Major humiliation for Warlord Obama

Annie said:
The same CIA that told Bush I, Clinton, Bush II about the WMD's in Iraq? Sorry, if the president can't come up with better than "We conclude they used..." it's not selling. Not to the UN, not to the American people, looks like not even to Congress.
Click to expand...


Well, it's not like there's any question that Syria has chemical weapons. And there isn't much legitimate question that someone used chemical weapons in Syria. So the only issue to be determined is whether the regime used them or the rebels used them. (setting aside for the moment whether Assad ordered their use or someone under his command took it upon himself to order their use).
 
Dungheap said:
Well, it's not like there's any question that Syria has chemical weapons. And there isn't much legitimate question that someone used chemical weapons in Syria. So the only issue to be determined is whether the regime used them or the rebels used them. (setting aside for the moment whether Assad ordered their use or someone under his command took it upon himself to order their use).
Click to expand...

If it was the Syrian government, that's the only way it makes sense. Assad is the one in danger of being removed for this, and that was not exactly hard to see coming.
 
Damocles said:
Tell me... Mr. DemandWeSupportObamaWithoutThought... What would the point of attacking Syria be at this time? What good do you think we'd do by doing minimal attacks? And why would we demand Bush get approval and more than one nation to tag along before doing anything, but this guy gets your pass?

Basically, can you answer this one question: What would victory look like if we took military action in Syria?
Click to expand...

TO me, if we took action, and I am not yet supporting such a thing, victory would look like a significant reduction in the ability to produce or utilize chemical weapons, without major risk to innocent human life.
 
Why is everyone acting as if the proposed potential action in Syria is in any way comparable to what the Nation did in Iraq?

Now, I no longer have cable television so maybe im missing something, but Is Obama out campaigning for action in Syria? The only article I read said that he had not made his mind up about any action.
 
Darla said:
If it was the Syrian government, that's the only way it makes sense. Assad is the one in danger of being removed for this, and that was not exactly hard to see coming.
Click to expand...


That's what's being reported:

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"
Click to expand...


Of course, the State Dept. is saying that Assad is responsible for whatever the persons under his command do (it's OK to LOL at that one).


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...cepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas
 
Dungheap said:
That's what's being reported:




Of course, the State Dept. is saying that Assad is responsible for whatever the persons under his command do (it's OK to LOL at that one).


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...cepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas
Click to expand...

Hmm. Well, I can accept that this is a realistic possibility...I really couldn't accept the idea that Assad would do it, it's crazy.

I wonder though if we will ever really know who actually did it? There's so much bullshit floating around, and it's not as if the US government and military are honest. I don't personally feel that I will ever know for certain.
 
Dungheap said:
That's what's being reported:




Of course, the State Dept. is saying that Assad is responsible for whatever the persons under his command do (it's OK to LOL at that one).


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...cepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas
Click to expand...

Don't we all think that way from time to time? That our leaders are responsible for the actions of their underlings? I mean....it was just a short time ago where Obama was responsible for the IRS thing, the AP thing, the Benghazi thing and any time someone in government farts wrong.....so if you're gonna LOL, include that shit too.
 
Steelplate said:
Don't we all think that way from time to time? That our leaders are responsible for the actions of their underlings? I mean....it was just a short time ago where Obama was responsible for the IRS thing, the AP thing, the Benghazi thing and any time someone in government farts wrong.....so if you're gonna LOL, include that shit too.
Click to expand...


The LOL is because there are lots of things that happen in the US military (see Ghraib, Abu) and the US government more generally for which the president takes the position that he is not responsible, yet here we are taking the opposite position with regard to Syria. Now, I admit that the nature of chemical weapons and their universal condemnation makes their use in battle a bit different from what guards are doing at a prison in a war zone, but still.
 
Dungheap said:
The LOL is because there are lots of things that happen in the US military (see Ghraib, Abu) and the US government more generally for which the president takes the position that he is not responsible, yet here we are taking the opposite position with regard to Syria. Now, I admit that the nature of chemical weapons and their universal condemnation makes their use in battle a bit different from what guards are doing at a prison in a war zone, but still.
Click to expand...

Well, I never blamed Bush for Abu Graib. I don't blame Obama for Ft. Hood.

However, if either one of them had a major screwup like.....oh....releasing a WMD on our own citizens? I'd want his head on a pike. Those types of weapons are first priority....even in times of civil unrest.
 
Steelplate said:
When I said we don't have the Intel...I meant we, as in the citizens of the country. The CIA and the Joint Chiefs know what's going on.

I don't know that we SHOULD go....but I also don't know that we shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Without the answers to the rather simple questions I propounded we should not. The "well they know more than we" attitude is a surrender of the power you hold as a citizen of a nation where we have government BY the people. We must hold our leaders accountable regardless of the jersey they wear. Before we allow them to kill in our name we must demand an accounting.
 
Damocles said:
Without the answers to the rather simple questions I propounded we should not. The "well they know more than we" attitude is a surrender of the power you hold as a citizen of a nation where we have government BY the people. We must hold our leaders accountable regardless of the jersey they wear. Before we allow them to kill in our name we must demand an accounting.
Click to expand...

I answered your simple question.
 
Damocles said:
Without the answers to the rather simple questions I propounded we should not. The "well they know more than we" attitude is a surrender of the power you hold as a citizen of a nation where we have government BY the people. We must hold our leaders accountable regardless of the jersey they wear. Before we allow them to kill in our name we must demand an accounting.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is NOT a "surrender of power". We elect our officials via the Democratic Process of voting. We give them the power to represent the country and the people's interest...they are our proxy.

They are always going to know more than we do. They have resources at the highest level. We only have the media.

Make no mistake. I am not giving the government license to do whatever the hell they want. But I am not going to assume the worst about our government and continually try them in the court of Public Opinion because I don't like the "Jersey" the administration of the day is wearing.
 
Steelplate said:
Oh, I know you know.... you know that your ideology is based on whatever the right wing media tells you for the day.... you don't have an attention span longer than that.
Click to expand...

This persona he is a rightie, he use to post as a liberal, he is a troll.
 
Everyone is pissed off with the extreme right and their imperialist manoeuvres. WE told our MPs so, and they are so pissed off with everyone's treating them with contempt that they voted against the yanks, hirelings as they were. Go and do thou likewise.
 
Agree with me said:
Warlord Obama may be remembered - if anyone survives - as the egoist who started the last war that destroys civilization.


Russia sends warships to Mediterranean...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/russia-sends-in-warships-as-syria-tensions-escalate/4923506

And it's hilarious to see libs who chanted "Bush lied people died" expressing lamblike trust in the Warlord Obama.
Click to expand...

are not you being a bit premature, nothing has happened yet except a lot of rhetoric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top