War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[JoeB131]

I wonder if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could stall for a few days, until Congress returns, if they get the order to Strike before then - stall without (technically) violating orders from the CinC?

Probably not. The orders are already in for components for missiles.

Trust me, I know.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

WWIII is about to be postponed.

Not fitting their narrative, is it? The people are awake. Can't have that. Let's see in the next few days what other tragic crap these elitist asswipes can cook up to avert our eyes and make us want to do it...

Show a puppy on national news being gassed with nerve gas like it did with Iraq.

That was totally ironic. We routinely gas probably millions of dogs and cats every year. Maybe not that much.

 

[The T]

Now there is absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!

Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.

Mr President: Make up you mind one way or another FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!! They are clueless Mr President!

Did you happen to hear the sound bytes from NPR last night saying he was weighing his options he was given by his advisors before HE makes a decision?

Any BET HE is waiting to see the world reaction before he makes a decision? He is leading from behind...again.

Hell, world reaction doesn't matter at this point. England has already made a laughing stock of Barry. England has followed us (or we them) for the last 100 years. FINALLY, they have said "no".

Make no mistake about it - this is a HUGE blow to Barry and his cohorts.

Yes it is. Expect whatever allies we have left to follow suit.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Now there is absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!

Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.

Mr President: Make up you mind one way or another FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!! They are clueless Mr President!

Did you happen to hear the sound bytes from NPR last night saying he was weighing his options he was given by his advisors before HE makes a decision?

Any BET HE is waiting to see the world reaction before he makes a decision? He is leading from behind...again.

Hell, world reaction doesn't matter at this point. England has already made a laughing stock of Barry. England has followed us (or we them) for the last 100 years. FINALLY, they have said "no".

Make no mistake about it - this is a HUGE blow to Barry and his cohorts.

Since when does this superpower care about world reaction? The world can only hate you so much, I suppose is their philosophy.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I wonder if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could stall for a few days, until Congress returns, if they get the order to Strike before then - stall without (technically) violating orders from the CinC?

He won't do it. Great Britain's Parliament said NO...Now to see how Obama will backtrack and blame Republicans, Conservatives HERE...

WAIT FOR IT...

Im waiting for the inevitable "This is Bush's fault" speech.....

 

[The T]

With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.

I'll offer the opposite view. Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do. Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war. Hardly anyone has used them since WW1. Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them. We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
There are few good options here. That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into. But that is where we are.

I agree to this point. Barry stated (a year ago) that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red" line. The time to "lob" a few missiles was THEN.

Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it. Syria is a HUGE ally of both Russia AND Iran. I can't help but believe that THEY are feeling the same pressure to back Assad AGAINST the US. At some point, Russia and Iran MUST support Assad. Will this be Russia's and Iran's "red" line also?

This could potentially become an extremely dangerous standoff. And for what? To overthrow one terrible regime in favor of another terrible regime?

I don't know. But I surely don't like the way this thing smells.

Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran. If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.

RUT-ROH RORGE!

Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News

Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I wonder if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could stall for a few days, until Congress returns, if they get the order to Strike before then - stall without (technically) violating orders from the CinC?

He won't do it. Great Britain's Parliament said NO...Now to see how Obama will backtrack and blame Republicans, Conservatives HERE...

WAIT FOR IT...

Im waiting for the inevitable "This is Bush's fault" speech.....

Like
Bush shouldn't have allowed Saddam chemical weapons to leave Iraq

 

[Unkotare]

Under President Obama, our enemies have no reason to fear us and our allies have no reason to trust us.


Some of y'all seem not to have been very fond of him, but under the previous president this was not the case (to say the least).

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I agree to this point. Barry stated (a year ago) that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red" line. The time to "lob" a few missiles was THEN.

Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it. Syria is a HUGE ally of both Russia AND Iran. I can't help but believe that THEY are feeling the same pressure to back Assad AGAINST the US. At some point, Russia and Iran MUST support Assad. Will this be Russia's and Iran's "red" line also?

This could potentially become an extremely dangerous standoff. And for what? To overthrow one terrible regime in favor of another terrible regime?

I don't know. But I surely don't like the way this thing smells.

Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran. If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.

RUT-ROH RORGE!

Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News

Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?

No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.

Edit: Sending more ships is pretty much obligatory.

 

[The T]

Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran. If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.

RUT-ROH RORGE!

Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News

Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?

No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.

I see... NAVAL forces are just out pleasure-boating...looking to catch TUNA! Got'cha.

Are YOU serious?

 

[The T]

Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran. If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.

RUT-ROH RORGE!

Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News

Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?

No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.

Edit: Sending more ships is pretty much obligatory.

Lucky for the board I quoted yer original, right? YOU have second thoughts?

Natural reaction? As a matter of course? YES...will Obama back down? YES. The course is clear. The World is calling him out, and his bluff.

How's it feel to have a leader that leads from behind after 3 instances of Syria 'crossing the RED LINE'?

OUR credibility is SUNK. Aren't YOU proud of your President?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

RUT-ROH RORGE!

Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News

Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?

No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.

I see... NAVAL forces are just out pleasure-boating...looking to catch TUNA! Got'cha.

Are YOU serious?

It depends exactly where they are on the sea. Since we'll never know, that is a fruitless conversation.

I said MOUNTING Russian ground forces and moving them up towards the Syrian border. If they do that, surely we wouldn't invade Syria to repeat myself.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the underlying problem.

The only reason we should care is that as the Jihadists and Ba'athists are out playing "Who does Allah Love Best?" innocent civilians are being killed in the crossfire.

If the UN were to send in peacekeepers to disarm both sides and then sponsor free elections, that would be acceptable.

But bombing for a few days because you said there would be "consequences" that really doesn't change the situation, or maybe turns the situation to the Jihadists' favor... that's just a bad idea.

 

[georgephillip]

Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.

Currently, 116 nays and 4 yeas.
I wonder how that would compare to a similar poll among members of the US Congress.
Should Obama consult congress before killing more civilians in Syria?

 

[The T]

No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.

I see... NAVAL forces are just out pleasure-boating...looking to catch TUNA! Got'cha.

Are YOU serious?

It depends exactly where they are on the sea. Since we'll never know, that is a fruitless conversation.

I said MOUNTING Russian ground forces and moving them up towards the Syrian border. If they do that, surely we wouldn't invade Syria to repeat myself.

Seems Israel does KNOW...

Originally Posted by QuickHitCurepon

Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran. If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.

 

[The T]

I suppose MOUNTING SEA FORCES were more than he could bear...after all? The Russian NAVAL FORCES are just trolling for TUNA.

 

[Kondor3]

Russia isn't going to do shit, one way or another... other than maybe to call Assad if they spot an incoming cruise missile.

They don't have that kind of muscle and would get massacred if they were foolish enough to shoot first.

Compared to US assets in the Mediterranean Basin and Europe in general, and those that can be pulled in from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans on damned-short notice, he Soviet presence in the Eastern Med is a flea.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I see... NAVAL forces are just out pleasure-boating...looking to catch TUNA! Got'cha.

Are YOU serious?

It depends exactly where they are on the sea. Since we'll never know, that is a fruitless conversation.

I said MOUNTING Russian ground forces and moving them up towards the Syrian border. If they do that, surely we wouldn't invade Syria to repeat myself.

Seems Israel does KNOW...

Originally Posted by QuickHitCurepon

Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran. If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.

When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.

 

[Kondor3]

I'd rather we not find ourselves obliged to learn the truth of Russian weakness in the Med, mind you, but there's my two-and-a-half-cents-worth, for whatever little good it will do.

 

[dilloduck]

It depends exactly where they are on the sea. Since we'll never know, that is a fruitless conversation.

I said MOUNTING Russian ground forces and moving them up towards the Syrian border. If they do that, surely we wouldn't invade Syria to repeat myself.

Seems Israel does KNOW...

Originally Posted by QuickHitCurepon

Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran. If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.

When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.

mount1


/mount/


verb

verb: mount; 3rd person present: mounts; past tense: mounted; past participle: mounted; gerund or present participle: mounting



1.



climb up (stairs, a hill, or other rising surface).


"he mounted the steps to the front door"


synonyms: go up, ascend, climb (up), scale More


"he mounted the stairs"



antonyms: descend



•
climb or move up onto (a raised surface).


"the master of ceremonies mounted the platform"


synonyms: climb on to, jump on to, clamber on to, get on to More


"the committee mounted the platform"




•
get up on (an animal or bicycle) in order to ride it.



synonyms: get astride, bestride, get on to, hop on to More


"they mounted their horses"




•
set (someone) on horseback; provide with a horse.


"she was mounted on a white horse"



•
(of a male mammal or bird) get on (a female) for the purpose of copulation.




•
(of the blood or its color) rise into the cheeks.


"feeling the blush mount in her cheeks, she looked down quickly"





2.



organize and initiate (a campaign or other significant course of action).


"the company had successfully mounted takeover bids"


synonyms: organize, stage, prepare, arrange, set up; More

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...0l4.0.0.0.62397...........0.-W567c1JK7k&pbx=1