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

[Jello Biafra]

The UN won't/can't do anything because of Russia. NATO is basically focused on defending Europe from Russia. America is basically NATO, most of the countries can't field an international response.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_101606.htm

It's not about playing world police or any other stupid catchphrase. Syria poses a real threat to our interests and economy. You would have to be dumb, deaf, and blind to feel otherwise.

The later is a logical fallacy and shouldn't detract from the issues Syria poses.

Burma?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma–United_States_relations

Do you live in a cave or are you trolling?


Africa has been pretty restive since Obama has been in office.
America has payed a very active roll in Africa since Bush Jr. and throughout Obama's presidency.

You seem pretty ignorant, why don't you do some more reading instead of making sweeping statements on subjects you clearly know nothing about.

Saudi Arabia is our ally too but that doesn't make them any less of a shytstain on the world. Maybe you should do some reading aside from Wiki or whatever shytty Obama dikksucking website you frequent and find out what the Burmese government is doing to Muslims right now in the year 2013 despite being on good terms with the US.
And just what has Syria done that makes them a prominent threat to the US that requires immediate military action? And if Syria is a threat to the US then that makes them a threat to Europe which puts this squarely in the purview of NATO.
And Central Africa is really restive.
I keep forgetting how useless you are as a poster and reply to your posts but I think I am going to just stop giving you more chances to prove your worthlessness.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

And just what has Syria done that makes them a prominent threat to the US that requires immediate military action? .

Their connection with Iran and Russia

 

[Saka]

Intervention for humanitarian reasons is just the casus belli, we all know the real reasons for any military action would be because of the geopolitical significance of Syria and obviously the military industrial complex demands constant war for profits.

 

[Consigliere]

are you cereal?

The carnage that was WWI and WWII completely overshadows the Cold War conflicts

So it only counts if its European countries? The United States has been behind some of the worst dictatorships in South America & the Middle East. Add in all the people we've bombed around the world and the wars we've fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, & Korea and it's a lot close than you're giving it credit for.

If we stopped arming rebel factions and then declaring war on them when they wizened up we'd be living in a much safer world. There are folks in this thread campaigning day and night to get us to support Al Qaida in Syria. This is our jumping the shark moment. We're literally fighting a war on terror because Al Qaida (a group we funded and helped train) attacked us on 9/11 and now we're going to fund them, give them weapons, and provide air support for them to take over a non-radicalized nation.

Its gonna be a great movie someday.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

So it only counts if its European countries? The United States has been behind some of the worst dictatorships in South America & the Middle East. Add in all the people we've bombed around the world and the wars we've fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, & Korea and it's a lot close than you're giving it credit for.

If we stopped arming rebel factions and then declaring war on them when they wizened up we'd be living in a much safer world. There are folks in this thread campaigning day and night to get us to support Al Qaida in Syria. This is our jumping the shark moment. We're literally fighting a war on terror because Al Qaida (a group we funded and helped train) attacked us on 9/11 and now we're going to fund them, give them weapons, and provide air support for them to take over a non-radicalized nation.

Its gonna be a great movie someday.

Did I say that? notice how when I mentioned the world wars your mind miraculously skipped over the war in the pacific. You still don't understand how ridiculous it is to compare WWI and II to the Cold War. If you don't understand how devastating WW3 would be, we have nothing further to discuss.

As for the rest of your post, you're arguing against yourself. I agree with many of your points and I'm not for picking sides.

 

[Saka]

The american oligarchy NEEDS war at this point, the absence of conflict would no longer justify the absurd defence budgets... do you think the gargantuan industries that have risen from the constant merchanting of war would let their pockets get lighter? NAH..

 

[Consigliere]

Did I say that? notice how when I mentioned the world wars your mind miraculously skipped over the war in the pacific. You still don't understand how ridiculous it is to compare WWI and II to the Cold War. If you don't understand how devastating WW3 would be, we have nothing further to discuss.

As for the rest of your post, you're arguing against yourself. I agree with many of your points and I'm not for picking sides.

I'm aware that there's a difference in scale as far as fatalities. It's probably not such a big gap if you look at the number of lives we've ended or ruined through our foreign policy.

 

[MVike28]

not to go off topic, but I don't understand how that guys heart continues to hold up

use HGH brehs

 

[88m3]

use HGH brehs

he's operating on another plane, breh

 

[MVike28]

he's operating on another plane, breh

Devil from snoop murder was a case video made a deal with Vince


how long will I be? Eternal life and forever

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I'm aware that there's a difference in scale as far as fatalities. It's probably not such a big gap if you look at the number of lives we've ended or ruined through our foreign policy.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

A tremendous amount of good information coming out now

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the-administrations-proposed-syria-aumf-is-very-broad/

As the history of the 9/11 AUMF shows, and as prior AUMFs show (think about the Gulf of Tonkin), a President will interpret an AUMF for all it is worth, and then some. The proposed Syrian AUMF is worth a lot, for it would (in sum) permit the President to use military force against any target anywhere in the world (including Iran or Lebanon) as long as the President, in his discretion, determines that the the target has a connection to WMD in the Syrian civil war and the use of force has the purpose of preventing or deterring (broad concepts) the use or proliferation of WMDs in, to, or from Syria, or of protecting the U.S. and its allies from the mere threat (again, a broad concept) of use or proliferation of WMDs connected to the Syrian conflict.

Y'all don't really want World peace.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/09/obamas-carte-blanche-war-resolution.html

Obama's Carte Blanche War Resolution
Any war resolution Congress would pass would likely be interpreted by the administration as a license for all out war on Syria and beyond.

But the first draft the executive is putting to Congress is even worse:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to -

1. prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapon of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or
2. protect the United States or its allies and partners against the threats posed by such weapons.

This draft is nearly as wide as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terroriststhat Congress passed on September 14 2001 and which has been (ab-)used by the Bush and Obama administrations as an undiscriminating, unlimited license to incarcerate, torture or kill anyone at the free discretion of the executive.
The key words in Obama's draft and their meaning are:

• "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" ==> no limits apply
• "in connection with" ==> as everything is connected ...
• "or deter the use or proliferation" ==> by whatever means
• "to .. other state .. actors" ==> target Iran
• "or components of or materials used" ==> from corrugated steel to petroleum products
• "protect ... or its allies and partners" ==> the Zionists
• "against the threats posed" ==> includes non-use but assumed existence of such weapons

It is clear from this wording that such a resolution would allow nearly everything far beyond the "punitive" few cruise missile strikes against Syrian forces the administration marketed so far. It could easily be used for an outright blockade of Iran or even a "preemptive" strike against Iran's industries in the name of "deterrence" and "protecting" Israel.

It is all or nothing, peace or unlimited war. Anyone with peace on her mind should hope and work to prevent any war resolution from passing Congress. The abuse of any war resolution by this and the next executive is practically guaranteed. And even with a Congress approved war resolution any attack by the United States against Syria would still be a illegal war of aggression under international law.

There is some hope that the French parliament may come to help. The French president is now under pressure to also allow a vote on a war on Syria and beyond. That would would likely come before Congress votes and the French people are very much against a war. A "no" vote in the French parliament would increase pressure on Congress to also reject war.

During next weeks discussions it will be important to point out that the U.S. "intelligence" about the chemical incident in Syria is full of holes. The paper by the British Joint Intelligence Organisation used by Cameron to ask for war speaks of 350 people killed in the incident. On Friday Secretary of State Kerry spoke of 1,429 people killed. The draft war resolution speaks of "more then thousand" killed. 350, 1,429, 1,000 - which is it?
Even the often quoted, pro-insurgency Syrian Observatory for Human Rights rejects these numbers as propaganda:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an organization that monitors casualties in the country, said it has confirmed 502 deaths, nearly 1,000 fewer than the American intelligence assessment claimed.
Rami Abdel-Rahman, the head of the organization, said he was not contacted by U.S. officials about his efforts to collect information about the death toll in the Aug. 21 attacks.

"America works only with one part of the opposition that is deep in propaganda," he said, and urged the Obama administration to release the information its estimate is based on.

If the British and U.S. intelligence can not get the death count right what else in their estimates are just guesses based on open source rumors and insurgency propaganda? Are such unconfirmed estimates, not knowledge, really enough to send off armed forces to kill more and more people in foreign lands?​

but I'ma just let y'all tell it.....

how you picking sides and u.e.o.n.o the facts???

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Given my continuing obsession with the still extant Iraq War AUMF, let’s consider the geography of this proposed AUMF together with the other active AUMFs, the Iraq and Afghanistan ones.

Put all three of them together, and the government would have authorization to use military force in Syria, Lebanon, Shia-governed and increasingly violent Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan (plus Yemen, with its Houthi insurgency on Saudi Arabia’s southern border). The President would have authorization to use military force in an unbroken band of land from Israel’s border east to nuclear-armed Pakistan, with both the counter-Saudi Shia block and Sunni al Qaeda related terrorists included within the AUMFs. This, to fight a war that Israel and the Gulf states have allied (if you can call it that) to fight.

- See more at: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/09/01/the-aumf-crescent/#sthash.yh9kAraB.dpuf

No no no noooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Obeezy don't do it

 

[MVike28]

I'm aware that there's a difference in scale as far as fatalities. It's probably not such a big gap if you look at the number of lives we've ended or ruined through our foreign policy.

Demhawks are bloodthirsty savages. This post is evidence.