RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention

RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Esinn -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/28/2013 10:22:12 PM)
There is too much which is out of place to do "targeted", "limited" or "precision" strikes in Syria before Monday. Many said it would happen by Thursday. I guess we will tell in a few hours. We will see who is right. It is not a "lose lose" situation. It is a win-lose. Right now. there are too many things indicating it will not immediately happen. The meeting with Putin and Prince BBS (on July 31st) keeps coming back to. There is too much traffic civilian, tanker and transport ships in the Arden gulf (area) as a whole not. There are also joint exercises going on: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2013-08/24/c_132658990.htm JP would need to side with Putin. I do not think I would have commented. But for that fellow who keeps calling it a lose lose situation. The USG/US IC has a tremendous amount to gain by knocking out nations which will not bow to KSA, Bahrain, Qatar (UAE - I guess).

tweakabelle -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/29/2013 2:20:39 AM)
No one seems to have noticed that it is in the US's interests (based on its current policy and current policy goals) for fighting in Syria to continue indefinitely. The US finds itself in the happy position of seeing 4 of its regional 'enemies' - Iran, Assad, Hezbollah and Al Quada - fighting each other in Syria. Coincidence? Serendipity? Or the outcome of a deliberate policy that seeks to destabilise and destroy Israel's opponents one by one? Recalling that US policy in the region is effectively made in Israel, not Washington, lends some weight to the last reason. So, a cynic could conclude that the last thing the US wants in Syria is peace. Viewed from his perspective, unilateral US intervention in Syria takes on a far more sinister hue. Cynics will note that possible US intervention is being proposed at a time when Assad' s forces seem to have gained a decisive superiority over the rebels. Is worth noting that previous reports of low scale chemical weapons use by the regime were ignored at the time. Was this because the situation on the ground was far more favourable to the rebels back then? Unilateral US intervention will almost certainly hand the Al Quada dominated rebels a significant boost, possibly restoring their lagging fortunes ...... In its likely form of missile attacks and air- and/or sea-launched bombing, it won't hand the rebels a decisive advantage, but might prove to be enough to restore a rough balance between the rebels and the regime ....... The above is not necessarily my view but it does provide food for thought ........

thishereboi -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/29/2013 4:15:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle No one seems to have noticed that it is in the US's interests (based on its current policy and current policy goals) for fighting in Syria to continue indefinitely. The US finds itself in the happy position of seeing 4 of its regional 'enemies' - Iran, Assad, Hezbollah and Al Quada - fighting each other in Syria. Coincidence? Serendipity? Or the outcome of a deliberate policy that seeks to destabilise and destroy Israel's opponents one by one? Recalling that US policy in the region is effectively made in Israel, not Washington, lends some weight to the last reason. So, a cynic could conclude that the last thing the US wants in Syria is peace. Viewed from his perspective, unilateral US intervention in Syria takes on a far more sinister hue. Cynics will note that possible US intervention is being proposed at a time when Assad' s forces seem to have gained a decisive superiority over the rebels. Is worth noting that previous reports of low scale chemical weapons use by the regime were ignored at the time. Was this because the situation on the ground was far more favourable to the rebels back then? Unilateral US intervention will almost certainly hand the Al Quada dominated rebels a significant boost, possibly restoring their lagging fortunes ...... In its likely form of missile attacks and air- and/or sea-launched bombing, it won't hand the rebels a decisive advantage, but might prove to be enough to restore a rough balance between the rebels and the regime ....... The above is not necessarily my view but it does provide food for thought ........ Well my thought is that he has a real problem with israel and by extension the us. But right or wrong he is entitled to his opinion. I just hope he doesn't think anyone is losing sleep over it.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/29/2013 5:53:52 AM)
Gee, I hope the current failure-in-chief does his due dilligence. You know; congressional permission for use of force, build a coalition that includes a couple of middle-eastern countries so the mission is acceptable, make a case in front of the UN. All of the things a president is required to do before he just launches us into action. Unless we're gonna hold this lying prick to a different standard? Regards, Colin Powell

mnottertail -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/29/2013 6:41:45 AM)
You know; congressional permission for use of force.. ^^^^^^^^not needed under any circumstances, not from these pathetic useless nutsuckers down there in the house in any case, it is not in the constitution, it is not in the war powers act. Hope the imbeciles in congress get a clue, as well as their foolish fawners and felchers.

popeye1250 -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 12:48:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You know; congressional permission for use of force.. ^^^^^^^^not needed under any circumstances, not from these pathetic useless nutsuckers down there in the house in any case, it is not in the constitution, it is not in the war powers act. Hope the imbeciles in congress get a clue, as well as their foolish fawners and felchers. Tail, "not needed?" You are aware that it's the House of Representatives who controls the $purse strings$ and not (the lesser) of the two houses, the Senate, right?

Yachtie -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 1:27:12 PM)
FR - Yesterday afternoon, Russia agreed to restructure Cyprus' EUR 2.5 billion loan terms to a much more affordable 2.5% semi-annual coupon through 2016 and a principal re-payment over the following four years. While probably still out of reach for the desparate economy, it was a positive step. Of course, this 'offer' by Russia has its quid pro quo. This morning, Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides has stated that Cyprus territory will not be used to launch military strikes against Syria, as "Cyprus wants to live up to its responsibility as a shelter if needed for nationals of friendly countries who evacuate from Middle East". It would appear Obama's influence is fading everywhere... and on top of that - In a report that is sure to be considered blockbuster news, the rebels told Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has written for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC, they are responsible for the chemical attack last week. And after his speech today - Right after shipping responsibility for authorizing an attack on Syria, President Barack Obama returned to his comfort zone: The golf course. Obama’s motorcade left the White House at 2:30 p.m., about 30 minutes after completing his statement.

JeffBC -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 2:30:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Like I said in the Chem Weapons Syria thread, this is a fucked up situation, even moreso for any politician in the US. There is no win-win opportunity. I'm not even sure if there is a win-lose opportunity. Sure there are... there's even win-win scenarios... it's just none of our glorious leaders have the balls to do it. Don't you think this would play reasonably well to everyone but the serious hawks? Obama: American people. While we are deeply concerned about the tragedy yada yada yada... we have also reviewed outcomes from Iraq and other 'police actions' and we have concluded that in situations with no direct threat to America we should reaffirm our faith in the wisdom and support of our allies and peers and we will increase our priority on strategies which include UN sanction. This is no way means we give up our right to choose differently as the demanded by the realities of any future situations. America is and will remain a sovereign nation.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:00:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Like I said in the Chem Weapons Syria thread, this is a fucked up situation, even moreso for any politician in the US. There is no win-win opportunity. I'm not even sure if there is a win-lose opportunity. Sure there are... there's even win-win scenarios... it's just none of our glorious leaders have the balls to do it. Don't you think this would play reasonably well to everyone but the serious hawks? Obama: American people. While we are deeply concerned about the tragedy yada yada yada... we have also reviewed outcomes from Iraq and other 'police actions' and we have concluded that in situations with no direct threat to America we should reaffirm our faith in the wisdom and support of our allies and peers and we will increase our priority on strategies which include UN sanction. This is no way means we give up our right to choose differently as the demanded by the realities of any future situations. America is and will remain a sovereign nation. I'm tired of reading your posts. Too much of that logic and reasonableness in there. [:D] Even if Obama were to say this and - more importantly - follow through on it, the US still loses face over the "red line" drawn in the sand. I don't doubt we would survive the perception of weakness, but how much more difficult will things get in the short term? Please read my next post, a response to Yachtie's post prior to yours. If what posted is actually true, we could be discussing something that isn't even likely to happen.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie FR - Yesterday afternoon, Russia agreed to restructure Cyprus' EUR 2.5 billion loan terms to a much more affordable 2.5% semi-annual coupon through 2016 and a principal re-payment over the following four years. While probably still out of reach for the desparate economy, it was a positive step. Of course, this 'offer' by Russia has its quid pro quo. This morning, Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides has stated that Cyprus territory will not be used to launch military strikes against Syria, as "Cyprus wants to live up to its responsibility as a shelter if needed for nationals of friendly countries who evacuate from Middle East". It would appear Obama's influence is fading everywhere... Obama probably asked Putin to do that. It's one of them there "Peace Prize" favor coupons you get when you win a Nobel. [:D] quote: and on top of that - In a report that is sure to be considered blockbuster news, the rebels told Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has written for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC, they are responsible for the chemical attack last week. This is interesting. Part of me is surprised that the rebels admitted to it (esp. considering it sure looked like the US is going to bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Assad...[;)]) Another part of me isn't surprised because there were already rumors that it wasn't the regime, but the rebels that were responsible. I'm not sure what happens now, though. According to the article, it wasn't an intentional detonation, so can you really bomb the rebels? How long until MN starts to support bombing Saudi Arabia, ya think? They are obviously an imminent threat now. [8\|] quote: And after his speech today - Right after shipping responsibility for authorizing an attack on Syria, President Barack Obama returned to his comfort zone: The golf course. Obama’s motorcade left the White House at 2:30 p.m., about 30 minutes after completing his statement. Oh, come off it. The guy is under some stress, isn't he? If golf allows him to unwind and keep whatever shred of sanity he has left, let the guy go golfing. Was there something he was supposed to be doing that he couldn't do while golfing? That being said, I'm all for Obama golfing more. The way I see it, he'll do less damage out there than if he's actively "governing." LOL [:D]

Politesub53 -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:16:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You know; congressional permission for use of force.. ^^^^^^^^not needed under any circumstances, not from these pathetic useless nutsuckers down there in the house in any case, it is not in the constitution, it is not in the war powers act. Hope the imbeciles in congress get a clue, as well as their foolish fawners and felchers. Tail, "not needed?" You are aware that it's the House of Representatives who controls the $purse strings$ and not (the lesser) of the two houses, the Senate, right? Even I know Ron is correct. Obama has chosen the option of a congressional vote, but that doesnt mean he had to.

TheHeretic -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:20:27 PM)
You'll be getting those WMD lies you wanted now, Polite. They'll be thrown down from the liberal high horse, and the Brits will be held up before the world, to be scolded for their callous indifference to human suffering. Enjoy!

Yachtie -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Oh, come off it. The guy is under some stress, isn't he? Absolutely. While standing at the podium his tee time was imminent. [8D]

Politesub53 -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:37:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic You'll be getting those WMD lies you wanted now, Polite. They'll be thrown down from the liberal high horse, and the Brits will be held up before the world, to be scolded for their callous indifference to human suffering. Enjoy! Fucking laughable, for a few reasons. 1) There are no lies, Assad has used chemical weapons, its just some idiots seem to thin it was the FSA deliberately shelling themselves. 2) "Callous indifference", I recall you pissing your pants over Libya and telling us, with callous idifference, that we should have let them bomb shit out of the citizens of Benghazi. 3) If the idiot Republicans hadnt lied over Iraq, leading to the ensuing carnage, the vote would probably have just got a nod through Parliament. 4) The only callous indifference seems to eminate from those who hate the idea of a Democrat running the country. 5) The only callous indifference seems to eminate from those of you point scoring off of your President. 6) The only callous indifference seem to eminate from those of you who forget how many British troops have died alongside yours over the years. Dont let any of the above stop your bullshit posts though.

Politesub53 -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:38:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Absolutely. While standing at the podium his tee time was imminent. [8D] I didnt hear you moaning while GWB was giving his "Watch this swing" Speech ?

TheHeretic -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:48:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Fucking laughable, for a few reasons. 1) There are no lies, Assad has used chemical weapons, its just some idiots seem to thin it was the FSA deliberately shelling themselves. 2) "Callous indifference", I recall you pissing your pants over Libya and telling us, with callous idifference, that we should have let them bomb shit out of the citizens of Benghazi. 3) If the idiot Republicans hadnt lied over Iraq, leading to the ensuing carnage, the vote would probably have just got a nod through Parliament. 4) The only callous indifference seems to eminate from those who hate the idea of a Democrat running the country. 5) The only callous indifference seems to eminate from those of you point scoring off of your President. 6) The only callous indifference seem to eminate from those of you who forget how many British troops have died alongside yours over the years. Dont let any of the above stop your bullshit posts though. You seem to have misunderstood my post, Polite. "Callous indifference" is the charge that will be flung in the coming media campaign. I think ya'll are smart to back the fuck away from it. I'll wait and see if Her Majesties Government pussies back in, though.

PowerXXXchange -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:52:32 PM)
quote: This is interesting. Part of me is surprised that the rebels admitted to it (esp. considering it sure looked like the US is going to bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Assad...) Another part of me isn't surprised because there were already rumors that it wasn't the regime, but the rebels that were responsible. I'm not sure what happens now, though. According to the article, it wasn't an intentional detonation, so can you really bomb the rebels? My understanding from Doctors Without Borders was that the attack occured simultaniously in multiple locations, hence intentional. PxC

Politesub53 -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:53:06 PM)
Fair enough Rich, I apologise. If the UN decides action is needed, and the US decides to act we will, as always, be right alongside. There was a poll in the UK today where 65% of those questioned said they dont trust the government on this issue, without proper proof, due to Iraq. Generally, from chatting to others around town, I would say this was, if anything, a tad on the low side.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 3:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PowerXXXchange quote: This is interesting. Part of me is surprised that the rebels admitted to it (esp. considering it sure looked like the US is going to bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Assad...) Another part of me isn't surprised because there were already rumors that it wasn't the regime, but the rebels that were responsible. I'm not sure what happens now, though. According to the article, it wasn't an intentional detonation, so can you really bomb the rebels? My understanding from Doctors Without Borders was that the attack occured simultaniously in multiple locations, hence intentional. PxC There are conflicting reports, which is why I support more time before acting.

kdsub -> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention (8/31/2013 4:14:42 PM)
Should not common sense say wait for the UN results before attacking Assad? Would it not be prudent for the US to publicly support the UN in this situation and give them all the intelligence information they have? Then with solid undeniable proof of chemical attacks Assad's supporters, like Russia and Iran, would be forced to either support a mass murderer in front of the world or toe the line with the UN. Would not it mean more, perhaps toppling Assad's regime, if a united world supported a punitive attack? Why should there be a rush!! We are not going to attack his chemical supplies because that would just free the agents and kill thousands. So any military action we take can wait until a world consensus comes together. Butch

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625