EPTWhat so bad about having this guy in charge of Syria? I've seen a lot worse from the middle east, but idk.
Anyone have a link to the full interview?
Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 139
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
What so bad about having this guy in charge of Syria? I've seen a lot worse from the middle east, but idk. Anyone have a link to the full interview? | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 10 2013 03:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Obama didn't just drop the ball on this one he passed the ball to Putin. This has been one of the most ridiculously smart moves I've ever seen in international politics. Kerry says some off-the-cuff rhetoric and Russia/Assad immediately seize the opportunity to completely absolve Syria from any blame/punishment for the 21 august attack and any possible future attack. President Obama doesn't do anything without political cover. Because of the lack of support among the American people, and more specifically Congress (from whom he was desperately hoping to receive his needed cover), he needed a way out. Without others to blame, a decision to attack Syria would be his and his alone. Enter John Kerry. Now, there is a way out for President Obama and "it's not his fault". He can't be blamed for attacking Syria if he ultimately didn't, and he can't be blamed for Kerry's "bungle" which lead to Obama's inability to attack Syria. Political cover obtained. President Obama saves face. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On September 10 2013 04:41 dsousa wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX59rxD-vqg What so bad about having this guy in charge of Syria? I've seen a lot worse from the middle east, but idk. Anyone have a link to the full interview? i dunno, this and this and this suggest that having him in charge of syria is pretty shitty http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/middleeast/at-least-six-protesters-killed-in-syria.html?pagewanted=all http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-12/news/29536513_1_assad-president-bashar-uprising - war crime - war crime indiscriminate shelling and bombing of residential areas is a war crime, the syrian army has literally leveled entire neighborhoods fighting the rebels so sorry there's a lot bad about having that guy in charge of syria | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 10 2013 03:53 LegalLord wrote: You know, based on his decision to go to Congress and to agree with this turn of events, I wonder what Obama's original intent was. Doesn't really make much sense right now. His intent was to not get blamed for anything. As is always his intent. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On September 10 2013 04:44 Kaitlin wrote: President Obama doesn't do anything without political cover. Because of the lack of support among the American people, and more specifically Congress (from whom he was desperately hoping to receive his needed cover), he needed a way out. Without others to blame, a decision to attack Syria would be his and his alone. Enter John Kerry. Now, there is a way out for President Obama and "it's not his fault". He can't be blamed for attacking Syria if he ultimately didn't, and he can't be blamed for Kerry's "bungle" which lead to Obama's inability to attack Syria. Political cover obtained. President Obama saves face. Then why is Obama going on a media Blitz and not stopping Kerry, or Carney from stumbling along trying to sound coherent. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 10 2013 04:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Then why is Obama going on a media Blitz and not stopping Kerry, or Carney from stumbling along trying to sound coherent. Just watch it play out. Focus on the outcome, not the process. Obama will have political cover no matter what action is taken or not taken. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 10 2013 04:48 Kaitlin wrote: His intent was to not get blamed for anything. As is always his intent. Well not too many people are talking about Obama at all, so mission accomplished I suppose. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On September 10 2013 05:05 JimmiC wrote: Well if YOU are confident then forsure they do. C'mon Man.... Ya, I agree its weak from a proving a theory standpoint. When choosing what to believe however, you have to rely on some logical deduction. I don't have proof of anything, I'm just interpreting the news like everyone else and drawing my own conclusions. | ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On September 10 2013 05:02 JimmiC wrote: I don't know who you are arguing with? I didn't post anything about the other side rhetoric. I would rather see none of it and just read the info. The reason I responded to this post in particular was there was nothing but rhetoric, most posters at least mix in a little facts. On another note. It's interesting to see how people read into peoples posts based on there own beliefs and make assumptions based on that and then post. I think this is one of the big reasons many arguements happen, people assuming what the other person "means" or is "really saying". Sadly assumption is just a reality of life. It's not argument, it's small talk. Arguments I reserve for my internal monologues, since I am always fearful about how sensitive people actually are. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
Letter from Syrian Parliment to US Congress http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/us_house_of_representatives.pdf This was apparently sent 5 days ago. First I've heard of it.... and I found it on a CONSPIRACY related website. I guess its not at all relevant towards justifying a war. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On September 10 2013 05:21 HeavenS wrote: i honestly dont think the chemical weapons thing is any more than just a reason to attack. but have we thought about whats a stake here? look at the state of syria now, its a mess. if we back out of the mess wouldn't russia just fill the gap and exert more influence in the region which is what the us doesnt want. i forgot the us militay official that said the us planned on attacking 5 countries in the future with syria and iran being two of them, afghanistan and iraq also and i forget the last. but it kinda makes sense, i feel like the us is trying to sweep the entire region and exert more influence and establish more dominance. if we look at a map and see the countries we've invaded so far its pretty convenient to hit iran in the future, theyd be pretty fucked. i dont think its okay in the sense that it will cost human lives but i feel like if the us wasnt the superpower flexing its muscles then it would be russia or china and do we really want that instead? That General Wesley Clark was just on T.V in Belgium I believe advocating bombing. I guess he got this memo personally. "It's only ok because it's us not them. Reverse would be unacceptable." I think that's the condensed version. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 10 2013 05:56 dsousa wrote: Its funny how little we hear from our "news" Letter from Syrian Parliment to US Congress http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/us_house_of_representatives.pdf This was apparently sent 5 days ago. First I've heard of it.... and I found it on a CONSPIRACY related website. I guess its not at all relevant towards justifying a war. bnp isnt just a conspiracy related website, its a racist, xenophobic, neo-nazi wannabes. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On September 10 2013 05:56 dsousa wrote: Its funny how little we hear from our "news" Letter from Syrian Parliment to US Congress http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/us_house_of_representatives.pdf This was apparently sent 5 days ago. First I've heard of it.... and I found it on a CONSPIRACY related website. I guess its not at all relevant towards justifying a war. It was reported on in most major news media including the guardian, BBC and NYTimes, in the case of the guardian and the NYTimes in their liveblogs. Here's one of the items the BBC did on it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23981644 There's also a load of items on letters syrians send to french/uk governments. You can't really blame the 'major news' organizations if you're not looking hard enough. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On September 10 2013 06:08 Sub40APM wrote: bnp isnt just a conspiracy related website, its a racist, xenophobic, neo-nazi wannabes. I see, well I found a link to it from another website. Can you find a link to this from a "reputable" website? Maybe you can, but its not easy. We're not hearing equally from both sides, is my main point. | ||
|
ImperialFist
790 Posts
The Al Nusra even launched an offensive on the North where I hope that the Kurdish Militias can protect the people from these Terrorist scum. The Syrian army grows day by day, Syria unites against evil. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 10 2013 05:56 dsousa wrote: Its funny how little we hear from our "news" Letter from Syrian Parliment to US Congress http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/us_house_of_representatives.pdf This was apparently sent 5 days ago. First I've heard of it.... and I found it on a CONSPIRACY related website. I guess its not at all relevant towards justifying a war. Wow a letter. ... So what? | ||
| ||
