If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Iran works with Russia to stop the US from attacking Syria by threatening to attack Israel. I guess it's pretty serious   (chron.com) divider line 187
    More: Followup, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syrian President Bashar Assad, U.S. Naval, Hassan Rowhani, Heads of state of Syria, President of Iran  
•       •       •

5599 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 9:48 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-29 04:05:32 PM

BullBearMS: What you're talking about is the authorty of the President to react for 60 days without consulting Congress if we are attacked first.


Well, he crapped all over that law with Libya and he wasn't impeached as he ought to have been, so why would he pay attention to it now?
 
2013-08-29 04:13:56 PM

YixilTesiphon: BullBearMS: What you're talking about is the authorty of the President to react for 60 days without consulting Congress if we are attacked first.

Well, he crapped all over that law with Libya and he wasn't impeached as he ought to have been, so why would he pay attention to it now?


Who ever accused Bush or Obama of staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

In this case, Obama is actually worse, because although Bush claimed early on that he could go to war without consulting Congress, in the end, he gave in. Congress passed one authorization for the war in Afghanistan and another for the war in Iraq.
 
2013-08-29 04:15:28 PM

BullBearMS: YixilTesiphon: BullBearMS: What you're talking about is the authorty of the President to react for 60 days without consulting Congress if we are attacked first.

Well, he crapped all over that law with Libya and he wasn't impeached as he ought to have been, so why would he pay attention to it now?

Who ever accused Bush or Obama of staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 800x192]

In this case, Obama is actually worse, because although Bush claimed early on that he could go to war without consulting Congress, in the end, he gave in. Congress passed one authorization for the war in Afghanistan and another for the war in Iraq.


BarryO is really playing "everything you can do I can do better" with all of Bush's worst legacies.
 
2013-08-29 04:16:49 PM

Mose: Sliding Carp: shifty lookin bleeder: Agarista: BAD!

All you naughty monkeys go re-read your Huntington.

[claudiolandi.files.wordpress.com image 314x475]

Yes, neoconservatism is clearly the answer. It's worked so well for us.

I don't think  he was suggesting that was the correct answer, rather pointing out that that is the plan being followed by the US government including, disappointingly, Obama's administrationi.

Now we're blaming this on the Italians??


I surely cannot be the only one to notice that it does not matter which/whose "administration" it happens to be?
Just maybe the "administration" has NOT A FARKING THING to do with it?
 
2013-08-29 04:26:19 PM

Dr Dreidel: The reason for the US to strike Syria is so that Israel doesn't.

1) If the US bombs Syria, what can they do? Conventional warfare from 6000 miles away? A suicide bomb at an embassy (resulting in MORE drones a-flyin')? If Israel bombs Syria, it'd make the Second Intifada look like a lame frat party.
2) If Israel attacks, they'll be far less restrained than the US. We'd send some cruise missiles and a few drones; Israel would roll tanks and flatten enough area for a DMZ (if not worse).
3) If Israel is the aggressor, the response would definitely come from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon... If the US is the aggressor, Syria's probably on their own, with maybe some equipment from China/Russia and rhetoric from Iran (possibly some light insurgency sourced to them, like Pakistanis in Afghanistan).


nah, i think Israel should totally be the one to deal with this, i mean, they wanted to live over there, they should be prepared to deal with the backlash on their own
 
2013-08-29 04:44:49 PM

BullBearMS: 60


Where in your posted blue page does it talk about 60 days?


Here again from

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 ([1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 [2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [4][5]
 
2013-08-29 04:56:26 PM

Panatheist: nah, i think Israel should totally be the one to deal with this, i mean, they wanted to live over there, they should be prepared to deal with the backlash on their own


The backlash wouldn't just be felt in Israel, and it'd be a whole lot stronger than if the US/UN/NATO/some other coalition acted.

Trust me, I think Syria would prefer a handful of US cruise missiles over a months-long campaign by the Israelis. If they begin to doubt that, they can ask Lebanon how it worked out for them.

// also, Israel has no more reason to attack Syria over chemical weapons than anyone else (save for geographic reasons), and Syria hasn't shown intent to use them outside its own borders
 
2013-08-29 04:57:31 PM

wolfjc: BullBearMS: 60

Where in your posted blue page does it talk about 60 days?


Here again from

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 ([1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 [2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [4][5]


Just a heads up, Bull pulled all this crap way earlier up thread. Guess someone took his spot under the bridge so he came back.
 
2013-08-29 05:01:30 PM

simplicimus: Just a heads up, Bull pulled all this crap way earlier up thread. Guess someone took his spot under the bridge so he came back.


Just a heads up.

You admitted you were lying in that other thread when you made the same lying ass claims.

Now you're trolling about the exact same bullshiat again?
 
2013-08-29 05:05:42 PM
 
2013-08-29 05:07:08 PM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: Just a heads up, Bull pulled all this crap way earlier up thread. Guess someone took his spot under the bridge so he came back.

Just a heads up.

You admitted you were lying in that other thread when you made the same lying ass claims.

Now you're trolling about the exact same bullshiat again?


Because my claims have evidence?
 
2013-08-29 05:12:29 PM

simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Just a heads up, Bull pulled all this crap way earlier up thread. Guess someone took his spot under the bridge so he came back.

Just a heads up.

You admitted you were lying in that other thread when you made the same lying ass claims.

Now you're trolling about the exact same bullshiat again?

Because my claims have evidence?


No. No they don't.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

That is the text of the War Powers Resolution.

Obama broke the law and started an Unconstitutional war in Libya.

Now he wants to do it again in Syria.
Even Bush got authorization from Congress.
 
2013-08-29 05:27:33 PM

Panatheist: Dr Dreidel: The reason for the US to strike Syria is so that Israel doesn't.

1) If the US bombs Syria, what can they do? Conventional warfare from 6000 miles away? A suicide bomb at an embassy (resulting in MORE drones a-flyin')? If Israel bombs Syria, it'd make the Second Intifada look like a lame frat party.
2) If Israel attacks, they'll be far less restrained than the US. We'd send some cruise missiles and a few drones; Israel would roll tanks and flatten enough area for a DMZ (if not worse).
3) If Israel is the aggressor, the response would definitely come from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon... If the US is the aggressor, Syria's probably on their own, with maybe some equipment from China/Russia and rhetoric from Iran (possibly some light insurgency sourced to them, like Pakistanis in Afghanistan).

nah, i think Israel should totally be the one to deal with this, i mean, they wanted to live over there, they should be prepared to deal with the backlash on their own



Most of the Jews that found themselves in Israel when it became a State did NOT want to be there. They were dragged there, kicking and screaming, by the Zionists (and their Nazi sheep dogs). They would MUCH rather have remained in Europe - but they had no choice.


Dr Dreidel: The backlash wouldn't just be felt in Israel, and it'd be a whole lot stronger than if the US/UN/NATO/some other coalition acted.

Trust me, I think Syria would prefer a handful of US cruise missiles over a months-long campaign by the Israelis. If they begin to doubt that, they can ask Lebanon how it worked out for them.

// also, Israel has no more reason to attack Syria over chemical weapons than anyone else (save for geographic reasons), and Syria hasn't shown intent to use them outside its own borders


This is totally unjustified attack on Syria is Israel's baby. They hate AssadCo, and have been whining for the US to rid them of "WMD's" since before we went apeshiat in Iraq (on Israel's behalf) in 2003. The CIA and the Mossad have been jointly working to train operatives to work on the behalf of the "rebels", said operatives being set loose on their way to Damascus days before the latest CW attack.

Coincidence, right?

Izzy is trying like hell to distance herself from the mess that SHE created (in cooperation with AIPAC fed hawks in the US) - pretending like they played no role, and want nothing to do with it.

Bullshiat.

As shiat hits the fan in Syria, and bits of the stinky stuff blow back onto Israel, Izzy will whine, howl, kvetch and cry - blaming the US for how they're "suffering", and sending us the bill for the trouble, no doubt.


/Standard
//Operating
///Procedure
 
2013-08-29 06:38:31 PM
Bull,
Here's a link to the full WPR. It's far too long to paste.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541
I already pointed out the Nato exclusion for Libya. Still not Obama's war.
 
2013-08-29 06:46:40 PM

simplicimus: I already pointed out the Nato exclusion for Libya. Still not Obama's war.


NATO was in existence for decades before Congress passed this:

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Notice that it does not say unless NATO or unless Obama.

Give it a rest, troll. You've already admitted to being lying about the War Powers Resolution once today.
 
2013-08-29 06:52:06 PM
 
2013-08-29 07:13:06 PM
People keep saying lines in the sand and it reminds me of that old Looney Toons where Bugs and Yosemite are going at it and he says "I dare ya to step across this line" and he keeps stepping over each line Bugs draws until he steps right off of a cliff.  This situation would seem to be apropos.

One article I read said Obama would unlikely help Israel out if Iran were to attack, but since we know that in the past conflicts involving Israel, they pretty much kick ass and take names without having asked for help.  Do I remember right but in Gulf War I, when Sadaam shot scuds that hit Tel Aviv, hadn't Israel pretty much gotten ready to end it right then and there and were scrambling jets with nuclear warheads ready to go straight to Baghdad?
 
2013-08-29 07:47:46 PM
songbookofkartika.files.wordpress.com

"It's a Peace Prize Winner, starting the Third World War"
 
2013-08-30 04:05:27 AM

Amos Quito: Most of the Jews that found themselves in Israel when it became a State did NOT want to be there. They were dragg


Ah! your old 'Holocaust was a jewish conspiracy orchestrated by the 'zionists' for the creation of Israel' conspiracy bullcrap.
If you're going for the classics, why not cherry-pick a single comment, removing it from its context, of Ben Gurion to support your lying bullshiat ?

Amos Quito: This is totally unjustified attack on Syria is Israel's baby.


Why do you 'ease into it' from the beginning of the thread and not just spit it out ? are you ashamed of your anti-semitism ? say it "it was the jews" like you already did, like you blamed the revolution in Egypt on the jews, hell, even like you blamed "the jews" for JFK's murder and so on.

The WMD attacks in Syria were made by Assad's people, based on every evidence collected so far and which will be disclosed in the following week. You think Syrian Alawites slaughtering Syrian Sunnis is a new thing in Syria ? Assad is simply following his father's footsteps. if you're at it, why not blame "the jews" for that one as well ?
 
2013-08-30 11:34:40 AM

TappingTheVein: The WMD attacks in Syria were made by Assad's people, based on every evidence collected so far and which will be disclosed in the following week.


You seem to be leaving out one really huge factor.

The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons - which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action - has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported.
 
2013-08-30 11:47:16 AM

BullBearMS: The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons - which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action - has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported.


You think the US, or  Britain did not collect their own intelligence reports about what happened ?
Does it make sense to you that the anti-Assad side attacked themselves with chemical weapons ? and somehow forced the Syrian troops to prevent UN inspections in those areas ?
 
2013-08-30 01:19:37 PM

TappingTheVein: Does it make sense to you that the anti-Assad side attacked themselves with chemical weapons ?


You do realize these "rebels" you are speaking out on behalf of are affiliated with Al Qaeda, don't you?

A Syrian rebel group's April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda's replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group's influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Do you seriously think Al Qaeda wouldn't gas civilians to try to get us to do something stupid?
 
2013-08-30 01:21:46 PM

BullBearMS: You do realize these "rebels" you are speaking out on behalf of are affiliated with Al Qaeda, don't you?

A Syrian rebel group's April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda's replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group's influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Do you seriously think Al Qaeda wouldn't gas civilians to try to get us to do something stupid?


Obama's administration seems to agree with me.
 
2013-08-30 01:35:14 PM

BullBearMS: You do realize these "rebels" you are speaking out on behalf of are affiliated with Al Qaeda, don't you?


Oh and "the rebels" are not one group, there are many different groups. some secular and democratic, some the worse kind of islamic fundamentalists.
 
2013-08-30 02:00:37 PM

TappingTheVein: BullBearMS: You do realize these "rebels" you are speaking out on behalf of are affiliated with Al Qaeda, don't you?

A Syrian rebel group's April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda's replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group's influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Do you seriously think Al Qaeda wouldn't gas civilians to try to get us to do something stupid?

Obama's administration seems to agree with me.


This guy?

Arriving in the Middle East today for top-level negotiations with Palestinian and Israeli officials, a man who could not even devise a way to beat George W. Bush in a head-to-head vote will spend the next several days attempting to bring a peaceful resolution to the most intractable global conflict of the modern era, State Department sources confirmed. "We are confident that [this person who managed to win just 19 states against George W. Bush, even in the midst of two highly unpopular and costly foreign wars] will be able to establish a framework to bring about lasting peace in the Middle East," said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, stating that the diplomat, who was actually deemed by the American populace to be a worse option than four more years of an administration led by a former baseball team owner and Dick Cheney, could provide the leadership necessary to resolve the bitter, bloody conflict that has raged for more than six decades. "[The individual whose sole goal for more than a year was to make the simple case that he would do a better job than one of the most disliked and poorly rated politicians of all time, and who decisively failed at this singular task] will lay out his bold vision for a road map to peace, and it's one that we believe both Israelis and Palestinians will be very receptive to. Our best hope for a safe, prosperous Middle East lies with [a guy who came in second to a former substance abuser who nearly choked to death on a pretzel]." Sources throughout Israel and the Palestinian territories said they were optimistic about a peace deal, saying they were eager to hear the ideas of the husband of a powerful food-processing heiress.
 
2013-08-30 02:06:23 PM

BullBearMS: This guy?


You think he pulled what he said from his ass without on hand proof and he doesn't have the backing of the Obama administration ?
 
2013-08-30 02:34:33 PM

TappingTheVein: BullBearMS: This guy?

You think he pulled what he said from his ass without on hand proof and he doesn't have the backing of the Obama administration ?


Since the AP, Washington Post, and NY Times are all publishing articles saying the evidence is "no slam dunk" and things like "there is no smoking gun" I'm not willing to say we should do anything before the UN report comes in

No matter how profitable war is.
 
2013-08-30 02:39:42 PM

BullBearMS: Since the AP, Washington Post, and NY Times are all publishing articles saying the evidence is "no slam dunk" and things like "there is no smoking gun" I'm not willing to say we should do anything before the UN report comes in


Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.

BullBearMS: No matter how profitable war is.


And  who cares about a madman's massacre of his own people.
 
2013-08-30 03:11:37 PM

TappingTheVein: BullBearMS: Since the AP, Washington Post, and NY Times are all publishing articles saying the evidence is "no slam dunk" and things like "there is no smoking gun" I'm not willing to say we should do anything before the UN report comes in

Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.

BullBearMS: No matter how profitable war is.

And  who cares about a madman's massacre of his own people.


Sure. Let's just ignore what happened the last time!

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
 
2013-08-30 03:24:25 PM

BullBearMS: Sure. Let's just ignore what happened the last time!

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.


I was under the impression you are aware i'm talking about the latest attack resulting in 1429 dead including 426 children. the same attack Obama's administration was referring to. Now you do.

How many died in the sarin attack by the rebels and which rebel faction was it ?
 
2013-08-30 03:27:28 PM

TappingTheVein: I was under the impression you are aware i'm talking about the latest attack


My goodness, you certainly seem to have your heat set on warmongering when we know that past allegations have proven untrue and that the current allegations are being called "no slam dunk" and "no smoking gun".

Explain to us why we shouldn't wait for the results of the UN investigation given recent history?
 
2013-08-30 03:27:37 PM

BullBearMS: Sure. Let's just ignore what happened the last time!


And from your own link: "but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated".
Contrary to the attack by Assad's forces.
 
2013-08-30 03:30:33 PM

BullBearMS: My goodness, you certainly seem to have your heat set on warmongering when we know that past allegations have proven untrue and that the current allegations are being called "no slam dunk" and "no smoking gun".


my heart is not set on anything, i think something has to be done in Syria but i don't think a US attack will improve the situation.
However i am aware there is undeniable proof that Assad forces used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.

And i repeat since you ignored it:  Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.

BullBearMS: Explain to us why we shouldn't wait for the results of the UN investigation given recent history?


Who said we shouldn't ?
 
2013-08-30 03:40:26 PM

TappingTheVein: i am aware there is undeniable proof that Assad forces used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.


You keep saying that, despite the fact that multiple newspapers are reporting that this is not true.

Why is that?
 
2013-08-30 03:43:06 PM

BullBearMS: You keep saying that, despite the fact that multiple newspapers are reporting that this is not true


Third time:  Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.
Wait for Sunday's papers for the updated info.
 
2013-08-30 04:08:19 PM

TappingTheVein: Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.


Kerry also said we should totally take down Saddam because of his WMD's.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security
 
2013-08-30 04:20:58 PM

BullBearMS: Kerry also said we should totally take down Saddam because of his WMD's.


If you fail to understand the difference here i can't help you. Maybe go smear the foam coming out of the mouths of hundreds of dead children who died horrific deaths from chemical attacks on your face to get a hint how this is not similar in any way to Iraq.
 
Displayed 37 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report