President Obama to Address the Nation on Syria

reply to post by Demanto


Cameron is not going following being voted down. USA is furious about it. If same happens in France it's more bad news for Obama.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


He will still go. He will gather the congress members that support a strike close and have them speak and he will try a few other tricks, but nothing will stop us feom going to Syria. Really though congress may very well vote to go. You can probably already figure some of the votes based on public statements.

This would have been done deal and the bombs would be falling right now except for one thing....
no WMD`s were found in Iraq.

The people are gun shy about being fooled and lied to again by their government.The government no longer has the benefit of the doubt,the people want proof above and beyond what would normally be accepted before getting involved in anymore conflicts.
Who ever made the decision to lie about WMD`s in Iraq messed it up for all future presidents who want to jump into conflicts based on evidence that doesn`t go above and beyond certainty.

Maybe this has already been said, but did anybody stop to think that this potential action against Syria is a proxy war with Russia? Notice how fast Obama took interest in Syria after Russia gave Snowden asylum??? Russia, from what I understand, is backing the current regime in Syria, and of course, the US is backing the rebels. This stinks of the early 80's all over again. Hell, it stinks of the early 2000's with Bush and WMD's in Iraq.

Maybe I'm completely off-base, but it makes sense to me.


-TS

reply to post by truthseeker1984


Not World War Three....

Cold War Two....

That idea bounced around my head for a minute or two also. There are some other interesting aspects of the geography of the whole thing too, like Iran being completely surrounded by countries, excepting the Russian / Turkmenastan side, that are either friends of, or controlled by the U.S., the fact that there could be a chokehold put on the region by U.S. military and countries friendly to it to deny resources to Iran and Russia.

Cold War Two....

I hate war games..

I really do.

Cirque

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth


Me too, me too.

Originally posted by MyHappyDogShiner
reply to post by truthseeker1984

 

Not World War Three....

Cold War Two....

That idea bounced around my head for a minute or two also. There are some other interesting aspects of the geography of the whole thing too, like Iran being completely surrounded by countries, excepting the Russian / Turkmenastan side, that are either friends of, or controlled by the U.S., the fact that there could be a chokehold put on the region by U.S. military and countries friendly to it to deny resources to Iran and Russia.

Cold War Two....

edit on 31-8-2013 by MyHappyDogShiner because: ack gack

Sorry mate! you are only partially right. Iraq is now well controlled by Iran. On East, Pakistan is a frenemy of the US and West. Through Syria, Iran controls Lebenan.

However, Russians already realized in 1995 that it is not Cold War II but Cold Peace I when NATO further expanded eastwards. They were too much in shambles by 1998 and by 2000 the KGB elites played a soft coup on Yeltsin and asked him to leave on his own. Rest is Putin and new Russian policy. Even after oil bonanza, Russia does not have resources to play Cold War II and more so when it does not trust China as 100% friend.

Cold War I was based on ideology of Communism vrs Capitalism. When Russians realized that Commie system is nothing but junk, they opened up but West still kept the hostility towards them. It will remain like this. Ultimate goal is to change regime or even break up Russia and China and dominate the whole world. Was that not the agenda of the Reich Furher? Same goal but softer methods

I have a suspicious feeling that there will be another chemical attack in the meantime and the media will be screaming for intervention.

reply to post by Tardacus


Yes you are right. I would blame that cretin Tony Blair .... he is the reason that action is not being taken and can be blamed for the general public not believing a dam thing said by any politician about anything really.

He was/is such a slimey liar that there is no longer any trust in government leaders.

It wouldn't matter if Mr Assad was captured on video lobbing a gas canister himself, the public won't believe it's true because of the Blair effect.

I was not impressed with Obama's speech today. Claiming to seek congressional approval for this is all for show. Kerry's speech yesterday already revealed everything that they are planning to do.

reply to post by Kram09


No, no new chemical attack, that is old and does not work, there must be a direct threat to america, or even an attack which can be blamed on Iran or Syria.
A ship maybe? or on home soil?

Originally posted by earthling42
there must be a direct threat to america, or even an attack which can be blamed on Iran or Syria.
A ship maybe? or on home soil?

I"m not endorsing this .... and I don't generally listen to these things .... but there is a woman who lives outside Washington DC who has made predictions that have come true. A few months ago she said that something big was going to happen in America on Sept 11 this year. It would be huge. It would effect the entire country. Normally I don't listen to these things. But the woman had a NDE and has come back 'knowing things'.

I won't name her here because I don't want to advertise.
If anyone wants the name I'll U2U it to you.

I guess time will tell if she is correct ... or if 'someone' pulls off something big in the USA
to push us towards WWIII in Syria.

Well if he is serious about seeking approval, then I urge you, all my fellow Americans, rally your friends, your families, and you communities to speak with your senators to tell them that we do not want war. Gather in protest ifyou have to . Just please make your voice be heard on this issue. Now is our chance to send our message to this batsh!t insane administration that we don't have the funds, evidence, conviction, or bloodlust for another war. If he really meant what he was saying, then he'd be willing to put boots on the ground. A limited scope war means he's trying to destabilize another country in the region, and as a nation of laws we fundamentally disagree. It can only lead to AQ getting more power any influence.

We don't seek regime change. We're unwilling to go full-scale. We don't have the money. We are risking retaliation from Russia and Iran, which endangers our national security and that of our allies. This madness must end.

All you Americans who sit at home at your computers and complain about current events, saying there's nothing you can do, now is the time to do something. Even if its at home on your computers, or by making a simple phone call. I strongly urge you to put your senators on the spot in any way you're able. Pressure them to do the right thing for one time in their snaky careers.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well i sincerely hope she is wrong and you all are safe.

Doom porners must be so disappointed. No WW3 this weekend.. Guess you will have to return to work monday afterall!

I said there would be no military strikes. Now Obama will get voted no in congress and that will be that.

GOOD!

Having watched the entirety of pres. obama's 'speech' to the nation ....

i can only ask that the members of congress don't let their constituents down...

don't give him the congressional approval he so 'desparately seeks/ wants'....

i'd like to see what he's gonna do without congressional approval....

10:1 says he'll go ahead with military action against 'the Syrian regime', despite and no matter. (?)

they need to be assimilated into the IMF .... just as Sooo Many other before them.

PLZ.... tell/show me where I'm wrong here...

Gaddafi had a booming economy and infrastructure ... no matter that he didn't 'shake it twice' to the star-spangled banner...


I truly believe....

this IS NOT about syrian 'gas attacks' on their own people. this 'civil war' is simply being used as the catalyst to ENSURE the Syrian future economy is based upon and regulated by the IMF, et-al.

PLZ.... someone .... tell me i'm wrong...


what's that leave? 4-5 others in the world. (?)

Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran .... each with their own INDEPENDENT monetary, economic system..

hell .... that can't be allowed, nor permitted by any means ....

/sarc]

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


Without congressional approval he won't do a damn thing.

He regrets his empty "red line" statement and is shaking in his boots, he really doesn't want to have to follow up on his earlier threats.

As if he'd seek approval if thats what he really wanted to do. He would have launched missiles already

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
this IS NOT about syrian 'gas attacks' on their own people. this 'civil war' is simply being used as the catalyst to ENSURE the Syrian future economy is based upon and regulated by the IMF, et-al.

Something about the oil/gas pipelines in Syria is tickling my brain .. but I can't put my finger on it. I know there is something about this going on ... I just can't put it together ... (yet).

If Congress says 'NO',

Then the shadows will simply escalate the hidden support for the rebels.