Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure the dim warmongers will shortly chime in with their logic...
As it has been known since 1979, and documented by the US State Department, Syria has been a sponsor of international terrorism. Funding Hamas, which is headquartered in Syria, and co-funding Hezbollah with Iran. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are responsible for multiple US deaths, as well as organized crime in the US.
Of course the same thing about being responsible for multiple US deaths can be said about al Qaeda, who now fights against Assad and his Ba'ath Party.
It would be stupid to take either side in this conflict. We should either stay completely out of this fiasco, or aid both sides (not militarily) in destroying each other.
This is my opinion. Barack Obama doesn't want to go to war (or whatever euphemism he's calling it) but he can't back down and lose face so he decides to ask Congress figuring one of two things:
They'll vote "No" and if something happens bad in Syria (or Israel, Iran, etc.) he can say, "I wanted to go but I consulted Congress and they said it wasn't a go."
Or, they will vote "Yes" and like what the imbecile "yes" voting Senators did, decide all the particulars of the strike making it THEIR plan instead of Obama's because they are all egomaniacs and have to add their own 2 cents, not just vote. Then if Obama does what they say, it's THEIR plan, not Obama's. And that's what he does best. Push the blame on somebody else for everything only this time, the dopey Senators are doing what they can to oblige.
If I'm right, Obama's a pretty smart cookie. He wins no matter what Congress does.
This is my opinion. Barack Obama doesn't want to go to war (or whatever euphemism he's calling it) but he can't back down and lose face so he decides to ask Congress figuring one of two things:
They'll vote "No" and if something happens bad in Syria (or Israel, Iran, etc.) he can say, "I wanted to go but I consulted Congress and they said it wasn't a go."
Or, they will vote "Yes" and like what the imbecile "yes" voting Senators did, decide all the particulars of the strike making it THEIR plan instead of Obama's because they are all egomaniacs and have to add their own 2 cents, not just vote. Then if Obama does what they say, it's THEIR plan, not Obama's. And that's what he does best. Push the blame on somebody else for everything only this time, the dopey Senators are doing what they can to oblige.
If I'm right, Obama's a pretty smart cookie. He wins no matter what Congress does.
Your a smart cookie, for seeing thru to Obama. And yes what Obama does do best, is to put blame onto others.
A democrat friends was over today, and getting tired of Obama finally. He said to me, this guy has so many dang excuses it is getting so damn old. Then he went on to call him a damn liar about the red line statement. That pissed him off.
I think people in general are getting tired of Obama's antics. But i do believe as you, that Obama has this all planned out in his head.
And if things don't go as planned, just blame everyone else but himself.
If I'm right, Obama's a pretty smart cookie. He wins no matter what Congress does.
I don't dispute your analysis, but President Obama is pretty smart regardless of how this individual situation has panned out. It's pretty easy to dismiss inane right-wing idiocy that is built on a foundation of claiming President Obama isn't smart, or doesn't understand how economics, international relations, or practically anything else works. I always wondered why right-wingers go down such a path, except perhaps to dupe weak-minded people into believing such nonsense. It is like left-wingers attacking McConnell's or Boehner's intelligence. Generally, the difference between the sides of the issues is not a matter of differences in level of intelligence, but rather is just a reflection of different values.
There are politicians out there who's general intelligence is assailable, but President Obama is simply not one of them.
It was also smart of Obama to defer to Congress since by the time Congress returns to vote on it, we will be nearly two weeks out from the chemical weapon attack. Maybe people will be less likely to pull the trigger on an operation.
I don't think he wants to commit our military to another operation. I think he is doing what David Cameron did: Blow a lot of hot air on the subject, and then have his parliament shoot it down so he can keep his nose clean.
Oh but the Dems fell in line too.
It was the first time since WW2 that BOTH sides came together to go to war.
They fell in line to vote for the second Iraq war because the information given to them--supposedly by the people who should, beyond any doubt, be trusted to tell the truth to Congress and do the right thing for the American people--made up the intelligence to justify going to war. You can't blame anyone, democrat or republican, for a vote that was made based on fabricated information. The Bush administration lied to Congress, and to the American people.
They fell in line because the information given to them--supposedly by the people who should, beyond any doubt, be trusted to tell the truth to Congress and do the right thing for the American people--made up the intelligence to justify going to war. You can't blame anyone, democrat or republican, for a vote that was made based on fabricated information. The Bush administration lied to Congress, and to the American people.
The they vote was not the entire Senate but a small committee...
One can only hope that Congress will demand more than what has been presented so far.
How old are you, because you're either too young to remember this, or you're deliberately being deceptive. When we were going into Iraq the second time under Bush 43, the UN weapons inspectors had just finished spending nearly 10 years removing WMD's from Iraq after the first war, and then Clinton bombed them again to get the last of them in Operation Dessert Fox. The UN weapons inspectors went in to do another search and found nothing--there was no evidence of militarily significant WMDs in Iraq, but we made up the evidence that there was, and went in anyway.
THAT'S the difference. This time there is clear and uncontested proof from a variety of international sources, INCLUDING UN weapons inspectors, that Syria used WMDs on a broad military scale. I'm fine with waiting to act until the UN finishes their testing, but based on all of the intelligence from numerous countries--not just the United States--it's pretty clear what they're going to find.
Last edited by mb1547; 09-05-2013 at 07:23 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Syria is nothing but an annoyance to Israel national Security
