Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 22, 2014, 07:15:33 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The President's Case for War With Syria  (Read 1180 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« on: September 10, 2013, 07:04:05 PM »

Did he convince you?  Not me.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUiaQ4vZ9Wo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUiaQ4vZ9Wo</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1593


« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2013, 07:47:25 PM »

where's the proof?
Report to moderator   Logged
Pray_4_War
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3629


Getbig Legend


« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2013, 11:24:08 PM »

He laid out a flimsy case for why we need to bomb Syria right now and then spent the last five minutes of his speech explaining that he's going to wait.  Derp!

What is his foreign policy at this point?  Who knows?
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5611


Getbig!


« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2013, 08:10:15 AM »

He laid out a flimsy case for why we need to bomb Syria right now and then spent the last five minutes of his speech explaining that he's going to wait.  Derp!

What is his foreign policy at this point?  Who knows?

I agree.

If he wanted to bomb Syria he could have done it. No need to involve congress.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2013, 11:23:11 AM »

where's the proof?


Well he did say in his speech that we should go to the internet and watch video of the women and children dying. 

The man is an absolute embarrassment. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Emmortal
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5563


« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2013, 11:34:02 AM »

Well he did say in his speech that we should go to the internet and watch video of the women and children dying. 

The man is an absolute embarrassment. 

Democrats love using children to push their agenda.  Where were they when the 100k+ people who have already died in this war? 

Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2013, 11:41:11 AM »

Democrats love using children to push their agenda.  Where were they when the 100k+ people who have already died in this war? 



Tell me about it.  As if dying from bullet wounds, bleeding to death, dismemberment from bombs, etc. are any less gruesome than gas. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2013, 12:07:52 PM »

So we would need at least 75,000 boots on the ground to secure Syria's chemical weapons.  Didn't hear that in the president's speech yesterday. 

The Obama administration is skeptical about whether this approach might work. A senior administration official called securing chemical arms in a war zone “just the first nightmare of making this work.”

A Pentagon study concluded that doing so would take more than 75,000 troops. That rough estimate has been questioned, but the official said it gave “a sense of the magnitude of the task.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/Syria-Chemical-Disarmament.html?hp&_r=0
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 85383


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2013, 01:14:58 PM »

So we would need at least 75,000 boots on the ground to secure Syria's chemical weapons.
0

Having the UN remove them peacefully is a WAY better option.

Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10398


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2013, 01:43:40 PM »

Thr minute that worthless communist jihadi drug addicted terrorist mentioned "moderate" rebels I started laughing.

Only the absolutely dumbest most idiotic and worthless among us believe a word this scum bag says. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2013, 01:32:19 PM »

He has not convinced Democrats. 

War is hell.

There are times when, as a nation, we must enter into war: It must be in our nation's security, diplomatic and moral interests, and there must be a tactical, achievable objective with an effective strategy to get there. But the proposed US-led strike against Syria doesn't make the case.

We must have the moral courage to take effective action to prevent another terrible chemical attack, and have the moral responsibility not to take action that would result in a far worse situation.

Sign our petition – tell Washington to pursue diplomacy in Syria, not military strikes. It is the right decision for our troops and for our country.


Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

http://www.nostrikeinsyria.com/
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2013, 04:11:50 PM »

Maybe the president should give his Nobel Peace Prize to Putin?
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6505



« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2013, 05:26:37 PM »

Maybe the president should give his Nobel Peace Prize to Putin?


Cheesy


Obama's clearly the follower here....and, IMO, he doesn't give a fuck.

This is just a convenient distraction from spying on people.

Thought he welcomed a national debate?  Sure did disappear awfully fast, lol.

 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2013, 11:51:26 AM »


Cheesy


Obama's clearly the follower here....and, IMO, he doesn't give a fuck.

This is just a convenient distraction from spying on people.

Thought he welcomed a national debate?  Sure did disappear awfully fast, lol.

 

As one commentator said, he fumbled into the end zone. 
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1593


« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2013, 10:42:01 PM »

How the fuck is Hilary so ahead of the other democratic candidates? aside from her multiple mistakes and atrocious history what are her positives? What are they looking at that makes them believe she's the president? I don't get it, to me she seems more like a liability to the party.

And the GOP needs to get their shit together to have a chance at the next election, conservativism is far too stagnant and refuses to adjust to the times. It's steadfast loyalty to Christianity is a huge reason why it can't move forward.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 85383


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2013, 10:52:04 PM »

How the fuck is Hilary so ahead of the other democratic candidates? aside from her multiple mistakes and atrocious history what are her positives? What are they looking at that makes them believe she's the president? I don't get it, to me she seems more like a liability to the party.

And the GOP needs to get their shit together to have a chance at the next election, conservativism is far too stagnant and refuses to adjust to the times. It's steadfast loyalty to Christianity is a huge reason why it can't move forward.

I think dems believe she is ALL IN for this one.  She lost by one state in 2008.  A nice chunk of repubs already voted for her (thanks Rush!)  She has tll the $, all the favors, she has Bill, she has a lifetime of connections in politics... and at nearly 70, people will be LINING UP to suck up to her for that VP slot, as she could be a one-term president, which would be one sexy promise to voters.   "One last Clinton term!", then she retires with the perfect resume.

Find me one poll that does'nt have her leading all dems, and leading all repubs in 2016.  Voters already know a TON of negatives about her... people like rubio and christie are at thier highest right now... yet to pummel one another and step in shit in primaries... and she's up by a mile against all of them in polls.

I'll be SHOCKED if anyone beats her in 2016.  Biden stumping already lol... but who else will run... who SERIOUS will run?  All the good repubs sat out in 2012, cause they knew how hard itd' be to defeat obama - and they were right.  Which dems hold out for 2020?
Report to moderator   Logged

ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1593


« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2013, 11:58:29 PM »

I think dems believe she is ALL IN for this one.  She lost by one state in 2008.  A nice chunk of repubs already voted for her (thanks Rush!)  She has tll the $, all the favors, she has Bill, she has a lifetime of connections in politics... and at nearly 70, people will be LINING UP to suck up to her for that VP slot, as she could be a one-term president, which would be one sexy promise to voters.   "One last Clinton term!", then she retires with the perfect resume.

Find me one poll that does'nt have her leading all dems, and leading all repubs in 2016.  Voters already know a TON of negatives about her... people like rubio and christie are at thier highest right now... yet to pummel one another and step in shit in primaries... and she's up by a mile against all of them in polls.

I'll be SHOCKED if anyone beats her in 2016.  Biden stumping already lol... but who else will run... who SERIOUS will run?  All the good repubs sat out in 2012, cause they knew how hard itd' be to defeat obama - and they were right.  Which dems hold out for 2020?


Gay marriage supporters and minority votes are going to be impossible to overcome. You can bring Reagan back from the dead and he couldn't convince enough voters, times have changed and the GOP needs to seriously recollect themselves.

Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2013, 12:33:13 PM »


Gay marriage supporters and minority votes are going to be impossible to overcome. You can bring Reagan back from the dead and he couldn't convince enough voters, times have changed and the GOP needs to seriously recollect themselves.



I think that's overstated a bit by a lot of people.  The GOP controls the House and is projected by some to take the Senate in 2014.  They control the majority of governorships and I think a majority of state legislatures.

That said, they do have to adapt to changing times.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2013, 06:18:40 PM »

Former defense secretaries criticize Obama over Syria
Published September 18, 2013
FoxNews.com
 
Former defense secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta criticized President Obama's strategy regarding the Syrian civil war Tuesday, with both agreeing that Obama should not have sought the approval of Congress for a military strike against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

Speaking at a forum in Dallas, Gates and Panetta, Obama's first two defense secretaries,  disagreed on whether the United States should ultimately carry out a military strike in retaliation for a chemical attack that the U.S. says killed 1,400 people. However, both expressed skepticism (and occasionally sarcasm) about ongoing negotiations, led by Russia, for Assad to hand over his stockpile of chemical weapons to the international community.

Panetta said he supported a strike because Obama needed to enforce the "red line" he set over Syria's use of chemical weapons.

"When the president of the United States draws a red line, the credibility of this country is dependent on him backing up his word," Panetta said.

But Gates said a strike would be like "throwing gasoline on an extremely complex fire in the Middle East." He brought up past interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as examples of how American military action can lead to unintended consequences.

He also dismissed attacking Syria to enforce a red line.

"I believe to blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple of days to underscore or validate a point or principle is not a strategy," he said.

Obama had been pushing for a military strike on Syria in retaliation for a chemical attack the U.S. blames on Assad's forces, but that is on hold as a he pursues a diplomatic initiative.

U.S. and Russian officials reached an agreement over the weekend to inventory Syria's chemical weapons programs within a week and remove all of them by the middle of next year. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council were discussing a resolution. The U.S. and France want to include a military option if enforcement fails, which Russia opposes.

Both Gates and Panetta spoke freely -- and often critically -- about how they would handle Syria differently.

Gates, who was appointed secretary of defense by former President George W. Bush and retained by Obama, said he thought America's most recent presidents "have become too quick to reach for a gun to solve an international problem."

He said the U.S. should try to covertly arm "selected rebel groups" in Syria, but not with surface-to-air missiles. The U.S. should also push for Assad to be labeled a war criminal, for warrants to be issued for his arrest and for a seizure of his family's assets abroad, Gates said.

As for negotiations with Russia, Gates said the U.S. should push for more authority and strict demands on complying with any terms of an agreement.

Asked if he trusted Russian President Vladimir Putin, Gates said: "My answer would be, are you kidding me?"

Panetta, who replaced Gates and served until earlier this year, said he would have told Obama not to go to Congress once he decided military action was needed.

"Mr. President, this Congress has a hard time agreeing as to what the time of day is," he said.

For Obama to not back up his words with a strike would embolden Iran on nuclear weapons and other American enemies, Panetta said.

Once the president drew a red line, Panetta said, "Damn it, you've got to do it."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/18/former-defense-secretaries-criticize-obama-over-syria/?intcmp=latestnews#ixzz2fITxrjJ5
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6357


Getbig!


« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2013, 07:04:52 AM »

What case?

At this point I doubt Obama is even toilet trained. Yes, he is that stupid.
Report to moderator   Logged
nasht5
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1891


903 squat 457bench 735 dead - "RAW" (belt & wraps)


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2013, 08:03:22 AM »

I still see no reason the U.S. to get involved in syria.
Report to moderator   Logged

sept 10th APF
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10398


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2013, 10:17:25 PM »

Islamist blitzkrieg in Syria: Jihadists wiping out moderate rebels
RT ^ | Sept 19, 2013 | RT Staff
Posted on September 22, 2013 1:05:33 AM EDT by Innovative

Al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in Syria have begun an offensive against former allies, wrestling moderate FSA rebels out of the controlled areas. With the US assault on Syria postponed, radical Islamists are seeking ultimate authority to fight Assad.

The latest news coming from the north of Syria suggests that a series of clashes between the former allies have already left a number of casualties and a change of the operational situation in the Syrian civil war.

The FSA leaders have recently acknowledged that clashes between their brigades and Islamist rivals have reached boiling point.

While the Pentagon continues to insist its plans include equipping and training only “moderate” Syrian rebel forces, the CIA reportedly has got an official blessing to monitor the arming of the Syrian rebels.

The mantra about arming only moderate rebels has been sounding for months now, but since Islamist fighters have now finally become the backbone of the rebel’s forces, it raises the question about the final beneficiary of the US’s reported $400 million aid to the Syrian rebels.

Al-Qaeda associates might really succeed in squeezing FSA moderates out of Syria which would automatically put Russia in an awkward position of conducting useless negotiations, with a Syrian opposition swiftly losing its remaining political clout. But that would also mean that the US could only supply weapons directly to Al-Qaeda jihadists as the only remaining force capable of opposing President Bashar Assad.

(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
JBGRAY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2020



« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2013, 01:23:57 AM »

Putin made the US look bad on the international stage. Syria has agreed to open up its chemical munitions depots to UN inspectors under a Russian-brokered deal. Russia is also continuing to supply the Assad government with state of the art military weaponry, including modern anti-aircraft battery capable of consistent takedown of US B2 stealth bombers. As it stands, neither side in the civil war has the ability or assets to defeat the opposition, and the losers in all this are the hundreds of thousands displaced refugees (also Europe as it is they via Sweden who are absorbing many of these refugees, thereby taking further demographic hits).

By the time the US and any of its allies get the votes, resources and backing to actually conduct military strikes against Assad, Syrian airspace would be near impregnable and the rebels likely pushed back due to Russian-bought armaments and financial support. US pilots and airmen could realistically face casualties and eventually draw the US into a ground invasion.

However, the Obama administration will not enter into any armed conflict outside of an outright attack on the US. Obama is a lame duck and badly wants to pave the way for the upcoming Hillary presidency, of which, outside of a current conflict in which any Republican presidential nominee could run on an anti-war platform, is all but inevitable.
Report to moderator   Logged
AndreaRyc
Getbig II
**
Posts: 147


« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2013, 08:13:29 AM »

Syria could easily be one of the axis of evil countries.  It has been designated a rogue nation by the president's predecessor.  Syria's state sponsored terrorism is well known.  Syria has used banned chemical weapons on its people in what can be called a crime against humanity.

If you supported President Bush's war against Iraq, you have to support any military action by Obama against Syria.  Same situation with more facts supporting a Syrian invasion and occupation than was the deal for the Iraq war.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2013, 12:56:14 PM »

Syria could easily be one of the axis of evil countries.  It has been designated a rogue nation by the president's predecessor.  Syria's state sponsored terrorism is well known.  Syria has used banned chemical weapons on its people in what can be called a crime against humanity.

If you supported President Bush's war against Iraq, you have to support any military action by Obama against Syria.  Same situation with more facts supporting a Syrian invasion and occupation than was the deal for the Iraq war.

Not the same situation at all.  Syria hasn't attacked it's neighbor.  There is no UN coalition.  We're not enforcing UN resolutions.  There is no Congressional authorization for the use of force. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!