The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2013, 02:11 PM   #1
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default 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?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-26-2013, 02:16 PM   #2
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,332

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

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.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 02:21 PM   #3
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,827

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

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.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 03:15 PM   #4
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
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.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 06:44 PM   #5
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 07:04 PM   #6
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 10:13 PM   #7
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
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.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 02:24 PM   #8
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

If it could be ended much like Libya why are they waiting so long Roh?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 02:35 PM   #9
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,184
Default

No.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 06:58 PM   #10
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

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."
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 07:13 PM   #11
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,887
Default

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.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 02:20 PM   #12
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,827

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
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.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 02:28 PM   #13
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 03:08 PM   #14
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 08:42 PM   #15
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
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.
What about when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Would have you supported taking him out then? is it just Bush jr waited too long for you to support that? Because he killed just as many Kurds as assad killing civilians now. Also in Africa we have tons of civilians killed in civil wars. Why are liberals so easily brought along for Syria?

Also Syria is winning why would they risk using chemcial weapons? Aren't you worried its just a ploy by al queda to get us into the war?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 04:31 AM   #16
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
What about when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Would have you supported taking him out then? is it just Bush jr waited too long for you to support that? Because he killed just as many Kurds as assad killing civilians now. Also in Africa we have tons of civilians killed in civil wars. Why are liberals so easily brought along for Syria?

Also Syria is winning why would they risk using chemcial weapons? Aren't you worried its just a ploy by al queda to get us into the war?
If Bush senior acted when the Kurds were gassed, yes it would hve be justified. W, Cheney, Rumsfieldand the rest of cronies made **** up to invaded.

No I am not worried Al-Queda is attempting to "lure" the US in, that plan make no sense and they are not the evil geniuses from a Hollywood movie.

As for Africa, you are not paying attention to the fact that US and its allies are deeply involved in attempting to stabilize that area through military and diplomatic support/aid.

Last edited by elsid13; 04-28-2013 at 04:38 AM..
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 07:09 PM   #17
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
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.
Syria is denying it.


Chemical Weapons Claims a 'Barefaced Lie,' says Syrian Minister

By RT

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle34744.htm

April 27, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"RT" -
Without hard evidence, American accusations of chemical weapons use in Syria fall short of UN proof standards, says a UN chemical inspector. And in the way proposed, a probe would only result in an Iraqi scenario, the Syrian information minister told RT.

The anti-Assad lobby in the UN is using the chemical weapons scare as a new way to exert political and economic pressure on the Syrian government, the country's information minister Omran Ahed al-Zouabi told RT.

“First of all, I want to confirm that statements by the US Secretary of State and British government are inconsistent with reality and a barefaced lie,” he told RT. “I want to stress one more time that Syria would never use it - not only because of its adherence to the international law and rules of leading war, but because of humanitarian and moral issues.”

Syria itself made the official request to the UN to investigate the incident in Khan al-Assal, which is an “important and brave step,” al-Zouabi stressed.

“It proves once again that the whole policy of the Syrian government is targeted against use of any kind of weapons of mass destruction by anybody: terrorists, Israel or any other neighboring state,” he said.

The United States pretends that there are no terrorists acting on Syrian territory at the same time being a country “involved in the biggest terror acts in the world,” the minister claimed. “The US is concealing that Qatar is financing terrorists, supply weapons to them. Thus, the US is basically involved in what is happening in Syria.”

‘Iraqi scheme of inspections’

In all their “absurdity and deceitfulness,” al-Zouabi explained, such statements by some Western governments are made in pursuit of basic goals.

“Their aim is, first, to cover those who are really behind use of chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal, and secondly, to repeat Iraq’s scenario, to pave the way for other investigation inspections. To provide, based on their results, maps, photos of rockets and other fabricated materials to the UN, which as we know, opened the way to the occupation of Iraq.”

Russian foreign ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich meanwhile said that the UN Secretary-General's initial positive reaction to Syria's appeal for an investigation“underwent a drastic change under the influence of a number of states.”

“The management of the UN Secretariat demanded that Damascus agree to the establishment of a permanent mechanism for inspection throughout Syrian territory with unlimited access to everywhere,” Lukashevich explained.

“The proposed scheme of inspections is similar to those used at the end of the last century in Iraq, which, unlike Syria, was under UN sanctions.” After months of silence, the UN is now referring to information from France and Britain about other cases of alleged use of chemical weapons last year, which Lukashevich believes demonstrates a highly politicized approach.

“It's difficult to understand why leaders of the UN Secretariat preferred to follow those who are concerned not about exact steps towards the suppression of use of chemical weapons in the Syrian crisis, but about changing the ruling regime of a sovereign state.”

Inspectors on standby

The United Nations again pushed on Thursday for unconditional and unfettered access for its team of investigators, which has been on standby in Cyprus since Syria refused it access nearly three weeks ago.

“We do not trust the American and British experts from a political point of view,” al-Zouab explained. “We also do not trust their qualifications. Their aim is to juggle with facts.”

“We won’t mind if Russians would be among the experts, quite the contrary, we only welcome this idea. We are quite sure in their high qualification and ability to clearly see into such matters.”

Experts from Russia and China however were not included in the team to ensure it wasn’t biased, according to the United Nations.

At the time Russian EU envoy Vitaly Churkin criticized “this kind of logic,” saying in that case he “would recommend excluding all NATO countries too.” Syrian officials maintain that they are ready to accept “a neutral and honest technical team to visit the village of Khan al-Assal” in the province of Aleppo.

The Syrian opposition meanwhile is also dead set against the inclusion of Russian and Chinese experts in the investigation team.

“The Russian side has no status allowing it to conduct a fair and impartial criminal investigation,” the Syrian National Council said in a statement, because Russia “is a major supplier of conventional and strategic weapons to the Syrian regime, as well as the main political guarantor of it staying in power.”

“The UN needs to immediately investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria,” an anonymous member of the council told AFP. “Should it find the regime used such weapons, it must act immediately, at least by imposing a no-fly zone.”

No samples whatsoever

Whether or not illegal chemical agents were used by either side during the Syrian conflict can only be determined by analyzing samples collected at the scenes of alleged attacks, said the Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which despite not being a United Nations body, collaborates with the UN on such inspections.

None of the governments and intelligence agencies accusing Damascus of using chemical weapons have presented any of the evidence that would be required for a clear analysis, such as soil, blood, urine or tissue samples, said Michael Luhan, a spokesman for OPCW.

But even if samples were provided, the OPCW would never get involved in testing something that its own inspectors did not “gather in the field” because of the need to “maintain a chain of custody of samples from the field to the lab to ensure their integrity,” said Luhan.

“This is the only basis on which the OPCW would provide a formal assessment of whether chemical weapons have been used.”

Meanwhile, waiting for a green light to enter Syria, members of the UN team “have been collating and analyzing the evidence and information that is available to date from outside,” Martin Nesirky, a spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said on Friday.

‘US retains the ability to act unilaterally’

“With varying degrees of confidence” the American intelligence community has determined that “the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons,” US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on Thursday.

Giving the statement added significance, early afternoon on Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney announced that the Obama administration has a number of options in regards to handling such reports - including direct use of military force - and that United States retains the ability to ‘act unilaterally’ in choosing one.

Just hours later, President Obama himself said, "horrific as it is…to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law.” His remarks came after a meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah in the Oval Office, amid mass demonstrations against deployment of US troops on Jordanian border with Syria.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 12:13 PM   #18
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 37,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default

No thanks.....unless we can ensure a friendly secular govt is the replacement and can't be overthrown by lslamists.
__________________
SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 12:22 PM   #19
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,234

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBronco View Post
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.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 12:45 PM   #20
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 37,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
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.
__________________
SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 12:49 PM   #21
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

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.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 01:10 PM   #22
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBronco View Post
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.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 01:09 PM   #23
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 02:31 PM   #24
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

Syria has a lot to lose using sarin. Are we sure its not a trick to get us to attack?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 03:02 PM   #25
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.

Last edited by houghtam; 04-27-2013 at 03:06 PM..
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 PM.


Denver Broncos