Why would BO strike Syria

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
with some missiles? Even his admin admits there is no conclusive evidence Assad actually used chems. Our allies aren't with us ( France doesn't county), the UN isn't with us.



His plan is to send a few missiles but he has no other plan than that

Is there anyway to stop him?

Did BO say many times a Pres should NOT unilaterally attack without Congressional ok?
 
He also thinks it should be a coalition to attack, if he attacks now he will prove he is the biggest stooge liar hipocrate this nation has ever had as president, I guess he is waiting for the poll numbers to come out as to what he should do......
 
Vol
Sadly you appear to be right.
This from that right wing newsrag LATIMES
rolleyes.gif


"s U.S. officials discussed diplomatic and military options with allies in Europe and the Middle East, White House advisors indicated Tuesday that they were unlikely to seek either a vote in Congress or at the U.N. Security Council to authorize use of force"


The azzhole won't even go to Congress?

and from link
"White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that virtually no one doubted that Assad's government had carried out a chemical attack last week. But the Obama administration has yet to reveal the intelligence that led to that conclusion.
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said."The Link

This complete POS will not show evidence he thinks he has, will not go to congress as the Constitution requires and as he has righteously proclaimed many times
will ignore allies and UN
will kill civilians just to not get mocked?

Remember I supported him when he was doing nothing.

is there anyone on Hornfans who supports him in this?
 
Now it appears that President Wishy Washy is going to ask Congress for permission. Congress won't be back in session until Sept. 9.

The Link



Perhaps Obama should just try sending Assad an exploding cigar or a poisoned letter.
 
^^ This will give oil and gas prices another 10 days to spike as they wait for whatever event is going to occur. Thank God Obama wasn't POTUS during the Cuban missle crisis.
 
Unlike his predecessor, this president has not seemed poised to attack every time an opportunity presents itself and he is wisely seeking authority from Congress, which is what the constitution suggests is the proper method of governance,

As to why he might be prompted to launch an attack, the media seems to be gung ho and they are a real influence in our demented capital city.

By god, this assad fellow is a killer!!!!! What are "we" going to do about it? We can't just "do nothing" can we? This is the pathetic path that empire creates
 
When Obama drew a line in the sand it caused most people to reason that he would intervene if that line were crossed. Otherwise, it looks like the president was playing chicken on the playground and lost. So to say that the president isn't gung-ho about intervening is inaccurate, especially considering he is already supplying the rebels. What it appears like is that the president is leading from behind and decided the negative opinion polls were too much to put his reputation on the line by going it alone.
 
This made me laugh
"Unlike his predecessor, this president has not seemed poised to attack every time an opportunity presents itself "

BO isn't poised to do anything but play golf, after he announces he wants someone else ( Congress) to take the blame for his red line pronouncements and Kerry hysterical rantings.


What will BO do if Congress votes against military action?

BO has already made the USA a laughing stock in the muslim world. I bet iran got a good chuckle over BO's threats ' across the bow.
 
so you think an attack of some sort should be launched now because of ill chosen words then?

And whose side do we fight for in a war with no good guys?
 
What is my post suggested I think BO should attack?
if I gave that impression let me correct it
As I said all along BO should NOT have made all those high horse pronouncements about red lines
and for sure he should not have spent the last week threatening and sending horse face out with his outraged rants
There is also no denying BO has tarnished our image but the tarnish started long ago.

Now with his latest idiocy he it trying to pass the blame.
I hope the American people let congress know to vote against any military action
even if it makes us look weal to some of the world.
The UKhas it right.
 
the UK finally has it right; it was their actions in the middle east during and after WW I that completely wrecked what was a screwed up place to begin with.

Recall that the brits promised home rule for the arabs if they helped overthrow the 'Turks and promised a homeland for the jews in palestine if they helped out. While at the same time secretly carving the place up with the French.
We have long been seen as little more than the brits' successors in that part of the world and it is hard to see how anything these bozos do can tarnish our image any worse.

The reason for O and Kerrey's distress is that our two biggest allies in the area, Israel and the SAudi royal family, both want us to intervene because of their fear of Iran. As W said the other day, O doesn't have any easy choices in front of him.

Take a look at the pro israel lobby if you doubt me: start with Bill the village idiot Kristol and then skip over to Commentary magazine on line. Our "buddies" as W called them are very disappointed right now,
 
6721: my apologies for misrepresenting your argument. I have spent some time the last week arguing against lobbing any ordnance into Syria and it got habit forming. Hard to believe you and I actually agreed on something, no?.
 
Actually huis I think we are on the same spectrum, we just are at different points.

You have a much larger world view, world history view than I. I learn much from your posts
I don't always agree that those events affect these events to the same extent.
But I always learn something from your posts.
 
David Fromkin wrote a book called The Peace to End All Peace about WW I in arabia and its aftermath. It is well worth the time to read it to see how the present configuration of nations over there arose (the national boundaries are not natural and in themselves lead to vicious hatreds and wars) and why most of the locals will never trust foreigners,.

I have read a fair amount of academic works on how everything got the way it is but Fromkin does a great job in one volume and is an easy read.

Try to imagine the north v south in 1861 and then multiply the number of parties by ten in each country

The biggest problem I have trying to understand that area is getting into the heads of the various parties. I can't claim to have accomplished that with any of them but Fromkin gives some ideas.

.
 
i can see your analogy about the north versus the south.
for sure in many areas, both N and especially s there was mistrust of ' foreigners" and in many cases the mistrust was well placed.

I don't think there is way you can ever get into the heads of the radicals and the radicals seem to out number whatever a ' moderate" is.

But I can't get into Kerry's head either. Now he is calling this our" Munich moment" and we MUST strike at Assad to prevent further violence in the region.
UH?

If that is his argument someone needs to remind Kerry he was in VietNam.
 
Munich analogists always overlook the fact that England was in better shape to fight in 1939 than it was in 1938
 
"no matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."

-----Joan Didion

To paraphrase the great Ray Hicks in Dog Soldiers, "what a bummer for the syrians."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top