Re: Syria
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:48 pm
We've said no, thankfully. I can't believe it was so close. Should have been a land slide NO.
creep wrote:i doubt he will do anything. he just wants to make it look like he is making a tough decision. thanks to the uk for backing out of this mess.
if romney was president i wonder what the republicans would want to do?
i'm so fucking out of touch i had no idea he is the secretary of state. i thought he was still a senator so i just blew off what he was saying. i still thought hillary was secretary of state. me dumbLJF wrote:creep wrote:i doubt he will do anything. he just wants to make it look like he is making a tough decision. thanks to the uk for backing out of this mess.
if romney was president i wonder what the republicans would want to do?
did you watch Kerry's talk today? After what he said there is no way Obama can't do something. My prediction is we go it alone and that it is done by this time next week, before he leaves for G-20 meeting in Russia.
Per Tracey Crouch, MP for Chatham and Aylesford:Bandit72 wrote:We've said no, thankfully. I can't believe it was so close. Should have been a land slide NO.
Per David Davis, Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden:http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/parliame ... icetwitter
What way will you be voting?
I’ll be voting against the government motion and the Labour motion because they both make reference to supporting military intervention in Syria.
What do you think should happen?
I think we should continue with diplomatic resolution and provide humanitarian support. I think we could also impose sanctions.
Isn’t it a bit late for all that?
No, I don’t think it is. We haven’t got the information for certain that it was the Assad regime that used chemical weapons. I think we have to be very careful when we don’t know who makes up the opposition. With the involvement of al-Qaeda, for example, we have to be very careful whose side we take on this.
Don’t you think chemical weapons are a red line?
Why is there mass outcry with the use of chemical weapons compared to when people are being blown up and shot? People are being massacred in Zimbabwe on a regular basis and we stand back and do nothing. Are we suggesting that if Mugabe used chemical weapons we should have an intervention in Zimbabwe? We shouldn’t have people committing genocide whether it’s with chemical weapons or not. The response to that, however, is always that we should be flexing our muscles and sending in military support, whereas I don’t think that’s the right way forward. You only have to look at Afghanistan and Iraq to know that sending armed forces doesn’t always lead to the right outcome.
If we are not going in to get rid of the regime, at this point I am not sure what it will accomplish other than more civilian deaths. I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I don't think the US should bomb or invade.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/parliame ... icetwitter
If it passes, when will the missiles be in the sky?
Who knows? It’s not actually that time-sensitive. The Americans have this saying – “load, fire, aim” – and that sums up their military policy sometimes. We don’t want to get into that – we want "load, aim fire".
chaos wrote:Per Tracey Crouch, MP for Chatham and Aylesford:Bandit72 wrote:We've said no, thankfully. I can't believe it was so close. Should have been a land slide NO.
Per David Davis, Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden:http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/parliame ... icetwitter
What way will you be voting?
I’ll be voting against the government motion and the Labour motion because they both make reference to supporting military intervention in Syria.
What do you think should happen?
I think we should continue with diplomatic resolution and provide humanitarian support. I think we could also impose sanctions.
Isn’t it a bit late for all that?
No, I don’t think it is. We haven’t got the information for certain that it was the Assad regime that used chemical weapons. I think we have to be very careful when we don’t know who makes up the opposition. With the involvement of al-Qaeda, for example, we have to be very careful whose side we take on this.
Don’t you think chemical weapons are a red line?
Why is there mass outcry with the use of chemical weapons compared to when people are being blown up and shot? People are being massacred in Zimbabwe on a regular basis and we stand back and do nothing. Are we suggesting that if Mugabe used chemical weapons we should have an intervention in Zimbabwe? We shouldn’t have people committing genocide whether it’s with chemical weapons or not. The response to that, however, is always that we should be flexing our muscles and sending in military support, whereas I don’t think that’s the right way forward. You only have to look at Afghanistan and Iraq to know that sending armed forces doesn’t always lead to the right outcome.
If we are not going in to get rid of the regime, at this point I am not sure what it will accomplish other than more civilian deaths. I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I don't think the US should bomb or invade.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/parliame ... icetwitter
If it passes, when will the missiles be in the sky?
Who knows? It’s not actually that time-sensitive. The Americans have this saying – “load, fire, aim” – and that sums up their military policy sometimes. We don’t want to get into that – we want "load, aim fire".
I hear what you are saying but I hope he doesn't go through with it. If the administration really wanted to get out of it, they could just say that based on the evidence thus far, they cannot be sure who is responsible for the chemical weapon attack. They could/should come up with something to save face.LJF wrote: exactly, but what does Obama do if he stated the chemical weapons were the red line? What does he do to show that he means what he says? They have already stated several times regime change isn't the objective. The current regime has used chemical weapons and is killing it's own people, how do you change that without removing them? We're in it because of what he said.
no they can't just watch the Kerry talk. He laid it out that it is clear the current regime did it. There is no backing out of this. Please watch what he said and tell me if you think there is anyway out, I don't see it. There is no reason for us to bomb them and play police.chaos wrote:I hear what you are saying but I hope he doesn't go through with it. If the administration really wanted to get out of it, they could just say that based on the evidence thus far, they cannot be sure who is responsible for the chemical weapon attack. They could/should come up with something to save face.LJF wrote: exactly, but what does Obama do if he stated the chemical weapons were the red line? What does he do to show that he means what he says? They have already stated several times regime change isn't the objective. The current regime has used chemical weapons and is killing it's own people, how do you change that without removing them? We're in it because of what he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... -internet/
...
Given the intense fighting in the Aleppo area, it’s possible that the outages are related to local infrastructure damage. However, Internet outages in Syria have a curious history of happening at times convenient for the Assad regime. In November 2012, some 92 percent of national Syrian Internet traffic went offline as the regime was rumored to be mixing chemical weapon components, while 78 percent of traffic went offline in January when Assad gave a rare public address. Some past localized Internet outages have also coincided with government offensives in those areas.
...
Henry Kissinger, The New Republic, 16 December 1972, page 21 wrote:There is really very little of Machiavelli's one can accept or use in the contemporary world. . . . If you want to know who has influenced me most, I'll answer with two philosophers' names: Spinoza and Kant. Which makes it all the more peculiar that you choose to associate me with Machiavelli.
EXACTLY what I said, re: Zimbabwe. And that regime has been going on for as long as I can remember. We've even had royals mixing with Mugabe ffs. It's the whole one rule for one, one rule for another nonsense which riles me. And besides, I refuse to bring my children up with idiot warmongering western 'leaders'.chaos wrote:Per Tracey Crouch, MP for Chatham and Aylesford:Bandit72 wrote:We've said no, thankfully. I can't believe it was so close. Should have been a land slide NO.
Per David Davis, Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden:http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/parliame ... icetwitter
What way will you be voting?
I’ll be voting against the government motion and the Labour motion because they both make reference to supporting military intervention in Syria.
What do you think should happen?
I think we should continue with diplomatic resolution and provide humanitarian support. I think we could also impose sanctions.
Isn’t it a bit late for all that?
No, I don’t think it is. We haven’t got the information for certain that it was the Assad regime that used chemical weapons. I think we have to be very careful when we don’t know who makes up the opposition. With the involvement of al-Qaeda, for example, we have to be very careful whose side we take on this.
Don’t you think chemical weapons are a red line?
Why is there mass outcry with the use of chemical weapons compared to when people are being blown up and shot? People are being massacred in Zimbabwe on a regular basis and we stand back and do nothing. Are we suggesting that if Mugabe used chemical weapons we should have an intervention in Zimbabwe? We shouldn’t have people committing genocide whether it’s with chemical weapons or not. The response to that, however, is always that we should be flexing our muscles and sending in military support, whereas I don’t think that’s the right way forward. You only have to look at Afghanistan and Iraq to know that sending armed forces doesn’t always lead to the right outcome.
If we are not going in to get rid of the regime, at this point I am not sure what it will accomplish other than more civilian deaths. I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I don't think the US should bomb or invade.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/parliame ... icetwitter
If it passes, when will the missiles be in the sky?
Who knows? It’s not actually that time-sensitive. The Americans have this saying – “load, fire, aim” – and that sums up their military policy sometimes. We don’t want to get into that – we want "load, aim fire".
The 23 Twitter accounts you must follow to understand Syria
By Max Fisher, Published: August 30 at 1:11 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... and-syria/
"What doesn't kill a tyrant makes him stronger." Powerful piece against syria intervention.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... r-war.html
he must read this board because that is what i suggested.chaos wrote:Obama is addressing the public now; he found his out. He is going to let Congress vote on whether to intervene militarily in Syria.