The drums of war?

[billisonboard]

Aug 31, 2013 0:20:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

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.

Yeah, as long as he doesn't say "I did not have military relations with that country" he will be okay.

[billisonboard]

If you hear on the news that an event has taken place that would require you to be at work to possibly carry out a task that you have agreed by taking the job in the first place to be responsible for taking care of, do you head out the door or wait for a phone call? 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 31, 2013 8:03:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If you hear on the news that an event has taken place that would require you to be at work to possibly carry out a task that you have agreed by taking the job in the first place to be responsible for taking care of, do you head out the door or wait for a phone call? 

is this a hypothetical, arbitrary question, or does it have something to do with Obama.  because what Obama is required to do is to defend us.  not defend our values.  not defend Israel.  defend US. 

[billisonboard]

Aug 31, 2013 10:32:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 31, 2013 8:03:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If you hear on the news that an event has taken place that would require you to be at work to possibly carry out a task that you have agreed by taking the job in the first place to be responsible for taking care of, do you head out the door or wait for a phone call? 

is this a hypothetical, arbitrary question, or does it have something to do with Obama.  because what Obama is required to do is to defend us.  not defend our values.  not defend Israel.  defend US. 

It is about Congress.

[kent]

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 31, 2013 8:03:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If you hear on the news that an event has taken place that would require you to be at work to possibly carry out a task that you have agreed by taking the job in the first place to be responsible for taking care of, do you head out the door or wait for a phone call? 

In this case you wait for a phone call.

[billisonboard]

Aug 31, 2013 12:12:48 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Aug 31, 2013 8:03:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If you hear on the news that an event has taken place that would require you to be at work to possibly carry out a task that you have agreed by taking the job in the first place to be responsible for taking care of, do you head out the door or wait for a phone call? 

In this case you wait for a phone call.

Why?

[Spellbound454]

Well I have to say I'm impressed...

The President is going to take the debate and vote to Congress...didn't think it would happen but its right that it does.

[mmhmm]

Aug 31, 2013 13:06:12 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Well I have to say I'm impressed...

The President is going to take the debate and vote to Congress...didn't think it would happen but its right that it does.

Actually, that's what I expected him to do, Spellbound.  I'm not at all surprised.

[Otto the Orange]

Someone explain this strategy to me?

Announce "we're seriously thinking of bombing you" and then do nothing for a week and try to build consensus publicly?

I understand the build consensus thing- with other nations, congress, etc. But why ANNOUNCE it?  Just do it in secret.

Right now Syria is moving shit and people all over the place.  They are putting all kinds of civilians at the airfields and military targets and moving military equipment / etc. to hiding places......

If you are thinking about bombing someone, don't announce it until after the attack.  Build consensus in secret before hand.......

[Spellbound454]

I know that our PM, Cameron, was voted out in Parliament..... and it may not have been what everyone wanted

but what people saw was a Democracy in action.......and one that other Countries in the Middle East can only dream of.

Same goes for the US whatever way the vote goes......

[djAdvocate]

Aug 31, 2013 13:22:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Aug 31, 2013 13:06:12 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Well I have to say I'm impressed...

The President is going to take the debate and vote to Congress...didn't think it would happen but its right that it does.

Actually, that's what I expected him to do, Spellbound.  I'm not at all surprised.

i am.  this is why:

[djAdvocate]

Aug 31, 2013 13:46:13 GMT -5 Otto the Orange said:

Someone explain this strategy to me?

Announce "we're seriously thinking of bombing you" and then do nothing for a week and try to build consensus publicly?

I understand the build consensus thing- with other nations, congress, etc. But why ANNOUNCE it?  Just do it in secret.

Right now Syria is moving shit and people all over the place.  They are putting all kinds of civilians at the airfields and military targets and moving military equipment / etc. to hiding places......

If you are thinking about bombing someone, don't announce it until after the attack.  Build consensus in secret before hand.......

taking our country to war should not be a private affair.  ever.  it is a public matter, and it should be publicly debated.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Someone explain this strategy to me?

Announce "we're seriously thinking of bombing you" and then do nothing for a week and try to build consensus publicly?

I understand the build consensus thing- with other nations, congress, etc. But why ANNOUNCE it? Just do it in secret.

Same reason terrorists publicly threaten targets; they get to sit back and gather intelligence from the response.  If the Syrians are feverishly trying to protect vital military personnel and targets, they're also showing us where they all are.  We've got a constellation of satellites trained on them right now.  They're running software that's tagging every vehicle, every plane, every chopper, as it moves around that country.  We're seeing which public buildings they defend, which they abandon, we're probably learning about concealed weapons caches, government research labs, and whatnot as they frantically pack them up.  If we respond we can't do so by indiscriminately targeting civilians, that's what we'd be going in there to stop.  So before we could launch a strike we'd have to pick targets, and what better way to do so than publicly threaten them then target all the shit they try to hide or shore up?

I guarantee there are intelligence analysts with cots in their office that are working 18 hour days seven days a week right now going over every scrap of intel we can get on Syria.  I saw my old unit do that leading up to the Iraq invasion.  You get a surprising amount of intelligence by kicking the ant hill instead of drowning it out of the blue.

[mmhmm]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what that YouTube film has to do with President Obama, dj.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 31, 2013 15:00:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what that YouTube film has to do with President Obama, dj.

as of today, hopefully nothing. 

prior to today, the runup to Syria looked a lot like Iraq to me.

[mmhmm]

I see where you're coming from, dj, but I don't think we've got the same situation.  Personalities are different, and impetus is different, I think.  We'll have to see how it goes, but I fully expected the president to take this matter to the congress.

[Spellbound454]

Its been a strange week

Could have sworn there would be air strikes this weekend. The pattern and the rhetoric, the way the path was being politically prepared, the military build up..... looked very like Iraq.
The rest of the world thought so too.

Things can change very quickly though and another 9 or 10 ten days might give us a different perspectives.

I hope congress don't call for regime change...Assad is armed to the hilt and that would be very long and bloody.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 31, 2013 17:22:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I see where you're coming from, dj, but I don't think we've got the same situation.  Personalities are different, and impetus is different, I think.  We'll have to see how it goes, but I fully expected the president to take this matter to the congress.

you know what bothered me, mmhmm?  for the last week, Obama didn't even MENTION the UN weapons inspectors.  that bothered me a lot, and it was VERY Bush-like.  the internal chatter coming out of the WH is that the administration doesn't think the UN will find anything.  but here is the thing:

they were on the ground within a WEEK of the gassing.

i think they are not only going to find something, i think they are going to enable us to draw conclusions about who did it.

[mmhmm]

I read an article saying the UN team had left the area earlier than expected, and they carried evidence with them when they left.  According to a UN spokesperson, it might take two weeks before the evidence can be properly evaluated.  Don't remember where I read that, though.

ETA:  Here's the article I'd read.  It's since been updated (today):

CBS News

[djAdvocate]

Aug 31, 2013 17:59:02 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I read an article saying the UN team had left the area earlier than expected, and they carried evidence with them when they left.  According to a UN spokesperson, it might take two weeks before the evidence can be properly evaluated.  Don't remember where I read that, though.

other than the two weeks, i have read the same thing.  what i read said "up to 3 weeks".

[mmhmm]

I found what I'd read, dj, and added the link to my previous post. 

[happyscooter]

I agree with Kent reply #55.  I also would like for Congress to vote individually.  Keep the Ds and Rs away from the vote. 

John Smith-Republican says 'no' because he is a Republican.
Bill Jones-Democrats says 'yes' because he is a Democrat.

Just vote.  Use your brain.  Stop letting your party decide. 

[kent]

The President is going to take the debate and vote to Congress...didn't think it would happen but its right that it does.

It may be "right" for him to do it but it wasn't his idea - there was/is a lot of pressure on him to do so from members of both parties.

The beauty of it for him is that if/when congress says they won't approve an attack, he will immediately blame it on the republicans.  You have to know most of the democrats will support his position as usual but the House will vote against an attack. (I really hope I'm dead wrong on this and that the democrats will decide to reign in this guy before we're in yet another damn war).

If he doesn't get "approval to attack, Obama (and crowd) will come up with a bunch of rhetoric about how this "proves" the republicans don't care about innocent people, particularly children, being killed.  

With that in mind, he will nonetheless proceed with an attack for the good of mankind.  SOB!  This administration is best described as one populated by an over-abundance of those suffering from megalomania.   

As long as innocent people are being killed with bombs, etc., it not sufficient reason to trigger action but using WMD's crosses the line.  What BS!

As an aside, I find it interesting we aren't hearing much, if anything, from big mouth Pelosi - I guess she wants to lay low on this one.

<<OK, I'm still cranky today>>

 

[Tennesseer]

Sept 1, 2013 10:50:48 GMT -5 kent said:

The President is going to take the debate and vote to Congress...didn't think it would happen but its right that it does.

It may be "right" for him to do it but it wasn't his idea - there was/is a lot of pressure on him to do so from members of both parties.

The beauty of it for him is that if/when congress says they won't approve an attack, he will immediately blame it on the republicans.  You have to know most of the democrats will support his position as usual but the House will vote against an attack. (I really hope I'm dead wrong on this and that the democrats will decide to reign in this guy before we're in yet another damn war).

If he doesn't get "approval to attack, Obama (and crowd) will come up with a bunch of rhetoric about how this "proves" the republicans don't care about innocent people, particularly children, being killed.  

With that in mind, he will nonetheless proceed with an attack for the good of mankind.  SOB!  This administration is best described as one populated by an over-abundance of those suffering from megalomania.   

As long as innocent people are being killed with bombs, etc., it not sufficient reason to trigger action but using WMD's crosses the line.  What BS!

As an aside, I find it interesting we aren't hearing much, if anything, from big mouth Pelosi - I guess she wants to lay low on this one.

<<OK, I'm still cranky today>>  

 

It's five o'clock somewhere.

[kent]

Man, Obama is good.  I just caught snippet on TV of a speech he made about Syria and the chemical attacks.

I'll have to paraphrase what the said.  He mentioned the use of chemicals and said the Assad regime "confirmed" the incident.  Pretty clever.  He knows his "followers" will translate "confirmed" to "admitted" and thereby garner more support.

If he had gone on to say what has really said, that they "confirmed but denied involvement," I could accept that. 

We have no way, at present, to know who initiated the attack and to believe the "rebels" would not have done it to get support is ridiculous.  I've heard on more than a few occasions (no proof of course) that the rebels are made up by a pretty significant percentage of Al Qaeda supporters/members so it would be to their advantage.    Nothing like helping those who view us as The Great Satan.   

[billisonboard]

Sept 1, 2013 10:50:48 GMT -5 kent said:

The President is going to take the debate and vote to Congress...didn't think it would happen but its right that it does.

It may be "right" for him to do it but it wasn't his idea - there was/is a lot of pressure on him to do so from members of both parties.

The beauty of it for him is that if/when congress says they won't approve an attack, he will immediately blame it on the republicans.  You have to know most of the democrats will support his position as usual but the House will vote against an attack. (I really hope I'm dead wrong on this and that the democrats will decide to reign in this guy before we're in yet another damn war).

If he doesn't get "approval to attack, Obama (and crowd) will come up with a bunch of rhetoric about how this "proves" the republicans don't care about innocent people, particularly children, being killed.  

With that in mind, he will nonetheless proceed with an attack for the good of mankind.  SOB!  This administration is best described as one populated by an over-abundance of those suffering from megalomania.   
...

Aug 30, 2013 22:56:09 GMT -5 kent said:

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

Oh sure, like that will EVER happen. ...

So if the things in your latest rant don't come to pass, how will you make it a negative of Obama?

[kent]

Sept 1, 2013 11:39:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 1, 2013 10:50:48 GMT -5 kent said:

It may be "right" for him to do it but it wasn't his idea - there was/is a lot of pressure on him to do so from members of both parties.

The beauty of it for him is that if/when congress says they won't approve an attack, he will immediately blame it on the republicans.  You have to know most of the democrats will support his position as usual but the House will vote against an attack. (I really hope I'm dead wrong on this and that the democrats will decide to reign in this guy before we're in yet another damn war).

If he doesn't get "approval to attack, Obama (and crowd) will come up with a bunch of rhetoric about how this "proves" the republicans don't care about innocent people, particularly children, being killed.  

With that in mind, he will nonetheless proceed with an attack for the good of mankind.  SOB!  This administration is best described as one populated by an over-abundance of those suffering from megalomania.   
...

Aug 30, 2013 22:56:09 GMT -5 kent said:

Oh sure, like that will EVER happen. ...

So if the things in your latest rant don't come to pass, how will you make it a negative of Obama?

As an ardent "follower," I'm sure you can come up with something to support the things I've brought up are pure nonsense.

Anxiously awaiting your input to help reprogram my brain get me back on track with the "movement."

For a little clarification, not that it will be accepted, I don't give a damn who the president is.  This is about what is currently going on.  Like it or not, as captian of the ship, he owns it.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 31, 2013 18:03:48 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I found what I'd read, dj, and added the link to my previous post. 

this sounds way sooner- like next week?  is that how you read it?

[mmhmm]

That's what I read, as well, dj.  We'll see, I guess.