• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged Chemi

Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

If your support of action is based on your third point, I was merely pointing out that the administration is NOT expressing an intent or desire to remove anyone. So, what did they call it...a "brief and limited" response...probably something like blowing up a few warehouses. That will do it.

As for the 'moderates' you wish to support..are they anything like the moderates in Egypt?

My opinion is different than that of the White House, although its more similar to theirs than yours is, but again not exactly the same.

I don't claim to be an expert by any means whatsoever on the ins-and-outs of the Syrian rebels but ideally they would be something like the moderates in Libya that we supported with air strikes and support. People hark on the terrorist attack in Benghazi but Libya has otherwise been an extremely succesful foreign policy operation, the country's rebels are moderate, were supported by the international community, have been able to hold the country together fairly well to prevent more violence, and are getting better at doing so.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

My opinion is different than that of the White House, although its more similar to theirs than yours is, but again not exactly the same.

I don't claim to be an expert by any means whatsoever on the ins-and-outs of the Syrian rebels but ideally they would be something like the moderates in Libya that we supported with air strikes and support. People hark on the terrorist attack in Benghazi but Libya has otherwise been an extremely succesful foreign policy operation, the country's rebels are moderate, were supported by the international community, have been able to hold the country together fairly well to prevent more violence, and are getting better at doing so.
Except for the murdered ambassador, theft of shoulder launched SAMS, questionable execution of 'rights' etc...

Im not saying Obama shouldnt go in...Im saying there should be proof and if they have it they should go in and kick ass and then get out. That was Bush's failing. The kick ass part happened...but they didnt do so well with the 'get out' part. And that is going to make Syria precarious as well. SHOULD they topple Assad, who then takes over? Which rebel group takes control? And for how long?
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Oh..maybe I did miss the point, then...Sorry. My error.

Middle eastern troubles influence the price of oil negatively, however..which in turn ripples out and affects us and our economy. I maintain we could be 100% energy independent..if we wanted to be.
My reference to voting our way out of our troubles is just to support my premise that international corporations and banks run the show here and "voting" in a "new" administration, etc...won't change a thing.
I think it's true but you might be right. It is off on a tangent from the discussion. I'll try to focus better. Thanks!

I am with you brother.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

This whole thing feels exactly like the build up to Iraq. I mean it is eerie how similar they are.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Speaker Y: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.


Name that Speaker!!! Click here for the answer.


Might be a good question to ask right about now, "How is Syria an actual or imminent threat to the nation?"
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

This whole thing feels exactly like the build up to Iraq. I mean it is eerie how similar they are.

Exactly, that's the reason for shutting this down.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

How many times does one need to repeat. Obama did what you are suppose to do. Several times he sent Hillary Clinton to the UN to ask for sanctions and authorisation for use of force. EVERY SINGLE TIME we were told NO! Are you advocating he ignore international law again, and bypass our congress?

Not one time has he asked my permission to break the law, he just went ahead and did it. Didn't matter what type law it was.

As far as Hillary Clinton, no serious person ever paid any attention to her anyway. Why even Obama didn't even let her have control as Sec of State of Iraq and Afgan. If Obama didn't take her seriously, why should the UN?
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Except for the murdered ambassador, theft of shoulder launched SAMS, questionable execution of 'rights' etc...

Im not saying Obama shouldnt go in...Im saying there should be proof and if they have it they should go in and kick ass and then get out. That was Bush's failing. The kick ass part happened...but they didnt do so well with the 'get out' part. And that is going to make Syria precarious as well. SHOULD they topple Assad, who then takes over? Which rebel group takes control? And for how long?

Ya some things went wrong and some people died as a result, I'm not excusing it but you can't send people into harm's way forever without something bad eventually happening. Some things are just unavoidable, you can't expect total accountability of all weapons when a government topples in a civil war like that

Anyway yes I agree we shouldn't not be there for a long time militarily, other aspects of government like the State Dept, USAID, etc should be in for the long run to support the new government so it doesn't fall apart as well. That's why between the Libya model and the Iraq model, I'd go with the Libyan one it had a post-war government already established.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

By Shaun Waterman

The Washington Times Monday, May 6, 2013

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad's regime: U.N. official - Washington Times
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

By Shaun Waterman

The Washington Times Monday, May 6, 2013

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad's regime: U.N. official - Washington Times
You would have thought maybe THAT would have triggered that red line, huh? I guess they forgot to say that "chemical use would only matter if it was the side we dont like."
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

You would have thought maybe THAT would have triggered that red line, huh? I guess they forgot to say that "chemical use would only matter if it was the side we dont like."

How sure are you that they forgot to say that?
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Were you against Bush going into Iraq?




As a matter of fact I was against both Bush junior and Bush senior going into Iraq. The USA gained nothing from either one of these misadventures.

But they weren't a total loss, Iran gained a lot at the USA's expense.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Well I understand what you mean but I think these rebels, unlike those in Libya, need advisors on the ground to help them establish a true working government they haven't really come together the way they did in Libya and they need to achieve that if they are going to "win the peace" after the war.

But do we need to have boots in Syria for that? Can't we do that in Turkey?

Also even just conducting flights over Syria is risking lives, you can't establish a no-fly zone without your own aircraft in the area. A missile may be able to blow up a building hundreds of miles away, but you'll never shoot down an aircraft from that far off.

That's true, but do we need to render the Syrian military completely a ground force? Do sufficient damage to the Syria air force and you can effectively knock it out. I don't see the need to turn every airframe into dust. A complete no fly zone seems more than necessary if we can simply seriously damage most of their air frames as well as knock out their run ways. The Syrians aren't flying Gripens (they probably wish they were now though).
 
‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged Chemi

As a matter of fact I was against both Bush junior and Bush senior going into Iraq. The USA gained nothing from either one of these misadventures.

But they weren't a total loss, Iran gained a lot at the USA's expense.

So what do we gain here?
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

But do we need to have boots in Syria for that? Can't we do that in Turkey?

That's true, but do we need to render the Syrian military completely a ground force? Do sufficient damage to the Syria air force and you can effectively knock it out. I don't see the need to turn every airframe into dust. A complete no fly zone seems more than necessary if we can simply seriously damage most of their air frames as well as knock out their run ways. The Syrians aren't flying Gripens (they probably wish they were now though).

Good point it may be possible to knock out their air force by purely attacking their static logistics, like airfields, fuel farms, etc. I don't know that's a question that requires an answer with a level of detail that I don't have, but if I was a military planner I'd look into it for sure.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

As a matter of fact I was against both Bush junior and Bush senior going into Iraq. The USA gained nothing from either one of these misadventures.

But they weren't a total loss, Iran gained a lot at the USA's expense.

So then you would have been satisfied with Saddams "gains" in Kuwait and perhaps later Saudi? And the rest of the world would have "gained" in that situation how?

And could you explain how, whatever country you are from, you are perfectly fine with another country shooting at members of your military on a regular basis, so you do nothing about it?
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Good point it may be possible to knock out their air force by purely attacking their static logistics, like airfields, fuel farms, etc. I don't know that's a question that requires an answer with a level of detail that I don't have, but if I was a military planner I'd look into it for sure.

Your thread title is funny. The attack itself is alleged, but no doubt the act of the Assad government.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

So then you would have been satisfied with Saddams "gains" in Kuwait and perhaps later Saudi? And the rest of the world would have "gained" in that situation how?

And could you explain how, whatever country you are from, you are perfectly fine with another country shooting at members of your military on a regular basis, so you do nothing about it?


Kuwait was slant drilling under Iraq. Fed up with it, Saddam asked April Gillespie (US ambassador to Iraq) what the US would do if he went down their and handled it, she said she checked with Washington and they said, nothing.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Kuwait was slant drilling under Iraq. Fed up with it, Saddam asked April Gillespie (US ambassador to Iraq) what the US would do if he went down their and handled it, she said she checked with Washington and they said, nothing.

Nothing like making up history as you go along. Gillespie said, nor implied nothing of the sort. If fact in later testimony to congress she documented telling Saddam not to invade. But that doesn't fit the phony leftist tune so they never bring that part up.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Good point it may be possible to knock out their air force by purely attacking their static logistics, like airfields, fuel farms, etc. I don't know that's a question that requires an answer with a level of detail that I don't have, but if I was a military planner I'd look into it for sure.

Just so I'm clear, what you and the other guy are planning is military action that will cripple Assad's forces and capabilities? Sounds great, uh? LOL. With friends like you two, the US won't have much trouble locating large parts of terrorists groups. All we'll have to do is look in Libya and Syria. Have you two considered putting in for jobs with the Obama administration? You should, you'd fit right in.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Your thread title is funny. The attack itself is alleged, but no doubt the act of the Assad government.

This isn't my thread smart guy.
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

This isn't my thread smart guy.


Hey, have a sense of humor!
 
Re: Senior Administration Official: ‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged C

Nothing like making up history as you go along. Gillespie said, nor implied nothing of the sort. If fact in later testimony to congress she documented telling Saddam not to invade. But that doesn't fit the phony leftist tune so they never bring that part up.

Actually, Joe Wilson wrote a very good exposé on this and having served behind her in the same post he probably is a little more intimate with the details. Btw, why do you refer to me as on the left. Have you not seen how critical I am of the Obama administration?
 
‘Very Little Doubt’ Assad Regime Behind Alleged Chemi

The satisfaction of a job well done.

GAFAW!!!! Are you kidding me? You were against both Bush's, but think Barry will do a good job? Of what exactly? :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom