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 ........

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.

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.

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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...

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.

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Oh, come off it. The guy is under some stress, isn't he?

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!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Absolutely. While standing at the podium his tee time was imminent.

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.

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?

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

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)