War Drums for Syria

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Aug 27, 2008
18,450
1,823
205
War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.

It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation -- unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack.

War Drums for Syria?

Of course, we never let the truth get in the way of our war propaganda before, so why would we start now?
 
There will be no intervention in Syria by the US nor NATO. If we interfered we would be undermining Iran and Russia, and those two things, much less interfering with Syria, would be completely out of character of this administration.
 
There will be no intervention in Syria by the US nor NATO. If we interfered we would be undermining Iran and Russia, and those two things, much less interfering with Syria, would be completely out of character of this administration.

Russia may change its mind, however.
 
Wouldn't that put them at a geographical disadvantage? They need Iran geographically, and Iran needs Syria as a proxie. That fact is what kept Obama from supporting the student uprisings a couple years ago. Now it's Syria, and nothing has changed.

Our support doesn't have to be military, and never did. There were numerous ways to support the students in Iran, and Obama remained silent; all the while the students were in the streets calling for Obama, specifically.

As long as oil is the mainstay of the Russian economy, there will be no change viz Iran nor Syria
 
Wouldn't that put them at a geographical disadvantage? They need Iran geographically, and Iran needs Syria as a proxie. That fact is what kept Obama from supporting the student uprisings a couple years ago. Now it's Syria, and nothing has changed.

Our support doesn't have to be military, and never did. There were numerous ways to support the students in Iran, and Obama remained silent; all the while the students were in the streets calling for Obama, specifically.

As long as oil is the mainstay of the Russian economy, there will be no change viz Iran nor Syria

All fair points, but Obama doesn't need Russia's permission to act. If it becomes an issue in the election I can easily see Obama attacking Syria regardless of how Russia feels about it.
 
Wouldn't that put them at a geographical disadvantage? They need Iran geographically, and Iran needs Syria as a proxie. That fact is what kept Obama from supporting the student uprisings a couple years ago. Now it's Syria, and nothing has changed.

Our support doesn't have to be military, and never did. There were numerous ways to support the students in Iran, and Obama remained silent; all the while the students were in the streets calling for Obama, specifically.

As long as oil is the mainstay of the Russian economy, there will be no change viz Iran nor Syria

All fair points, but Obama doesn't need Russia's permission to act. If it becomes an issue in the election I can easily see Obama attacking Syria regardless of how Russia feels about it.

So what is O Bullshitter now...a dictator? He may not need Russia's permission but he does need congressional approval. Syria is involved in a civil war that has been fueled by foreign powers funding agent provocateurs and terrorists groups, which is a war by proxy and it is meddling in the sovereign affairs of Syria.
Syria is a sovereign nation that has not attacked the United States in any way shape or form and O Bullshitter does not have the casus beli, legal right, to use military intervention in Syria.
 
The complicated situation in Syria is ever more obfuscated by myriad forces at work to destroy the friend of Iran and the foe of Israel.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad warned on Sunday that Syria has become the target of imperialist foreign conspiracy and that the country is facing a real war waged from the outside.
In an address to the new parliament in Damascus, Assad said, “We are not facing a political problem because if we were this party would put forth a political program. What we are facing is (an attempt) to sow sectarian strife and the tool of this is terrorism."
The Syrian leader also slammed the perpetrators of the Houla massacre as "monsters". The carnage claimed the lives of 108 people, including 49 children and 34 women.
"What happened in Houla and elsewhere (in Syria) are brutal massacres which even monsters would not have carried out," Assad said.
As an act of character assassination and in order to portray Assad as an illogical person, the media only broadcast a select part of his speech, cutting his speech only to those parts which could be easily misinterpreted or interpreted out of context instead of giving every listener or viewer the chance to judge everything in its proper context.
In his speech, Assad defended Syria’s right to fight the terrorists who “dominate the scene” and “decapitate the Syrians”, a right seen by the international community as violence against protesters. [Because that is the way that the controlled propaganda outlets in the West are erroneously portraying it!... All the news that fit to skew by the Zionist dominated media!]

Source link:Israel Formulates Tripartite Plot to Destroy Syria
 
Won't Obama wait until after the election if he wants to attack Syria?

War tends to create a nationalistic fervor in people and leads them to rally around their "leader." Attacking the "evil" Syrian regime for their transgressions against humanity would be just one more thing to add to his foreign policy resume.
 
Wouldn't that put them at a geographical disadvantage? They need Iran geographically, and Iran needs Syria as a proxie. That fact is what kept Obama from supporting the student uprisings a couple years ago. Now it's Syria, and nothing has changed.

Our support doesn't have to be military, and never did. There were numerous ways to support the students in Iran, and Obama remained silent; all the while the students were in the streets calling for Obama, specifically.

As long as oil is the mainstay of the Russian economy, there will be no change viz Iran nor Syria

All fair points, but Obama doesn't need Russia's permission to act. If it becomes an issue in the election I can easily see Obama attacking Syria regardless of how Russia feels about it.

So what is O Bullshitter now...a dictator? He may not need Russia's permission but he does need congressional approval. Syria is involved in a civil war that has been fueled by foreign powers funding agent provocateurs and terrorists groups, which is a war by proxy and it is meddling in the sovereign affairs of Syria.
Syria is a sovereign nation that has not attacked the United States in any way shape or form and O Bullshitter does not have the casus beli, legal right, to use military intervention in Syria.

He didn't have Congressional approval for Libya either, but did that stop him?
 
Wouldn't that put them at a geographical disadvantage? They need Iran geographically, and Iran needs Syria as a proxie. That fact is what kept Obama from supporting the student uprisings a couple years ago. Now it's Syria, and nothing has changed.

Our support doesn't have to be military, and never did. There were numerous ways to support the students in Iran, and Obama remained silent; all the while the students were in the streets calling for Obama, specifically.

As long as oil is the mainstay of the Russian economy, there will be no change viz Iran nor Syria

All fair points, but Obama doesn't need Russia's permission to act. If it becomes an issue in the election I can easily see Obama attacking Syria regardless of how Russia feels about it.

I can't agree with that; remember just a couple of weeks back when Obama personally assured Putin using Medvedev as messenger that he would have more latitude after his election? IMO Obama believes he has a different set of skills from those of Bush, and far superior. His administration has been shown to be bereft of skilled interlocutors, and that explains his mistakes; for instance they have never even bothered themselves with a protocal expert.
 
All fair points, but Obama doesn't need Russia's permission to act. If it becomes an issue in the election I can easily see Obama attacking Syria regardless of how Russia feels about it.

Before the UN sent observers to Syria, the Arab League also sent observers to Syria.
The mission of the Arab League failed and they withdrew their observers because Syria violated the agreement to stop the violence.
The number of the UN observers is anyway a joke, it needs at least 10 times the amount they sent into Syria.

The parties involved still want to solve Syria within the framework of UN, and here Russia has veto within UNSC.
The day on which solutions will be sought outside of UN will be the day when Russia won't be considered "key" or "essential" to this whole Syria issue.
Leads us to the question whether Obama would support or seek a solution outside of UN.

It all looks like stalling tactics to win time.
Unfortunately, Syria isn't rich and can not rebuild itself with its riches under the soil like Iraq or Lybia can. Much more than agriculture and textile-manufacturing there isn't in Syria.
Once you intervene and Assad is gone, all those millions of Syrians will have an opinion and you if can't keep them happy it can lead to disintegration of Syria and chaos.
So the transition in Syria will have to be supported with cash/aid for several years.
 
Wouldn't that put them at a geographical disadvantage? They need Iran geographically, and Iran needs Syria as a proxie. That fact is what kept Obama from supporting the student uprisings a couple years ago. Now it's Syria, and nothing has changed.

Our support doesn't have to be military, and never did. There were numerous ways to support the students in Iran, and Obama remained silent; all the while the students were in the streets calling for Obama, specifically.

As long as oil is the mainstay of the Russian economy, there will be no change viz Iran nor Syria

All fair points, but Obama doesn't need Russia's permission to act. If it becomes an issue in the election I can easily see Obama attacking Syria regardless of how Russia feels about it.

I can't agree with that; remember just a couple of weeks back when Obama personally assured Putin using Medvedev as messenger that he would have more latitude after his election? IMO Obama believes he has a different set of skills from those of Bush, and far superior. His administration has been shown to be bereft of skilled interlocutors, and that explains his mistakes; for instance they have never even bothered themselves with a protocal expert.

That was all much ado about nothing. All Presidents know that they'll have more latitude in a second term, so what does it matter if Obama came out and admitted it? Furthermore, I don't see how it applies to my point. Whether or not Obama has more latitude in a second term, if the people turn against him for some perceived weakness on Syria then he's going to do what he has to do to get that second term.
 
All fair points, but Obama doesn't need Russia's permission to act. If it becomes an issue in the election I can easily see Obama attacking Syria regardless of how Russia feels about it.

I can't agree with that; remember just a couple of weeks back when Obama personally assured Putin using Medvedev as messenger that he would have more latitude after his election? IMO Obama believes he has a different set of skills from those of Bush, and far superior. His administration has been shown to be bereft of skilled interlocutors, and that explains his mistakes; for instance they have never even bothered themselves with a protocal expert.

That was all much ado about nothing. All Presidents know that they'll have more latitude in a second term, so what does it matter if Obama came out and admitted it? Furthermore, I don't see how it applies to my point. Whether or not Obama has more latitude in a second term, if the people turn against him for some perceived weakness on Syria then he's going to do what he has to do to get that second term.

I agree it might well be (all ado about nothing) but it's unheard of and there is litule doubt that he was alluding to things he might be willing to give up to a country that is no friend of America. But what has his deals with Russia gotten him so far. I realize that you might be among those who saw our agreements with Poland as being beyond what you would suscribe to, and maybe that if we just kept our noses clean the rest of the world would let us be.
Any mischief the Russians can be involved in that hurts America is all to the good to them.


I can go down a long list of major errors by this administration that compromises our national secuity by leaking infomation for political purposes including the leak that landed the doctor who fingered Osama. I also, and we might find agreement here, disagree completely with the drone attacks over tribal areas between Afgh and Pak. Consider that the tribal population cannot see these drones, nor hear them, and they are nothing less than death from the sky. Consider it from the point of view of an American out in Montana or Wyoming, and another country is overflying and taking out your friends and neighbors. These people we are killing often have their family in tow, and many are being killed as collateral damage. And why? Because the president doesn't want to have to capture and to have to bring them to Gtmo, so every time we take one out we lose another link to their network and intelligence. His policy then is to kill rather than to capture, and he'd the judge and the executioner. What these things prove to our so called friends is that is is dangerous to be an ally of America.
 
Last edited:
I can't agree with that; remember just a couple of weeks back when Obama personally assured Putin using Medvedev as messenger that he would have more latitude after his election? IMO Obama believes he has a different set of skills from those of Bush, and far superior. His administration has been shown to be bereft of skilled interlocutors, and that explains his mistakes; for instance they have never even bothered themselves with a protocal expert.

That was all much ado about nothing. All Presidents know that they'll have more latitude in a second term, so what does it matter if Obama came out and admitted it? Furthermore, I don't see how it applies to my point. Whether or not Obama has more latitude in a second term, if the people turn against him for some perceived weakness on Syria then he's going to do what he has to do to get that second term.

I agree it might well be (all ado about nothing) but it's unheard of and there is litle doubt that he was alluding to things he might be willing to give up to a country that is no friend of America. But what has his deals with Russia gotten him so far. I realize that you might be among those who saw our agreements with Poland as being beyond what you would suscribe to, and maybe that if we just kept our noses clean the rest of the world would let us be.

Any mischief they can be involved in that hurts America is all to the good to them.

In regards to the bolded portion, you're referring to Russia, correct? I'm not entirely clear, so that's why I ask.

If so, then I still don't see how that matters. Even if it's true that Russia just wants to hurt the U.S., it doesn't change a thing about whether or not Obama would use a military strike against Syria, especially if it helped his re-election effort. Russia may not like it, but what would they be willing to do about it? Not much, I'd imagine.
 
(...) Russia may not like it, but what would they be willing to do about it? Not much, I'd imagine.

They can do nothing about it.

If there's going to be action in Syria, then Russia will simply readjust its position.
In current situation there's no need for them to reposition.
 

Forum List

Back
Top