Quote: Please allow me to say it again,, If we don't know 100% for sure, we shouldn't attack. that's my opinion.
Daman, please help me understand your opinion... as I read it, if 70,000 people have been killed with conventional weapons we should stay out of it... but if 70,000 have been killed with conventional weapons and 300 have been killed with chemicals we should attack... is that what you are saying?
Quote: Please allow me to say it again,, If we don't know 100% for sure, we shouldn't attack. that's my opinion.
Daman, please help me understand your opinion... as I read it, if 70,000 people have been killed with conventional weapons we should stay out of it... but if 70,000 have been killed with conventional weapons and 300 have been killed with chemicals we should attack... is that what you are saying?
If you look at the post I responded too, it was 'maybe this" or "maybe that" . I want to know what it is we are getting into a fight for.
But even more than that, I'm tired of the whole looking to us to be the policemen, and then crap on us. The French are famous for that.
Too many lives lost, too much of an economic strain on the USA.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: Please allow me to say it again,, If we don't know 100% for sure, we shouldn't attack. that's my opinion.
Daman, please help me understand your opinion... as I read it, if 70,000 people have been killed with conventional weapons we should stay out of it... but if 70,000 have been killed with conventional weapons and 300 have been killed with chemicals we should attack... is that what you are saying?
I guess we can't really measure it on innocent bystanders vs combatants can we? But that should be part of the equation right?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
Your point is well taken. It all seems to go back to what we can actually expect to achieve, and there are no guarantees either way. That being said, I don't know how else to wipe out tyrants who murder their subjects other than eliminating them on a case by case basis. Until we can discover an underlying logic to situations like these (and I don't believe we have yet), the job seems to require strictly individualized interventions.
But I like where you are taking this problem. It's not so much about why the US has to do it. If we accept that there is no one more capable of doing it, and that there is actually some type of moral obligation under such circumstances, ambiguous as that obligation might be, then it doesn't make much sense to ask "why us?"
But to question what we can hope to accomplish is the crucial point. My own view is that the US should always lead these interventions, but we should not be doing it alone. If we aren't leading, I view it as an abdication of a responsibility to promote and defend the ideals I mentioned in my previous response. But it does cost lives and money, and I do understand we have been exhausted in those categories as of late.
IMO, the US taking action is just plain dumb. Three consecutive days of missile strikes will only drag us into that mess over there, keep us engaged long term, and become very costly while affecting our homeland as well facing an increased level of terrorism.
I can't understand why the US can't hang back and allow the rest of the world to react first.
Quote: Please allow me to say it again,, If we don't know 100% for sure, we shouldn't attack. that's my opinion.
Daman, please help me understand your opinion... as I read it, if 70,000 people have been killed with conventional weapons we should stay out of it... but if 70,000 have been killed with conventional weapons and 300 have been killed with chemicals we should attack... is that what you are saying?
I guess we can't really measure it on innocent bystanders vs combatants can we? But that should be part of the equation right?
Absolutely it should be a part of the equation. Unfortunately in this type of situation, it is often very hard to tell the difference between a civilian and a combatant because they are often one and the same... the guy who owns the drycleaning shop by day and assembles IEDs at night...
Quote: It all seems to go back to what we can actually expect to achieve, and there are no guarantees either way.
I suppose it is human nature to repeat that which was modeled for us. For instance, one would think that a kid who was abused would be the last person to abuse their own kids because they know how horrible it is, yet statistics show that they are the MOST likely to become abusers.. same with alcoholics...
By that same logic, one would assume that a person who lived under extreme oppression, if they had a chance to rise above it and assume power, would change the entire culture of government... yet it seems in that part of the county, that removing one tyrant and replacing him with "a good" guy is pointless because all of the good guys seem to eventually turn into tyrants themselves....
So what can we accomplish? Is temporary relief and hope that this time, THIS TIME, change will actually stick enough? As a Browns fan, I fully empathize with their plight.
Quote: IMO, the US taking action is just plain dumb. Three consecutive days of missile strikes will only drag us into that mess over there, keep us engaged long term, and become very costly while affecting our homeland as well facing an increased level of terrorism.
I can't understand why the US can't hang back and allow the rest of the world to react first.
Please understand, I'm not saying we shouldn't get involved. What I am saying is, why must we be the lead dog in the fight? And I don't want to see us in there until we have a clear reason and a clear goal and a plan to get out.
These unintended never ending wars can't go on. We need a goal and a plan to acheive it and a plan to get out and we need to execute it to perfection.
Otherwise, Don't Do it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: Your point is well taken. It all seems to go back to what we can actually expect to achieve, and there are no guarantees either way. That being said, I don't know how else to wipe out tyrants who murder their subjects other than eliminating them on a case by case basis. Until we can discover an underlying logic to situations like these (and I don't believe we have yet), the job seems to require strictly individualized interventions.
Which is very complicated in this case.
From my understanding, there are differing factions opposing the current regime. And in many cases, depending on which faction takes over their government, we may in fact in the end be helping yet another government who will be no less destructive than the current government.
Yes there are innocent lives being lost, but I also strongly believe that many of those deaths also belong to extremist factions that would be just as violent toward the people of Syria should they be the ones who may eventually take power there.
As it pertains to Syria, who will take over and how or even if this would eventually be a better scenario for the people of Syria is most certainly be in doubt. It would also be a very legitimate question as to whether it would provide a better situation or improved situation for our national interest depending on which faction eventually takes over the government within Syria.
At the very least, the answer to these questions are very unclear and makes this a very questionable and risky situation as to whether it would in the end, help anything IMO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Quote: Please allow me to say it again,, If we don't know 100% for sure, we shouldn't attack. that's my opinion.
Daman, please help me understand your opinion... as I read it, if 70,000 people have been killed with conventional weapons we should stay out of it... but if 70,000 have been killed with conventional weapons and 300 have been killed with chemicals we should attack... is that what you are saying?
I guess we can't really measure it on innocent bystanders vs combatants can we? But that should be part of the equation right?
Absolutely it should be a part of the equation. Unfortunately in this type of situation, it is often very hard to tell the difference between a civilian and a combatant because they are often one and the same... the guy who owns the drycleaning shop by day and assembles IEDs at night...
They can tell the difference between children and adults.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
This is true. Is a 14 year old with a gun a child or an adult?
I willingly concede that there are not easy answers to the issues we are discussing. These middle eastern nations engage their "children" in fighting much younger than we would ever dream of, they also have no problem hiding among the children hoping that will deter you from attacking them. I have never been in combat but I know many people who have... so I can say with relative confidence that combat is never ever a pleasant place, but when a culture is willing to put their children in harms way for a political end, then it is just that much more unpleasant....
Quote: This is true. Is a 14 year old with a gun a child or an adult?
I willingly concede that there are not easy answers to the issues we are discussing. These middle eastern nations engage their "children" in fighting much younger than we would ever dream of, they also have no problem hiding among the children hoping that will deter you from attacking them. I have never been in combat but I know many people who have... so I can say with relative confidence that combat is never ever a pleasant place, but when a culture is willing to put their children in harms way for a political end, then it is just that much more unpleasant....
True, I'm with you DC...I just heard the UK isn't going to participate at all with us on this. I'm against any strike that the whole of NATO doesn't agree on.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
Quote: This is true. Is a 14 year old with a gun a child or an adult?
I willingly concede that there are not easy answers to the issues we are discussing. These middle eastern nations engage their "children" in fighting much younger than we would ever dream of, they also have no problem hiding among the children hoping that will deter you from attacking them. I have never been in combat but I know many people who have... so I can say with relative confidence that combat is never ever a pleasant place, but when a culture is willing to put their children in harms way for a political end, then it is just that much more unpleasant....
True, I'm with you DC...I just heard the UK isn't going to participate at all with us on this. I'm against any strike that the whole of NATO doesn't agree on.
I hadn't heard that the UK wouldn't participate.. Ok,, they are by far, our biggest friend in the world. Why would we ever go to war or enter into a conflict without them by our side.
I agree with you...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: Ok,, they are by far, our biggest friend in the world. Why would we ever go to war or enter into a conflict without them by our side.
Because our interest in the conflict is just that important. Even besties can disagree from time to time and one party has to go it alone...
I'm not saying this is that case, just saying that I can see times where we might have to go regardless of what the UK or anybody thinks. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is NOT one of those times.
With that said, there are two things that are discussed in these global conflicts scenarios that confuse me... on one hand you have people complaining that we always have to lead, and I see that point of view. On the other hand, you have people who state that we should never send our troops into combat under UN/NATO or some other countries control, that we should always control our own troops, and I see that point of view as well... but it does create a conundrum.
Quote: This is true. Is a 14 year old with a gun a child or an adult?
I willingly concede that there are not easy answers to the issues we are discussing. These middle eastern nations engage their "children" in fighting much younger than we would ever dream of, they also have no problem hiding among the children hoping that will deter you from attacking them. I have never been in combat but I know many people who have... so I can say with relative confidence that combat is never ever a pleasant place, but when a culture is willing to put their children in harms way for a political end, then it is just that much more unpleasant....
True, I'm with you DC...I just heard the UK isn't going to participate at all with us on this. I'm against any strike that the whole of NATO doesn't agree on.
I hadn't heard that the UK wouldn't participate.. Ok,, they are by far, our biggest friend in the world. Why would we ever go to war or enter into a conflict without them by our side.
LONDON, Aug 29 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vital parliamentary vote on Thursday night meant to pave the way for Britain to join a looming military strike on Syria, in a move that appeared to all but rule out British involvement in such action.
In a humiliating and unexpected development, Cameron and his coalition government failed to pass a motion that would have authorised military action against Syria in principle by 285 to 272 votes.
Cameron said afterwards he would not override the will of parliament and approve military action, saying it was clear that lawmakers did not want to see a military strike on the Syrian government to punish it for an illegal chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus last week.
When asked by Labour leader Ed Miliband whether he would promise not to circumvent parliament and authorise military action, he said:
"I can give that assurance. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons.
"It is very clear tonight that while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action - I get that and the government will act accordingly." (Reporting By Andrew Osborn and Marie-Louise Gumuchian; Editing by Philip Barbara)
We missed the opportunity to really help in Syria a long time ago. Whatever we do now will be a mistake.
I'd rather we find a way to provide humanitarian aid / a safe haven to the innocents and let the crazies do what they are going to do anyway. I have no idea how to pull that off...but that's what I hope for.
In the end, I believe Obama will feel the urge to "save face" and go commando so he doesn't look weak. The problem is, he already looks about as weak as it can get.
by Mikael Thalen August 30th, 2013 Updated 08/30/2013 at 4:04 pm
During an interview on Fox Business’ Cavuto Wednesday, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) commented on the unfolding situation in Syria, specifically calling the recent chemical attack a ‘false flag’ likely carried out by the US backed Al Qaeda filled rebels.
I think it’s a false flag…” said Paul. “Why don’t we ask about the Al Qaeda? Why are we on the side of the Al Qaeda right now?”
Despite the Obama administration’s attempt to immediately blame Assad’s forces for the chemical attack, multiple U.S. officials have said that the administration’s evidence is “not a slam dunk.” Officials also mentioned that the administration had no “smoking gun.” In fact, the rebels have now even claimed responsibility for the attacks.
Even with Syrian Deputy Foreign Fayssal Mekdad presenting evidence to the UN that strongly points to a rebel led chemical attack, the Obama administration has continued to ignore any evidence that can’t be used to justify military action against Assad, including multiple YouTube videos showing rebels launching chemical weapons on civilian targets.
Paul’s statements are given even more validity in light of the January Yahoo article that details a potential chemical attack on Syria on behalf of the United States. The emails revealed a plan, supported by the Obama administration, to have a chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad in order to gain international support for military action.
Paul also exposed the history of lies and propaganda used by the US government to justify military intervention, pointing specifically to the Iraq war.
“Look at how many lies were told to us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup, war propaganda. It’s endless, it happens all the time,” said Paul, also pointing to Donald Rumsfeld’s role in supplying chemical weapons to Saddam in the 1980′s.
Mounting evidence forced out by the alternative media has destroyed the government’s credibility, with now only 9 percent of Americans supporting military intervention in Syria. The international backlash also caused UK Prime Minister David Cameron to momentarily back down after the British parliament voted against authorizing military action. Cameron later decided to send Military jets to Cyprus, claiming the move was purely “defensive.”
Despite having no congressional authority or support from NATO, the UN or the Arab League, the Obama administration has brazenly threatened to carry out strikes regardless, openly flouting the Constitution. Now, 140 members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter demanding that President Obama get authorization from Congress if he wants to carry out any strikes against Syria.
“The American people right now by a very large majority are opposed to this war. The Constitution can’t support this war and morally we can’t support this war,” Paul said in closing.
Update: Last April during a speech in Austin, Texas, Paul warned of the system’s increasing war propaganda and predicted that a false flag incident would likely accelerate the US deeper into the Middle Eastern conflict.
Quote: “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Just a small snippet as it's a rather long article. The man who is allegedly supporting the rebels with weapons has told Russia to not worry about the Chechen Rebels as he controls them.
I think any military support the US does will just cause a higher civilian count and play right into foreign interests rather than Syria's.
These aren't Syrian soldiers firing anything at anyone. These are al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists committing these acts.
Anyone with a lick of sense would have to ask why the Syrian government would launch such an attack with UN inspectors about to enter the country.
Al-Qaeda has clearly (by their own actions) not cared how many civilians have died at their hands or whether they are men, women or children, old, young or healthy and in the prime of life. They don't even care for their own lives.
But, if they can draw us into conflict where we have no business being, their aims are furthered.
Quote: In a humiliating and unexpected development, Cameron and his coalition government failed to pass a motion that would have authorised military action against Syria in principle by 285 to 272 votes.
I watched the debate in the British Parliament about it and it wasn't a surprise to me. There were no good arguments being made (at least, that I heard) for going to war in Syria.
It seems that the Islamists (I have no doubt with Iranian backing) have failed. They thought that launching a chemical attack on civilians and trying to blame it on the Syrian government would draw the West (and Arabs) into a conflict. It didn't work. Politically, there is NO WAY that Obama goes this alone. If he does, the final two years of his regime will be the undoing of the first two years of his regime. Everything that he accomplished with Pelosi & Reid in control of Congress would be undone.
Just what will it frickin' take to finally learn that supporting muslim terrorists will always bite us in the ass? Obama wants to side with Al Qaeda....are you kidding me? We supported the Taliban....how did that work out? Are Iraq, Egypt and Libya better off for our interventions? Listening to these politicians trying to support this is a damn comedy act. Anyone with half a brain should see there must be a reason that even our staunchest allies won't partner with us on this.
From what's been presented so far, there was far more "proof" of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction than there is of the Syrian government using toxic chemical weapons on their own citizenry. Will we ever learn?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: Just what will it frickin' take to finally learn that supporting muslim terrorists will always bite us in the ass? Obama wants to side with Al Qaeda....are you kidding me? We supported the Taliban....how did that work out? Are Iraq, Egypt and Libya better off for our interventions? Listening to these politicians trying to support this is a damn comedy act. Anyone with half a brain should see there must be a reason that even our staunchest allies won't partner with us on this.
From what's been presented so far, there was far more "proof" of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction than there is of the Syrian government using toxic chemical weapons on their own citizenry. Will we ever learn?
What's funny is you make it sound as if Obama is the only american president to do this.. I think we can both agree that he isn't the first, nor will he be the last..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
I think you're reading much more into jfanent's comments than he wrote.
And, at the moment, Obama is the only president this country has (at least, in title). If he isn't really the president then who do you suggest is pulling his strings?
Quote: I think you're reading much more into jfanent's comments than he wrote.
And, at the moment, Obama is the only president this country has (at least, in title). If he isn't really the president then who do you suggest is pulling his strings?
Multiple corporations as they control most of the politicians.
Quote: What's funny is you make it sound as if Obama is the only american president to do this.. I think we can both agree that he isn't the first, nor will he be the last..
What a bunch of BS. In your usual haste to defend Obama by playing the "other presidents do it too" excuse card, you failed to see that I mentioned the Taliban and Iraq,
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: I think you're reading much more into jfanent's comments than he wrote.
And, at the moment, Obama is the only president this country has (at least, in title). If he isn't really the president then who do you suggest is pulling his strings?
Multiple corporations as they control most of the politicians.
I always say...
Most people tend to think that when a president walks into the Oval Office on his first day, he sits down and says 'This is what we're going to do'.
When what's much closer to the truth is that he sits down and is told what he's going to do.
London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.
A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme 'approved by Washington'.
As per the scheme 'Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,' the Daily Mail reports.
Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.
According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.
The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.
According to the paper, the U.S. State Department has declined to comment on the matter. (ANI)
Quote: The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.
Not saying this is totally out of the realm of possibility. But it's pretty damn close.
Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
And, two, when you're basing your accusations on stuff dug up by "Malaysian hackers" I think it's possible your credibility may be questioned.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
Quote: The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.
Not saying this is totally out of the realm of possibility. But it's pretty damn close.
Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
And, two, when you're basing your accusations on stuff dug up by "Malaysian hackers" I think it's possible your credibility may be questioned.
Anything from Infowars is entirely suspect. They're a fringe media group, and somehow manage to say crazier things than Fox and MSNBC. However, like Fox and MSNBC, they are right a few times.
Quote: Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
It's believable that they want to divert attention from the current admin.. It's not like it would be the first time that happened with past admins
Anyway, I still think it's a mistake to go in there at all.. I don't think it's our fight..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
It's believable that they want to divert attention from the current admin.. It's not like it would be the first time that happened with past admins
Anyway, I still think it's a mistake to go in there at all.. I don't think it's our fight..
Doubtful that any war was ever started to divert attention from any administration. I'm not yet sure why we've decided that Syria is our new mission, but when I care enough, I'll look into it.
Quote: Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
It's believable that they want to divert attention from the current admin.. It's not like it would be the first time that happened with past admins
Anyway, I still think it's a mistake to go in there at all.. I don't think it's our fight..
Doubtful that any war was ever started to divert attention from any administration. I'm not yet sure why we've decided that Syria is our new mission, but when I care enough, I'll look into it.
I think the reason some feel that Syria is our new mission is because of what Obama said about it. As for if any admin did it before, There is a group of people that think that WWII was Roosevelts war, that Korea was Eisenhowers war and that Vietnam was Kennedys war. That or Johnsons war!
I remember it being said of H.W. Bush that he went into the Gulf War to build Cred for the upcoming election. And that W. Bush remained in a war (wars) not to build cred or cover his admin, but to make his buddies wealthy..
Take all of that FWIW, I have no proof. But those were things that I've heard mentioned.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
It's believable that they want to divert attention from the current admin.. It's not like it would be the first time that happened with past admins
Anyway, I still think it's a mistake to go in there at all.. I don't think it's our fight..
Doubtful that any war was ever started to divert attention from any administration. I'm not yet sure why we've decided that Syria is our new mission, but when I care enough, I'll look into it.
I think the reason some feel that Syria is our new mission is because of what Obama said about it. As for if any admin did it before, There is a group of people that think that WWII was Roosevelts war, that Korea was Eisenhowers war and that Vietnam was Kennedys war. That or Johnsons war!
I remember it being said of H.W. Bush that he went into the Gulf War to build Cred for the upcoming election. And that W. Bush remained in a war (wars) not to build cred or cover his admin, but to make his buddies wealthy..
Take all of that FWIW, I have no proof. But those were things that I've heard mentioned.
I'd agree with most of that. Though I'd say most of them were to sustain/grow the economy, but I do know that Nixon sabotaged peace talks with Vietnam for his campaign.
And Dick Cheney's friends did rip off the US gov't for 500m in Iraq. I'd still say most of the wars were based off of economic necessity/want rather than political gains, but you do bring up some good points. I still think it's more to do with an economic backer of Obama's campaign that wants this to happen than anything else.
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
This situation is extremely messy, and it's saddening.
Quote: In the end, I believe Obama will feel the urge to "save face" and go commando so he doesn't look weak. The problem is, he already looks about as weak as it can get.
This could be done (without letting intentions be known) with a massive influx of American troops into Israel, a Navy battle group in the Mediterranean Sea (most likely already there) and the Persian Gulf. Let the World wonder about what the US is up to.
Quote: The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.
Not saying this is totally out of the realm of possibility. But it's pretty damn close.
Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
And, two, when you're basing your accusations on stuff dug up by "Malaysian hackers" I think it's possible your credibility may be questioned.
Just noting the source and providing the link.
And, you think that Malaysia doesn't have computer hackers? Next time you look at your computer's innards, take a look at where many of the components are manufactured.
Quote: Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
It was reported in January (not August - or even July) and that it's conceivable (that it's even thought to be remotely possible) that the US government (under this regime or another) could be thought capable of such actions speaks volumes about how off-the-rails this nation has become.
