• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's air strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria

Wrangor said:
After that last comment BKF has been disabled for the foreseeable future. It really helps the fluidity of these threads when you aren't constantly sidetracked by rants about W. I would highly recommend it Racer. Because it is a BRILLIANT idea to launch bombs without considering the consequences.

It is truly ironic (and I think I am using that correctly and not in an Alanis Morrisette way) that these threads are filled with rants against Bush for getting us involved in the quagmire of Iraq, and at the EXACT same time these rants are being directed against people who are begging our government NOT to get us involved in another quagmire in the Middle East. I can't figure it out. It is complete blindness.

Person A: 'We don't want another Iraq, lets stay out of the Middle East'
Person B: 'You should have said that 10 years ago when Bush was screwing over our country by getting us involved. Lets go to WAR!'

Confusion......
Click to expand...

It's only confusing to those who don't know history.

On one hand we had a POTUS and an inner circle planning an invasion and occupation of Iraq from almost Day One of their Administration. This has been laid out for public consumption by the person who created the term "Axis of Evil" and also by Bob Woodward.

In the many years since those books were written no one has disputed the thesis that a war and occupation of Iraq was a central issue to the foreign policy of W BEFORE 9/11.

We have Obama, who could have put troops in Libya, Tunisia and other places and hasn't. He has told multiple national and international reporters that won't put boots on the ground in Syria to fight Assad.

If you aren't willfully blind, other than being a pacifist, you can't get more polar opposites RE:troops on the ground and invading places.

Bush WANTED to send troops to Iraq. He had a hardon for doing this. Obama wants nothing to do with anything like that in Syria and told anyone who would listen what his position is.

No sane person can say the two are the same or even in the same sphere.
 
bobknightfan said:
Anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 forever forfeited his right to criticize any middle east policy for the rest of his life.

Other than deaths in my family, Bush's election in 2004 and Nixon's election in 1972 are the two wrost things that have ever happened in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Newsflash Bob--a person can have been against the Iraq war and still have voted for Bush. The presidency is not a single issue office.
 
Newsflash- the worst thing ANY POTUS can do is start a war of choice based on lies. His most solemn duty is to never do that. It is absolutely inexcusable.
 
I will oppose Obama if he tries to invade Syria. It would be a monumentally stupid thing to do.
 
Jesus H Christ. Obama and every American politician who votes to go into Syria are goddamned fools and/or greedy sons of bitches. I don't trust any of this. I smell a rat the size of Damascus.

RJ and BKF, fallas, hombres.....come on, this is ridiculous. You are being bamboozled. You are deflecting to Bush when confronted with the fact that this is, at best, unclear. Certainly America, as the supposed civilized party here, should not start bombing with such flimsy 'evidence.' I like Obama on his general philosophies of liberalism, but he is sucking dick on this deal. He's fucking up.
 
bobknightfan said:
Exactly. That one inexcusible sin transcended everything else that Bush did while in office during his first term (not that that was the only thing he fucked up, the tax cuts were a colossal mistake as well)....before voters who made the mistake of voting for him in 2000 had the opportunity to redeem themselves by casting a vote to get rid of him in 2004.
Click to expand...

eDrRvm6.png
 
WakeandBake said:
Jesus H Christ. Obama and every American politician who votes to go into Syria are goddamned fools and/or greedy sons of bitches. I don't trust any of this. I smell a rat the size of Damascus.

RJ and BKF, fallas, hombres.....come on, this is ridiculous. You are being bamboozled. You are deflecting to Bush when confronted with the fact that this is, at best, unclear. Certainly America, as the supposed civilized party here, should not start bombing with such flimsy 'evidence.' I like Obama on his general philosophies of liberalism, but he is sucking dick on this deal. He's fucking up.
Click to expand...

Having the actual orders from the Syrian high command is hardly "flimsy". Having documents showing when the rounds would be fired is not "flimsy". Having the actual shells isn't "flimsy".
 
Who is vouching for the authenticity of this evidence? Why werent the British convinced by it? Has the US, or the Syrian rebels, ever bullshitted the world to justify war/intervention? It's our fucking M.O., man.
 
RJKarl said:
Having the actual orders from the Syrian high command is hardly "flimsy". Having documents showing when the rounds would be fired is not "flimsy". Having the actual shells isn't "flimsy".
Click to expand...


Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S.







By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Sat Sep 7, 2013 5:16am EDT
(Reuters) - With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.
No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.

While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-attack-idUSBRE98603A20130907
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
Who is vouching for the authenticity of this evidence? Why werent the British convinced by it? Has the US, or the Syrian rebels, ever bullshitted the world to justify war/intervention? It's our fucking M.O., man.
Click to expand...

Obama hasn't.
 
RJKarl said:
Having the actual orders from the Syrian high command is hardly "flimsy". Having documents showing when the rounds would be fired is not "flimsy". Having the actual shells isn't "flimsy".
Click to expand...

You do realize we had all that and more in Iraq too, right?

Not that I'm saying any of it was fabricated. The distrust generated largely from Iraq is a factor in all this, as is the general wariness of the American public toward war at the moment. You can believe that a strike is justified and not support military action. I thought Peggy Noonan's article yesterday was quite salient. She has always had a good way with words, regardless of her politics. But she pretty accurately encapsulated some things with her article that I think are worth reading. I don't necessarily agree with her conclusion that the strongest response is not a military response, but other than that, pretty spot-on

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579057420154706690.html
 
Wrangor said:
Principled Anti-War Celebrities who have been kidnapped?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnekdahl/14-principled-anti-war-celebrities-we-fear-may-hav-a1x1
Click to expand...

Don't you see the difference between "legitimate war" on a humanitarian level undertaken to save poor women and children from being killed with chemical weapons and a war of aggression to get revenge for dad's assassination order, an attack on a country not involved in 9/11 (which didn't have the WMDs we needed protection from btw), and oil?

From a PR standpoint, it's easy to explain the silence if not outright encouragement to go to war.

And yes, I just watched Thank You For Smoking.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
You do realize we had all that and more in Iraq too, right?

Not that I'm saying any of it was fabricated. The distrust generated largely from Iraq is a factor in all this, as is the general wariness of the American public toward war at the moment. You can believe that a strike is justified and not support military action. I thought Peggy Noonan's article yesterday was quite salient. She has always had a good way with words, regardless of her politics. But she pretty accurately encapsulated some things with her article that I think are worth reading. I don't necessarily agree with her conclusion that the strongest response is not a military response, but other than that, pretty spot-on

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579057420154706690.html
Click to expand...

Absolute crap about Iraq. we had NOTHING CURRENT about Iraq. ZERO, NADA plus W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Feith and
Wolfowitsz told LIIES about ATTA, Curveball and nukes to anyone who would listen.

Even after all these years and all the definitive proof of their lies, you still try to defend them. AMAZING...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top