW3. Let's get it started so we can get it over with. That would fall in line with the conspiracy theories claiming that Obama was put into office to cripple the USA to assure that the USA can never again rise to superpower status. Everything he has done thus far would lead you to that logical conclusion.

    I don't think the USA can sustain another war, especially if the idiots in charge plan to spend 20 years rebuilding what we blew up and trying to improve the lives of people who do not want us there.
    "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


  6. #36
    I was watching this video below that resumed some events.

    I have a few speculative theories, but I am not an expert.

    1) It doesn't make any sense that they have already determined the origin of the chemical weapon used and where the chemical weapon was made, according to UN inspectors "it will take 2 weeks to know" about the composition.

    2) Is it the really goal to intervene in Syrian? Iran may ripost as an ally to Syria which will give a very good pretext to hit all their nuclear sites in retaliation.

    3) Is Russia ready to go to WW3?


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

    Voltaire


  7. #37
    Al Qaeda's red line has been crossed! They are planning a strike against the Syrian government.
    "The meeting factions decided to carry out the "Volcano of Revenge" invasion in response to the regime's massacres against our people in Eastern Ghouta, the last of which was the chemical weapons massacre," Source: Reuters
    As long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you otherwise might.
    -- Marian Anderson

  8. #38
    Obama’s 2014 calculation: Let’s have a war

    ANALYSIS/OPINION:
    The first rule for President Obama: It’s all about 2014. The second rule for President Obama: See Rule No. 1.

    Make no mistake: The president couldn’t care less about the plight of Syrians, the 1,500 gassed to death — including nearly 500 children. It’s all about 2014. Win the House, reign supreme.

    Consider this: Mr. Obama made his dramatic Rose Garden statement Saturday — then headed to the golf course. Congress has no plans to cut short its 30-day vacation, and the president did not call lawmakers back. So much for urgency.
    The conventional wisdom is, as usual, wrong. Losing the congressional vote won’t be an embarrassment for the president, as all the talking heads are still parroting. A loss would be a double win. First, because a “No” vote would allow the foreign policy neophyte to walk away from his blundering “red line” declaration on chemical weapons (“I wanted to go in, but Congress said no”). And second, should Republicans who voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars now oppose Syria, the president would be armed with clear “evidence” that their opposition is purely political.
    Keep in mind: This president knows no way to campaign other than to blame others. He’ll batter Republicans for all of 2014 as obstructionists should they be the reason the effort fails.
    But the bloviating politicos are also wrong that the “Republican-controlled House” could reject the plan for partisan reasons. It is Democrats who seem most squeamish — and they were the most vocal in demanding their say before intervention in Syria. Remember, two years ago, as the president prepared to bomb Libya, 70 Democrats joined Republicans in voting against military operations. Mr. Obama bombed anyway.

    Still, the entire fiasco has been hard to watch, “Amateur Hour” indeed. The president declares a “red line,” then sees the Syrian dictator cross it again and again. The Nobel Peace Prize winner declares he’ll take America to war — but only then does he seek partners and only to find a “Coalition of the Unwilling.” The United Nations says no, the Arab League says no, China and Russia say no — even the United Kingdom says no (mainly because Brits did not want to have another U.S.-led war jammed down their throats).


    Back home, polls find 80 percent of Americans want Congress to decide, and nearly half oppose intervention. So the president — hoping to appear magnanimous — declares he’ll seek authorization (read: share the blame).
    Still, the president and his secretary of state are absolutely right. “The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” John F. Kerry said. Mr. Obama, in his most powerful passage, said: “Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”
    Of course a firm response is the correct action. And Mr. Obama doesn’t need authority to do so in Syria, just as he didn’t in Libya. While Republican support on the Hill now would help Mr. Obama save face after his “red line” throw-down, striking Syria with a few cruise missiles — however fleeting and ineffectual that would be to the course of its 2-year-old civil war — also would send a signal to the real target: Iran. That’s why, most likely, Republicans will support the president after rewriting the White House’s draft resolution.
    Now, it is up to Mr. Obama’s own party: Does he still hold sway over Democrats? Will they bend to his will? Many already seem to be running for the hills. And if they don’t, will the president have the temerity to order strikes anyway?

    Whatever happens, this much is clear: We’re no longer talking about the IRS targeting tea party groups, the Justice Department tapping reporters’ phone lines, the NSA’s surveillance programs, Benghazi. The president has smartly changed the subject to the most important decision a commander in chief makes: war.

    I would be interested to know why the Russians support this kind of act filmed in this video, if they are so strict about respecting international laws.

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

    Voltaire


  9. #39
    Obama is completely focused on taking over the Congress in 2014 so that he has nothing to keep him in check during his last two years. The Republicans need to make sure they do not fall into one of Obama's Rope-A-Dope traps that he can use against them. There should be zero faith that he will do something honest or good for the USA. He is easily the most partisan president since FDR. FDR still holds the record for Constitutional violations, but Obama is trying to claim that record.

    Quote Originally Posted by Franc Tireur View Post
    1) It doesn't make any sense that they have already determined the origin of the chemical weapon used and where the chemical weapon was made, according to UN inspectors "it will take 2 weeks to know" about the composition.
    There are different ways to make sarin, but they cannot determine where or who made sarin gas. It is made from common components and anyone familiar with chemistry can make it if they know how. It is a binary nerve agent, which means that mixing two separately produced chemicals creates the sarin gas.

    I was in Tokyo in 1995 when Aum Shinrikyo, a fanatic nut-case cult figure, released sarin in several subway stations in the Tokyo Metro. In fact, we would have been in the station where the main attack occurred at the time of the attack, but our meeting was delayed. I subsequently did a lot of research at the time because I had no idea what sarin was.

    Almost everything that John Kerry claimed in his speech was untrue, such as how chemical weapons have been banned since 1925 (which he called shortly after WWI). Both the USA and Russia were producing chemical weapons until a treaty in the 1970s. Check this out from the sarin Wikipedia page:

    1950s (early): NATO adopted sarin as a standard chemical weapon, and both the USSR and the United States produced sarin for military purposes.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

    The goal for all of this is to create diversions. Diversions draw people away from the real issues, such as Benghazi, NSA spying, excessive and expensive vacations, etc. Take notice of the fact that the lapdog media has dropped all of those topics. by the time this blows over, no one will be talking about the real issues.
    "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


  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    The goal for all of this is to create diversions. Diversions draw people away from the real issues, such as Benghazi, NSA spying, excessive and expensive vacations, etc. Take notice of the fact that the lapdog media has dropped all of those topics. by the time this blows over, no one will be talking about the real issues.
    Exactly! They think we are dumb enough not to see that?

    I don't want to be mean, but really when I read this excerpt below, it sums up the whole story. It just confirms how disconnected they are from what is surrounding them, and how much they don't care.

    Consider this: Mr. Obama made his dramatic Rose Garden statement Saturday — then headed to the golf course. Congress has no plans to cut short its 30-day vacation, and the president did not call lawmakers back. So much for urgency.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •