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: 37,067
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: 24,345

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: 55,861

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, 02:24 PM   #4
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,067
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   #5
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,197
Default

No.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 03:15 PM   #6
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   #7
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,067
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, 06:58 PM   #8
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,067
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, 07:04 PM   #9
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, 07:13 PM   #10
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,892
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 04-26-2013, 10:13 PM   #11
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,067
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 04-27-2013, 11:17 AM   #12
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 12:13 PM   #13
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 37,006

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   #14
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,263

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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 12:45 PM   #15
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 37,006

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   #16
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, 01:09 PM   #17
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,067
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, 01:10 PM   #18
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,067
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, 02:20 PM   #19
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,861

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   #20
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,067
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, 02:31 PM   #21
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,067
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   #22
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
Old 04-27-2013, 03:08 PM   #23
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,892
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, 04:13 PM   #24
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,726

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

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.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 04:31 PM   #25
Meck77
.
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,838
Default

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.
Meck77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:37 PM.


Denver Broncos