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.

(ABC)   "Five repercussions of a military strike in Syria." Only five?   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 30
    More: Obvious, U.S., U.S. military, ramifications, Anthony Cordesman, Heads of state of Syria, Fars News Agency  
•       •       •

5553 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 8:59 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-29 08:49:58 AM
3 votes:

somedude210: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

moral authority?


Get rid of gitmo and the TSA and then we can discuss regaining our moral authority. In this case it just seems like we drop bombs on the middle east because we forgot how to do anything else.
2013-08-29 08:34:33 AM
3 votes:

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.
2013-08-29 10:44:08 AM
2 votes:

phenn: When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.



It's an entertaining test -- to see if the Proggies love Obama more than they hate Bush.

It's even more entertaining when you consider the possibility that the chemical weapons that Obama is illegally attacking may be the same stockpile of weapons that Iraq moved to Syria just before the Iraq war in 2003 (as top Iraqi military officials later asserted).

3.bp.blogspot.com

This military campaign by the Proggies' man-crush Obama could, in a single move, both vindicate the Bush administration on the "fabricated WMDs" narrative, AND reveal Obama to be MORE willing to launch an unpopular war than Bush, on account of his failure to even seek the approval of Congress.
2013-08-29 09:25:06 AM
2 votes:

Weaver95: AngryDragon: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: No matter what happens or doesn't happen, however, the US will get blamed

Which is exactly why we should stay out of it.  Let the Russians or Turks, hell ANYONE in Europe step in if this is such an imperative.

Then we get blamed for not getting involved.


If the risk of American soldiers dying drops to zero and American tax payers funding the killing of people overseas disappears, I'm OK with this.
2013-08-29 09:18:21 AM
2 votes:
I've said it before that there was a previous chemical weapons attack in Syria months ago. The French government claimed it was Assad's forces that committed the attack but a UN investigation pointed to the rebels. Why do they get a free pass?

That doesn't excuse the regime from using chemical weapons and while I trust Obama more than Bush I don't support any intervention without solid evidence that the regime conducted the attack. Assad was winning, why risk foreign intervention by using chemical weapons? To terrorize the enemy? Just bomb them or shoot them like they've been doing over the last few years.
2013-08-29 09:12:48 AM
2 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: No matter what happens or doesn't happen, however, the US will get blamed


Which is exactly why we should stay out of it.  Let the Russians or Turks, hell ANYONE in Europe step in if this is such an imperative.
2013-08-29 08:22:41 AM
2 votes:
I'd like to see clear unrefutable evidence that Assad was responsible. Not because I doubt the official evidence, but because I can't put up with 10 years of conspiracy theorists and false flag claims. It does my head in. I see no reason to rush this, we've waited 3 years while they shot each other, we can wait another few weeks to prove, unequivocally, that they've started killing each other slightly differently.
2013-08-29 08:22:39 AM
2 votes:

Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?


Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.
2013-08-29 04:34:11 PM
1 votes:

Neighborhood Watch: Looks like this thing is going to happen...


Oh it certainly is. Akrotiri AFB in Cyprus is currently being filled up with B2s and stealth drones. UN is pulling people out on Saturday, earlier than they planned. It's coming real soon.
2013-08-29 11:29:36 AM
1 votes:
6)  Top US General's Read "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler and realize they are no longer protecting America and are protecting Oil/Gas Cartels and Usury banking.  So instead of attacking Syria on the basis of lies and propaganda they use facts and evidence by following the money to attack the traitors and criminals within the US government.  Everyone connected with PNAC and AIPAC are arrested and pressured to give up information on their superiors(without the use of torture but lesser sentences if not immunity).  The Federal Reserve Bank's Charter is to be revoked as congress is disbanded and new "fair" elections to take place that eliminate the 2 party system of dominance giving equal time and money to any canidate that accumulates enough of popular support from individuals not groups what ever that number is.  An updated version of the Constitution is created and signed by Any member State or Nation, Now called the United States of Earth. The Central Banking scheme is permanently banned.  Prosperity, justice, and the rule of law return to the US and expanded to the rest of the world through open communication and compromise rather than by force of arms and bullying.
2013-08-29 11:19:29 AM
1 votes:

simplicimus: OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?


Libya was way past 1942 and Obama refused to act within the bounds of the law there too.

The War Powers Resolution was a massive victory for Democrats. They passed it over an outright veto by Nixon.

Now we're going to throw it away because Obama?

Fark that.
2013-08-29 10:32:43 AM
1 votes:

simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.

So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?

The president does not have the power to declare war. That's the law. The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.


You're a liar.

I notice you left out the part of the War Power Act that says this:

SEC. 3. 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.

Funny how you could miss the sentence right before the section you quoted.

Obama is violating the War Powers Act by deciding on his own to attack another nation that has not attacked us without consulting with Congress.
2013-08-29 10:29:20 AM
1 votes:

phenn: When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.


Who exactly is pining for war that is a Farklibulartardo? The way I see it, the only good thing to come from the rabid hate of Obama from the right is that maybe now with a coalition of peace-niks and Obamaphobes we may actually have the traction to put the brakes on this insane venture.
2013-08-29 10:25:22 AM
1 votes:

BullBearMS: simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.

So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?


The president does not have the power to declare war. That's the law. The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.
2013-08-29 10:14:31 AM
1 votes:

simplicimus: He doesn't have to.


This is an outright lie.

As both Senator Obama and Senator Biden pointed out when running for office.

The President has no power to attack other nations except in the case that they attack us first.

Hell, Biden threatened to impeach Bushif he attacked Iran without them attacking us first.
2013-08-29 10:13:49 AM
1 votes:

somedude210: I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games


I'm hearing that Americans are overwhelmingly farking tired of being the world's policemen and sick of warfare.  I don't think we really care who the president is.  It doesn't seem to matter anymore.
2013-08-29 10:11:28 AM
1 votes:

somedude210: there is evidence that chemical weapons were used


Try listening to Mr. former UN inspector guy.

"But the second question ... is that of provenance. Where do they come from, and who authorized or directed they be used? And in my mind now, that now has become the crucial question in determining what action should be taken, if the global norm against any use of chemical weapons has been violated, which appears that it has. Who violated it, and who is responsible? And already we hear widespread arguments developing.

"Just a few moments before coming here, V.P. of the U.S. Joe Biden said he is completely satisfied that this was directed by the Assad government. ... I respect him, and he may well be satisfied, but I want to make this point to you. ... Him being completely satisfied is not the same as the evidence being made available to the world public.

"If it is the case that the evidence exists, (then) the U.S. and all people who are interested in this terrible problem need to have it demonstrated, not just stated, but demonstrated, that it is beyond doubt, incontrovertible that this was directed by the Syrian regime. And if that proves to be the case, then the whole issue of what action to be taken gets to be a whole lot clearer
."


Also, since Biden is claiming incontrovertible proof, let's remember what Biden's position on the Iraq war was.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to 2002, because it's important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing. Here's Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein: "He's a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security."

"We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world."

"He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power." You were emphatic about that.

Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued-they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream.


Why should we believe this retard again after he was so stupendously wrong the last time?
2013-08-29 10:04:54 AM
1 votes:

BullBearMS: simplicimus: McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.

Are you trying to Claim the President can't call Congress out of recess just like Cameron just called Parliament out of recess?


He doesn't have to. Here's his legal responsibility under the War Powers Act:

"In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth-
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Congress has 60 days to take action, voting yea or nay.

dentalhilljack: simplicimus:

McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.

Why would a Senator call the House out of recess?

My Bad, Boehner needs to call the House into session, McConnell the Senate.
2013-08-29 10:01:49 AM
1 votes:

J. Frank Parnell: heard it was you that used chemical weapons in Syria, in violation of international law. If i get enough people talking about, does that make it true?


if it's shown that Assad ordered the use, then there is reason to go in and arrest him for war crimes.

And there is evidence that chemical weapons were used. But if we're never going to bother adhering to and enforcing international laws that we made to combat the use of such weapons, what the hell is the point of having international law then?

I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games
2013-08-29 09:49:38 AM
1 votes:
Not our business, no threat to is. No more unprovoked wars.
2013-08-29 09:41:54 AM
1 votes:
I like how not bombing people is "isolationism". As if wonton murder is the only way the US has to interact with the world.

It would be pathetic and sad if it weren't so frightening.
2013-08-29 09:41:02 AM
1 votes:
Nutsac_Jim: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.


Joe DimWit said that Bush had "no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."

But you have to remember that this is the Administration of Hypocrisy....it's allowed.
2013-08-29 09:34:59 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.
2013-08-29 09:22:29 AM
1 votes:

doyner: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.



Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that the use of military force in Iraq was approved by Congress.

I am certainly getting sick of the US killing people and wasting untold billions just to depose dictators half way around the world in countries that pose no security threat to the United States, based on evidence that turns out to be largely exaggerated or outright false.

It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.
2013-08-29 09:18:24 AM
1 votes:
Let the UN handle it, Russia and china walked out.
2013-08-29 09:17:05 AM
1 votes:
For Christ's sake, Obama. We can't even get our shet straight at home and you want to start another pharking war? what the hell is wrong with you? bad game of horse on the Whitehouse bb court or something? Jesus, man, just let it go, and focus on fixing our healthcare, national broadband access, job creation, etc. Stop trying to copy Bush II's parental appeasement psychological issues. Be our president, not our Dennis Rodman. phark!
2013-08-29 09:11:26 AM
1 votes:
Its like if the nazis were fighting the KKK, you wait till they off each other then take out the remaining

/worse attriocities are going on arround the world and yet we have done nothing, Best Korea for decades is a good example
2013-08-29 09:05:25 AM
1 votes:

doyner: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.


Didn't we? I distinctly remember marches and rallies millions of people big filling up cites.

I'm amazed that the level of dissent we're hearing is nothing in comparison to what we heard 10 years ago.
2013-08-29 08:55:07 AM
1 votes:

doyner: somedude210: doyner: I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

to be fair, chemical weapons were never actually used 10 years ago. An entirely different situation altogether

All the more reason...


I'm just getting tired of being told I should STFU and just go along with our middle east bombing runs without asking questions.
2013-08-29 08:15:44 AM
1 votes:

somedude210: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

chemical weapons actually being used. At least, that's what I assume. Maybe we're trying to make up for not helping the Kurds getting gassed back in the 90s?


Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report