The Syrian Conflict Thread

Alan said:
kerry-assad-dinner.jpg
Click to expand...

Misleading without context aint it?
 
grantza said:
Oh lord. Is that a trick question ?
I'll have to go to the large filing room named "killa's conspiracy theories 2013" & dig around in there for a couple of hours :D


I assume in the above you are referring to that cyber attack theory.
If so, you do of course realise (of course you do) an attack of any sort, physical or cyber, can be launched from a 3rd country - just as the usa did in the instance of iraq.

Are you not seeing reluctance on obama's part to intervene.
He has been making a lot of noise - a lot more bark than bite - ie sabre rattling !
To me, he seems somewhat reluctant to get involved.
Click to expand...

Ok let me explain why he is reluctant:

1. There is no threat to america so he needs congress approval, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ut-congress-is-an-impeachable-offense/279160/ biden threatened to impeach bush in 2007. Now both men who stated clearly the president should not be allowed to attack a country without congress approving are the two men wondering whether they should attack without congress approval.

Conspiracy: i have not had time to fact check this but could biden benefit from obama attacking syria and then turning on him and calling for impeachment or perhaps that is impossible but i wonder if obama is being setup. Crazy conspiracy or is it?
 
Fsck the idiocy amazes me. There are just no end to this posting diarrhea. :sick:
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
Ok let me explain why he is reluctant:

1. There is no threat to america so he needs congress approval, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ut-congress-is-an-impeachable-offense/279160/ biden threatened to impeach bush in 2007. Now both men who stated clearly the president should not be allowed to attack a country without congress approving are the two men wondering whether they should attack without congress approval.
Click to expand...

One needs to take note of the terminology being used.

While the declaration of war is a decision & responsibility incumbent on congress, the authority to initiate military activities or action, is granted to the Commander in Chief (ie the president) in terms of the constitution.

So while congress may have to approve war against Syria, a declaration of war is not what Obama is looking for, but seeking to initiate military activities.
Based on that, like others before him, he will probably not be seeking congressional approval, but congressional support.

In all, the "Commander in Chief" appears to have a loophole via which he is able to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed rights regards "military action".

**
But my understanding gets a little foggy at 1.45 on a saturday morning - so best I stop now.
 
Last edited:
It's a thread that needs to be on it's own and your info sheds further light on the matter. I just posted my link to give another view on the matter. No fixing needed. :)
 
Nope, in this case there is no threat to america. America is not the worlds police. Yes chemical weapons were used in syria but outside their borders obama no has legal basis to launch an attack. He would be declaring war on syria and would more than likely be impeached, evens the dems are urging him to seek congress approval.

Call me crazy, call me a nutter but obama has a tough decision. He ignored congress in libya and had the UN resolution as an excuse, he has no authorization by anyone to launch a war against anyone regardless whether that country has used chemical weapons. He would be starting the war at this point without congress. That won't go down well back home.

conspiracy website, i dunno. She has been tweeting about this for hours. http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013...2.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Forget impeachment how about a war criminal, whether that is just conspiracy people at it again or not i don't know. Dems, repubs are both urging congress approval.
 
Last edited:
And South Africa's military involvement in the Congo is fueled by mineral resources
 
killadoob said:
Nope, in this case there is no threat to america. America is not the worlds police.
Click to expand...

I am assuming, that at 3.30am your thread above was tequila driven.

You are correct in part though, there is no direct threat to america.
But again:
He is not declaring war - which would require congressional approval.
He is however seeking military intervention - which does not require congressional approval.

Let me simplify a little. South Africa is involved in military action in the Congo - we are not at war with the Congo.

And you are correct - america is not the world's police, let these people sort out their own problems.
If required, perhaps the russians or chinese should impose their particular brand of peace keeping in the region - and that should be real interesting.
 
So too our adventure into Lesotho a few years back....
 
No there is no military intervention.

He has absolute no authority by anyone to attack any country. This isn't libya where intervention seemingly looked like bombing the crap out of a country. Let's put it this way, right now if someone launched a missile into chicago the american goverment would deem it a declaration of war and the president then assumes the role as written in the constitution, as it stands he does not have a leg to stand on. He launches a missile at syria he has just declared war against them and broken two rules.

My point about america being the police was to highlight that they have no say and they cannot attack anyone even if they have used chemical weapons unless it was against america or somehow to he had managed to obtain a resolution to abuse. He has no international authorization from the UN or congress, basically his hands are tied and he knows it. Cameron called his people back early for a vote and the vote was no. Obama could call congress back and get them to vote but he has not done that, he has basically ignored congress which is upsetting everyone.

Obama should have been impeached in libya already but he had a UN resolution so it, IRS scandal is hurting him, those 4 dead americans he basically left to die and never gave the order to try save them. He condemned them to death without trying to rescue them. That scandal has not gone down well, he reminds me of nixon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X