Just Breaking on CNN, Strike on Syria Within Hours Without Congressional Approval

reply to post by Zaphod58


The point here is not Nuke Happy, but main point is to thwart current and future powers from using WMDs easily like the annual spring festival.

If not nuked then there will serious Libya like intervention and result will be his country in the rubble with half million killed. Results will be similar to a nuke or several nukes, in order to get the point across.

Only other point is evidence should be flawless and truthful. No doctoring like in Iraq 2003 just to carry out the agenda of drunk president in the white house. Human Morality has to work in all spheres, be it a dictator or elected president of a western nation.

This whole thing makes NO SENSE! The US has publicly telegraphed, coordinated, even announced that it would be limited in scope and brief, the Syrians today have already dispersed and hidden planes and other hardware in fortified installations. So what is the US trying to accomplish? Nothing it sounds like! They are going to lob 10 missiles, its not going to inflict much damage at all, so little in fact that Syria wont lash out at Israel (like they would do if they were truly attacked heavily) so this whole thing is just an exercise of futility.

To me it seems that Obama is ONLY doing this because a year ago he drew a red line in the sand and Syria crossed it so he has backed himself into a corner to having to do something or risk losing more credibility than he already has lost. He has probably already relayed to Syria through Russia, exactly when the attack will happen and what will be hit.

reply to post by darkbake


Things would have to get really deep to reach that point. Tactical nukes against ships just really don't work that well. They're usually so spread out you have to hit them one at a time and get almost direct hits. And nukes against carriers just don't work that well.

Man you guys are really reaching. This attack is going to be a lot of nothing .Looks like it will indeed be a small strike:

From RT news:

"another official briefed on a potential strike told the Los Angeles Times that the White House may opt for an attack "just muscular enough not to get mocked," but one that wouldn’t be severe enough to warrant a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," the Times quoted the source as saying."

reply to post by victor7


So you're telling me that since the 1980s, there have been so many chemical weapon attacks we have to nuke Syria to convince people they're bad, and to stop using them? Seriously?

Since the Iran/Iraq war, there have been what, two confirmed chemical weapon uses? In over twenty years. That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?

I just saw this... I know, I know (Fox News )

US prepares to bypass UN

If it was posted, I'm sorry, just saw it posted off fox 30 mins ago~

The State Department made clear Wednesday that the Obama administration plans to bypass the United Nations Security Council as it prepares for a possible strike on Syria, after having failed to win support from Russia.

In blunt terms, department spokeswoman Marie Harf said last-ditch efforts to win support for an anti-Assad resolution at the U.N. were unsuccessful, and the U.S. would proceed anyway.

"We see no avenue forward given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful council action on Syria," she said. "Therefore, the United States will continue its consultations and will take appropriate actions to respond in the days ahead."

Earlier in the day, the U.S. and its allies tried to advance a resolution from Great Britain condemning the alleged chemical attack last week in Syria, and authorizing "necessary measures to protect civilians." The Russian delegation, traditional supporters of the Assad government, immediately complained about the resolution during the discussions at U.N. headquarters in New York.

Harf said the U.N. Security Council would not be proceeding with a vote.

Launching a military strike without U.N. authorization would not be without precedent -- the U.S. acted unilaterally during the 1983 invasion of Grenada, the 1989 invasion of Panama, and missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998.

But in this case, the U.N.'s special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, is urging the U.S. to seek and obtain Security Council approval.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also urged the U.S. and its allies to wait until U.N. inspectors currently in Syria finish their work investigating last week's attack.

Harf and other U.S. officials have argued that the U.S. is obligated to respond, given the Assad regime's alleged breach of international standards on chemical weapons, in a grisly attack that reportedly killed hundreds. The images from that attack, coupled with other evidence, led Secretary of State John Kerry to declare earlier this week that the use of the weapons was "undeniable."

"It's clear Syria violated international law here," Harf said. She rejected the suggestion that the U.S. was bypassing the international community, noting that top U.S. officials have been consulting all week with leaders of other nations about the situation in Syria.

By the end of the week, the U.S. intelligence community is expected to release evidence making the case that the Assad regime used chemical weapons. British Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking a vote in Parliament on Thursday in support of responding in Syria.

Some members of Congress are now demanding that Obama seek their approval as well -- or at least greater consultation -- before proceeding.

Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., issued a blistering statement about the possibility that Obama would proceed with a strike without congressional authorization.

"The President's authority as Commander-in-Chief to order a military attack on a foreign government is implicitly limited by the Constitution to repelling an attack," he said. Further, he noted that the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which has been repeatedly ignored by U.S. presidents, dictates that the president cannot send forces into hostilities for a non-retaliatory strike without a declaration of war or approval from Congress.



Read more: www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by princeofpeace


I am beginning to think like this as well. UN is pleading to slow down and approach this with cool heads. We are already hearing of markets being affected. How oil could go up already is beyond my understanding but nothing seems to motivate quite like money.

May be too late though. That pride thing. Threats and military movement so now must follow through. Whether economics are negatively affected long term from a "small" strike would be something I would be interested in knowing more about in advance. Right now it appears we will all be affected financally.

Not the most important thing by the way - just dont see how any attack is going to help matters - only how its going to make them worse for everyone.

m.theglobeandmail.com...

reply to post by Zaphod58


let me tell you US and its leaders are no saints. they are infact more evil when they instigate and organize civil wars and pump resources to one party. 100k vrs 300 in chemical attack is unequal maths but point is to stop human race from stoooooooping any further low in terms of hurting each other.

if this chemical attack is not punished, then countries will start piling on chemical weapons and dictators will have a hey day in wiping out suburbs where they find any danger to their dictatorial powers.

threat of punishment is what stops us from murdering others or even shoplifting a small candy. no threat will mean a chaotic society, a jungle rule. in global stage that would mean WMDs used like long weekend BBQs 6-10 times a year.

reply to post by victor7


Where have I ever said they were?

Are you serious? Chemical weapons have been around, and used extensively, since before WWI, and just NOW they're going to start piling them on and using them every chance they get if a country isn't punished for using them? Give me a break.

Those dictators you talk about have had chemical weapons for decades, and yet, they haven't used them. Why is that? All of a sudden they're going to look at Syria, and go "Hey! They used them and weren't punished for it! OPEN THE CAN OF WHOOPASS BOYS! LET'S GO FOR IT!" Hussein and Iran both used them quite a few times in the Iran/Iraq war, and yet they weren't suddenly the IN weapon for anyone else to use, despite neither of them being punished for it.

Originally posted by victor7


threat of punishment is what stops us from murdering others or even shoplifting a small candy. no threat will mean a chaotic society, a jungle rule. in global stage that would mean WMDs used like long weekend BBQs 6-10 times a year.

And yet many, many, many people still commit murder, kidnapping, rape, assault, robbery, etc.

Threat of punishment won't stop things. It might make some hesitate, or even some refrain, but it won't stop it completely.

You want to stop the use of any kind of WMD? Then what has to happen is:

ALL WMDs must be removed, dismantled and destroyed. All of them. Everyone must do it (the US too). They can not be allowed to exist.

That is the only sure way to stop a WMD from being used............

Until someone decides: they will keep theirs or build more.......

reply to post by eriktheawful


now we taking out of context the proportion of the example murder vrs WMDs by nations that i posted. There are only 200 or so nations but 7 billion people. the main logic was the threat of punishment. fine no pinprick strikes even.

what should happen is Syrian government will have to pay $1M each for 300 killed and upto half million each for everyone one wounded. better if these funds come from the bank accounts of the regime top stalwarts like Assad and his family. otherwise, just like Gaddhafi, the accounts of Assad and other front companies will be frozen and similar sanctions.

if pinprick strikes are going to raise the chance of WW3 or ME in disaster, then let's lay off this option for a while.

BUT PUNISHMENT FOR HURTING PEOPLE WITH CHEMICAL WMDs HAS TO BE CARRIED OUT AFTER FAIR AND THOROUGH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

now we taking out of context the proportion of the example murder vrs WMDs by nations that i posted. There are only 200 or so nations but 7 billion people. the main logic was the threat of punishment. fine no pinprick strikes even.

what should happen is Syrian government will have to pay $1M each for 300 killed and upto half million each for everyone one wounded. better if these funds come from the bank accounts of the regime top stalwarts like Assad and his family. otherwise, just like Gaddhafi, the accounts of Assad and other front companies will be frozen and similar sanctions.

if pinprick strikes are going to raise the chance of WW3 or ME in disaster, then let's lay off this option for a while.

BUT PUNISHMENT FOR HURTING PEOPLE WITH CHEMICAL WMDs HAS TO BE CARRIED OUT AFTER FAIR AND THOROUGH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

edit on 28-8-2013 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

And who decides who is the "Judge, Jury and Executioner" to put out this "punishment"?

Why should the USA always be the one to do this?

Why not have the UK do it?

Why not have Spain do it?

Why not have Norway do it?

I'm rather tired of my country acting as Super Cop and policing the world. I say if it does not directly threaten the US or any of it's territories, then let others take care of it.

I swore to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America. I also swore to defend against all enemies foreign or domestic.

So far I've yet to see anyone from Syria come over here and start killing people, blowing up buildings, etc, etc. So I don't really see them as a "enemy" of my country. They may not like us, or not like our government.....but just because someone feels that way doesn't make them an "enemy" in my eyes.

No where in my oath did it say: you must act like the police and police the world.
No where in my oath did it say: you must bomb and invade another country because their government is not the same as ours.
No where in my oath did it say: I must obey UNLAWFUL orders from my POTUS (and congress right now pretty much feels Obummer is violating the 1973 War Powers.....and if that's true, his orders to strike Syria are UNLAWFUL orders).

Seriously. I think we should just pack it in and tell everyone to fend for themselves. Got a problem? Deal with it yourselves. Starving people? That's too bad. What? You want food? You going to pay for it? No? Then tough #. Figure out how to feed your people.
You need money? Are you going to pay it back in a timely manner? No? Get the hell out of here then (seriously, go in to a bank and ask them to give you money. Just give it to you. You'll be escorted out of the bank pretty darn quick).
What? Someone is using chemical weapons in your country? That has to suck. Why did you let the situation get so out of control that you have rebels in your country murdering people? What? You were murdering your own people? Well THERE'S YER PROBLEM DORK! You don't MURDER your own people and their families. Get's them pissed off. Should have learned that by now, it IS the 21st century you know. Well, got to go, hope you figure out what to do.

Oh, and BTW: any of that chemical crap reaches our borders? Then we'll bomb the crud out of you.

---------------------

THAT is what I think we as a country should be doing. Besides, if you read enough post made by non-US citizens here on ATS, I would think it would make them very happy since they seem to really HATE the US right now anyways, as we are "bullies" anyways.

I say let them figure it out on their own. Don't waste multimillion dollar cruise missiles that are paid for with my tax money (not to mention the man hours and maintenance to maintain those ships and aircraft).

They'll either get through it, or kill themselves off.

because of the lack of reporting from alternative media i have been listening to the CNN outlet of propganda...

what i have heard twice in the last 20 minutes is that:

Øbama's goal in attacking Syria is NOT regime change,,, but IF the interim government is attuned to Øbama-love
then all force will not follow if he steps down as dictator


what kinda double-talk is that ---- the African-American half of 'Barry' says no hard feelings

but the white side of Barrack insists on raking Syria over-the-coals with strutting-self-righteousness for breaking the outrageously detested use of chemical WMDs on civiians


dude you cant have it both ways


this guy is a sad joke

I got a name for the campaign...


Shock and Awe II (I'm Back Bitches)

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Things would have to get really deep to reach that point. Tactical nukes against ships just really don't work that well. They're usually so spread out you have to hit them one at a time and get almost direct hits. And nukes against carriers just don't work that well.

I don't think we have any tactical nukes active in our inventory. I spent 7 months in 1992 flying them back to a depot site in the States for destruction as part of a START treaty.

Russia and China walk out of UN meeting, seems WW3 is around the corner.......


Enjoy this site while we are still in one piece................

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by victor7
Russia and China walk out of UN meeting, seems WW3 is around the corner.......


Enjoy this site while we are still in one piece................

www.cnn.com...

As a heads up you posted a link to 31 beautiful sites in the world (good link by the way). Here's one related to your latest news.

investmentwatchblog.com...

One would say that Israel would be the loudest to protest against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, because it was a poison gas that killed millions of Jews in Auschwitz. The problem is that the chemical attack in Syria killed just Arabs, and not one of the "God chosen people."

War World III could start by Israel nuking anyone who launches a chemical attack on Jerusalem. That nuclear attack will kill plenty of citizens of influential countries residing on the offender's territory. With some one thousand Russian military personnel nuked to death, Russia turns Israel into glass. Now it would be the US turn to respond. But by then, the USA will be more or less broken into independent states as a result of financial difficulties, economic collapse, widespread armed civil unrest, and so there would no USA to speak of.

reply to post by Dianec


That link was posted intentionally. Got to see pleasant side of the humanity and nature also.

Not afraid of WW3 'cause Russia and China are more sober nations. However, surely afraid of ME getting into a MESS, creating chain reactions like higher oil prices which would hit the global economies and common person suffers as a result. All because some bastard Shiekh in Saudi decided to get rid of Assad and had Obama administration tag along like fools.

www.newser.com...

When he went to Putin he mentioned "Saudi Arabia has enough money to get what it wants"?

Guess Putin should have replied "I think Saudis want a nuke over the largest oil well in their dessert. And btw, no Saudi Rials or USD needed in return. Just a little "HOT" free gift from Moscow".

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Dianec

 

That link was posted intentionally. Got to see pleasant side of the humanity and nature also.

Not afraid of WW3 'cause Russia and China are more sober nations. However, surely afraid of ME getting into a MESS, creating chain reactions like higher oil prices which would hit the global economies and common person suffers as a result. All because some bastard Shiekh in Saudi decided to get rid of Assad and had Obama administration tag along like fools.

www.newser.com...

When he went to Putin he mentioned "Saudi Arabia has enough money to get what it wants"?

Guess Putin should have replied "I think Saudis want a nuke over the largest oil well in their dessert. And btw, no Saudi Rials or USD needed in return. Just a little "HOT" free gift from Moscow".

edit on 29-8-2013 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

Speaking of WWlll, I think if anyone launches an unexpected assault onto an allied country, it will be launched by an allied country... and it will get blamed on Russia or a country friendly with Russia holding Russian made weapons.. That could very well happen, I think if we hit syria, then iran hits back in that region to help syria... then the us and israel hit iran and declare official war with iran... then Russia and china helps iran..... then an allied country will attack allied country to get reluctant people to engage in the western war effort.

remember that the us was against getting involved in WWll...until pearl harbor.

Our biggest threat in the US is our government.