The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Obama may have to attack Syria soon (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110823)

cutthemdown 04-26-2013 01:11 PM

Obama may have to attack Syria soon
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93P17D20130426

U.S. President Barack Obama warned President Bashar al-Assad on Friday that any use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war would be a "game changer" but cautioned that intelligence assessments that such weapons had been deployed were still preliminary.



Of course they have been used already and rightfully so Obama still not wanting to jump in. Sooner or later though does anyone doubt the USA will step in? What would a war do for Obamas 2nd term agenda? Would it be good for him and give him a deistraction that takes off the pressure domestically? or would it just turn into a nightmare for him?

Requiem 04-26-2013 01:16 PM

AfPak was already a foreign policy graveyard, getting into another boondoggle in the Middle East when we don't need to be there would beyond stupid.

"Praise the War Machine."

Pretty sick and sad that there is so much private lobbying that has a strangle hold on or foreign policy.

Rohirrim 04-26-2013 01:21 PM

I imagine it would be much like Libya was. The UN would put boots on the ground and the U.S. would provide air support.

cutthemdown 04-26-2013 01:24 PM

If it could be ended much like Libya why are they waiting so long Roh?

W*GS 04-26-2013 01:35 PM

No.

houghtam 04-26-2013 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim (Post 3836158)
I imagine it would be much like Libya was. The UN would put boots on the ground and the U.S. would provide air support.

Syria's military capability >>>>>>>> Libya's

Stay out unless the UN leads it IMO.

cutthemdown 04-26-2013 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houghtam (Post 3836200)
Syria's military capability >>>>>>>> Libya's

Stay out unless the UN leads it IMO.

So even if Obama said use chemcial weapons and that is a "Game Changer" we will not tolerate WMD bla blah blah. You would want him to not follow through even if they use chemical weapons? That's amazing to me he's your friggin president you want him to be someone the world doesn't believe when he makes a line in the sand?

The UN leads it? Whatever happened to America leading?

cutthemdown 04-26-2013 05:58 PM

Hear is Obama!

"Given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to WMD, it's very important that we are able to establish this with certainty and that we are able to provide information that is airtight ... to underpin all of our decision-making," the official said. "That is, I think, the threshold that is demanded given how serious this issue is."

houghtam 04-26-2013 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3836905)
So even if Obama said use chemcial weapons and that is a "Game Changer" we will not tolerate WMD bla blah blah. You would want him to not follow through even if they use chemical weapons? That's amazing to me he's your friggin president you want him to be someone the world doesn't believe when he makes a line in the sand?

The UN leads it? Whatever happened to America leading?

Not at all. That's what I would do. Obama made the mistake of painting himself into a corner. If you make a threat or a promise, you have to follow through. I would have simply said we will answer each individual threat with a measured response based on the situation.

As far as America leading, I am not interested in playing global policeman. Because this is a potential human rights situation, our hands may be tied and we may have to assist. Doesn't mean the US has to play point man and commit an already beleaguered military to its third major offensive action in just over a decade against a foe who is much better able to defend itself than Iraq or Afghanistan.

elsid13 04-26-2013 06:13 PM

Action is required, and I have faith that Obama will take it. The use of chemical weapons on women and children is unacceptable and we as country should punish those that use them.

cutthemdown 04-26-2013 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houghtam (Post 3836989)
Not at all. That's what I would do. Obama made the mistake of painting himself into a corner. If you make a threat or a promise, you have to follow through. I would have simply said we will answer each individual threat with a measured response based on the situation.

As far as America leading, I am not interested in playing global policeman. Because this is a potential human rights situation, our hands may be tied and we may have to assist. Doesn't mean the US has to play point man and commit an already beleaguered military to its third major offensive action in just over a decade against a foe who is much better able to defend itself than Iraq or Afghanistan.

See I am different. I only want intervention if the President tells me this is needed for global stability, or because its vital to our economy. Does Syria rise to the same level conflicts in the Gulf would? Or Asia with N/S Korea Japan, China etc?

He's killed 100's of thousands now why would how he kills them make so much of a difference to obama. What a tank blowing kids up ok, but a shell with sarin we have to step in? Because Saddam used plenty of that on his people on you would have never supported it just for that. Now you say a human rights situation we have to assist?

Why not just gear up to say no war unless we or our allies are attacked? Why set a precedent for civil wars?

Now if the president says kick ass then hell yeah lets get it done. Send the full force of our military and send a message to other countries we still got it. Maybe we could finally use those f-22 we have sitting around unproven in battle. Hell send in the air force and I'm sure the rebels would win in a couple months. Of course those rebels hate us but that doesn't seem to matter.

houghtam 04-27-2013 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3837542)
See I am different. I only want intervention if the President tells me this is needed for global stability, or because its vital to our economy. Does Syria rise to the same level conflicts in the Gulf would? Or Asia with N/S Korea Japan, China etc?

He's killed 100's of thousands now why would how he kills them make so much of a difference to obama. What a tank blowing kids up ok, but a shell with sarin we have to step in? Because Saddam used plenty of that on his people on you would have never supported it just for that. Now you say a human rights situation we have to assist?

Why not just gear up to say no war unless we or our allies are attacked? Why set a precedent for civil wars?

Now if the president says kick ass then hell yeah lets get it done. Send the full force of our military and send a message to other countries we still got it. Maybe we could finally use those f-22 we have sitting around unproven in battle. Hell send in the air force and I'm sure the rebels would win in a couple months. Of course those rebels hate us but that doesn't seem to matter.

You're referring to a president who has a hawkish policy on using drones to kill people, which many times results in the death of children. I don't think he cares as much about the little children as you think he does.

As far as saying no war unless we're attacked, that's more or less what I advocate, although the use of chemical and nuclear weapons is something that draws ire from the global community, and requires action. I say act because we have to, but let someone else lead the way.

SoCalBronco 04-27-2013 11:13 AM

No thanks.....unless we can ensure a friendly secular govt is the replacement and can't be overthrown by lslamists.

peacepipe 04-27-2013 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco (Post 3838436)
No thanks.....unless we can ensure a friendly secular govt is the replacement and can't be overthrown by lslamists.

In other words,if we go in,go in to establish a dictatorship.

SoCalBronco 04-27-2013 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacepipe (Post 3838462)
In other words,if we go in,go in to establish a dictatorship.

Go in to preserve stability...and US security interests.

Right now...it appears the brotherhood would fill the vacuum...I'd rather have Assad...warts and all.

houghtam 04-27-2013 11:49 AM

Our batting average isn't high enough on installing governments that operate in our interests, particularly in that region. I'd rather stay out entirely if we can.

cutthemdown 04-27-2013 12:09 PM

Obamas hands off because we can't really ever tell the mid east leaders what to do is a bad plan Houghtam. When Obama leaves he is going to leave a foreign policy mess for the next President. His plan is to do nothing with Iran, let Egypt, Libya, Syria all install govts that are unfriendly to American interests.

Also his stupid healthcare won't completely blow up until after he leaves. He's one of those QBS that polticial scientists will say was a train wreck for the USA.

cutthemdown 04-27-2013 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco (Post 3838565)
Go in to preserve stability...and US security interests.

Right now...it appears the brotherhood would fill the vacuum...I'd rather have Assad...warts and all.

What a mess.

Rohirrim 04-27-2013 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elsid13 (Post 3837025)
Action is required, and I have faith that Obama will take it. The use of chemical weapons on women and children is unacceptable and we as country should punish those that use them.

Yep. Unfortunate, but true.

cutthemdown 04-27-2013 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elsid13 (Post 3837025)
Action is required, and I have faith that Obama will take it. The use of chemical weapons on women and children is unacceptable and we as country should punish those that use them.

punish or remove from power?

cutthemdown 04-27-2013 01:31 PM

Syria has a lot to lose using sarin. Are we sure its not a trick to get us to attack?

houghtam 04-27-2013 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3838974)
Syria has a lot to lose using sarin. Are we sure its not a trick to get us to attack?

This is why Obama is requesting further evidence. It's also what the administration is referring to when they release a statement speaking of past intelligence failures that have led to war.

Let the UN verify it, if it turns out to be true, they can organize the intervention. I'm sure we'll be involved, but I would not like our troops leading the charge again.

Never happen. Of course we're going to get involved. Of course we're going to lead it. Add another few hundred or so American deaths to the rolls, all in the name of "stability" in a region that has never had any stability, no matter who was president, D or R.

elsid13 04-27-2013 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3838966)
punish or remove from power?

In this case it will one and the same. First, crimes against humanity charges should filed in the Hague, second limited military strikes on current Syrian Air Bases, finally enforcement of no-fly zone.

baja 04-27-2013 03:13 PM

Listen to you arrogant bastards...... No wonder the rest of the world hates America.


Stay the hell out of other countries it's the UN's job to deal with these things.

Meck77 04-27-2013 03:31 PM

So our our government says they can't afford to adequately run our airports anymore yet "we" can afford to attack Syria? Come on...........

Let's let our little "buddy" Israel waste billions and their own precious blood in their region.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.