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

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
500
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
I agree about the casualties. However, to be fair (and intellectually honest), an attack on Syria wouldn't necessarily be defined as a "war." Limited military strikes minus any boots on the ground is more like help from afar (I mean that literally; this wouldn't fit the textbook definition of "war" in politics and foreign policy). The people in favor of a strike have a point in that we're already supplying weapons (including missiles) to the Rebels, so the only difference after a resolution would be that we would start firing the weapons ourselves. Proponents of this view say that this would be better anyway, because our systems are much better than anything the Rebels possess; I think there may be a bit of truth to that overall view personally. So, if we had concrete evidence of Assad's use of the CWs and some type of assurance (highly improbable) that we would stick to the initial resolution of very limited involvement, I would be in favor of this; plus, I think in that given scenario you could possibly be incorrect in assuming that this could or would not be quick, easy, and merciful (at least more merciful than indiscriminate attacks). This doesn't necessarily have to turn into Iraq or anything major at all really. And it certainly won't cause WWIII like some people are predicting.

Now, that doesn't take away from the fact that there's still no concrete evidence or official U.N. report. Until I see that, I don't give a fukk what they say about it, honestly. Proof is the only thing that would change my perception of this situation. I'm not one of those hard-headed conspiracy theorist (in fact, I spend a lot of spare time debunking popular theories), so I don't buy into most of the alternative theories of what happened in Syria, but that doesn't mean that I should make logical leaps and assumptions to see this "very clear" evidence our government says they have. I've read their report and listened to their statements. They're sure an attack happened, but that's it. Of course, if you're not careful, their confidence and rhetoric will deceive you into thinking otherwise. I'm not willing to kill anybody or put anybody in danger off of just that, though. Besides, it seems that if the evidence was so "clear and definitive," the international community would be a little more supportive or at least offer their confirmation intell on the subject.
war is war. supply the rebels with anything and we don't know how they'd use them. they could turn against us on the spot. or take it to israel which i hope they do. just kidding...:bryan:



Syrian rebels are planning chemical attack near Israel's borders according to RT :russ: :wtf:

http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/
:huhldup:
 

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
500
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
my folks... when you've been living a lie and benefiting from the lie, i don't expect you to accept what i'm coming with. the first reaction will be to reject anything and everything i have to say.


we
in dis
bytch.
 
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
378
Reputation
60
Daps
288
Kerry: "You have one week to turn over all your chemical weapons or we will bomb you".

Putin: "Good idea".

Assad: "OK".

Kerry: "I was just kidding".

Susan Rice: "We refuse to take "Yes" for an answer.

Ban Ki-moon: "The UN is useless but the pay is good."

Obama: "My credibility is at stake."

World: "lmao".
 

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
500
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
Kerry: "You have one week to turn over all your chemical weapons or we will bomb you".

Putin: "Good idea".

Assad: "OK".

Kerry: "I was just kidding".

Susan Rice: "We refuse to take "Yes" for an answer.

Ban Ki-moon: "The UN is useless but the pay is good."

Obama: "My credibility is at stake."

World: "lmao".
this is what they did to the homie saddam. they told him let us in to check out yo chit and saddam being on some baws shyt told them to gtfoh. and that's the best thing you could tell bush. bush is a crazy nicca. and he went in.


all this happened while america was still being distracted by the stock market about to fail after they discovered andersen was doing accounting of not only worldcom but of several wall street firms. shyt was about to go down... i was watching news like :popcorn:. then out of no where bush came up with wmd's and in he went.


man i left watching the tv like :banderas: wall street got away again...
 

Dyce25

Rookie
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
125
Reputation
0
Daps
67
Reppin
NULL
war is war. supply the rebels with anything and we don't know how they'd use them. they could turn against us on the spot. or take it to israel which i hope they do. just kidding...:bryan:



:huhldup:

Ehh, generally and philosophically speaking, yes, war is war. I have no problem admitting that. However, I thought I was clear in that I was speaking in terms of the language common to foreign policy and where this situation would be placed categorically (sorry if I wasn't). It depends on our engagement, but if things go as advertised (which I doubt), then it wouldn't qualify as a "war." Yes, this is a practice in semantics, but in our generation, these types of semantics are needed seeing as war itself has changed with the advent of more and better technology. It seems that things like that wouldn't matter, but globally speaking, they do (for a number of reasons). On the other note, we're already supplying the Rebels with weapons. Besides, I can't prove this, but I think we've been supplying them weapons for a while... Well before the American public began discussing the question of whether we should send arms or not. And unfortunately, that scenario you painted of having them turn against us or an ally in the future (in this case, Israel) has happened a good many times in the recent past. Not at all out of the question here. In fact, outside of not having any concrete evidence, that possibility is probably my top concern (especially if another extreme Islamic state is established in the aftermath).
 

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
500
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
go as advertised.... :ohhh: wouldn't qualify as a war... :shaq2:

my nucca this conversation is :deadhorse:.

you want war. you want to be convinced to go to war. war is not pretty my dude. it's just poor fighting rich people's wars. nothings changed. it's rich ppl convincing you since you don't have shyt you go kill yourself in the name of patriotism.
with 911 afghan war i can sort of see the reason for it cause shyt happened here. with this other shyt i don't care for it. there's ppl setting up stock on wall street to cake off this sh1t wanting for sh1t to go down.
putin doesn't want none of this cause once sh1t pops off he's gonna end up being embarassed. the israeli-russain yukos oil guys have switched teams and are now israeli citizens...
 

Dyce25

Rookie
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
125
Reputation
0
Daps
67
Reppin
NULL
go as advertised.... :ohhh: wouldn't qualify as a war... :shaq2:

my nucca this conversation is :deadhorse:.

you want war. you want to be convinced to go to war. war is not pretty my dude. it's just poor fighting rich people's wars. nothings changed. it's rich ppl convincing you since you don't have shyt you go kill yourself in the name of patriotism.
with 911 afghan war i can sort of see the reason for it cause shyt happened here. with this other shyt i don't care for it. there's ppl setting up stock on wall street to cake off this sh1t wanting for sh1t to go down.
putin doesn't want none of this cause once sh1t pops off he's gonna end up being embarassed. the israeli-russain yukos oil guys have switched teams and are now israeli citizens...

I've explained my views enough times now for you to know I'm against any military strikes without concrete evidence that Assad was responsible, so I'm not exactly sure where you're getting the idea that I want war from. That kinda just makes the rest of your post unnecessary.

It's just natural for me to see multiple angles depending on multiple variables. Just because I entertain and contemplate them doesn't mean I support any of them, actually. I've just always felt it's essential to be as intellectually well-rounded as possible in regards to a given subject before developing an honest opinion. So, when I see something that is kinda right, but a little too vague for me, I elaborate (for the original author and those that read the post). Also, what's surprising about the phrase, "go as advertised?" You do realize that's just a popular American idiom, right? Plus, as I said, our scenario with Syria literally would not qualify as a war categorically in terms of politics and foreign policy. Any time there's a huge fight with people dying, though, of course it's generally considered a war. I've already said that, though.

As far as this conversation being dead, that's fine. Just please don't purposely misrepresent what I'm saying in discussions, debates, and so forth. I try my hardest to remain as intellectually honest as I possibly can in regards to the things I post and when paraphrasing someone else's thoughts on here, so please do the same in return. Nothing I've posted came close to endorsing a war on Syria (and I'm sure you knew that), but that didn't stop you from claiming that I "want war" and/or that I "want to be convinced to go to war." I'll say this again: without concrete evidence that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack(s), the U.S. should not take any military action; also, in the event that proof is provided, the U.S. should still try diplomacy through the U.N. before taking any military action. If we garnered no support, unilateral action at that point would be a real decision worth contemplating; unlike this current one.
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
24,424
Reputation
3,888
Daps
107,804
Reppin
Detroit
What do you all think about this?

Sunday, September 8, 2013
President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize

Article Mirror


September 8, 2013
By Wayne Bomgaars

As the media interprets recent events as Obama’s march to war, America and the world falls for it hook, line and sinker. Say what you want about Obama but he is a very smart man. He would never ask permission he did not need from Congress to launch a strike on Syria unless he knew beyond a doubt he could get it. That is if his real intentions were to actually carry out military operations. But why on earth does it appear he wants this war?


After agonizing over this question over and over I began to realize there is only one logical explanation. He does not. Only a month ago the GOP was accusing Obama of being weak for not acting when the “red line” was crossed. There was pressure for him not only from the US but from the world as well. The reputation of the great American defender was on the line. Still it was obvious at the time Obama did not want to rush into another quagmire, bogging down the rest of his tenure as our nation’s leader. But the evidence kept rolling in. He had to do something not only for his reputation as a world leader but for the United States as well.

Cue the British Parliament to provide Obama with the perfect out. Just days after Britain’s governing body eliminated any joint action with the US to participate in a coalition to strike the Assad regime, Obama made a surprising and decisive move. Against the advice of all his advisors, he put any US participation in the hands of our do-nothing Congress with no chance they would give him the approval he needed. Not because it isn’t the right thing to do but because Obama was asking for it. The outcome is a given if you just take a step back and look at the situation rationally. And there is no way Obama is going to launch this attack once Congress says no. It would be political suicide. Bush may have gotten away with it but America is not going to let it happen again. The fallout would signal the end of any and all effectiveness the Obama administration for the remaining years of his presidency. And history would place him with the likes of war criminals like George W. Bush and dikk Cheney. Let me repeat this. Obama is not that stupid!

So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.

If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:

No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria

And there is even the added bonus that the GOP weakening the push to shut down the government over the debt ceiling will not proceed with the intense battle anticipated. Next week Congress returns for only nine days. Nine days to act on the Syrian War, the debt ceiling, immigration, the Voting Rights Acts and many other important issues.

Seeing they can barely rename a post office, Congress will not have the ability to once again play games with by demanding cuts and further tax cuts for corporations. It will have to accept a reasonable offer or be blamed for damage to our nation’s credit rating. Republicans are very aware they will face blame and backlash should this happen.

Tell me this isn’t the best outcome ever. And I honestly think this was Obama’s intention from the beginning. You know damn well if he didn’t do anything, Republicans would be calling him weak because of the corner he had painted himself in when he talked about the red line.

Granted, Obama made a mistake with his “red line” comment, but by acting in a calm savvy manner, he can come out looking the part of the tough guy without even taking a swing. And he smiles as Congress does for him what he wanted in the first place.
If America could just set down their pitchforks and torches for a moment, they would be able to see what brilliant strategy this is..

http://freakoutnation.blogspot.com/2013/09/president-obamas-brilliant-strategy-no.html?m=1


I dunno if I agree or not but :ohhh:
 

Dyce25

Rookie
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
125
Reputation
0
Daps
67
Reppin
NULL

Yeah, I've contemplated this scenario, and with Obama's history of pulling smart behind-the-scenes moves, it's definitely possible. I've heard this idea bounced around a little in conservative circles too, but they have a more sinister take on it most of the time. I think some of them see this opening, and they're trying to paint their own version of this picture before it plays out entirely (just to be safe). It's definitely possible, and the longer this debate drags on, the more I find myself leaning towards that as the most likely scenario.
 

Grams

Grams Grands Gucci G'd Up
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
11,245
Reputation
2,716
Daps
22,517
Reppin
Eastside
Man were like "Obama is going to Congress because he knows he can secure that vote" MEANWHILE he really went to Congress cuz he knew he wouldn't secure shyt and he could back out without looking moist. The man is too clinical with it.
 
Top