Obama has no intention of attacking Syria, Congress his pawn

[jodylee]

thank god the Russians have half a brain, and some international legitimacy (compared to the US). All hail PUTIN.

 

[Spoonman]

opinion pieces are nice, but this is the reality.

Obama does npt have the support of the people he was elected to serve.

Congress is indicating they don't have his back on this one. Which shows on the heals of the beating the democrats took in public opinion under obamas gun crusade they are more interested in saving their jobs than backing obama's agendas

The international community has seen obama does not have the backing of the people he was elected too serve and he doesn't have the backing of congress. Russia in particular will note this.

Obama picked the wrong situation to play his bluff. for one, he didn't have international support. this was one he was going to have to go alone. Now he stands alone and everyone knows he doesn't have support. He has tipped that the USA is not ready to go to war. if there were any doubts, there are none now. This give a lot of leway and bargaining room to countries like syria, n korea, iran and a host of others. Obama has exposed his bluff. the world knows he is holding an empty hand. the problem is he bluffed when the pot was small and we stood little to lose. now he's been called and we lost a lot.

 

[Stephanie]

nothing like Obama care MORE about playing games than we the people and our country

hope this makes all you who voted him feel real proud

 

[kaz]

That would depend on you standing on ONE definition of a neocon instead of everyone not liberal you disagree with.

Wow, you're an idiot. I've been actually arguing with your fellow idiots endlessly who don't know what a neocon is and use the term wrong. There is one and only one definition. That you see people use it wrong is correct, that you assume anyone who uses it is using it wrong is just butt stupid.

Everyone in that list spends like drunken sailors and uses military might to force their way on other governments. That is the one and only definition of neocon.

NONE OF YOU USE IT RIGHT! It means new conservative. It isn't a pejorative. I dont happen to be a new conservative so I am not one yet watching you idiots constantly use the word in the same way someone would use the word ****** pisses me off.

Yes, it means new conservative. It 's a reference to liberals (who love and trust government and spend like drunken sailors) who decide they like the military to force "democracy" on other countries.

The people in the quote all do that. Whether they call themselves neocons or not, they follow neocon policy. That is the one and only way I use the term.

For God sakes, you're on the internet. Google the term before you make yourself look even more stupid.

 

[Missourian]

Posted this in the wee hours of the morning, but it's worth reposting.

I don't want Luddly to think I don't give Obama credit where credit is due...

He's the one who allowed John Kerry to get out there in front of the cameras and run his mouth about Syria until he said something he shouldn't have.

Without that level of ineptitude, this breakthrough would not have been possible.

That was the decision that got this ball rolling.

Not that the Obama Administration didn't try to walk it back immediately...

.
.
.
Mon Sep 9, 2013 7:22am EDT



"Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used," a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.


"His (Kerry's) point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment."


Kerry speaking rhetorically over Syria turning in weapons: State Department | Reuters


​

Luckily for America and the world, they were unsuccessful.

 

[Contumacious]

Let me get this straight.... Obama draws a "red line", then claims he didn't, threatens to attack Syria, then tells the world all the details of when and how, back peddles when he realizes it is a coalition of 1+ France, the American people say no, and now he bows to Putin, and this fool thinks Obama played Congress?



That's seriously fucking delusional.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, are your feelings hurt?

Why don't you grab your pea shooter fly to Damascus first thing in the morning and shock and awe Assad ?


Stupid fuck.

.

 

[Edgetho]

The thread title is inaccurate.

Obama is Putin's pawn.

WRONG!!!!!!!

obama is Putin's bitch

 

[Vox]

Let me get this straight.... Obama draws a "red line", then claims he didn't, threatens to attack Syria, then tells the world all the details of when and how, back peddles when he realizes it is a coalition of 1+ France, the American people say no, and now he bows to Putin, and this fool thinks Obama played Congress?



That's seriously fucking delusional.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, are your feelings hurt?

Why don't you grab your pea shooter fly to Damascus first thing in the morning and shock and awe Assad ?

Stupid fuck.

.

Why should he?

he does not give a damn about Syria.

If you do - follow your own advice

or read the thread FIRST before making yourself look stupid

 

[Edgetho]

Let me get this straight.... Obama draws a "red line", then claims he didn't, threatens to attack Syria, then tells the world all the details of when and how, back peddles when he realizes it is a coalition of 1+ France, the American people say no, and now he bows to Putin, and this fool thinks Obama played Congress?



That's seriously fucking delusional.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, are your feelings hurt?

Why don't you grab your pea shooter fly to Damascus first thing in the morning and shock and awe Assad ?

Stupid fuck.

.

Why should he?

he does not give a damn about Syria.

If you do - follow your own advice

or read the thread FIRST before making yourself look stupid

How does a pig make himself look like a pig?

 

[Contumacious]

No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.

10 Chemical Attacks Washington Tends to Ignore​

The US military dumping of 20 million gallons of chemicals on Vietnam for nearly a decade of war which ended in 1971.

.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Kerry: Military threat against Syria led to diplomacy | The Greenville News | greenvilleonline.com

Russia's proposal gives all sides a way to avoid military action, Kerry said. "That is the ideal way to handle this," he said.

But Kerry said, the administration has made it clear to the Russians that "this can't become a process of delay and avoidance." The United States, he added, is willing to wait, "but we are not waiting for long. The [United Nations] Security Council can't be allowed to become a debating society."

Kerry continues to indicate today they have already decided to attack, no matter what congress says.

On the news report I heard, Kerry also repeated verifying all the chemical weapons could never be done. I can't find that link yet.

 

[The Rabbi]

No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.

10 Chemical Attacks Washington Tends to Ignore​

The US military dumping of 20 million gallons of chemicals on Vietnam for nearly a decade of war which ended in 1971.

.

Yeah using defoliants is exactly the same as using nerve gas.
You really are one stupid fuckbrain.

 

[kaz]

No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.

10 Chemical Attacks Washington Tends to Ignore​

The US military dumping of 20 million gallons of chemicals on Vietnam for nearly a decade of war which ended in 1971.

.

Yeah using defoliants is exactly the same as using nerve gas.
You really are one stupid fuckbrain.

Actually, it was a long term plan to get the Vietcong to die of cancer...

 

[Contumacious]

No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.

10 Chemical Attacks Washington Tends to Ignore​

The US military dumping of 20 million gallons of chemicals on Vietnam for nearly a decade of war which ended in 1971.

.

Yeah using defoliants is exactly the same as using nerve gas.
You really are one stupid fuckbrain.

“Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses,” he wrote.

.

 

[kaz]

“Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses,” he wrote

I love ya man, but I'm not sure I trust what the communist government of Vietnam "estimates" about anything, much less a statistic against their enemy in the war they are doing the estimating about.

 

[Contumacious]

“Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses,” he wrote

I love ya man, but I'm not sure I trust what the communist government of Vietnam "estimates" about anything, much less a statistic against their enemy in the war they are doing the estimating about.

US veterans class action lawsuit against manufacturers

Since at least 1978, several lawsuits have been filed against the companies which produced Agent Orange, among them Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and Diamond Shamrock.

Hy Mayerson of The Mayerson Law Offices, P.C. was an early pioneer in Agent Orange litigation, working with environmental attorney Victor Yannacone in 1980 on the first class-action suits against wartime manufacturers of Agent Orange. In meeting Dr. Ronald A. Codario, one of the first civilian doctors to see afflicted patients, Mayerson, so impressed by the fact a physician would show so much interest in a Vietnam veteran, forwarded more than a thousand pages of information on Agent Orange and the effects of dioxin on animals and humans to Codario's office the day after he was first contacted by the doctor.[72] The corporate defendants sought to escape culpability by blaming everything on the U.S. government.[73]

The Mayerson law firm, with Sgt. Charles E. Hartz as their principal client, filed the first U.S. Agent Orange class-action lawsuit, in Pennsylvania in 1980, for the injuries soldiers in Vietnam suffered through exposure to toxic dioxins in the defoliant.[74] Attorney Hy Mayerson co-wrote the brief that certified the Agent Orange Product Liability action as a class action, the largest ever filed as of its filing.[75] Hartz's deposition was one of the first ever taken in America, and the first for an Agent Orange trial, for the purpose of preserving testimony at trial, as it was understood that Hartz would not live to see the trial because of a brain tumor that began to develop while he was a member of Tiger Force, Special Forces, and LRRPs in Vietnam.[76][77] The firm also located and supplied critical research to the Veterans' lead expert, Dr. Ronald A. Codario, M.D., including about 100 articles from toxicology journals dating back more than a decade, as well as data about where herbicides had been sprayed, what the effects of dioxin had been on animals and humans, and every accident in factories where herbicides were produced or dioxin was a contaminant of some chemical reaction.[72]

The chemical companies involved denied that there was a link between Agent Orange and the veterans' medical problems. However, on May 7, 1984, seven chemical companies settled the class-action suit out of court just hours before jury selection was to begin. The companies agreed to pay $180 million as compensation if the veterans dropped all claims against them. Slightly over 45% of the sum was ordered to be paid by Monsanto alone.[78][79] Many veterans who were victims of Agent Orange exposure were outraged the case had been settled instead of going to court, and felt they had been betrayed by the lawyers. "Fairness Hearings" were held in five major American cities, where veterans and their families discussed their reactions to the settlement, and condemned the actions of the lawyers and courts, demanding the case be heard before a jury of their peers. Federal Judge Julius Weinstein refused the appeals, claiming the settlement was "fair and just". By 1989, the veterans' fears were confirmed when it was decided how the money from the settlement would be paid out. A totally disabled Vietnam veteran would receive a maximum of $12,000 spread out over the course of 10 years. Furthermore, by accepting the settlement payments, disabled veterans would become ineligible for many state benefits that provided far more monetary support than the settlement, such as food stamps, public assistance, and government pensions. A widow of a Vietnam veteran who died of Agent Orange exposure would only receive $3700.[80]



.

 

[kaz]

“Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses,” he wrote

I love ya man, but I'm not sure I trust what the communist government of Vietnam "estimates" about anything, much less a statistic against their enemy in the war they are doing the estimating about.

US veterans class action lawsuit against manufacturers[/URL][/B]


Since at least 1978, several lawsuits have been filed against the companies which produced Agent Orange, among them Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and Diamond Shamrock.

Hy Mayerson of The Mayerson Law Offices, P.C. was an early pioneer in Agent Orange litigation, working with environmental attorney Victor Yannacone in 1980 on the first class-action suits against wartime manufacturers of Agent Orange. In meeting Dr. Ronald A. Codario, one of the first civilian doctors to see afflicted patients, Mayerson, so impressed by the fact a physician would show so much interest in a Vietnam veteran, forwarded more than a thousand pages of information on Agent Orange and the effects of dioxin on animals and humans to Codario's office the day after he was first contacted by the doctor.[72] The corporate defendants sought to escape culpability by blaming everything on the U.S. government.[73]

The Mayerson law firm, with Sgt. Charles E. Hartz as their principal client, filed the first U.S. Agent Orange class-action lawsuit, in Pennsylvania in 1980, for the injuries soldiers in Vietnam suffered through exposure to toxic dioxins in the defoliant.[74] Attorney Hy Mayerson co-wrote the brief that certified the Agent Orange Product Liability action as a class action, the largest ever filed as of its filing.[75] Hartz's deposition was one of the first ever taken in America, and the first for an Agent Orange trial, for the purpose of preserving testimony at trial, as it was understood that Hartz would not live to see the trial because of a brain tumor that began to develop while he was a member of Tiger Force, Special Forces, and LRRPs in Vietnam.[76][77] The firm also located and supplied critical research to the Veterans' lead expert, Dr. Ronald A. Codario, M.D., including about 100 articles from toxicology journals dating back more than a decade, as well as data about where herbicides had been sprayed, what the effects of dioxin had been on animals and humans, and every accident in factories where herbicides were produced or dioxin was a contaminant of some chemical reaction.[72]

The chemical companies involved denied that there was a link between Agent Orange and the veterans' medical problems. However, on May 7, 1984, seven chemical companies settled the class-action suit out of court just hours before jury selection was to begin. The companies agreed to pay $180 million as compensation if the veterans dropped all claims against them. Slightly over 45% of the sum was ordered to be paid by Monsanto alone.[78][79] Many veterans who were victims of Agent Orange exposure were outraged the case had been settled instead of going to court, and felt they had been betrayed by the lawyers. "Fairness Hearings" were held in five major American cities, where veterans and their families discussed their reactions to the settlement, and condemned the actions of the lawyers and courts, demanding the case be heard before a jury of their peers. Federal Judge Julius Weinstein refused the appeals, claiming the settlement was "fair and just". By 1989, the veterans' fears were confirmed when it was decided how the money from the settlement would be paid out. A totally disabled Vietnam veteran would receive a maximum of $12,000 spread out over the course of 10 years. Furthermore, by accepting the settlement payments, disabled veterans would become ineligible for many state benefits that provided far more monetary support than the settlement, such as food stamps, public assistance, and government pensions. A widow of a Vietnam veteran who died of Agent Orange exposure would only receive $3700.[80]



.

I'm not doubting that agent orange caused cancer, I'm just saying I don't trust the source of the particular statistic. I also have a hard time seeing agent orange being a "chemical weapon."

Keep in mind I'm against attacking Syria regardless of chemical weapons.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not doubting that agent orange caused cancer, I'm just saying I don't trust the source of the particular statistic. I also have a hard time seeing agent orange being a "chemical weapon."

Keep in mind I'm against attacking Syria regardless of chemical weapons.

See, understand that for putzbags like Contumacious, there is no distinction between things if he wants to make a comparison. So there is no difference between the US using a defoliant and Syria using nerve gas. And there is no difference between Israel erecting a protective fence and the Nazis walling in the Warsaw Ghetto. None whatsover.
That's what makes him a lame brain.

 

[chikenwing]

Two articles from the same source so posting both in one new thread.

You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong

Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval — it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.

Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally — and even did so in Libya two years ago?

During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.

So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.
=========

Syria War Resolution: Congress Is a Pawn In Obama's Secret Plan

To say that President Obama’s response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria has been controversial would be a gross understatement. He has managed the rare feat of pleasing no one before even deciding what response he will take. The latest chapter in this story has proven particularly inflammatory; Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike has led to accusations that he is “abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief,” giving Assad “the opportunity to hide and protect his resources,” and of “cynically play[ing] politics with American credibility.” Yet while there may be bits of truth to these claims, when you look at Obama’s decision to go to Congress from the perspective of geopolitics it is clear it was not an admission of weakness or an attempt to avoid action — it was a strategic masterstroke.

This is because Obama is looking at the big picture. He is determined to make striking Syria about more than just human rights. It’s about the global reputation of the U.S., drawing a positive comparison against China and Russia, and retaining the ability to act against Iran in the years to come.

Obama knows that nothing damaged U.S. credibility in the past decade more than the war in Iraq. The use of deceit to unleash unilateral American power caused a huge backlash against American leadership. Obama wants to act in Syria, largely to uphold the credibility of the U.S. and the international system it leads, but he can’t let it look like a repeat of Iraq. Obama campaigned for the presidency on the promise to change how America engages the world and has proven extremely reluctant, outside of drone strikes and the Bin Laden raid, to act abroad unilaterally. Consequently, he wants as much support as possible for an attack on Syria, and unlike the intervention in Libya where NATO had approval from the UN Security Council to act and did so in conjunction with several Arab allies, this time around, the U.S. would be, at best, acting with just one significant partner, France. As such, Congress is the last available option to add credibility to a U.S. strike. It’s not a perfect solution, as Congress also voted to go to war in Iraq, but it’s better than Obama acting alone.

President Obama has said he does not want or plant a "boots on the ground" war and, judging by his past, it would be more likely that he would use drones for a surgical strike.

Whatever he does, its been nice to see the worthless Rs actually pretend to do their job, if only for a little while. They'll soon be back to their usual tight schedule of vacations broken up by phony votes against ObamaCare.

So you been setting in on cabinet meetings,Obama calling you at night with up dates??

 

[Contumacious]

See, understand that for putzbags like Contumacious, there is no distinction between things if he wants to make a comparison. So there is no difference between the US using a defoliant and Syria using nerve gas. And there is no difference between Israel erecting a protective fence and the Nazis walling in the Warsaw Ghetto. None whatsover.
That's what makes him a lame brain.

"Messamore said the US military used white phosphorus – a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh – in 2004 in the Iraqi city of Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents.

Fallujah residents and US soldiers revealed in a televised interview how the “US government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death.”

Again in Iraq in 2003, the US military littered the environment with munitions made from depleted uranium which is a toxic nuclear waste product.

“As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 – 2010 were born with birth defects,” said Messamore."

.