Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Japan attacked the US and Germany followed up by declaring War on the US, 11 Dec, 41.
Japan attacked the US and Germany followed up by declaring War on the US, 11 Dec, 41.
The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
How aren't the Saudis involved with their open door to funding and bases of operation?
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
You didn't say they were involved. You said Obama was doing what the Saudis wanted him to. And that Bush did what the Saudis wanted him to.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Presumably the targets would have been chemical-weapon plants, but now all the enemy has to do is shut down and scatter.
You can't really hit depots, because that will just release the toxins.
Did Obama Administration Leaks Already Spoil Syria Attack?
This clown still looks like rachel madcow.
Even in doing something monumentally stupid, they compound it with extra special stupidity…
Via Foreign Policy:U.S. airstrikes into Syria will begin within days and involve Tomahawk cruise missiles fired by American warships in the eastern Mediterranean. They will last less than a week and target a limited number of Syrian military installations. And they will be designed to send a stern message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, not force him from power.
That’s the word coming from some in the Obama administration — the White House swears it’s not them. And while Obama’s aides publicly insist that the President hasn’t made a final decision about whether to attack Syria, anonymous officials within his administration are leaking a strikingly large amount of detailed information about the timing, duration and scope of the potential military intervention. The flood of details raises a pair of related questions. Is the administration deliberately trying to telegraph its plans for a strike? And if so, why?
“I have no earthly idea why they’re talking so much,” said retired Admiral William Fallon, the former head of the military’s Central Command. “It’s not leaking out; it’s coming out through a hose. It’s just a complete head-scratcher.”
Keep reading…
Presumably the targets would have been chemical-weapon plants, but now all the enemy has to do is shut down and scatter.
You can't really hit depots, because that will just release the toxins.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Chemical weapons storage areas would and will not be touched or even scratched by shrapnel. To many casualties.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Why not?
NATO is an extension of American hegemony. It has zero moral authority. Only the United Nations can confer international legitimacy to the use of force by America. The days of US hegemony are coming to an end. Good riddance.
Let Canada deal with this Syrian problem. Let Canada lead.
Why not?
NATO is an extension of American hegemony. It has zero moral authority. Only the United Nations can confer international legitimacy to the use of force by America. The days of US hegemony are coming to an end. Good riddance.
Let Canada deal with this Syrian problem. Let Canada lead.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/japan.htm
How was the precedent set. Roosevelt knew war was coming.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/japan.htm
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
I also never mentioned anything about foreign policy.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Because he is not required to.
Only the UN can legitimize use of force by America! Are you serious?
And so would our sovereignty come to an end if you had your way.
Because he is not required to.
Only the UN can legitimize use of force by America! Are you serious?
And so would our sovereignty come to an end if you had your way.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
A valid reason to blow sh*t to bits would help. Maybe just maybe there is far more than meets the eye than what people are being TOLD.
A valid reason to blow sh*t to bits would help. Maybe just maybe there is far more than meets the eye than what people are being TOLD.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Did Obama Administration Leaks Already Spoil the Syria Attack? - by Yochi Dreazen | Foreign Policy
Why all the loose talk coming out of the WH??
As I mentioned the other day, the Syrians would be moving and moving quickly.
"You don't want an adversary to know what's coming," Deptula said. "Now Assad does."
In recent days, White House spokesman Jay Carney has said that the military operations under consideration by President Obama "are not about regime change," while The New York Times and other newspapers reported that the White House was considering a limited series of strikes that would last one to two days and strike fewer than 50 targets. The paper said the U.S. would focus on hitting individual Syrian military units, headquarters compounds, air bases, and rocket sites, not chemical weapons facilities themselves. The information was attributed to unnamed administration officials.
There were signs Wednesday that the Syrian strongman has already begun reacting to the talk coming out of Washington about the potential targets of a U.S. strike. Reuters reported that Assad's forces appeared to have evacuated most of their personnel from several key army, air force, and security headquarters buildings in central Damascus. Those are precisely the kinds of military compounds U.S. cruise missiles would reportedly be sent to destroy.
The administration's willingness to share details about sensitive military operations has prompted internal consternation in the past. In the days after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates grew so angry about the amount of information leaking out about the assault that he reportedly approached then-National Security Advisor Tom Donilon to recommend "a new strategic communications approach." It was a simple one. "Shut the f--- up," Gates said.
Did Obama Administration Leaks Already Spoil the Syria Attack? - by Yochi Dreazen | Foreign Policy
Why all the loose talk coming out of the WH??
As I mentioned the other day, the Syrians would be moving and moving quickly.
"You don't want an adversary to know what's coming," Deptula said. "Now Assad does."
In recent days, White House spokesman Jay Carney has said that the military operations under consideration by President Obama "are not about regime change," while The New York Times and other newspapers reported that the White House was considering a limited series of strikes that would last one to two days and strike fewer than 50 targets. The paper said the U.S. would focus on hitting individual Syrian military units, headquarters compounds, air bases, and rocket sites, not chemical weapons facilities themselves. The information was attributed to unnamed administration officials.
There were signs Wednesday that the Syrian strongman has already begun reacting to the talk coming out of Washington about the potential targets of a U.S. strike. Reuters reported that Assad's forces appeared to have evacuated most of their personnel from several key army, air force, and security headquarters buildings in central Damascus. Those are precisely the kinds of military compounds U.S. cruise missiles would reportedly be sent to destroy.
The administration's willingness to share details about sensitive military operations has prompted internal consternation in the past. In the days after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates grew so angry about the amount of information leaking out about the assault that he reportedly approached then-National Security Advisor Tom Donilon to recommend "a new strategic communications approach." It was a simple one. "Shut the f--- up," Gates said.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
What kind of an answer is that?
I love using the arguments of the left against the left now that there is a leftist president who wants to act belligerently. I like to entangle them in the web they wove during the Second Iraq War.
I fear the left. The left has taken permanent control of the country. In other words, my mortal enemies now control the polity. They will use the power of the govt. to impose their will and agenda upon me. The left is busy disempowering and marginalizing me. This being the case it is preferable to see Uncle Sam disempowered so he lacks the ability to take further control of my life.
What kind of an answer is that?
I love using the arguments of the left against the left now that there is a leftist president who wants to act belligerently. I like to entangle them in the web they wove during the Second Iraq War.
I fear the left. The left has taken permanent control of the country. In other words, my mortal enemies now control the polity. They will use the power of the govt. to impose their will and agenda upon me. The left is busy disempowering and marginalizing me. This being the case it is preferable to see Uncle Sam disempowered so he lacks the ability to take further control of my life.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
The truth.
The left would STILL like to have the UN dictate US Policy. They would not argue one bit with you even today.
But OK... I see what you're doing.
The truth.
The left would STILL like to have the UN dictate US Policy. They would not argue one bit with you even today.
But OK... I see what you're doing.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
State Dept Admits It Doesn't Know Who Ordered Syria's Chemical Strike | The Cable
With the United States barreling toward a strike on Syria, U.S. officials say they are completely certain that Bashar al-Assad's government is responsible for last week's chemical weapons attack. They just don't know who in the Syrian government is to blame.
On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf admitted as much. "The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if ... he's not the one that pushes the button or said, 'Go,' on this," Harf said. "I don't know what the facts are here. I'm just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I'm not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military. I'm just not. But again, he is responsible ultimately for the decisions that are made."
State Dept Admits It Doesn't Know Who Ordered Syria's Chemical Strike | The Cable
With the United States barreling toward a strike on Syria, U.S. officials say they are completely certain that Bashar al-Assad's government is responsible for last week's chemical weapons attack. They just don't know who in the Syrian government is to blame.
On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf admitted as much. "The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if ... he's not the one that pushes the button or said, 'Go,' on this," Harf said. "I don't know what the facts are here. I'm just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I'm not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military. I'm just not. But again, he is responsible ultimately for the decisions that are made."
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
More malarkey. Gardeners in DC must have beautiful crops with all the bullsh*t that is produced there.
More malarkey. Gardeners in DC must have beautiful crops with all the bullsh*t that is produced there.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
No way. No how. Not now. Not tomorrow. Not down the road. We stay out of this mess and let the people of Syria sort it out.
Let Canada deal with this Syrian problem. Let Canada lead.
No way. No how. Not now. Not tomorrow. Not down the road. We stay out of this mess and let the people of Syria sort it out.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
The left in the US was just about lockstep with the political right in the Second Iraq War. There were a few lefties (Obama being one) that opposed the invasion, but mostly they overwhelmingly went along with it. And it turned out to be a debacle wrapped in a fiasco. Now you';re hard pressed to find anyone admit they supported the war, especially the lefties.
That's the downside of democracy. Sometimes the other team wins. The upside: bide your time, and this, too, shall pass. I can't wait to see the back of Harper, myself. :lol:
The left in the US was just about lockstep with the political right in the Second Iraq War. There were a few lefties (Obama being one) that opposed the invasion, but mostly they overwhelmingly went along with it. And it turned out to be a debacle wrapped in a fiasco. Now you';re hard pressed to find anyone admit they supported the war, especially the lefties.
That's the downside of democracy. Sometimes the other team wins. The upside: bide your time, and this, too, shall pass. I can't wait to see the back of Harper, myself. :lol: