War with Syria

K

Karloff_sl

shitlord
907
1
tad10_sl said:
Okay. But if we start putting boots on the ground you go first also Sasha better get drafted and get to the front lines there too. /sarc

If the main argument for attacking Syria is because if we don't it'll make Obama look bad I'm going to say that's a pretty shitty reason.
Click to expand...
Problem is I don't see anyone talking about boots on the ground, even the most zealous warhawks aren't advocating that, least from what I've read.

It's been how long now since the supposed use of chemical weapons and Obama is still thinking about a response, which in my estimation is a good thing.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Karloff_sl said:
Problem is I don't see anyone talking about boots on the ground, even the most zealous warhawks aren't advocating that, least from what I've read.

It's been how long now since the supposed use of chemical weapons and Obama is still thinking about a response, which in my estimation is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Problem is, there's a lot of ways for "we're gonna chuck a few missiles into Syria" to spiral disastrously out of control within a week. Hawks don't need to be talking about boots on the ground when boots on the ground is a significant possible repercussion of what they are advocating.

Obama has had 3 years to plan a response. He's not considering his response. He's considering if he's willing to risk it.

I hope he decides that discretion is the better part of valor. It's not our fuckingjobto make sure derka's don't use sarin gas on each other. Obama's thinking about pulling a Bush and telling the UN to sack up or fuck off... he should be thinking of pulling a Reagan and telling the Saudi's and the Israeli's it's not fucking worth it.
 
vGrade

vGrade

Potato del Grande
1,678
2,566
Lets get this show on the road!!!
rrr_img_41779.jpg

rrr_img_41780.jpg
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
27,180
72,085
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.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Arbitrary_sl said:
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.
Click to expand...
This seems to be, unfortunately, one of those things that doesn't matter. Sure, in 10 years someone will get a Phd with a dissertation of how Obama broke the law and how the Congress failed to uphold their constitutional responsibilities.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,447
73,529
Simas_sl said:
It has nothing to do with Obama looking bad, it has to do with America's credibility. The consequences of action or inaction here will last beyond his Presidency. This wasn't Obama speaking on some domestic bill, saying Congress better pass it or else. This was POTUS, the Commander in Chief, speaking on foreign policy matters, and saying, repeatedly, do not cross this line.
Click to expand...
Only problem is that the US' credibility is very likely to look worse if we help Syrian rebels topple the government.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,607
150,076
I have no problems looking weak as opposed to the alternative - helping al-qaeda and a bunch of psychotic religious fanatics fight to establish another quasi-theocracy ala Egypt.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
27,180
72,085
Iannis_sl said:
This seems to be, unfortunately, one of those things that doesn't matter. Sure, in 10 years someone will get a Phd with a dissertation of how Obama broke the law and how the Congress failed to uphold their constitutional responsibilities.
Click to expand...
Those are Barack's own words, letter for letter. I agree that it doesn't really matter. But it should.
 
Famm

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
Obama seems beset on all sides in this one. China/Russia/UN security council. Congress. Media. Public opinion. And our biggest military ally Britain is dragging its feet. There's understandable apprehension around this due to the familiarity of tone to the WMD fiasco. This time without the massive strike on US soil that propelled Bush's imperialism, I can't see it making it past sabre rattling. Hopefully anyway. I predict much posturing and serious spin.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
27,180
72,085
Obama's big gamble to capture Bin Laden paid off. He might very well make a big gamble here as well. I don't know though.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
khalid_sl said:
Wut.
Click to expand...
That was a larger incident than most people realize, obama did NOT inform the pakastani's about the raid and violated their sovreignity, most americans don't give it a second thought because some people think we own everything and it's our right to meddle everywhere, however that incident did greatly offend many pakastani military and government officials. They did scramble jets and there could have been a military fight with pakistan, that wasn't something wildly impossible.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons and the bin Laden raid
 
BoldW

BoldW

Molten Core Raider
2,081
25
Famm_sl said:
Obama seems beset on all sides in this one. China/Russia/UN security council. Congress. Media. Public opinion. And our biggest military ally Britain is dragging its feet. There's understandable apprehension around this due to the familiarity of tone to the WMD fiasco. This time without the massive strike on US soil that propelled Bush's imperialism, I can't see it making it past sabre rattling. Hopefully anyway. I predict much posturing and serious spin.
Click to expand...
This has to be politics pure and simple and the administration not wanting to look bad after drawing their final line after years of shit-talk and never backing it up. We have nothing to gain in the ME in the long term. The rest of the world, and about the only thing to Obama's credit, is that with renewable, hydro, solar, etc power no one will give a shit about the ME in 20 years because we won't need their oil, if not before that.

This is the admin trying to look tough, though.thats kind of hard to do when you tell the world exactly what you are going to do and not do, so it's kind of like slamming a table after huffing and puffing and nothing else.

Obama needs to do something completely unexpected if he wants credibility and respect, but that'll never happen. The best foreign relations presidents were the one the other people were afraid of because of their unpredictability. Iran hostages? they thought raegan was a cowboy and scared shitless hed go in and just bomb wveryone. clinton? Bj in the oval office meant airstrikes and slick talk. We're not going to get that from this team. Now anything we do over there might as well be a recruitment poster for more terrorists, especially with Russia and china making at least some decent points (self serving, to be sure).
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
BoldW_sl said:
We have nothing to gain in the ME in the long term. The rest of the world, and about the only thing to Obama's credit, is that with renewable, hydro, solar, etc power no one will give a shit about the ME in 20 years because we won't need their oil.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is realistic, without more technology discoveries burning things still remains much cheaper in the near future and readily available.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
27,180
72,085
I think the first thing we need to be doing as a country is stop drawing lines that will later remove options should they be crossed.

I would also like to kill and/or displace less brown people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.