No thread on Syria's chemical/gas attack massacre...

Koapa

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
5,518
Reputation
740
Daps
30,324
Reppin
Arlington, Tx.
I wonder if he knows he doesn't have the votes and is looking to get an out on this unpopular issue the way Cameron basically got (whether he wanted it or not) when Parliament voted against UK action in Syria.


Yea, I think Obama is thinks that if he goes through Congress, it will be voted down. It's a hard sell for congressmen and women to tell their constituents that we are entering another war. It's even harder for Republicans because the Tea Party does not want any involvement in this war. The Tea Party candidates would have a field day with the Republicans. And Obama knows this. Obama Adminstration is really playing chess with the Republicans right now.
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,332
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,881
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Great speech by the President. Obviously I'm not on the side of intervening, but he brought forth valid points in my opinion and I'm glad he is seeking congressional approval as mandated by the Constitution, although I agree with Vic that it's a matter of show at this point. Republicans will bust his balls all week but at the end of the day they have donors to satisfy.

It seems set in stone that the US will intervene.

what were these valid points??? what did I miss???
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,332
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,881
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Israel is perhaps more concerned about Washington maintaining its credibility in the Middle East than it is about achieving a specific strategic objective in Syria. Jerusalem worries about American weakness in the region: Top officials are convinced that the taboo against the use of chemical weapons should be reinforced and that Iran could perceive the U.S. failure to act as a green light to develop its own weapons of mass destruction.

Israel does not believe it has a role in responding directly to the use of chemical weapons against any of the warring parties in Syria, though it has been monitoring these incidents closely. In April, when an IDF intelligence officer publicly announced that Assad had used chemical weapons in at least two incidents, he was quickly rebuked by the Obama administration. It took the Americans two weeks to grudgingly admit that the Israelis were right about what had happened.

Like the United States, Israel has no good options in Syria. Netanyahu realizes that Assad's survival at this stage would represent a huge achievement for the Iran-Hezbollah axis, which represents Israel's main antagonist in the Middle East. On the other hand, the prime minister worries about al Qaeda's growing presence: A senior IDF official recently told me there were about 10,000 jihadi fighters in the southeastern Golan Heights, just across the border from Israel. At some point, Israeli officials know, these zealots will show an interest in their Jewish neighbors.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/30/the_end_of_pax_netanyahu_syria_israel?page=0,1


Read this and then go back and watch obama's speech.
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
24,436
Reputation
3,888
Daps
107,948
Reppin
Detroit
Going to Congress is probably the best move for Obama.

This is one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations - if you support military action against Syria, you're an evil western imperialist, and if you don't, you're a coward who would turn a blind eye to an atrocity that could be stopped. Either way, it's the US's fault and Obama would be criticized. So the best thing (not only for Obama politically, but ethically as well) is to make Congress take a position on this.

As to how Congress will vote, I'm honestly not sure. It'll be interesting to see.
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
6,012
Daps
132,751
I wonder if he knows he doesn't have the votes and is looking to get an out on this unpopular issue the way Cameron basically got (whether he wanted it or not) when Parliament voted against UK action in Syria.
I doubt that. When has Congress ever not greenlighted a military action the executive branch wants? Defense contractors, oil companies, banks, and other private interests own most of Congress and they need to be kept happy with their coffers filled with blood money. Obama just met with Reid, Boehner, Pelosi, and McConnell. I think it's a go. But we'll see.
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
89,182
Reputation
3,727
Daps
158,772
Reppin
Brooklyn
I doubt that. When has Congress ever not greenlighted a military action the executive branch wants? Defense contractors, oil companies, banks, and other private interests own most of Congress and they need to be kept happy with their coffers filled with blood money. Obama just met with Reid, Boehner, Pelosi, and McConnell. I think it's a go. But we'll see.

 

Consigliere

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
10,581
Reputation
1,836
Daps
37,168
I hope Congress votes down any military action against Syria because of budgetary reasons.

It'd be ill if the rest of the international community carried their own weight for once. We've turned into errand boys running an empire where we dont reap any spoils of war. At least the Romans and the British used to get blood and treasure and opium for their efforts. We dont get anything for our endless involvement in foreign affairs except debt and a lower standard of living. The rest of the world is building high speed rail and new airports and giving their citizens free stuff while we're building sandcastles in the Middle East.
 

The Fukin Prophecy

RIP Champ
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
24,416
Reputation
5,706
Daps
95,945
I would like to think congress will do the right thing here and vote it down but I have a bad feeling these b*stards will give the go ahead...The lobbyists always get what they want and there is money to be made from war...
 

Darts

Spittin' em
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
5,505
Reputation
840
Daps
13,063
Shrewd move by Obama. It will interesting to see the war hawks and those who want to "embarrass" Obama by saying 'NO' within the GOP battle this out.
 

Nintendough

#Kliq
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
30,087
Reputation
7,172
Daps
84,947
Reppin
Eagles, Canes, Kliq, Sixers
I hope Congress votes down any military action against Syria because of budgetary reasons.

It'd be ill if the rest of the international community carried their own weight for once. We've turned into errand boys running an empire where we dont reap any spoils of war. At least the Romans and the British used to get blood and treasure and opium for their efforts. We dont get anything for our endless involvement in foreign affairs except debt and a lower standard of living. The rest of the world is building high speed rail and new airports and giving their citizens free stuff while we're building sandcastles in the Middle East.

Exactly. Give your citizens free education and training before you start trying to spend money on more military action that isn't our business. We operate so backwards that its disgusting.
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,332
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,881
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
I hope Congress votes down any military action against Syria because of budgetary reasons.

It'd be ill if the rest of the international community carried their own weight for once. We've turned into errand boys running an empire where we dont reap any spoils of war. At least the Romans and the British used to get blood and treasure and opium for their efforts. We dont get anything for our endless involvement in foreign affairs except debt and a lower standard of living. The rest of the world is building high speed rail and new airports and giving their citizens free stuff while we're building sandcastles in the Middle East.

we get the luxury of not having world war 3 break out
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,332
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,881
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
What are you trying to say here?

Obama's speech is an emotional plea. When you read/hear it, he's asking you to make the decision based on: ethics, morals,. Its the same humanitarian angle that Britain used, except he doesn't actually use the word. Perfect example, "This attack is an assault on human dignity."

My overarching point, is that this speech is pretty deceitful. He's asking the American people to make their decisions based on emotions, when we know that this is not the reason the government is taking action. There is more to this than just being grief stricken by, "hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children."

So thats why I highlighted the paragraphs in that article. That's why I keep highlighting the paradox of sending missiles but not attempting a ceasefire to end the war.

The missile attack isn't to deter Assad, its a warning to Iran.

The military intervention is not to topple Assad because then the focus goes back to Israel if/when the rebels win. Therefore prolonging the inevitable on some Fidel Castro shyt is the American solution to the Syria. In addition, this all but solidifies the American congressional vote. What white congressman (especially republican) is voting against the safety of Israel? <----because this is exactly how its being debated behind doors

We don't care about the plight of the peaceful civilians in favor of Assad or the peaceful civilians in favor of the Rebels. And when the evidence is clearly laid out like that, I vote we declare war outright or we don't do shyt at all. But I'm not with this in between, missile here, missile there shyt.
 
Top