The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Amazingly, this impartial analysis site doesn't seem to mention the issue. Syria is obviously so "last week":
Blog — Barack Obama
I am, quite seriously, hoping the Russian proposal fails, though that's looking less and less likely.
Far more important for the Congress to refuse Obama authorisation to attack.
Far more important for the Congress to refuse Obama authorisation to attack.
Re: FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on Syria
Me neither. I prefer the variation on the slippery slope called "the parade of horribles."
Me neither. I prefer the variation on the slippery slope called "the parade of horribles."
There I would agree with you. The difference between The Untied states and Countries like, say, Canada and Russia is that you have a division of authority between the Executive and legislative branches. In stead of Government by the 'so called great men ant their PMO staffers"
Of course , Canada has an expensive trained seal chorus which I believe Russia lacks, but that just makes their Duma more efficient than ours..
Consider: G.W. Bush made an entirely specious case for war in Iraq, and his most ardent political foes voted overwhelmingly to authorise the war. Why? Because in the U.S. it is unthinkable for the Congress to fail to support the Commander in Chief. Never happened before. In some cases, like Vietnam, they may bluster about cutting off funding for the war, but they have never, in the history of the U.S., actually done so. Hell, in 2006 I voted for Ben Cardin for the Senate. He won, and said "We Democrats understand that the American people elected us to end the war in Iraq." His first act in the Senate was to vote FOR another "emergency supplemental appropriation" for Iraq. Liar.
But now we have a situation where there's a weak case for military action, a significant part of the left (American left, I mean. Think of it as center-right) is not with the President, and the right (again, American right. Think Ogotai) hates "that nigra" so much that they're willing to emasculate the Presidency, which they usually adore, and set a precedent of Congress disapproving a Presidential military venture.
This actually has a better chance of stopping the U.S.'s incessant military adventuring than anything since the 1920s. And when you combine it with the current alleged budget crisis, we might even be able to draw down the military to the point where we won't be tempted to use it "for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all" just because it's there.
There is a narrow window of opportunity to significantly and long-term change the U.S.'s thinking on military force.
Bet you a thousand dollars (Canadian) to half a stale Timmies cruller we f*ck it up.
That is a bet I won't take
In 1919 the American Legislature voted against Wilson's support for a seriously flawed League of Nations.
Of course ,the Acting President at the time was Edith Wilson
Stunningly Beautiful, like Hillary
But unelected- like Hillary
Re: FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on Syria
Merge this thread...
btw, here's the full video of the speech, posted last night
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/118386-syria-thread-everything-you-wanted-44.html#post1797106
Merge this thread...
btw, here's the full video of the speech, posted last night
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/118386-syria-thread-everything-you-wanted-44.html#post1797106
Re: FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on Syria
Ok but it still sounds like barry has done a lot. A lot.
a lot
Ok but it still sounds like barry has done a lot. A lot.
a lot
I'm now hoping he does Bomb Syria without Congress approval
Cornel West: It's "Grounds For Impeachment" If Obama Bombs Syria Without Congressional Approval
PressTV - Obama may be impeached if wages Syria war: Analyst
Joe Biden Wanted Bush Impeached For the Very Thing Obama is About to Do
This is the kind of rhetoric I want to hear.. IMPEACHMENT!!!
Cornel West: It's "Grounds For Impeachment" If Obama Bombs Syria Without Congressional Approval
PressTV - Obama may be impeached if wages Syria war: Analyst
Joe Biden Wanted Bush Impeached For the Very Thing Obama is About to Do
This is the kind of rhetoric I want to hear.. IMPEACHMENT!!!
I'm beginning to think Obama should stick with the plan he had up until a couple of days ago. How trustworthy are Putin and Assad? About as far as I could throw them I'm thinking! -
I believe you are seeing Obama through Hose colored lenses, which is still better than 'dose colored lenses'.:lol:
I'm beginning to think Obama should stick with the plan he had up until a couple of days ago. How trustworthy are Putin and Assad? About as far as I could throw them I'm thinking! -
Not really. Al Assad the lions Cub has himself in a corner that ol' Hafez was too canny to be caught in. Hostile neighbours to the north and south with a lot of arms. Over half the countryside under Rebel control. Palmyrya air base would be evacuated in haste by Russia, or overrun. IF a coalition of Jordan and The Gulf States rumbles north. Which could happen.
In the first place, if by "logic" you mean deduction, that's not what I was doing. I was proposing a hypothesis based on observation and inductive reasoning.
In the second place, when Yugoslavia collapsed into civil war after the death of Tito, are you saying it wasn't because Tito knew how to keep them together, even though they all hated each other?
Are you saying it was because they were pushed into civil war by "economic arrangements funded by third parties hired as required"?
So what does that mean? That Tito was aware of those "third parties", and that his skill as a leader was that he was able to actively prevent those third-party interests from turning his country into a boxing ring?
How is there "clearly" "no civil war", when it's the only thing all sides, from the Assads to Russia to France to the US agree upon, which is that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people? When a group of people rise up to change their government and it results in blood, it's called a revolution, which is a type of civil war.
"Clearly" a banker backed war? Really. You've seen the general ledgers? How is it so clear?
Who's invading? Russia's already got the place firmly under it's thumb, so nobody's going to do any invading there any time soon. Obama made it clear there would be no "boots on the ground". He just said he wanted to spank them with a bunch of tomahawks supplemented with drones.
Since when was Syria's government "democratically elected"?
"supposed victims"? "supposedly murdered"? Now you're saying the lethal-gas attacks didn't happen?
I share you're humourYou know Omnicron only an idiot will believe what you have written.
for two reasons: First, why do Europeans always spell my name with an Omni instead of Omi?
And second, there's a difference between a person being misinformed versus a person being an "idiot". What you're saying is that there's too much of a lack of information, yet you call it being an "idiot". That doesn't makes any sense.
That's like how in America it's recently become hip to call anyone who states a position based upon insufficient information a "lier". A lier is someone who knows the truth but chooses to say something different, which is not the same as someone who simply didn't know all the facts.
"side"? Okay... tell me what "side" I'm on? Let's see if you can tell.
"story tellers"? Don't you mean "argument maker"? Is this another one of those bait-and-switch techniques of Orwellian language abuse where people are programmed to say "idiot" when they should be saying "uneducated"? Where they are programmed to say "lier" when they should say "misinformed"?
Oh, so you're saying it's okay to make "idiotic" statements as long as a person is really good at it? Good how? Good at convincing others that you really believe the stuff you're saying, or good at convincing others that your statements are true?
In any case, that last sentance is called an Ad Hominum Attack, and people who use them are the ones generally thought of as "idiots" (in this case "idiot" meaning an adult with the mental capacity of an 8-12 year old, according to the Binet Scale).
Hmm... I bet if China had a rebelion, with half their population against the system, that Bejing would nerve-gas the opposition, and would feel glad for the opportunity to reduce the nation's overpopulation, and I bet the rest of the world would bluster in the UN for awhile, but ultimately would write it off as a Chinese internal-issue, while secretly liberal-humanist-environmentalists would appreciate the reduction of the world's overpopulation, and would start wondering if the solution to the doomsday-prospects of overpopulation might be to send out armies of social-unresters into other overpopulated regions like India and Sumatra, stiring things up and then backing off while each jurisdiction's establishments nerve-gasses the rebels, using China's solution as a precedent.
Anyway... has anyone seen any evidence that Syrian rebels would be any better and/or nicer as rulers, compared to the Assads?
Last edited:
I have to disagree here, Om. Or, rather, suggest a refinement on your definition. I'd say a liar is someone who knows the truth and chooses to say something different, or who could easily find the truth and declines to do so.
Spreading tasty rumours or misinformation whilst deliberately refusing to check on them falls into the same category of dishonesty as deliberately lying, in my not-really-very-humble opinion.
1400 lives is pretty cheap to justify finishing off the job the paid mercenary al Qaeda/Mujahedeen couldn't do against a well trained force.
30% of the Qatari NG is Exxon/Mobile.
30% of 890Trillion cubic feet of NG is worth $118Trillion at the wellhead.
30% of the Qatari NG is Exxon/Mobile.
30% of 890Trillion cubic feet of NG is worth $118Trillion at the wellhead.
But Syriasly, folks. . .
The world now has a chance to end war in Syria
By Jimmy Carter,
Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States.
The only way to be assured that Syrian chemical weapons will not be used in the future is not through a military strike but through a successful international effort.
Regardless of the postponed congressional vote regarding the use of military force, other actions should be taken to address the situation in Syria, including an urgent effort to convene without conditions the long-delayed peace conference the United States and Russia announced in May. A resolution in the U.N. General Assembly to condemn any further use of chemical weapons, regardless of perpetrator, would be approved overwhelmingly, and the United States should support Russia’s proposal that Syria’s chemical weapons be placed under U.N. control. A military strike by the United States is undesirable and will become unnecessary if this alternative proposal is strongly supported by the U.N. Security Council.
If fully implemented in dozens of sites throughout Syria, this effort to secure the chemical weapons would amount to a cease-fire, with a large U.N. peacekeeping force deployed. In the best of circumstances, this could lead to convening the Geneva peace conference, perhaps including Iran, that could end the conflict.
Some have predicted catastrophic consequences to the credibility of President Obama and our country if Congress were to reject his request for approval of military action against the Assad regime in Syria. These dire predictions are exaggerated. It is no reflection on the president that he expressed his decision clearly to our citizens and to the world, properly sought congressional concurrence and has done his utmost to implement his decision by securing necessary votes in the House and Senate. All U.S. presidents have been forced to endure highly publicized rejections of major proposals concerning both domestic and international issues. This is to be expected in any democratic nation, as has occurred recently in Britain and might soon happen in France.
It requires a lot of political courage to risk a public rejection, especially when the decision is believed to be right but known to be unpopular with the public, many allies and top military leaders. There is a special problem when the Security Council is divided on an issue the United States considers crucial and when our NATO allies refuse to take a stand. It is well known that some of the president’s political adversaries will not support any conceivable proposal he might make, that dovish members of Congress are likely to oppose military action and that some congressional hawks want strong and sustained action to change the course of the Syrian civil war. Going ahead with limited military action after a rejection by Congress would amplify many of these critical voices.
The president has wisely refused to answer media questions about how he would proceed if his efforts failed in Congress. If and when a vote takes place, there will be many factors involved, but the assumption of compliance is best because supportive votes would be lost by the president saying he would ignore a negative vote. Many legislators will be looking, at least in part, for popularity with constituents who strongly oppose using force. For those who are eager to see a strike against Syria, a presidential pledge to attack without approval would make it possible to achieve their objective without alienating voters back home. And for those who oppose military action but are willing to alienate constituents because of loyalty to the president, his pledge to ignore a congressional decision might lessen their commitment to him.
Despite all of the back and forth, some facts about the situation are generally accepted. Incontrovertible proof has been presented by Secretary of State John Kerry that there has been horrific use of chemical weapons in Syria. The international community should take concerted action to discourage or prevent a repetition of this crime. Although Security Council condemnation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is not possible because of division among world leaders about who is responsible for the atrocity, and a strong condemnatory resolution is likely to be vetoed, the ultimate goal of deterring future use of weapons of mass destruction would be greatly enhanced if the major powers were unanimous in their commitment.
Many members of Congress are still in a quandary concerning the ultimate consequences of an attack. The Syrian regime has had adequate time to intermingle war materiel and civilians, and more noncombatants in Syria will be vulnerable to U.S. missiles and bombs. Any casualties among them will be exaggerated and exploited to bring additional condemnation on the United States within the Arab world. The effect of limited airstrikes would be transient at best, but a sustained and robust action is more likely to incur a deeper and more lengthy U.S. involvement and result in additional waves of refugees.
Despite the claims and counterclaims that have surrounded the chemical attack near Damascus on Aug. 21 and an unknown number of earlier attacks, the issues are now clearly defined. The main goals of condemning the use of these outlawed weapons and preventing their further use can still be realized by concerted international action.
Jimmy Carter: The world now has a chance to end war in Syria - The Washington Post
The world now has a chance to end war in Syria
By Jimmy Carter,
Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States.
The only way to be assured that Syrian chemical weapons will not be used in the future is not through a military strike but through a successful international effort.
Regardless of the postponed congressional vote regarding the use of military force, other actions should be taken to address the situation in Syria, including an urgent effort to convene without conditions the long-delayed peace conference the United States and Russia announced in May. A resolution in the U.N. General Assembly to condemn any further use of chemical weapons, regardless of perpetrator, would be approved overwhelmingly, and the United States should support Russia’s proposal that Syria’s chemical weapons be placed under U.N. control. A military strike by the United States is undesirable and will become unnecessary if this alternative proposal is strongly supported by the U.N. Security Council.
If fully implemented in dozens of sites throughout Syria, this effort to secure the chemical weapons would amount to a cease-fire, with a large U.N. peacekeeping force deployed. In the best of circumstances, this could lead to convening the Geneva peace conference, perhaps including Iran, that could end the conflict.
Some have predicted catastrophic consequences to the credibility of President Obama and our country if Congress were to reject his request for approval of military action against the Assad regime in Syria. These dire predictions are exaggerated. It is no reflection on the president that he expressed his decision clearly to our citizens and to the world, properly sought congressional concurrence and has done his utmost to implement his decision by securing necessary votes in the House and Senate. All U.S. presidents have been forced to endure highly publicized rejections of major proposals concerning both domestic and international issues. This is to be expected in any democratic nation, as has occurred recently in Britain and might soon happen in France.
It requires a lot of political courage to risk a public rejection, especially when the decision is believed to be right but known to be unpopular with the public, many allies and top military leaders. There is a special problem when the Security Council is divided on an issue the United States considers crucial and when our NATO allies refuse to take a stand. It is well known that some of the president’s political adversaries will not support any conceivable proposal he might make, that dovish members of Congress are likely to oppose military action and that some congressional hawks want strong and sustained action to change the course of the Syrian civil war. Going ahead with limited military action after a rejection by Congress would amplify many of these critical voices.
The president has wisely refused to answer media questions about how he would proceed if his efforts failed in Congress. If and when a vote takes place, there will be many factors involved, but the assumption of compliance is best because supportive votes would be lost by the president saying he would ignore a negative vote. Many legislators will be looking, at least in part, for popularity with constituents who strongly oppose using force. For those who are eager to see a strike against Syria, a presidential pledge to attack without approval would make it possible to achieve their objective without alienating voters back home. And for those who oppose military action but are willing to alienate constituents because of loyalty to the president, his pledge to ignore a congressional decision might lessen their commitment to him.
Despite all of the back and forth, some facts about the situation are generally accepted. Incontrovertible proof has been presented by Secretary of State John Kerry that there has been horrific use of chemical weapons in Syria. The international community should take concerted action to discourage or prevent a repetition of this crime. Although Security Council condemnation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is not possible because of division among world leaders about who is responsible for the atrocity, and a strong condemnatory resolution is likely to be vetoed, the ultimate goal of deterring future use of weapons of mass destruction would be greatly enhanced if the major powers were unanimous in their commitment.
Many members of Congress are still in a quandary concerning the ultimate consequences of an attack. The Syrian regime has had adequate time to intermingle war materiel and civilians, and more noncombatants in Syria will be vulnerable to U.S. missiles and bombs. Any casualties among them will be exaggerated and exploited to bring additional condemnation on the United States within the Arab world. The effect of limited airstrikes would be transient at best, but a sustained and robust action is more likely to incur a deeper and more lengthy U.S. involvement and result in additional waves of refugees.
Despite the claims and counterclaims that have surrounded the chemical attack near Damascus on Aug. 21 and an unknown number of earlier attacks, the issues are now clearly defined. The main goals of condemning the use of these outlawed weapons and preventing their further use can still be realized by concerted international action.
Jimmy Carter: The world now has a chance to end war in Syria - The Washington Post
I'm certain the gassing of children will come to an end. They eat Monsanto crap don't they? Thanks America.