+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Discussions, Opinions & Debate (https://mockforums.net/forum-11.html)
+--- Thread: Syria (/thread-5869.html)
RE: Syria - Duchess - 09-05-2013
I didn't want to think about this stuff today but it's everywhere. The enemy knows we are coming and is planning for that. They'll move their weapons and other things and put innocent people in its place. We'll see the pictures of the horror and once again be blamed for being the big, bad US of A. When is the last time that Washington listened to the people they work for?
RE: Syria - Maggot - 09-05-2013
The Prez said:
President Obama today sought to shift responsibility for his famous “red line” for action against Syria for the use of chemical weapons, saying his statement was no more than a response to “red lines” effectively drawn by Congress and the international community.
“I didn’t set a red line: the world set a red line,” Obama said, referring to an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons. And Congress, Obama said, “set a red line when it ratified that treaty.”
RE: Syria - Midwest Spy - 09-05-2013
I think Obama felt the American public would be outraged over the use of chemical weapons, and 15 years ago, before Iraq and Afghanistan, we may have wanted to respond.
The world's perception of the U.S and our view of the world has changed though (I feel).
The world says they don't want our help and we don't feel appreciated when we expend $$$ and lives trying to be the worlds policeman.
It seems complicated but it's not.
We stick to a plan of protecting our friends and our interests.
Beyond that, we remain on the sidelines.
RE: Syria - Mohammed - 09-05-2013
Well, I don't really give a fuck what happens in Syria as I don't have any plans in that country, but I have to say their people sure add a touch of class to our usual beggars here. We just had a wonderful conversation with them as we delivered our daughter to her babysitter before heading off for a delightfully decadent evening at the German Embassy in a short while.
Finally you can have enlightening dialog with beautiful looking people that clearly carry a certain amount of sophistication. So different from the usual Somali and Ethiopian riff raff we got over here asking you for a buck.
Truly refreshing.
RE: Syria - SIXFOOTERsez - 09-05-2013
(09-05-2013, 10:51 AM)Mohammed Wrote: Well, I don't really give a fuck what happens in Syria as I don't have any plans in that country, but I have to say their people sure add a touch of class to our usual beggars here. We just had a wonderful conversation with them as we delivered our daughter to her babysitter before heading off for a delightfully decadent evening at the German Embassy in a short while.
Finally you can have enlightening dialog with beautiful looking people that clearly carry a certain amount of sophistication. So different from the usual Somali and Ethiopian riff raff we got over here asking you for a buck.
Truly refreshing.
Its good to have nice looking beggars. All we have here is deadbeat white trash and hatiens
RE: Syria - Mohammed - 09-05-2013
Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Sounds like Detroit to be honest.
Nothing better than beggars with class!
RE: Syria - username - 09-05-2013
(09-05-2013, 09:31 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: We stick to a plan of protecting our friends and our interests.
According to many, this action is necessary to protect our friends/interests. If we don't bomb Assad, he'll probably use chemical weapons again, Iran will be emboldened and continue to develop their nuclear weapons program (threatening Israel) and the North Koreans will continue to be assholes and be even meaner to South Korea.
Or something like that.
On a side note, I often make a daily "to-do" list for myself. I checked what I had written last night:
Pay bills
Call Trish
Ry-Ortho Appt.
Fix Syria
Write letter to Rach....
My BIL is a card. He stays with us some nights for commute reasons.
RE: Syria - HairOfTheDog - 09-05-2013
(09-05-2013, 11:43 AM)username Wrote:(09-05-2013, 09:31 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: We stick to a plan of protecting our friends and our interests.
According to many, this action is necessary to protect our friends/interests. If we don't bomb Assad, he'll probably use chemical weapons again, Iran will be emboldened and continue to develop their nuclear weapons program (threatening Israel) and the North Koreans will continue to be assholes and be even meaner to South Korea.
I think it's rather complicated; more complicated than in the past.
Extreme fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda don't have one home country/base, they're grabbing land where the grabbing is good; taking advantage of countries with leadership and economic weaknesses and exploiting political upheaval in stronger countries (like Egypt and Syria).
It bothers me that the US striking and weakening Syria's government and military could strengthen Al Qaeda's network expansion goals (they're the strongest factions of the rebel forces). Meanwhile, Assad's loyalist army is being strengthened by Hezbollah militants.
These are the "terrorist enemies" against whom we've been waging a war on terror for over a decade.
What's the best likely outcome when the government of a country is threatened, pro and anti-government sides include extremist factions, either side is capable of chemical warfare, and it's highly likely that any of the many vested parties are ready and willing to set the other side up for atrocities (killing civilians in the process) in order to manipulate the media, garner military support from other countries/groups, and further their own agendas?
Is it in the US's interest to get involved when there is no direct immediate threat agains us? Is there ever really no direct threat (looking into the future) to the US and its allies when those with opposing ideologies are pushing to expand their global network by acquiring as much ground as possible to increase their power/influence?
For me, there's a lot more to consider in the West's strategy with Syria than the use of chemical weapons (regardless of how sad and tragic that may be). I'm not confident that there's solid evidence pointing to one or the other sides as the "good guys", nor that there's a clear understanding as to whom would truly benefit (short and long term) from any level of intervention, like the US striking and supporting the rebel forces. JMO.
For now, I wish we'd stay on the sidelines and pinpoint a strategy - working with our allies and other UN member countries collaboratively.
RE: Syria - Maggot - 09-05-2013
Well it sure has taken the heat off the NSA thing.
RE: Syria - Duchess - 09-05-2013
This bullshit makes me long for the good ol' days when our biggest problem was a Prez who couldn't keep his pecker in his pants.
RE: Syria - username - 09-05-2013
I agree HotD. If there were a clear set of "good guys" in Syria, I might feel differently but there's not.
I like the "no boots on the ground" comments. Who the fuck knows what kind of chain of events might occur if we start bombing Syria? I don't know but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility that there could be some serious repercussions from that.
RE: Syria - Maggot - 09-05-2013
Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Is a piece of shit. I cannot stand her waffling or her follow the pack mentality. A former Governor that did absolutely nothing but raise taxes.
RE: Syria - NightOwl - 09-06-2013
(09-05-2013, 02:40 PM)Duchess Wrote:
This bullshit makes me long for the good ol' days when our biggest problem was a Prez who couldn't keep his pecker in his pants.
What a laugh
RE: Syria - Maggot - 09-07-2013
With the Senate voting a marginal yes vote with many voting as "present" and on the fence, The House will vote a large no for an attack. Obama of coarse with his egotistical narcissism will ignore the will of the people once again and launch missiles into another country to save face.
RE: Syria - SIXFOOTERsez - 09-07-2013
(09-05-2013, 02:40 PM)Duchess Wrote:
This bullshit makes me long for the good ol' days when our biggest problem was a Prez who couldn't keep his pecker in his pants.
LOL, Well that and the whole Savings and Loan debacle
RE: Syria - Duchess - 09-08-2013
While there is proof that there was a chemical weapon attack is there proof that it was Assad's regime that did it? I'd like to know that and I want to see it.
RE: Syria - SIXFOOTERsez - 09-08-2013
Yea, it could easily have been the rebels did it, or one of the other groups that are stirring shit up. Syria had Lots of chemicals spread all over the place, some from Iraq from just before the first gulf war. There was a line of trucks from Iraq to Syria for days. We know Sadam had them, we didn't find anything near like the stash he had. I would bet a paycheck all that shit and no telling what else ended up in Syria. Now their shit is falling apart and they can't control where it all went.
RE: Syria - HairOfTheDog - 09-08-2013
Charlie Rose interviewed Assad in Damascus today. He's one of my favorite interviewers - always direct and informed.
In the interview, Assad reportedly doesn't deny that Syria has chemical weapons, but contends that any owned by the government are completely controlled and there has been no breach.
Assad claims that he had no knowledge or anything to do with the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians and challenges Obama to show evidence that it was his government, rather than the rebels, that launched the attack.
The interview will be aired on The Charlie Rose Show tomorrow night. Should be interesting. It's the first time Assad has done an American interview since Barbara Walters back in 2011.
RE: Syria - HairOfTheDog - 09-09-2013
The PR machine is in major motion now - from all sides.
Proof...we don't need no stinkin' proof
After Assad challenged the Obama administration to show proof that his government was responsible, Obama's advisors admitted during the Sunday talk show rounds that they don't have "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence that Assad is responsible for launching the chemical attack.
Obama's Chief of Staff, McDonough, says this isn't a matter for a court of law with strong evidence and all that crap (my paraphrasing); it's instead a matter of common sense that points to Assad launching the chemical weapons.
"Common sense"; by whose definition?
I don't know who's responsible; could be Assad. But it sure as hell ain't "common sense"(to me) to insist that his forces, which were reclaiming ground and benefiting from rebel extremist factions waging war against each other when the attack was launched, "must be" responsible and must be taught a lesson via military strike.
It makes as much or more sense to me that rebel extremists carried through with their threat of setting up the Assad regime in order to expedite and increase rebel aid from the US and Europe.
Rocket Man
McDonough claims that the chemical weapons were launched by rocket, which the Obama administration has no indication that the rebels possess, but knows that Assad and the Syrian government possess.
Having "no indication" does not equate to a strong enough basis for characterizing something of this magnitude as a common sense assumption, to me.
Seems many in Congress are lacking common sense, like me. Or, McDonough's definition of "common sense" entails buying whatever anyone is selling at face value.
Can Putin kerry through with a non-military compromise agreement from Assad?
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Kerry suggested that Assad could turn over control of the Syrian government's chemical weapons to resolve this conflict without a need for a US military strike. But, Kerry surmised that Assad would refuse such a proposal.
Well, Russian President, Vladimir Putin, kinda surprised many people and agreed with Kerry's proposal, stating that he would encourage Assad to surrender the chemical weapons to the control of the international community.
![[Image: stay_tuned.jpg]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4QZgwqERO9Y/TrUB7yHhp3I/AAAAAAAAAB4/k-gLyGiZozg/s320/stay_tuned.jpg)
RE: Syria - Duchess - 09-09-2013
The White House doesn't have anything to show us that can be considered proof that Assad's regime poisoned those people. The Associated Press reported that they lack "irrefutable, beyond a reasonable doubt" proof. How the hell do you make the case for bombing a country when you lack even the most basic proof. That's more of a statement than a question. I think those fuckers are going to do it anyway.