The drums of war?

[Value Buy]

Aug 28, 2013 16:39:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I doubt very seriously they'll worry about what Glenn Beck or Rush will say.  I certainly wouldn't.  I wouldn't worry about what any talking head might say, regardless of their political slant.

I don't see any mention here of the "far right"; nor, do I see any mention of you ... or PBP.

Ok, I get it.
Just as Tenn will not allow a general statement to stand alone, you will not permit it either.
So here goes.......
The White House is worried that part of the political coalition that elected him to the office is the left wing anti-military wing, that believes under no circumstances should we, the USA ever use military force over seas, therefore, the WH is now trying to hold off attacking Syria until the Holiday weekend when everyone is pot faced and partying like there is no tomorrow.

Is that better?

[mmhmm]

Where does that statement come from, Value Buy?  Since houses (white, or otherwise) don't worry, I have to assume it refers to President Obama. I, personally, have no idea what he might be "worried" about and I don't like to assume I do.  I'll leave such assumptions to others.

In the meantime, it does help to have something to go on when trying to decipher cryptic posts, yes.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 28, 2013 16:45:56 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Aug 28, 2013 16:39:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I doubt very seriously they'll worry about what Glenn Beck or Rush will say.  I certainly wouldn't.  I wouldn't worry about what any talking head might say, regardless of their political slant.

I don't see any mention here of the "far right"; nor, do I see any mention of you ... or PBP.

Ok, I get it.
Just as Tenn will not allow a general statement to stand alone, you will not permit it either.
So here goes.......
The White House is worried that part of the political coalition that elected him to the office is the left wing anti-military wing, that believes under no circumstances should we, the USA ever use military force over seas, therefore, the WH is now trying to hold off attacking Syria until the Holiday weekend when everyone is pot faced and partying like there is no tomorrow.

Is that better?

Value Buy-how about leaving me out of your 'Terrible Two' tantrums for a while. 



Now be a good boy and you'll get your dessert tonight.

[djAdvocate]

you guys will like this story.

when my son was about 3 or 4, we were shopping in the local market.  another kid, about his age, was having an absolute tantrum because he could not buy something he wanted.  my son just stared at him- slackjawed, and finally asked "what is wrong with that kid?"  we explained it to him, and after about 15s, his mom leaned over and said "you will not behave that way......ever".  he never has.

apparently some kids never learn that:  you don't get your way by yelling.

[Value Buy]

Aug 28, 2013 16:49:04 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Where does that statement come from, Value Buy?  Since houses (white, or otherwise) don't worry, I have to assume it refers to President Obama. I, personally, have no idea what he might be "worried" about and I don't like to assume I do.  I'll leave such assumptions to others.

In the meantime, it does help to have something to go on when trying to decipher cryptic posts, yes.

Ah, evidently most major print and video media believes "The White House" worries, make statements, and thinks, because they all use the term, 'White House" in their reporting statements, almost every time they have a reporter standing on the grounds in front of the house, or when reading print media,
"The White House reported this morning"
"The White House released this morning"
 
Evidently it is ok to use this term in a general statement.
I would assume most citizens do realize, this is coming from the west wing, and may or may not be coming from the actual President, unless they qualified the statement by saying "the White House released a statement from the President".

[mmhmm]

*chuckle*  I've seen that used by the "talking heads", Value Buy.  For me, that will never make it right.  In fact, that just points out to me how wrong it really is! 

[Spellbound454]

It doesn't look like Britain are going....Cameron wanted a blank cheque and he hasn't got it from parliament.

They want to wait for the UN report and have definitive intelligence information with compelling evidence.
They want objectives and safe guards....before voting, though the debate is still going on.
Its unravelling....The public simply won't have it.

Some are even saying that we wait for the G20 meeting so that all the players are there.

We have sent typhoons to protect our air bases in Cyprus.

[resolution]

Aug 28, 2013 16:45:56 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Ok, I get it.
Just as Tenn will not allow a general statement to stand alone, you will not permit it either.
So here goes.......
The White House is worried that part of the political coalition that elected him to the office is the left wing anti-military wing, that believes under no circumstances should we, the USA ever use military force over seas, therefore, the WH is now trying to hold off attacking Syria until the Holiday weekend when everyone is pot faced and partying like there is no tomorrow.

Is that better?

That sound pretty accurate to me, unfortunately. I really hope we don't invade them, but I could see them doing it on a long weekend while people are out at the BBQ and not watching the news.

[Spellbound454]

Our SIS are saying that its "highly likely" that the Assad regime are responsible for the gas attacks. They said 14 attacks on the news but I can find no reference to this.

The UK and the US doesn't want to go to war....but I guess the question is what do the Syrian people want? Does anyone know?..... They just want the killing to stop.

Turkey are preparing for a Sarin attack and seeing as they are members of NATO...We would definitely all have to go if they were under attack.
...but it wouldn't be easy...the Assad government are armed to the teeth....but we would have a mandate under self defence.

Will a couple of cruise missiles on Damascus make any difference at all?.....Its surely just a pin prick
However it is an act of war.... and there will be retaliation.... probably from Hezbollah.

Its hard to know what to do for the best.

[Deleted]

Has there ever been a time when one country or more in the middle east was either ramping up for a war, having one, or winding one down?  I say let Syria sort out their own problems.  I mean really, what's the difference if they're shooting each other, gassing, bombing ?  It's just more killing right?  If gassing ends the conflict sooner, so be it.  Let one side win for a change to let stability return.

[mrsdutt]

I really could never envision the Middle East being set up for an Armageddon scenario.  The light is beginning to dawn.   I hope I'm just a religious nut case. 

[Value Buy]

Aug 29, 2013 8:36:20 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Has there ever been a time when one country or more in the middle east was either ramping up for a war, having one, or winding one down?  I say let Syria sort out their own problems.  I mean really, what's the difference if they're shooting each other, gassing, bombing ?  It's just more killing right?  If gassing ends the conflict sooner, so be it.  Let one side win for a change to let stability return.

"let stability return"

What is the old definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a.................
That aptly describes the citizens of the Middle East.

And all of the countries in the East and Western Hemispheres.

[Spellbound454]

I guess the argument is that if the world stays silent when a government is gassing its own citizens......then the killing carries on with impunity....and increases
Its a crime against humanity....The guy should be tried in The Hague.... like Milosovic, However.... that did take ten years and a 50 day bombing campaign.

Its right that this is a sectarian war from the age old Sunni/Shia disagreements......and what does this have to do with us?.

But I would like a bit more global support.

Obama is not a warmonger....he has done his best to stay out of this and voted against the war in Iraq
but the US may have to act alone....because it doesn't look like we are going.

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2013 8:43:32 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Aug 29, 2013 8:36:20 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Has there ever been a time when one country or more in the middle east was either ramping up for a war, having one, or winding one down?  I say let Syria sort out their own problems.  I mean really, what's the difference if they're shooting each other, gassing, bombing ?  It's just more killing right?  If gassing ends the conflict sooner, so be it.  Let one side win for a change to let stability return.

"let stability return"

What is the old definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a.................
That aptly describes the citizens of the Middle East.

And all of the countries in the East and Western Hemispheres.

I feel that "helping" one side or the other does nothing to stop the conflict in that region. Adding weapons to the losing side, or what we percieve as the better side helps end the conflict how ?

[Value Buy]

Aug 29, 2013 8:54:46 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Aug 29, 2013 8:43:32 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

"let stability return"

What is the old definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a.................
That aptly describes the citizens of the Middle East.

And all of the countries in the East and Western Hemispheres.

I feel that "helping" one side or the other does nothing to stop the conflict in that region. Adding weapons to the losing side, or what we percieve as the better side helps end the conflict how ?

Totally agree with you.
We basically started with Egypt in the fifties because of the establishment of Israel after WWII so they would play nice with Israel. That never worked until Israel destroyed them in the Six Day war.
Then we played with Iran and the Shah. Then we bounced around to whoever wanted extra play money.
Let's not forget Iraq, decades ago, and Saudi Arabia due to their oil wells. 
We have pinballed around with every ME country over the decades, and viola!
We are back to Egypt. Only now, Egypt has devolved into a cluster f**k. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2013 9:18:56 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Aug 29, 2013 8:54:46 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I feel that "helping" one side or the other does nothing to stop the conflict in that region. Adding weapons to the losing side, or what we percieve as the better side helps end the conflict how ?

Totally agree with you.
We basically started with Egypt in the fifties because of the establishment of Israel after WWII so they would play nice with Israel.

actually, we started with Greece, and we are up to nearly 200 countries that we have deployed our military to, now.  but who's counting?

[workpublic]

I hope I'm just a religious nut case.

Damascus being destroyed is part of the Armageddon scenario.

www.conservapedia.com/Oracle_of_Damascus

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 29, 2013 8:54:34 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

I guess the argument is that if the world stays silent when a government is gassing its own citizens......then the killing carries on with impunity....and increases
Its a crime against humanity....The guy should be tried in The Hague.... like Milosovic, However.... that did take ten years and a 50 day bombing campaign.

Its right that this is a sectarian war from the age old Sunni/Shia disagreements......and what does this have to do with us?.

But I would like a bit more global support.

Obama is not a warmonger....he has done his best to stay out of this and voted against the war in Iraq
but the US may have to act alone....because it doesn't look like we are going.

If Obama doesn't want to go into Syria there is zero chance we will go into Syria, he doesn't have to try to stay out of it, we are out of it by default, if we go in, then he has done the opposite of trying to stay out.



reason.com/blog/2013/08/26/why-should-chemical-weapons-be-a-red-lin

[Spellbound454]

Well you could be striking after the UN inspectors leave at the weekend

or... if Obama takes this to congress he could be voted down....... just the same as our Prime Minister was in Britain.

The French are on board, sort of.....but the only Middle Eastern country to assist would be Turkey
Funny how the Saudis will fight until every last American is dead  ..... but they won't get their own hands dirty.
...and the rest of the Arab league won't get involved.

Either way you will (and us) get none of the thanks..... and all of the blame.

The Brits are still talking about a robust response...but it wont involve the military.

Dunno...have to wait and see what happens next.

[fairlycrazy23]

I'm not sure I would consider using chemical weapons any worse than conventional weapons, but hopefully Obama will get Congressional approval before taking offensive action against another nation, because I don't see how there is any imminent (any at all?) threat to US interests.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 30, 2013 8:59:07 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I'm not sure I would consider using chemical weapons any worse than conventional weapons, but hopefully Obama will get Congressional approval before taking offensive action against another nation, because I don't see how there is any imminent (any at all?) threat to US interests.

there is no indication that he has any intention of doing that, unfortunately.

[billisonboard]

Aug 30, 2013 10:04:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 30, 2013 8:59:07 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I'm not sure I would consider using chemical weapons any worse than conventional weapons, but hopefully Obama will get Congressional approval before taking offensive action against another nation, because I don't see how there is any imminent (any at all?) threat to US interests.

there is no indication that he has any intention of doing that, unfortunately.

There is no requirement that the president ask for Congress to call for or forbid action. Congress needs to return itself to session and vote.

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 30, 2013 16:50:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 30, 2013 10:04:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is no indication that he has any intention of doing that, unfortunately.

There is no requirement that the president ask for Congress to call for or forbid action. Congress needs to return itself to session and vote.

offensive action against another nation is an act of war and going to war is not up to the President. So they only need to return to session and vote if they want to go to war..of course the president can ask for vote if he wants to go to war. They don't have to forbid something that is already not allowed, without a vote no attack can legally occur.

[billisonboard]

Aug 30, 2013 21:23:22 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Aug 30, 2013 16:50:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

There is no requirement that the president ask for Congress to call for or forbid action. Congress needs to return itself to session and vote.

offensive action against another nation is an act of war and going to war is not up to the President. So they only need to return to session and vote if they want to go to war..of course the president can ask for vote if he wants to go to war. They don't have to forbid something that is already not allowed, without a vote no attack can legally occur.

... Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.) told BuzzFeed today, “We should not be talking about or insisting on congressional approval.” King added, “If he wants to get approval from Congress, he can, but he does not have to.” www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/357180/there-war-powers-act-books-or-not-jim-geraghty

While I agree with you on the legal issue, there isn't universal agreement. And unless the House is willing to impeach, it won't matter.

[kent]

Obama will get Congressional approval before taking offensive action against another nation

Oh sure, like that will EVER happen.  This whole thing isn't about humanitarian intervention, it's about trying to show the world that we can do whatever we want whenever we want to.  We'll show Putin that we're the tough guys and gain immediate respect from him and the rest of the world.

Maybe I'm just and old guy that's particularly cranky right now but I'll tell you one thing, I am SO sick of all this war carp.  Probably 20% of the kids I grew up with didn't return from Nam and for what?  Same thing applies to all the "kids" that have died trying to help this group of ungrateful, low-life, barbarian, child-killing, slime. 

My cranky side says kill em all and let God sort it out or, better yet, pull out of there completely and leave them to their own devices. 

That entire area of the world is nothing more than a loose federation of warring tribes connected by a common steam plant.  They will NEVER reach a consensus on how to govern.  A literacy rate of 19%, absurd religious viewpoints, more goats than toilets, etc. does not bode well for their chance to actually join a world community.

Rant over - relieving some old hostilities I guess..... 

Oh.  fairlycrazy, loved the "cartoon" thanks! 

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 30, 2013 21:55:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 30, 2013 21:23:22 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

offensive action against another nation is an act of war and going to war is not up to the President. So they only need to return to session and vote if they want to go to war..of course the president can ask for vote if he wants to go to war. They don't have to forbid something that is already not allowed, without a vote no attack can legally occur.

... Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.) told BuzzFeed today, “We should not be talking about or insisting on congressional approval.” King added, “If he wants to get approval from Congress, he can, but he does not have to.” www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/357180/there-war-powers-act-books-or-not-jim-geraghty

While I agree with you on the legal issue, there isn't universal agreement. And unless the House is willing to impeach, it won't matter.

you are right. What I am talking about is how it should be..not how it is or will be. They will certainly not impeach over bombing some one who uses chemical weapons on his own people.

[billisonboard]

Aug 31, 2013 0:02:07 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Aug 30, 2013 21:55:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

... Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.) told BuzzFeed today, “We should not be talking about or insisting on congressional approval.” King added, “If he wants to get approval from Congress, he can, but he does not have to.” www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/357180/there-war-powers-act-books-or-not-jim-geraghty

While I agree with you on the legal issue, there isn't universal agreement. And unless the House is willing to impeach, it won't matter.

you are right. What I am talking about is how it should be..not how it is or will be. They will certainly not impeach over bombing some one who uses chemical weapons on his own people.

Which gets me back to the need for Congress to re-establish their power by going back into session and voting up or down.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 30, 2013 21:55:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 30, 2013 21:23:22 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

offensive action against another nation is an act of war and going to war is not up to the President. So they only need to return to session and vote if they want to go to war..of course the president can ask for vote if he wants to go to war. They don't have to forbid something that is already not allowed, without a vote no attack can legally occur.

... Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.) told BuzzFeed today, “We should not be talking about or insisting on congressional approval.” King added, “If he wants to get approval from Congress, he can, but he does not have to.” www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/357180/there-war-powers-act-books-or-not-jim-geraghty

While I agree with you on the legal issue, there isn't universal agreement. And unless the House is willing to impeach, it won't matter.

this is precisely the problem.  because presidents dating back to Kennedy have abused this power, congress is too weak to step in and stop it, even for a president that half of them hate.  what i find puzzling is the acquiescence of so many of our resident strict constitutionalists on this subject.  i guess the constitution only matters domestically, or something.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 31, 2013 0:02:07 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Aug 30, 2013 21:55:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

... Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.) told BuzzFeed today, “We should not be talking about or insisting on congressional approval.” King added, “If he wants to get approval from Congress, he can, but he does not have to.” www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/357180/there-war-powers-act-books-or-not-jim-geraghty

While I agree with you on the legal issue, there isn't universal agreement. And unless the House is willing to impeach, it won't matter.

you are right. What I am talking about is how it should be..not how it is or will be. They will certainly not impeach over bombing some one who uses chemical weapons on his own people.

no, but they damn well should.

[djAdvocate]

when Iraq killed 5000 kurds in March of 1988 using chemical weapons, we stood by and did nothing.  in fact, it was worse than that.  we continued to supply them "dual use weapons", and to support Iraq right up until 1992.  conclusion?  this has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

nothing.