http://gamingtrend.com
April 17, 2014, 01:12:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: how come we're not attacking syria?  (Read 7912 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15021


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: August 30, 2013, 11:57:39 AM »

Quote from: Moliere on August 29, 2013, 10:47:30 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on August 29, 2013, 10:14:59 PM


I bet the U.S. would be out too if Obama actually consulted Congress.

Agreed. But he doesn't have to.  If he attacks syria this will be the nail in the coffin of his popularity and probably torpedo the rest of his term.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15021


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: August 30, 2013, 12:52:26 PM »

Both NBCNEWS and USATODAY say that Americans are divided down the middle about whether to attack syria.  This is shocking to me given what we just went through in I/A.  Have we forgotten already?

They do say that 80% think Obama should get congressional approval.  Which is also low to me.

Oye!
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3304



View Profile WWW
« Reply #162 on: August 30, 2013, 03:49:07 PM »

Obama's painted himself into a corner. Even leaving aside the consequences to his personal credibility and America's tough-guy image, the expected missile strikes are supposed to send a message to Assad about the price of chemical warfare. So now what message is received if the missiles don't rain down?
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15021


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: August 30, 2013, 03:56:11 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on August 30, 2013, 03:49:07 PM

Obama's painted himself into a corner. Even leaving aside the consequences to his personal credibility and America's tough-guy image, the expected missile strikes are supposed to send a message to Assad about the price of chemical warfare. So now what message is received if the missiles don't rain down?

That we actually waited for real evidence before getting the US once again ensnared in an action that will only reap negative consequences for its citizenry?
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8835


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: August 30, 2013, 04:35:28 PM »

Obama has a chance here to distinguish himself from the Bush era policies he's been following by taking a step back and listening to the people.

Unfortunately, I can also see that he's stuck between the scylla and charybdis in that he's threatened force if a line was crossed...and if that line definitely was crossed, he's going to end up making America look weak in the eyes of the Middle East.

I'm glad I'm not in his shoes right now...   icon_neutral
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15021


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: August 30, 2013, 04:48:55 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on August 30, 2013, 04:35:28 PM

Obama has a chance here to distinguish himself from the Bush era policies he's been following by taking a step back and listening to the people.

Unfortunately, I can also see that he's stuck between the scylla and charybdis in that he's threatened force if a line was crossed...and if that line definitely was crossed, he's going to end up making America look weak in the eyes of the Middle East.

He can back off of that if Congress says no, just like Cameron did.  It's the only smart play. And I'm not sure the engagements in Iraq/Afghanistan did anything but make us look weak. frown


Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8835


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: August 30, 2013, 04:57:09 PM »

Weak?  Hardly.  Imperialistic?  That I can agree with.  Untrustworthy?  That too.  Of course, the opinion of the US in the middle east has been pretty awful for a long, long time.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #167 on: August 30, 2013, 05:17:04 PM »

I'm guessing he means weak as in unable to acheive the results we want.

I doubt anyone thinks we are unable to wreak utter destruction, but we routinely fail to meet our goals with the actions we choose to take.
Logged
Vorret
Welcome to Gaming Trend

Offline Offline

Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: August 30, 2013, 06:25:46 PM »

Quote from: Rip on August 30, 2013, 05:17:04 PM

I'm guessing he means weak as in unable to acheive the results we want.

I doubt anyone thinks we are unable to wreak utter destruction, but we routinely fail to meet our goals with the actions we choose to take.

Exactly.
If the US wanted to completely obliterate either Iraq or Afghanistan (or Syria, in this case) they could do it very easily.   But doing that would open a big can of worms nobody wants to open (for good reason).

Logged
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5385


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: August 30, 2013, 11:37:38 PM »

I was completely against Iraq but I'm for action on Syria. Actually, I was for action on Syria about 2 years ago when it would have actually done some good and the Rebel forces has yet to be coopted by the religious and al-queda fighters.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15021


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: August 31, 2013, 12:21:42 AM »

Quote from: Canuck on August 30, 2013, 11:37:38 PM

and the Rebel forces had yet to be coopted by the religious and al-queda fighters.

But given that they are now, you still would support aiding our enemies?
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #171 on: August 31, 2013, 01:09:15 AM »

Quote from: ATB on August 31, 2013, 12:21:42 AM

Quote from: Canuck on August 30, 2013, 11:37:38 PM

and the Rebel forces had yet to be coopted by the religious and al-queda fighters.

But given that they are now, you still would support aiding our enemies?

That and I would argue they were largely co-opted then, you just didn't know it yet.

In the end since I consider both parties an enemy, horrific acts or not why should I carry the water when none of there friends will? I reject the notion that it is our responsibilty to act simply because people got gassed. Particularly in such a hypocritical fashion. Why this one? Why not {insert huge list of CW attacks}?
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71767


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: August 31, 2013, 06:26:44 AM »

UN inspectors pull out early

Quote
With a U.S. military strike looming, U.N. weapons inspectors left Syria ahead of schedule early Saturday for a dangerous predawn drive to Lebanon, carrying unknown evidence of what the U.S. says was a chemical weapons attack on its own citizens by the Syrian government.

The U.N. said Friday that the team had finished collecting samples from the site of the alleged attack but that a complete analysis would take time. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the five permanent Security Council members that it may be two weeks before final results are ready, diplomats said.

The inspectors had been expected to leave about 9 a.m. Saturday (2 a.m. ET), but they were seen leaving their hotel in Damascus, the capital about 5:30 a.m. in vehicles bound for Beirut, Lebanon. They declined to comment to NBC News as arrived at the Lebanese border.

I'm half expecting to wake up later today to the news of cruise missiles being launched.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2841



View Profile
« Reply #173 on: August 31, 2013, 05:59:23 PM »

For my money this was one of Obama's finest moments. He wiggled out of the corner he painted himself in, while presenting a strong case for taking action.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: August 31, 2013, 06:14:53 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on August 31, 2013, 05:59:23 PM

For my money this was one of Obama's finest moments. He wiggled out of the corner he painted himself in, while presenting a strong case for taking action.

There is no case for attacking them and getting involved in this civil war.   Both sides hate us and whoever is in power at the end will still hate us.    Let them sort things out themselves, we have no national interest in this conflict.
Logged
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1336


View Profile
« Reply #175 on: August 31, 2013, 06:15:30 PM »

Yep. Seeking Congressional approval is not only a nice precedent for future military engagements, but it's smart politics. Now members of Congress can't just wash their hands of this mess and criticize from the outside. They have to take a stand. It'll be especially interesting to see which side the more hawkish Republican members of the Senate (e.g., Graham) take when their constituents are so overwhelming against intervening.

Edit: my reply was to YK.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #176 on: August 31, 2013, 06:24:45 PM »

Nothing has changed, Obama says he still has the authority to do it without congressional approval.   The only reason he is doing it is to shift blame.   If congress approves and it goes badly (as it most certainly will) he can blame congress, if congress doesnt approve, he can blame congress for tying his hands, on the tiny change it somehow all goes right, he will take all the credit.    If I was in congress I wouldnt even take the matter up for a vote, I would work on far more important things like getting the debt ceiling issue taken care of.
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1572


View Profile WWW
« Reply #177 on: August 31, 2013, 06:43:28 PM »

Well, this is going to be complicated.
Logged

Teggy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8450


Eat lightsaber, jerks!


View Profile
« Reply #178 on: August 31, 2013, 06:56:30 PM »

My personal opinion is that Syria should be punished for using chemical weapons. However, they should be punished for violating the Geneva convention, and punished in whatever manner the Geneva convention allows for. It's not the US's responsibility to take on that role alone.

I like that Congress will take a vote, it's the right thing to do in this political environment. Of course, congress voted on invading Iraq as well.
Logged

"Is there any chance your jolly Garchomp is female?" - Wonderpug
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3304



View Profile WWW
« Reply #179 on: August 31, 2013, 09:41:32 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on August 31, 2013, 05:59:23 PM

For my money this was one of Obama's finest moments. He wiggled out of the corner he painted himself in, while presenting a strong case for taking action.

Agreed.

I was going to suggest dropping the word "not" from this thread's title, but now it looks likely that we're back to not-attacking Syria again...which is a relief to me. 'Course, Congress could surprise me and come out in favor of a strike. The Senate is likely to authorize it. The House? Count on them to do the opposite of whatever they think Obama really wants.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #180 on: August 31, 2013, 09:57:53 PM »

Quote from: Teggy on August 31, 2013, 06:56:30 PM

My personal opinion is that Syria should be punished for using chemical weapons. However, they should be punished for violating the Geneva convention, and punished in whatever manner the Geneva convention allows for. It's not the US's responsibility to take on that role alone.

I like that Congress will take a vote, it's the right thing to do in this political environment. Of course, congress voted on invading Iraq as well.

Why should they be punished when other countries that have also used chemical weapons against their own people, like Russia for example, not be punished?
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: August 31, 2013, 09:59:26 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on August 31, 2013, 09:41:32 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 31, 2013, 05:59:23 PM

For my money this was one of Obama's finest moments. He wiggled out of the corner he painted himself in, while presenting a strong case for taking action.

Agreed.

I was going to suggest dropping the word "not" from this thread's title, but now it looks likely that we're back to not-attacking Syria again...which is a relief to me. 'Course, Congress could surprise me and come out in favor of a strike. The Senate is likely to authorize it. The House? Count on them to do the opposite of whatever they think Obama really wants.

Deferring to congress just to avoid the blame for a situation is now a presidents finest moment?      Hmm, well we are talking about Obama here, so you actually may have a point there, can't think of many other finest moments he could even have.
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2841



View Profile
« Reply #182 on: August 31, 2013, 10:05:18 PM »

They'll authorize it. I would bet money on it. I don't believe Obama would roll the dice if he only thought he had a 50/50 chance of winning. He had to have been really confident in the evidence to even consider letting Congress have a say, particularly after the recent British embarrassment.

At any rate, this whole Congressional vote is just a way for Obama to stick to his campaign promises and appease the public. This decision has already been made, and will be carried out no matter what. No way in hell that we're just going to turn our warships around and go home at this point like some whipped dogs with our tails between our legs. In the unlikely event Congress doesn't authorize it, Obama will cite some previously unmentioned compelling reason we must act now and go through with it anyway.
Logged
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5385


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #183 on: August 31, 2013, 10:14:41 PM »

I think he's go most of the Republicans on his side this time. I would certainly hope so given their position on Iraq. You gotta love the irony of one Republican congressman (I can't remember who, Peter King perhaps?) criticizing Obama for giving up his lawfully ordained power to attack other countries saying that he doesn't need Congress permission. Never thought I would have ever heard that coming from a Republican' mouth. Perhaps they just don't like the precedent?
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #184 on: August 31, 2013, 10:17:05 PM »

I don't see this passing congress, the american people are against this in every poll I have seen.   Congress has to run for reelection, Obama doesn't.
Logged
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1336


View Profile
« Reply #185 on: August 31, 2013, 10:17:20 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on August 31, 2013, 10:05:18 PM

They'll authorize it. I would bet money on it. I don't believe Obama would roll the dice if he only thought he had a 50/50 chance of winning. He had to have been really confident in the evidence to even consider letting Congress have a say, particularly after the recent British embarrassment.
I just can't see this being approved by the Rand Paul isolationist wing of the party (which is rapidly increasing and likely represents the majority of Republicans in the House). Perhaps though a coalition of House Democrats and hawkish Republicans would give enough votes to authorize, but I doubt the Tea Party contingent is going to be on board.

As an aside, how crazy is it that Democrats and neocons are now on the same side? Just tells you how easily "principles" shift depending on who's in power.  
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #186 on: August 31, 2013, 10:19:36 PM »

Quote from: Captain Caveman on August 31, 2013, 10:17:20 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 31, 2013, 10:05:18 PM

They'll authorize it. I would bet money on it. I don't believe Obama would roll the dice if he only thought he had a 50/50 chance of winning. He had to have been really confident in the evidence to even consider letting Congress have a say, particularly after the recent British embarrassment.
I just can't see this being approved by the Rand Paul isolationist wing of the party (which is rapidly increasing and likely represents the majority of Republicans in the House). Perhaps though a coalition of House Democrats and hawkish Republicans would give enough votes to authorize, but I doubt the Tea Party contingent is going to be on board.

As an aside, how crazy is it that Democrats and neocons are now on the same side? Just tells you how easily "principles" shift depending on who's in power.  

The last part has always been the case, look at all the things Obama campaigned against Bush on but when in office with the power continued or made worse.
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2841



View Profile
« Reply #187 on: September 01, 2013, 04:14:30 AM »

Quote from: brettmcd
I don't see this passing congress, the american people are against this in every poll I have seen.   Congress has to run for reelection, Obama doesn't.

Those are generic polls on military action against Syria. When they poll regarding limited airstrikes using cruise missiles, the numbers shift in favor. I would also presume that the evidence against Syria that is going to be shown to Congress before their vote is also going to make its way to the media in some form. If that evidence is convincing, you could see poll numbers quickly shift in favor of military action.

Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3304



View Profile WWW
« Reply #188 on: September 01, 2013, 06:00:55 AM »

Quote from: YellowKing on August 31, 2013, 10:05:18 PM

They'll authorize it. I would bet money on it. I don't believe Obama would roll the dice if he only thought he had a 50/50 chance of winning.

You're assuming that he wants to win. This administration has a terrible track record on securing Congressional cooperation for anything. But it looks to me like this is Obama's way to step back from taking an ineffective and unpopular action without losing face. I think he's counting on it being voted down.

Quote from: YellowKing on August 31, 2013, 10:05:18 PM

This decision has already been made, and will be carried out no matter what. No way in hell that we're just going to turn our warships around and go home at this point like some whipped dogs with our tails between our legs. In the unlikely event Congress doesn't authorize it, Obama will cite some previously unmentioned compelling reason we must act now and go through with it anyway.

I don't think Obama's hell-bent on doing this unless he really believes that a symbolic operation will really deter Assad and others from reaching for the nerve gas again.

The realpolitik here is his meeting with Putin next week. That's what will determine whether he overrides Congress's opposition.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5385


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #189 on: September 01, 2013, 08:35:22 AM »

I think  Obama is probably happy to have passed the buck. He's probably not looking forward to something that he is pushing being rejected but if it is then he can say his hands are tied. Win/win for Obama.
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2841



View Profile
« Reply #190 on: September 01, 2013, 11:42:26 AM »

Quote
You're assuming that he wants to win. This administration has a terrible track record on securing Congressional cooperation for anything. But it looks to me like this is Obama's way to step back from taking an ineffective and unpopular action without losing face. I think he's counting on it being voted down.

I find it odd he would clearly state his decision to strike if he was hoping to lose. Anyway, not sure why I keep defending a President I despise. smile
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #191 on: September 01, 2013, 01:02:25 PM »

Quote from: Canuck on September 01, 2013, 08:35:22 AM

I think  Obama is probably happy to have passed the buck. He's probably not looking forward to something that he is pushing being rejected but if it is then he can say his hands are tied. Win/win for Obama.

and a lose/lose for America.
Logged
dbt1949
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2617


Don't tread on me


View Profile
« Reply #192 on: September 01, 2013, 08:58:25 PM »

I find it odd that an NBC poll says 80% of Americans want Obama to bomb Syria when I don't know of a single person who does.
Logged

Ye Olde Farte
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #193 on: September 01, 2013, 09:29:23 PM »

Quote from: dbt1949 on September 01, 2013, 08:58:25 PM

I find it odd that an NBC poll says 80% of Americans want Obama to bomb Syria when I don't know of a single person who does.

I thnk the poll is actually that 80% want him to see congressional approval before bombing. Even NBC can't rig a poll that far out of whack.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #194 on: September 02, 2013, 02:02:13 AM »

Well at least one person was dressed to launch some missles.



My guess is Al-Assad would have caught it right upside his face.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 02:04:14 AM by Rip » Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71767


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #195 on: September 02, 2013, 02:14:02 AM »

Quote from: Rip on September 02, 2013, 02:02:13 AM



natural 20!  sorry Joe, but your dwarf takes 5 points of damage from the orc.  John, the dragon turns toward your elf and....
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Biyobi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 716


View Profile
« Reply #196 on: September 02, 2013, 05:53:36 PM »

Quote
how come we're not attacking syria?

Looking at the current list of topics in this forum, the answer to this question lies in the title of the next topic:

Quote
Marijuana. Just watched a documentary.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71767


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #197 on: September 03, 2013, 07:58:55 PM »

Boehner has risen to support action, along with Cantor.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1563


View Profile
« Reply #198 on: September 03, 2013, 08:19:10 PM »

I think the best outcome here would be to convince Russia that it's in their best interest to bomb Syria for the use of Chemical/Nerve Gas.  Is it possible?  I have no idea, but that is probably the only thing that could make a difference in Syria.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Reemul
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1029


Knock Knock


View Profile WWW
« Reply #199 on: September 04, 2013, 07:52:10 AM »

Well us Brits said no and that really is how the majority feel. We definitely want some form of punishment for the use of chemical weapons however the always us seems to have run its course.

There are many nations in the world and many who could step up and deal with it yet they don't. It seems the US feel they have to when they don't, where is the rest of the world in this.

It is about time other nations of the world got involved in these issues.
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.15 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.038s, 2q)