Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Not necessarily.

How so?
If the calculations are off by reason of insanity they are not calculated.
He described breiviks manifesto as rational and calculated, it was all just insanity though despite the lengthy calculations the nut had put into it.

[BossMark]

In light of the UK parliament deciding to take no action against Syria the French have decided on their best course of action and have immediately surrendered to the Syrian Regime.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by BossMark

In light of the UK parliament deciding to take no action against Syria the French have decided on their best course of action and have immediately surrendered to the Syrian Regime.

Actually, to be technical we've surrendered and it's the French that are probably going to attack.

But tea-drinking surrender monkeys doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well...

[Wolferz]

Best course of action is take no action unless it spills over their borders.
It's their civil war after all.

Now let's see what the eared penis does next.

[Skybird]

The latest poll from France has 60% of the French population being strictly against the Syria strike. I forgot how many were undecided, I think it was around 20% undecidede, 20% in favour for strike.

So it is more a Hollande-the-great-presidential-French-leader style of thing.

Opposition in Britain, Germany and the US all is beyond the 60% level, it seems.

[Platapus]

An interesting note: Every US president since 1973 has issued formal statements proclaiming that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and that the President does not consider himself bound by it.

Unfortunately, until the WPA is formally challenged, the SCotUS won't issue a Writ of Certiorari. It is up to the Congress to hold the POTUS accountable for the WPA.

Equally unfortunate, congress, since 1973, seems unwilling to challenge the WPA. That would be a very interesting court case to follow.

Let's just hope that if Congress issues an Authorization for Military Action for Syria, that they close up the loopholes that were in the last one.

One should NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER grant a president the authority to 'use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or person he determines......"

You can drive several trucks through that loophole!

Any authorization of military force from the Congress must have boundaries and time limits for re-authorization.

Anyone wanna bet on this?

Don't worry, the Syrians will greet us as liberators.

(They did not throw out Bush's Mission Accomplished sign did they?)

[Ducimus]

A long time ago, back when i still wore a uniform, I came to the conclusion that all presidents like war to some degree. They get to "play with the toys", look like champions of all that we value, and get the peoples minds off the problems they can not fix - all in one go.

On that note, i once saw a political cartoon with the caricature of a "baby" version of the sitting president at the time (i forget who, either Clinton or one of the Bush's), sitting in a bubble bath, playing with their toys, making animated noises. The toys were planes, ships, and army figures. Wish I could find that cartoon, it's always been fitting.

[mapuc]

It's very clearly why so many people in different countries are against any type of intervention in Syria

There's two reasons:

1. We have just finished two wars in Middle east

2. The government controlled propaganda haven't had time to affect the people in these countries. If they have had time they needed it would have been otherwise today.

[Platapus]

I have often thought that pretty much anyone can be a good president during a war (especially a limited one). All you have to do is keep the public fired up and pump money into the MIC and Bob's your Uncle. Other domestic problems can be pushed aside in the name of expediency of the war mission.

Now, being a good president in times of peace is, in my opinion, is much harder. Then the president has to focus on the more difficult domestic problems and there is little that can emotionally distract the citizens.

So, yeah, I think the presidents would see the advantage of the political distractions of being a "war president".

What disturbs me, as a citizen, is what appear to be in the last 20+ years, is an eagerness of US presidents to engage in military action.

Military action should be the very last option. I fear that it has become one of the first. And that's not right, in my opinion.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The latest poll from France has 60% of the French population being strictly against the Syria strike. I forgot how many were undecided, I think it was around 20% undecidede, 20% in favour for strike.

So it is more a Hollande-the-great-presidential-French-leader style of thing.

Opposition in Britain, Germany and the US all is beyond the 60% level, it seems.

A yougov poll in the UK put support for boots on ground non-UN military action at 9%. In regards to missiles, the support rate was 25% and non-support at 50%.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/25/...s-or-soldiers/

And:
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upload...lts-230813.pdf

[Platapus]

I would like President Obama to provide the answers to three important questions.

1. What is the objective(s) of our military action in Syria?
2. How will we measure failure or success in our progress toward those objectives?
3. What is the exit criteria for success and for failure?

If the President can make these arguments, I would be more willing to support this proposed military action in Syria.

In my opinion, if the president can't answer these questions fully, we should not consider military action in any country.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The latest poll from France has 60% of the French population being strictly against the Syria strike. I forgot how many were undecided, I think it was around 20% undecidede, 20% in favour for strike.

So it is more a Hollande-the-great-presidential-French-leader style of thing.

Opposition in Britain, Germany and the US all is beyond the 60% level, it seems.

I like how everyone's supposed to assess the validity of that poll (doesn't have anything to do with you personally, Skybird).

But that one needs to be quoted once again, for everyone to know I'm having a chuckle about it once again :

Originally Posted by Skybird

Hollande-the-great-presidential-French-leader

Originally Posted by Dowly

Israel has been treating wounded Syrians.

So?

Hey dude, care a bit about what you're saying please, you just should be ashamed of yourself for showing such disrespect towards the state of Israel : I'd say myself that reading about its fights against Hezbollah and its constant incursions in the Gaza strip, it's just so very well-known the state of Israel is the greatest friend of real Muslims, you know.
And now the West is beating the drums of war against Syria - with no hard evidence of the use of chemical weapons by armed forces of the Syrian regime - there you can see too how much the US authorities can be neutral in that whole stuff.

The whole thing should be solved through peace talks. Everyone knows it. And the American and European People too. But our armed forces - for what they're worth, LOL - just are the toys of some other authority not caring about the lives of American nor European armed forces.

What Al-Assad is willing to go for is no more than the eradication of terrorists : Jabhat al Nusra, Wahhabi, Salafists and Takfiri. And it is the role he has to play, to fight for the security of his People.
Mr Bashar Al-Assad is the head of state of Syria. The occidental media considers him "a dictator", whatever : Mr Al-Assad is a democratically-elected president. The fact that the West wishes to overthrow him doesn't make him a terrorist, a dictator, or whatever : the West just supports Takfiri - being terrorists themselves - there lies the problem.


But you're watching tv and reading the Daily Mail, so I guess you'll always feel like you're reading the truth there and all.


And now, just to switch to something a bit more interesting... For all reasonable people who wish to get a bit more familiar with the Zionist problem... Just check out. The man is a great enlightened anti-zionist jazzman (saxophonist)/philosopher British by adoption, who's got to be part of the Israeli army in the 70ies if I remember correctly (he may talk about that in that video, I just can't remember actually), and moved to the UK once he's got to smash the myth of the Chosen People, and decided to break the ethnic supremacy wall, letting tribalism aside himself. An half an hour video possibly making some a bit familiar with the difference between proper Judaism, and Zionism. I know it will not catch everyone's attention, but well, some might be interested in that.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I would like President Obama to provide the answers to three important questions.

1. What is the objective(s) of our military action in Syria?
2. How will we measure failure or success in our progress toward those objectives?
3. What is the exit criteria for success and for failure?

If the President can make these arguments, I would be more willing to support this proposed military action in Syria.

In my opinion, if the president can't answer these questions fully, we should not consider military action in any country.

Not bad questions, but President Obama hasn't finished answering the questions on the late response on the Libya terrorist attack on the US mission resulting in the death of four US citizens (of which I was told were US Marines) and one US ambassador Stevens, except to blame the initial reporting as being just talking points.

President Obama is still explaining the NSA/Snowden affair while congressman uncover even more disturbing news.

While the Justice department is still explaining the "Fast and Furious" campaign to trace guns that cross the border and the IRS is still under investigation for stopping the Tea party from obtaining 501 3c status for a non profit organization that even the democratic party has obtained to do the same thing they were stopping the Tea party for, which was to fund political ads, with the latest admission that the orders came from IRS headquarters in Washington.

To back yourself into a corner with the "red line being crossed" is his latest experiment that will also require another explanation.

The only good thing I see is that today is Friday ... "thank God it is Friday"

Post Script: as for all of the polls out there on what to do about Syria from Great Britain, France and the USA we need one right here on subsim, but we need one that all you can do is vote without adding an opinion.

Most of the opinions I see in this thread (being international even) are against using military force in Syria.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Post Script: as for all of the polls out there on what to do about Syria from Great Britain, France and the USA we need one right here on subsim, but we need one that all you can do is vote without adding an opinion.

You can always start a poll here and just choose not to read the comments if you are just interested in the poll numbers.

If polling people posting on a video game website has any importance that is.

[Wolferz]

If polling people posting on a video game website has any importance that is.

I'm sure the president will sit up and take notice of our opinions.

NOT!