Printable View
That wasn't a Cold-War thing since both Russians and Americans were not comfortable with Iran. Russia because Iran had a religious regime, America because it quit the alliance with her and Israel. That was Saddam on his own trying to exploit a perceived weakness of Iran. The comparison Iraq/Syria is not right nonetheless, Saddam was an animal who didn't give a shit about international opinions, while Assad is thoughtful man.Quote:
Originally Posted by socal
Bad food and no perks being offered I suspect is the reason for early departure?Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
Pretty clever move by Obama coming out saying he wants to strike but will leave it to congress to vote on. How do you think this will go down ... Will they vote to strike or not? Either way it gives diplomacy another couple of weeks before congress will even get around to voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon MeeDoesn't bode well for whom pray tell? :chitown:Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
I don't think Obama wants to strike .... I think he really believes congress will say "no" even though the media is reporting otherwise. Kind of a chicken shit maneuver but oh well ...
Don't do it Barry ...
Iran/Iraq was still a proxy conflict with huge influence from the Cold War. That is why Russia is aligned to Syria to this day. Because that is where the soviets had basesQuote:
Originally Posted by RainfallThat wasn't a Cold-War thing since both Russians and Americans were not comfortable with Iran. Russia because Iran had a religious regime, America because it quit the alliance with her and Israel. That was Saddam on his own trying to exploit a perceived weakness of Iran. The comparison Iraq/Syria is not right nonetheless, Saddam was an animal who didn't give a shit about international opinions, while Assad is thoughtful man.Quote:
Originally Posted by socal
right, he is looking for an exit strategy, and this could be it. Kerry has been shutup and is not lecturing about the war on the news anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
If Congress says yes, which I think it will not, then the blame will be shared, since the war is not really popular with the public. Basically, they are going to play it down, maybe do a token strike in the desert to make everyone save face.
Why is it a chicken shit maneuver? Only Congress has the authority to start a war except in cases of emergency threats to the USA and it's hard to see how a Syrian civil war presents that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
It is also a rather clever political move by Obama, he has positioned the GOP so that they will vote against something they love or vote for something he wants, which they hate. It also puts pressure on Weepy McBoner to try to rally his caucus to actually do something.
They will probably attach a rider to any Syria intervention bill to defund Obamacare safe in the knowledge that he will veto it and then go back to naming post offices.
Exactly! I love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
really?Quote:
Originally Posted by ltnt
i haven't seen any polling data which states that. not even close.
he's doing the right thing.....and it's also a crafty political move.Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
obama wins again.
:dnftt:Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
Crafty Political Move Indeed...:rofl:
Ain't quite 90% there RA but the sentiment is just the same:Quote:
Originally Posted by raycareythis is what you posted:Quote:
Originally Posted by ltnt
show me one poll which says that 90% of americans want the US to not get involved.Quote:
90% of Americans say "Stay the fook out of it!"
just one poll
"...two polls are clear on one thing: Syria is not a priority for Americans. Only 18 percent of those surveyed in the Pew poll said they were following the news from Syria very closely -- a figure that dipped to 10 percent in the New York Times/CBS poll."
Would Americans stomach a war in Syria? - By David Kenner | FP Passport
cameron came too soon in his pants and has left his buddy obama high and dry
and now obama needs foreplay with congress to liven tings up a bit.
< or buying time for the brits to sort themselves>
cameron says he accepts the will of parliament but at the same time
is looking to reshuffle his cabinet after the no vote.
looks embarrassing for the americans and yet we are still waiting to find out who actually used the chemical weapons on women and kids.
propaganda machine is in full swing here in the uk.
what will be thrown up next.
i heard 68% of americans don't want this war.
as soon as one shell is fired at syria all hell will break lose again.
5 warships plus submarines are not there to fire warning shots across bows.
just business as usual.
For some strange reason, when a Democrat is in the White House, wars are OK. Their mantra is:
Bush Bombs Are Bad, But Obama Bombs Are Filled With Lovin' Care"
If that is the case then taking the issue to Congress will allow the alleged representatives of the people to vote 'no' if they wish. Going to Congress is not an escapist move, it is the Constitutionally required move if the USA wants to declare war.Quote:
Originally Posted by ltnt
You can't help yourself any more can you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Yeah, damn that pesky Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
If you mean "declare war", then you're probably right, but he can take action without their permission.Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
Quote:
"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."
- Barack Obama, 2007
Whatever the decision taken by Parliament last week, there seems to be quite a lot of activity on Cyprus at the moment....
Well it's not going to stop the military positioning equipment just in case they get a go or something else happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Akrotiri's quite a convenient spot really, although I wonder if the Cypriots are happy becoming a target...
I wrote "declare war", what did you think I meant? And I'm not probably right, I am right. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11:Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
Erm, I covered that too:Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.
More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.
As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters
Interesting that only 25% of Americans support intervention even if it is established the Assad regime used chemical weapons. I suppose, after a decade thats given us Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Spring (that wasn't), and the assassination of a US Ambassador in Libya, Joe Sixpack just wants out. Fair enough too.
Looks like ships from all sides positioning themselves in the Med as well.
Russian Med Fleet Redeployment
Syria: Russia And US Send Warships To Med
Russia, France deploy warships to eastern Mediterranean | The Times of Israel
Syria's arms race has accelerated through international pressure | World news | The Guardian
The pressure cooker is on full heat .... Might be better, for all concerned, to let this one cool off a little...
Obama expressly said that Syria's chemical weapons represent an imminent threat to the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
So if it wasn't for the fact he was going for a bit of PR (i.e. blame Congress for stopping him), there is nothing to stop him launching a raid. They can always argue the semantics afterwards.
An interesting choice of metaphor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Well yes- by lying. Tried and true political technique I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
No one gets 'done' for lying- it's even OK to lie to Congress these days.
The pressure has been rising within Syria for a while now.Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
The "Superpowers" and their followers are more interested in their own Agendas and taking different sides instead of trying to ease the situation. They are nothing more than vultures, circling Damascus, when they should be Aloe Vera softly applied to the wounds.
The propaganda machine is in full swing but the Western World has cried: "Wolf!" too many times and their people are getting sick of it.
What about a Diplomatic Mission, consisting of the UN "5", popping over and offering some solutions to the problems within Syria. A little trade may be all that is required and could include a softening in the stance with Israel as well. Time to add many colours to a black-and-white picture...
Plenty to pick over with that little lot.....:)
Meaning he should just come out and say he's not gonna strike.Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
Don't do it Barry ...
if i had to guess, he'll get the votes in congress. it'll be close, but he'll get there.
that, IMHO, is when he needs to take it to the UN.
It won't be close whatsoever, RA...Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
You truly don't know how these things work, do you?
It does not matter if he gets a vote in Congress or not,he is still going to bomb Syria just like he has bombed Pakistan,Somalia,Yemen,Afghanistan....and this guy got the Nobel peace prize..ha ha
Technically, he doesn't need Congressional approval.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo
Presidental Direcives/EOs can over-ride any legislative marker.
Ain't the elective democracy grand?
After that he should stage impromptu photo-ops with all the Republicans who voted for it thanking them for their support and bipartisan cooperation.Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
And then kick back and watch them spend all their campaign cash fighting off primary challenges from infuriated teabaggers for daring to give him something he wanted. :)
He really hasn't a clue. A staunch supporter of the indefensible who's next plan for Syria is "Operation Enduring Hesitation" :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rural SurinIt won't be close whatsoever, RA...Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
You truly don't know how these things work, do you?
These deranged drooling fanboys for Obama give me gas...:rolleyes:
In this case, among others, it's probably the best policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Next up, "Operation keep yer Big Nose out".
I'll be surprised if Congress votes in favor of military action. And I'll be shocked if it's even close. We're in a period of time when the politicians know the people are weary of these ME foreign adventures.Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
No matter how they vote this is win-win for Obama.
How do you figure that? Already he's being castigated for being a waffler - hence the title of his next plan: Operation Enduring Hesitation. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
Heh...this Barry Soetero divided against himself can't stand...
Victor Davis Hanson: Obama Indicts Obama.
One of the problems that Barack Obama has in mounting an attack against the Assad regime is that the gambit violates every argument Barack Obama used against the Bush administration to establish his own anti-war candidacy.
The hypocrisy is so stunning that it infuriates his critics and stuns his supporters.
Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point. He used it to great effect against both Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war) in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election. For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters.
And now? His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions."
Well, yes, it sure does...:mid:
^ If anything history will judge him guilty of weakening the office of the President. Nobody of significance cares about the waffler banter.
You one of Obama's Fanboys, stores?Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
Like this guy?
Steve Rattner: We should attack Syria because if we don’t Obama will look silly.
Rightly or wrongly, POTUS drew red line over chemical weapons in #Syria. No way we can back off now.
—
Steven Rattner (@SteveRattner) September 01, 2013
if anything, the power assumed by the executive branch has become too strong over the last few decades--particularly from 2000-2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
i support anything that will bring us back to equal branches of government.
Operation Enduring Hesitation brought to you by...
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/09/129.jpg
:rofl:
Isn't the moonbats turnaround amazing? Not long ago he posted this cartoon in the political cartoons thread.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/09/130.jpg
There is a time and place for cowboy Presidents ... Now isn't one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey