A Case for Not Bombing Syria

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

comforting isn't it, having france to back us up.....

Yeah, feel better now that they have our six...and you know this is their national flag.

[Aly-Sheba]

Now that the President did the right thing and is going to wait for Congress, it took Fox two seconds to spin this against the President. Hannity must be pissed he isn't on today to turn it on him! If the President would have went it alone, Fox and Hannity would have been all over Obama. Now they have to figure out another way to attack. I never trust anyone who cant say one good thing about the other side whether they are on the right or left. Ever notice when O'Reilly says the spin stops here? Thats because he knows the Dickhead Hannity follows him!

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

Now that the President did the right thing and is going to wait for Congress, it took Fox two secondsmake that milli-seconds to spin this against the President. Hannity must be pissed he isn't on today to turn it on him! If the President would have went it alone, Fox and Hannity would have been all over Obama. Now they have to figure out another way to attack.no problem, they will I never trust anyone who cant say one good thing about the other side whether they are on the right or left. Ever notice when O'Reilly says the spin stops here? Thats because he knows the Dickhead Hannity follows him!

..flipping around other nite MSNBC,CNN and Fox...caught Hannity(the Patriot during Iraq) with Malkin..what a pair...watched bout 5 mins and had to puke

[Aly-Sheba]

Originally Posted by bigrun

..flipping around other nite MSNBC,CNN and Fox...caught Hannity(the Patriot during Iraq) with Malkin..what a pair...watched bout 5 mins and had to puke

Yea she is pretty scary along with Butterface Coulter!! I bet Hannity can't stand up after he has Rove or Levine on!!

[Danzig]

good, i'm glad he's taking it to them, as he should have from the get go. finally realizes he isn't the only one thats supposed to have a say.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

Yea she is pretty scary along with Butterface Coulter!! I bet Hannity can't stand up after he has Rove or Levine on!!

Speaking of Coulter..

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

Now that the President did the right thing and is going to wait for Congress, it took Fox two seconds to spin this against the President.

Im no fan of Fox, but it doesn't take a lot of spin to make the administration's handling of Syria look bad. Its been dreadful.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Im no fan of Fox, but it doesn't take a lot of spin to make the administration's handling of Syria look bad. Its been dreadful.

our foreign policy moves have been godawful for years now. but yes, it seems that lately it's a headless snake, thrashing about aimlessly.

and we are paying dearly for the debacle known as iraq. we need a doctrine for the middle east. right now it's whack a mole.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

our foreign policy moves have been godawful for years now. but yes, it seems that lately it's a headless snake, thrashing about aimlessly.

and we are paying dearly for the debacle known as iraq. we need a doctrine for the middle east. right now it's whack a mole.

Bullseye..whoever raises their ugly head gets whacked..

[Danzig]

i'm serious. we stand here with a big mallet and try to take care of things as they pop up. not a great strategy at all. we've become a huge international player, but with no game plan. what is our goal?


i think the president has an opportunity to get things straight. i think he should formulate a middle east doctrine, and take it to the un, and explain what we see as how things should be. that the goal is peace, freedom and prosperity. that we will not involve ourselves in conflicts such as syria, but that these certain weapons must never be used, and that the international community must be willing to back international law, else those laws mean nothing. we must weigh evidence, and must act.
the un security council must change. it should be a majority vote. we also need to call out ALL illegal goings on, right israel?

[bigrun]

Here's a good Q @ A on Syria..

Syria: Questions about a chaotic, tormented land.

But there are protests in lots of places. How did it all go so wrong in Syria?

There’s no single answer. Journalist Fareed Zakaria argues that what we’re seeing is in some ways the inevitable re-balancing of power along ethnic and religious lines. He compares it to the sectarian bloodbath in Iraq after the United States toppled Saddam Hussein, after which a long-oppressed majority retook power from, and violently punished, the former minority rulers.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/na...a36600e2c.html

[dellinger63]

And here's a rebel soldier, the side we would help by bombing Assad, point of view.

His father accepts Mohammed’s front-line role. “I put my trust in God,” he said.

But there’s a rub. Young Mohammed admires another local rebel group, the militant Islamist Jabhat al-Nusra, which is affiliated with al Qaeda.

“They know Islam and Sharia,” he said. “They know what it means to be a Muslim.”

A father who is proud of an 11-year old for killing, while putting his trust in God, is fubared.

Sharia law whether consensual or forced should not be tolerated and should be contained and extracted similar to how the world treats an oil spill or nuclear meltdown.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...g20uqtYAqgv63N

[Rudeboyelvis]

Fantastic to see John McCain, whom ever since escaping from a tiger cage as a POW in 'Nam has never seen a war that he thought would be a good idea to stay out of, playing games on his iphone during the hearings:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...aring/2761445/

All this on the heels of Kerry now proclaiming that the unsubstantiated reports of WMD's....err....Chemical Weapons - are not as important a reason to invade as is our "credibility"

>>>It matters because a lot of other countries, whose polices challenges these international norms, are watching. They are watching. They want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say. It is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something. They are watching to see if Syria can get away with it, because then maybe they too can put the world at greater risk.<<<

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ement/2749051/

He has also eluded to and opened the door for the US to deploy ground troops, and then quickly backpedaled when he quickly noticed the expressions on the faces of the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nd-troops.html

>>>"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country," he said.

Mr Kerry's comment was immediately picked up on by Senator Robert Menendez, his predecessor as the committee chair, who said the American people saw the issue of ground troops as an "overriding issue".

The secretary of state was also criticised by Senator Bob Corker, the committee's leading Republican, who said the answer was not "very appropriate"<<<

What country did I wake up in?

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ia_752712.html

lol flim flam in full effect..

[Danzig]

we shouldn't act unilaterally. it should be thru the u.n. we haven't been attacked, so we shouldn't act alone...
or in tandem with france. yeah, france....


putin said that un action isn't off the table.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

we shouldn't act unilaterally. it should be thru the u.n. we haven't been attacked, so we shouldn't act alone...
or in tandem with france. yeah, france....


putin said that un action isn't off the table.

Zig, I don't believe we shouldn't act period. This civil war poses no definable threat to the US. Zero. Any imagined threat is simply just more unsubstantiated fear mongering by the war machine in order to continue to perpetuate itself.

I think it's pretty clear that an American attack, without the sanction of the United Nations, the support of allies, the authorization of Congress -- or, it must be said, much hope of meaningful success -- would violate the Constitution. As Jack Goldsmith writes in Lawfare, it "will push presidential war power beyond where it has gone before.",

Given this president's complete and utter disregard for the document, I guess we can expect to see the same outcomes as we've seen in Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, et al. where we've stuck our nose into other sovereign nation's matters, involved the lives of our sons and daughters along with billions upon billions of dollars we don't have, only to cut and run after we've created the mess, all under the auspices of the self-proclaimed "World Police".

Meanwhile our infrastructure continues to collapse, major cities declare bankruptcy, welfare soars to it's highest level in recorded history - and THIS is the main focus. I must be the crazy one.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Zig, I don't believe we shouldn't act period. This civil war poses no definable threat to the US. Zero. Any imagined threat is simply just more unsubstantiated fear mongering by the war machine in order to continue to perpetuate itself.

I think it's pretty clear that an American attack, without the sanction of the United Nations, the support of allies, the authorization of Congress -- or, it must be said, much hope of meaningful success -- would violate the Constitution. As Jack Goldsmith writes in Lawfare, it "will push presidential war power beyond where it has gone before.",

Given this president's complete and utter disregard for the document, I guess we can expect to see the same outcomes as we've seen in Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, et al. where we've stuck our nose into other sovereign nation's matters, involved the lives of our sons and daughters along with billions upon billions of dollars we don't have, only to cut and run after we've created the mess, all under the auspices of the self-proclaimed "World Police".

Meanwhile our infrastructure continues to collapse, major cities declare bankruptcy, welfare soars to it's highest level in recorded history - and THIS is the main focus. I must be the crazy one.

i agree, i don't see a need to get involved. and certainly not alone, or with france. only if the u.n. wanted it, sought it. they don't.

we need to stay the hell out of the middle east. welll, we need to get out of parts of it first! and then stay out of it. it's a cesspool.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Zig, I don't believe we shouldn't act period. This civil war poses no definable threat to the US. Zero. Any imagined threat is simply just more unsubstantiated fear mongering by the war machine in order to continue to perpetuate itself.

I think it's pretty clear that an American attack, without the sanction of the United Nations, the support of allies, the authorization of Congress -- or, it must be said, much hope of meaningful success -- would violate the Constitution. As Jack Goldsmith writes in Lawfare, it "will push presidential war power beyond where it has gone before.",

Given this president's complete and utter disregard for the document, I guess we can expect to see the same outcomes as we've seen in Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, et al. where we've stuck our nose into other sovereign nation's matters, involved the lives of our sons and daughters along with billions upon billions of dollars we don't have, only to cut and run after we've created the mess, all under the auspices of the self-proclaimed "World Police".

Meanwhile our infrastructure continues to collapse, major cities declare bankruptcy, welfare soars to it's highest level in recorded history - and THIS is the main focus. I must be the crazy one.

Almost exactly my position on invading Iraq 10 1/2 years ago..any action here w/o Congress,U.N. and allies aboard...please abort...and absolutely no ground troops!...What scares me is McCain and Boner are on board with Obama

[Danzig]

iraq invasion was bs too. i have no doubt we'd have been done and gone from afganistan years ago if not for the stupid iraq invasion.

is iraq better off?
are we? is that region better off?

no, no and no. yes, a brutal dictator is gone. what's followed his demise?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

iraq invasion was bs too. i have no doubt we'd have been done and gone from afganistan years ago if not for the stupid iraq invasion.absolutely!..in an out in one year in Afgan,rout Taliban and grab or kill bin laden..

is iraq better off?.hell no, not for us or them
are we? is that region better off? if so show me where

no, no and no. yes, a brutal dictator is gone. what's followed his demise?They have a democracy, yeah right

All the countries taking in fleeing Syrians.Turkey,Egypt,Lebanon et all can no longer handle the influx...all these questions and no answers...