- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
The Obama administration said the president is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria without the assistance of allies after the British Parliament rejected a preliminary vote authorizing action. The U.S. said it would continue to consult with the UK but that the vote would not alter its plans.
"As we’ve said, President Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States," said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. "He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs
Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone.
Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs
Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone. [/FONT][/COLOR]
I thought with the election of Obama the world was supposed to love us. Bush got about 50 nations to go along with him in Iraq. Obama cant even get the Brits. Surveillance, drones, Gitmo, gunboat diplomacy, WMD, move over Bush, looks like there is a new Cowboy in town.
Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs
Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs
Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone. [/FONT][/COLOR]
See, that's what we knew all along. The president will do what's in the best interest of the United States. Not whats in the best interest of the Syrian civilians who largely support their government. Also "US Interests" do not equate with your and my interests.
As Syria does not pose any imminent threat to U.S. interests in the Mideast or U.S. allies there (and it won't, because that would be suicidal for a regime already struggling to hold onto power), it's difficult to envision the national interests that would be served by a military operation. Some peripheral interests might be served, but certainly not critical or vital ones.
What appears to be at stake is Presidential prestige on account of the President's having drawn a "red line," quite foolisly IMO as it was not anchored on critical U.S. interests, which sort of locked him into his current dilemma. Failure to attack, would risk creating perceptions of weakness. An attack would protect Presidential prestige but would probably not serve any overriding American interests given the information that is currently available. It could worsen already deteriorating relations with Russia and Russia could take stances that make it more difficult for the U.S. to pursue its goals e.g., a diplomatic resolution concerning Iran's nuclear activities. An attack might serve some modest humanitarian purpose, but only if strong evidence (beyond the circumstantial evidence currently available, which the British Parliament did not find sufficient) justified launching the strikes against the Assad government.
The circumstantial evidence that I've been able to find would justify launching a strike on the rebels. I do notice that no USA press prints any of the evidence that the rebels used chemical weapons. Too many CIA assets and not enough reporters, in my opinion. I even see the AP saying the Assad regime used gas in December and the UNO report of Del Ponte indicts the rebels for that action. Funny a large news organization like Associated Press can't find the news, eh?
Just as long as congress votes to fund this nonsense....
Of course Obama will circumvent that process......
See: "Wars Power Resolution"
See: "The United States Bill of Rights/Constitution doesn't mesh with authoritarian/totalitarian socialist ideas."
Give me a break and loose the lame uneducated talking points.
Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs
Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Lame?
I think we both have different "ideas" as to the United States Constitution.... I see it as a power that limits government and you see it as a power that empowers government...
The only reason why you believe your **** is because you just "take the word" of people you "agree with" while I study and embrace...
In your mind the "constitution" can be anything you want it to be -- not what it is not the line or precedent the document sets...
No I'm not giving you a break...
When you're wrong - you're wrong.
Perhaps this time around it's a question of Fool Me once, etc?I thought with the election of Obama the world was supposed to love us. Bush got about 50 nations to go along with him in Iraq.
I hope not.ill probably get deployed again.
Hope he does it....
Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs
Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone. [/FONT][/COLOR]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?