|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Syria|
Posted - 8/28/2013 3:06:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Obama acted illegally in Libya and he's about to act illegally in Syria."
if the war powers act isn't enough- we have the words of obama and biden. their own words tell us their actions were illegal...
orthicon, declaring victory over something you got taken to skool over-may help your self-esteem- it does little to improve your credibility.
Posted - 8/28/2013 3:17:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
"just muscular enough not to get mocked"
is the obama plan for syria.....
obama's not there yet..... obama should keep working out. won't be long before rodeo clowns, rush limbaugh, and fox news will cringe in fear.
Posted - 8/28/2013 3:21:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
As always the first thing you do is INSULT me. And again, you know nothing about me. But keep stereotyping away, if it makes you feel good inside.
If the story was wrong, how in the HELL did a story that inflammatory ever, EVER make it to print?
I'll leave you with two quotes, as it is impossible to have a conversation with anyone who is 1) WILLFULLY ignorant and 2) unable to converse without name calling and insults. Otherwise, I would be happy to engage in a conversation.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the US public believes is false." William J. Casey, CIA Director 1981
"My people perish for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4: 6 (KJV)
PS. How far away from Russia is Syria?
PPS. Why does the TSA need millions of hollow point bullets (they don't carry guns)?
PPSS. Did you know the selective service website is set up for FEMALES to register (just days after NDAA was signed, coincidentally)?
One last question: What percent of the U.S. armed forces is now foreign troops?
There is right, wrong and truth. You are so busy trying to be RIGHT, you are missing the TRUTH.
Peace to all. Signing off.
Posted - 8/28/2013 4:12:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
Not as crazy as it may seem....
Who's to say the al queda faction of the rebels fighting the Syrian government didn't use the gas? Killing their own wouldn't surprise me considering their ethics, and it would do two things...possibly get the U.S. to bomb their enemy and would at the same time dig another hole of involvement for the U.S.. It's terrorist vs terrorist over there. Let them fight it out. Of course the result of our not getting involved could eventually lead to an al queda run government if they eventually win this war.
Posted - 8/28/2013 5:58:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
Not a chance in hell, pal
but you and your left wing brethren are not honest enough to admit you were severely beaten.
I cited the law (50 USC 1541) while you left wingers sang choruses of Kumbaya.
Posted - 8/28/2013 7:28:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** If the story was wrong, how in the HELL did a story that inflammatory ever, EVER make it to print? ***
Ask the Daily Mail. It was their story.
Posted - 8/28/2013 8:22:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
yeah.. ask the daily mail.. just don't expect the daily mail
to tell you the truth about anything..
"truth" is not in their lexicon..
Posted - 8/28/2013 9:23:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
One at a time
beenthere? Yes. I insult you. Because you're the poster-child of conspiracy nutcases. Oklahoma City, 9/11, Boston, and Syria were not false-flag operations secretly conducted by the US Gov. You also claim the US Air Force is poisoning us, and there are thousands of Russian troops in America.
"If the story was wrong, how in the HELL did a story that inflammatory ever, EVER make it to print?" Because it's the Daily Mail for chrissakes. They sponge off of tin-foil cases like you. They're famous for 'Vaccines-Death', and cancer can be caused by (based on "scientific" research) are mouth wash, oral sex, Pringles, and Facebook.
Two tips; Don't quote a Reagan politcal hack like Casey for anything. HeHe was involved in Iran-Contra right up until his death, not a paragon of virtue. And citing the Bible is great for an opinion--not so much if you're trying to defend a loonytune conspiracy theory.
"PS. How far away from Russia is Syria?" About 500 miles maybe and they are seperated by two or three countries. What does that have to do with anything?
"PPS. Why does the TSA need millions of hollow point bullets (they don't carry guns)?" We've been through this. The folks who screen your luggage aren't armed; thousands of other DHS employees do. Try to keep up with thehoaxes, will ya?
Finally--a classic--"What percent of the U.S. armed forces is now foreign troops?" None. We have many non-citizens in the US Armed Forces, and we work in conjunction with other countries, but your claim/fear/paranoia makes no sense.
Peace to you too. I'd just wish you'd sign off permanently and seek professional help before you hurt someone.
Posted - 8/28/2013 9:43:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruise; We've been here before.
Citing the War Powers Act is a fool's errand. The last time Congress declared war was 1941. The 1973 law requires a President to notify Congress within 48 hours of launching military action, and bars U.S. armed forces from fighting for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional approval.
Besides that, even you recognize a UN Resolution would do, but that looks doubtful at this point. In any event, we already mock you for your claim to be a scientific genius, don't compound our gag-reflex by setting yourself up as a Const expert.
Bush "rescued" the Iraqis--to the tune of 100,00 dead and wounded Iraqis and Americans, spending $2 trillion in the process--but if Obama can help prevent further chemical warfare (the MOST repugnant horrible kind of warfare that can be)--without putting American lives at risk--THAT in your book is just an impeachable atrocity. The mind reels.
(PS to con. You're just a laugh. And a credit to your cause...whatever the hell that is. Anyone who can take the time to write "taken to skool" and "does little to improve your credibility" all in one sentence has all the alpha waves of a carrot. Thinkerate on that one)
Posted - 8/28/2013 9:59:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
you done? how about posting on topic next time......
Posted - 8/28/2013 10:19:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
"The 1973 law requires a President to..."
The 1973 law requires the president to NOT initiate hostilities UNLESS and UNTIL:
(1) There is a congressional declaration of war,
(2) There is specific statutory authorization, maning a law passed by congress or a valid and binding treaty, or
(3) A national emergency has been created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
King Obama cannot...repeat, CANNOT...just fire off a bunch of Tomahawk missile whenever he gets pissed at someone.
We HAVE been here before. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.
Posted - 8/28/2013 10:51:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
obama, in his own words-
" The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Posted - 8/28/2013 11:27:41 PM | show profile | flag this post
Posted - 8/29/2013 3:40:34 AM | show profile | flag this post
You guys are dreaming up fake scenarios, then hollering about them.
I hear the call of the loons!
Posted - 8/29/2013 6:23:44 AM | show profile | flag this post
Thank you Grateful
But attacking the president for something--anything--that he hasn't even done yet is par for the course around here.
And I apologize for the length of my post there con, but you wingnuts spew a lot of sewage, and apparently unlike you, I have to work all day.
Posted - 8/29/2013 9:06:05 AM | show profile | flag this post
The U.S. has strategic...
and military interests in the region. Our ability to navigate the seas, the security of U.S. military bases and personnel in the region and treaty obligations of the U.S. to it's NATO allies are also affected by Syria's use of chemical weapons. (Remember, Turkey is facing an influx of refugees and Syria has shot down one of it's aircraft in international air space -- technically an act of war against all NATO partners.)
There is a legitimate stake in a response if it's confirmed it was in fact the Syrian government that carried out gas attacks.
Posted - 8/29/2013 9:23:21 AM | show profile | flag this post
Newscred does raise an important issue...
that the gas attacks could have been staged to bring NATO into the war.
That's why I've repeatedly said the confirmation process has to be very exact before the U.S. joins any response.
As I said, no more Iraqs.
Posted - 8/29/2013 11:10:11 AM | show profile | flag this post
"Our ability to navigate the seas"
That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen from you.
Exactly how the hell is Syria's "gigantic" (read: nearly nonexistent...it could almost be berthed in your bathtub) navy going to threaten ours? You're stark raving nuts.
Posted - 8/29/2013 1:19:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
How did you extract "gigantic" out of ES's post, cruiser?
It doesn't take a navy at all to use projectile/rocket-borne chemical weapons against whatever floats in the Mediterranean.
Posted - 8/29/2013 1:35:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
The situation in Syria is a regional threat....
it poses the risk of spreading through the region, affecting travel in the Med and Red Seas and the Suez Canal.
Considering that Syria's two primary allies are Hezbollah and Iran, and considering that a collapsing Assad regime would be more likely to use chemical agents -- and likely to bring in support from these two allies -- Look at a map and, yes, it threatens U.S. Naval operations in multiple chokepoints in the region.
But the more important justification for action is the threat to the NATO alliance.
We are bound by the NATO treaty -- and by the Constitution to honor that treaty.
Posted - 8/29/2013 3:31:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
"The situation in Syria is a regional threat"
Exactly...and therefore NOT covered under the War Powers Act.
But beyond that, if Obama doesn't do something attention-grabbing and with a big effect (something more than blowing holes in empty tents) he'll look even weaker and less credible than he does now.
Posted - 8/29/2013 6:07:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
and yet, he'll go to sleep tonight in the white house..
as the twice-elected president of the united states..
while you'll go to sleep in your mom's basement as an unemployed, old, narcissistic egomaniac who refers to other posters as his "audience"..
yeah, cruiztwit.. we're your "audience" only in the sense that we can get belly laughs out of what you're saying..we're also ron white's audience..but he's genuinely funny..
you're just pathetic..
Posted - 8/29/2013 7:21:33 PM | show profile | flag this post
Looks like Obama's
coalition of the "willing" is falling apart. British Prime Minister Cameron lost a vote in Parliament that would have authorized Britain to participate in Obama's folly.
Now if France will come to its senses maybe we can force Odumbo to rethink this harebrained scheme.
Any military action that is not designed to win...and win decisively...is moronic. We should have learned that in the last few wars that we fought mainly for the purpose of maintaining the status quo.
Posted - 8/29/2013 8:02:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
" the last few wars that we fought"
Oh regale us, how many of those did you fight?
Posted - 8/29/2013 8:40:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
The contradictions keep growing exponentially
cruise keeps quoting the War Powers Act. Fine.
IF "There is a congressional declaration of war" We've been thru that, hasn't happened since Pearl Harbor. "There is specific statutory authorization" Well, that MAY happen, we don't know yet, because the POTUS hasn't done anything yet. (WHY don't you keep forgetting that?) "or a valid and binding treaty" Oops. NATO IS a valid and binding treaty. Throwing crap around like "King Obama" and "Odumbo" just makes you look silly.
And you keep conveniently forgetting that other part of the ACT; "requires a President to notify Congress within 48 hours of launching military action, and bars U.S. armed forces from fighting for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional approval." He (or President Romney) could launch the missiles tonight, notify Boehner, etal tomorrow, and be within the law.
As far as Britain is concerned; I have no problem with their hesitation. They want to be as close to 100% certain as humanly possible. BECAUSE OF BUSH. Now that's an embarassing fact cruise doesn't want to admit. "Cameron assured lawmakers Thursday: "We must not let the specter of previous mistakes paralyze our ability to stand up for what is right." Gee. Blimey, who is he talking about?
"Lord Paddy Ashdown said: “I remember well trying to persuade parliament that we needed to intervene in Bosnia - when we were under shadow of Vietnam. Now here we are and I think living under the shadow of Iraq.
"But this is not Iraq, we are not putting boots on the ground and we are not invading and above all this is not George W. Bush it's Obama."
Couldn't have said that better.