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

reply to post by Hijinx


The two situations are not comparable, because if that did happen in the US, then you could bet that the US Military itself would remove the President, if it even came to that.

The US has checks and balances in the system to prevent that happening - it would be an illegal order to start with and the US military allows for refusal (as does international law) of an illegal order. You would be hard pressed to find a US commander willing to gas their own people. The worst that would happen to someone refusing an order would be arrest.

Syria, well, that is a different kettle of fish. Refuse an order there and you die, your family dies and probably your extended family dies. The Presidents word is final, no if's or but's.

So , the theory of US new war strategy - Breaking Americans was right after all.


After years and years of wars justified by US govt , people around the world know that US is a country which is always waging on wars.So after decades of invasion and occupation , it seems that US govt is near the end of the line of using democracy for it's short term agendas.

So there is the war waging America , and there is the resistance to war-cry vaccine which has been injected on American people for years.and the main question is :

how will US govt start the next war

In my latest analysis and studies , I found that there are two ways to get US army to invade another country.

1-good old democracy

in that strategy , Obama won't attack anywhere unless he can get a momentum on convincing American people that it is necessary to invade Syria.

That is how the democracy works.

And American people don't believe any fast and furious attack on other countries because they saw how GWB was lying about wars.

So , democracy won't work.

2-To break American people

That means they put force on American people so that people can not take the momentum and break. The only strategy is to make American unstable by internal issues like the bombings and killing , then they use any mean to make American people numb and careless to US wars and invasions. While also distracting them by materialist view of life. Like making more TV shows , music videos , fictional studying , for people to kill their moments.

Like what we saw in Libya , democracy doesn't matter because Obama didn't even wait for the congress to invade Libya. He did what he wanted. about gun control he did what he wanted.....He simply does what he wants.

Libya + Iraq = Syria

reply to post by jhn7537


Well, it would be bad for the kkk and anti-obama crowd, but this would likely be happening in your front yard, your place of business, your local hang outs, parks, and country side.

You're electricity may be out, your water, the radio stations, cell phones, and other forms of communication may be knocked out to prevent an organized resistance against those who are trying to "liberate" you. At any time you, your friends, family, neighbors, or townsfolk could be caught in cross fire between the "rebels" and foreign troops bringing you "freedom, peace and democracy."

reply to post by Hijinx


So you believe intervention from ANY nation whether it be Russia, USA, China, England, etc. is never a good solution. So its up to the people to fight for what they are missing.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Hijinx

 

The two situations are not comparable, because if that did happen in the US, then you could bet that the US Military itself would remove the President, if it even came to that.

The US has checks and balances in the system to prevent that happening - it would be an illegal order to start with and the US military allows for refusal (as does international law) of an illegal order. You would be hard pressed to find a US commander willing to gas their own people. The worst that would happen to someone refusing an order would be arrest.

Syria, well, that is a different kettle of fish. Refuse an order there and you die, your family dies and probably your extended family dies. The Presidents word is final, no if's or but's.

So where were the US soldiers saying no when they rained White phosphorous on civilians in falluja? What about when they were mowing down innocent men women in children in the villages of Vietnam? Where were the soldiers saying no in any of the Iraqi incidents??.... Afghanistan, same issues civilians being gunned down(partly by accident in some cases) where were those who said no? What about in Libya? No one seemed to say no there. Lots of the US troops are coming back and killing themselves, or killing themselves over seas. Something ain't right, and I doubt they seem to think they can just say no.

reply to post by jhn7537


For the record, if my country ever ended up anything like Syria, with the shooting of protesters, silencing of the opposition and detention for merely criticising the Government, I would expect foreign intervention and welcome it.

However, until it becomes an evil dictatorship, the question is moot.

reply to post by Hijinx


Correct me if I am wrong, but in cases where civilians have been blatantly murdered, haven't those responsible been punished?

That's the difference.

Not sure why you mentioned Libya though...

reply to post by jhn7537



It's all situational at best, I really don't think it's up to us to tell other what is right in wrong. I suppose with in our own nation it's fine, but who put anyone in charge of anyone else to make these decisions??? The US and the UK want to intervene and a huge lot of others want them to sod off. So why is it okay for the US to insist it intervene???

Have we all taken leave of our senses here? I mean we need to take a step back. Leaders too...if any honest ones remain among them.

Who has video taped themselves killing things (Rabbits, as it happens...) using the very same chemical weapons as were used this time?

Who has generally been thought to have been behind the much smaller use and very ineffective test as it appears, of chemical weapons before this recent one?

Who has video taped themselves murdering Syrian POW's (conscripts, it's important to note) by shooting them to pieces while they begged for their lives on the ground?

Who has also video taped themselves literally treating the shooting of others along the road side as a game and sport as bad as some in World War II?

All of the above is documented out there and in multiple forms. All of it was from assa.....err....The Free Syrian Army,

Just whose friggin side are we on here, anyway? This has Fail written across it in tall lettering.

*There is also the teenager a segment of the FSA abducted, tortured and then brought back to execute for others to see for blasphemy. That story is worth looking up for the different angles different outlets took on it. Among those to cover it at all. (This Source just says it all about needing a players card for who is on whose side over there. Some say Al Jazeera is US controlled these days...yet they bash our 'fair haired' children getting all of Uncle Sam's love and attention right now.)

Abdel Rahman said the rebel group likely comprised foreigners.

"They spoke classical Arabic, not Syrian dialect," he said.

"They shot the boy twice, once in the mouth, another in his neck, in front of his mother, his father and his siblings," he added.

(Link Above)

Behold.....our allies. (hops off to get sick)

What is wrong with you people!??

I can not believe for one second that you people would allow yourselves to sit around and talk about an issue like this after Miley Cyrus made a fool of herself on the VMA's last night! Where are your priorities!???

/saracsm

reply to post by wrabbit2000


That boy was killed by Al Nusra fighters, not the FSA...

Let's get our facts straight, shall we? There are multiple rebel factions, there isn't a single unified unit. You're own article says it all, they spoke "classical Arabic" not a Syrian dialect - they weren't FSA.

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
reply to post by wondermost

 

I wonder what it would take for a US General to stand up to Obama and say " I hereby remove you of your authority and place you under immediate house arrest. You shall be charged in due course with treason and actions against the constitution. Congress shall be dissolved and fresh elections will be taking place" Or words to that effect.

The same way when a mutiny takes place on a Navy ship.

It would take a trip in the time machine mate. Obo already purged almost
all of the General staff up here that didn't suck up to the program. A shame...

reply to post by MrWendal


LOL !

I'm sorry, that was funny, but don't derail man. As gloriously beautifully true in it's hilarity, as it is.

Originally posted by IamAbeliever
Mark my words. When we attack Syria, we all will have been witness to the opening shots of WW III. This will not end well. I am so sick of us, the US, having to meddle in other's affairs. Fix the sh*t here at home god damn it.

edit on 26-8-2013 by IamAbeliever because: (no reason given)

I'm almost positive it will be those horrible first shots too. And worse, it looks afterward
that a lot of our root causes for the $#^ at home will get fixed with "appropriate and
equal response" of the unleashed dogs from the other yard.
Well at least all the milk jugs are refilled and bleach-droppered... I hate barbeques when
we're it.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

That boy was killed by Al Nusra fighters, not the FSA...

Let's get our facts straight, shall we? There are multiple rebel factions, there isn't a single unified unit. You're own article says it all, they spoke "classical Arabic" not a Syrian dialect - they weren't FSA.

Ah... so an anti-assad ATS member finally admits that Syria is full of terrorists... yet I'm sure you still expect Assad to sit back and do absolutely nothing while his country is over run... seeing as how he is supposedly SO evil that ANY foreign terrorist running the country would be better for those poor civilians than being able to vote in May.

Makes perfect sense.

Instead of encouraging any semblance of order, it's only natural that the US would opt to ship them weapons because we all know how much that is going to help the civilians being executed by rebels not die.

Keep hacking at it. It is what it is. No amount of deodorizer is going to change it.
Try different brands, different scents, keep sprinkling, keep spraying. It stinks and it's going to keep on stinking.

Originally posted by jondave
I would rather watch a worldwide financial collapse than see more people die from chemical weapons

You make it seem like a chemical death is worse than any other kind of death which it isn't. We used to execute criminals in the US using guns and what-not. A swift shot to the head but humanitarians believed that using gas and other means is the humane way to do it. So I suppose by that definition, chemical warfare is a more humane way to kill people than a piece of lead through their skull?

Either way, I'd rather not see either a financial collapse and war but I'm not a centralized bank controlling the economy and I'm not the president controlling senseless wars so I have no say into what happens unfortunately.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by jhn7537

 

For the record, if my country ever ended up anything like Syria, with the shooting of protesters, silencing of the opposition and detention for merely criticising the Government, I would expect foreign intervention and welcome it.

With all due respect, if it were the US in your example, I would not want nor welcome foreign interventions. That is a job entirely for the people that call it home, if they so desire it, not a country half a world away with a completely different culture, different social expectations. These are what we've been repeatedly stumbling over in the ME, it's a culture clash. Would you trust Iran to come in guns a-blazing claiming to want to help your country? How about Pakistan? Or China? I highly doubt that.

Look, I know some people are feeling the tug of heart strings with the images of gassed kids, but this isn't what we need to do as a flat broke country with a ramshackle house (so to speak) We need to focus on repairing our country & pulling it out of the gutter before "rescuing" everyone else, and we cannot do that if we're diverting more money to a war abroad. We are not the world's guardians, no matter what justification someone uses to claim so. Socio-economic status, education, food prosperity, none of that makes us responsible for the rest of the world, nor should it. We are responsible for our own people, our own problems, and our own forward-moving efforts stateside.
We are not responsible for anyone else's.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

That boy was killed by Al Nusra fighters, not the FSA...

Let's get our facts straight, shall we? There are multiple rebel factions, there isn't a single unified unit. You're own article says it all, they spoke "classical Arabic" not a Syrian dialect - they weren't FSA.

I think it's humorous you see a distinction. I don't and Al Nusra sure doesn't as they operate openly and without much issue in FSA (their own) controlled territory. That stunt with the boy took the confidence of home turf to pull off...not a 3rd side to an armed conflict in progress.

We'll certainly disagree on what the facts show though. Very energetically....as they move in and make themselves right at home.

Originally posted by whyamIhere
None of America's business.

Not worth one American life.

We get creamed every time we stick our nose into one of these messes.

We have no clue who the Rebels are.

This looks like a convenient distraction from scandals.

We can not continue to ignore our own Constitution.

I hate war...

Best post in this thread.
I hole hardheartedly.

I'm not sure who was responsible for the chemical attack. Does Obama know? It could have been a desperate group of rebels as far as I know willing to sacrifice a few to gain international support. I do not know.

I do not see any big interest for the US either. We have a lot of natural gas and I heard about plans to liquefy it and export it. International prices woud drop and the US could supply Europe. With gas coming from the US, supplies would be much more stable than a pipeline through the middle east. I heard there is so much gas under the Gulf of Mexico that it could cause a mass extinction event if it all got free.

As is I am thinking at most Obama might fire a few missles and then claim he took action and leave it at that. I was wondering if he might wait for UN approval and then say, well Russia and China vetoed any action. Then he could just claim he was going to do something but got vetoed. I think the US should develop our own resources and export them if they are as plentiful as I've heard. No war and a lot of economic development seems like a win win for the US. Ask Russia to put an end to any use of chemical weapons.