I came here for insight on Syria... and nothing..

[nullnor]

Calamity Kerry

... the power brokers pulling his strings will not be happy about his disarmament gaff.

The Russians and Syrians have jumped all over that one.

tell me your not referring to rockefeller and the nwo being behind this and blaming it on the bankers?

cause you worry me that it's only a matter of time before you go there.

[nullnor]

my taxes support what my government does. and until i stop supporting that, i will refrain from setting out on a stupid mission to find an island that is closer to my belief's.

as such ppl that don't fucking live here, can pay their own taxes to their own government that they live under. and save their opinions for that. or instead move here and put their money where their mouth is.

UNDERSTAND... the ppl fighting Germany trying to exterminate Jews, the ppl fighting North Korea exterminating South Korea, the ppl fighting Cambodia all work in the US for Raytheon.

don't make the mistake of thinking they work for it due to some right wing conspiracy for your own titillating Alex Smith reinforcement. .. they work for us because every other government allowed their family to be wiped out.

maybe you guys should either do something, like them, and move to America and do something about it, or STFU.

and please make the huge mistake of telling us who we should vote for when you don't even live here. because you almost made that one.

[The Feral Slasher]

I just heard a Republican strategist criticize the obligation for being inconsistent and sending mixed signals. Here's what she gave as an example: Biden has said the actual operation will be very small in scope. Obama has since said the operation is very important to our national interests.

Is this inconsistency? Must we assume that an important operation be large in scope, or that a small-scale operation cannot be important?

Most of the criticism I have seen is process oriented. Krauthammer wrote a scathing piece on how Obama's decision to go to Congress with the decision gave our enemies cause to celebrate. But he never says whether Obama should order a strike or not. It seems that when people can't or don't want to address the real issue, they criticize the process. That way they don't have any skin in the game.

I'm sure you can find Republicans who will criticize Obama for a number of unimportant reasons. But seriously, his administration is looking completely incompetent at this point and he is looking to be the exact opposite of everything he said he was going to be. I think the American people pretty clearly don't want a war and Obama pretty clearly does. That is the real issue, not a bunch of partisan hypocrites attacking Obama for a bunch of meaningless crap.

[senorsheep]

How many people do you personally know who think limited strikes on Syria are a good idea? I have discussed this to varying degrees with friends and family all across the political spectrum, and nobody I know wants this fight. A lot of them want to scream about Bush or Obama or Teathuglicans or Demoncraps, but when the discussion moves off of the partisan pissing match and onto the real questions about our involvement, I have yet to hear one real person say "Yes, this is a good idea, we should do this." Literally, not one.

[nullnor]

im a real person and i say this is a good idea. even tho im bluffing.

[nullnor]

try debating with someone that doesn't belong to a cult.

[johnnya24]

Thought this was pretty funny

Kerry: "You have one week to turn over all your chemical weapons or we will bomb you".
Putin: "Good idea".
Assad: "OK".
Kerry: "I was just kidding".
Susan Rice: "We refuse to take "Yes" for an answer.
Ban Ki-moon: "The UN is useless but the pay is good."
Obama: "My credibility is at stake."
World: "lmao".

[Roto Rooter]

im a real person

debatable

[nullnor]

debatable

that just hurts my feelings.

[johnnya24]

Things have changed ... significantly.

This is partly reflected in the public reaction to Syrian intervention. We simply do not believe them anymore. And interestingly it's not a partisan thing. It doesn't matter if you go to the left, centre or right wing press, the public reaction on those websites is the same. The media are of course still trumpeting the official lines like good little poodles.

There has been an interesting reaction to the Guardian's revelation that the Government went to their offices and made them destroy laptops etc. Since then, people have started to question the timing of the Guardian release. Turns out, they had no intention of telling the public what was going on, and only did so after David Miranda was arrested and had his stuff confiscated. They presented it as if they were revealing this information for the public interest. The reality was that it was an act of spite after they perceived the UK government to have broke a deal they had made.

Since then, The Guardian have been angling for war in Syria.

It's no coincidence that William Hague, the UK Foreign Minister, damn near sprinted onto TV the second footage of the Chemical attack got out. He pinned it on Assad the second it happened, the same night. The UK were so hardcore on this, that I think the US got dragged in somewhat unwillingly initially. They were reeling from the NSA revelations and Miranda incident that they needed to change the story. It didn't work out so well for them.

The NSA scandal and the Syria situation are game changers.

... how long before the powers at the top realize they can't manipulate the public as they did 5 years ago?

[chancellor]

Is it too tinfoil hatty to think that this is a wag the dog scenario conveniently inserted to justify and/or divert attention from NSA spying?

This administration just isn't that smart, IMO. I doubt the unholy trinity of incompetence - Biden, Kerry, and Hagel - could even come up with that concept if all three of them had a brainstorming session.

I agree that it's a stupid idea, but I actually suspect much of the defense industry doesn't even want this one.

[Lucky]

I'm sure you can find Republicans who will criticize Obama for a number of unimportant reasons. But seriously, his administration is looking completely incompetent at this point and he is looking to be the exact opposite of everything he said he was going to be. I think the American people pretty clearly don't want a war and Obama pretty clearly does. That is the real issue, not a bunch of partisan hypocrites attacking Obama for a bunch of meaningless crap.

I think I agree with what you are saying, if we are agreeing that the process pieces are the meaningless crap. The real issue is whether we take action, and reasonable people can differ, but too many people want to complain about the situation without taking a side, yea or nay.

[chancellor]

And now the Russians are opposing a binding UN resolution relative to chemical weapons inspection. I wish I could liveblog the speech tonight.

Best line of day:"It’s the culmination of the worst and most stupid American diplomacy since Eisenhower sided with Egypt over the Brits, French, and Israelis in 1956."

Next best: "When Obama says he’s withdrawing his request for a Congressional vote, it’s like Booger from Revenge of the Nerds taking back his offer to take the homecoming queen to a swingers club."

[Pogues]

Obama declares we will strike Syria with a precision strike, then says he's going to let Congress decide, then says he's withdrawing the request for a vote. In a matter of 10 minutes!!

I also thought it was interesting that he listed our allies/Syrian neighbors as "Turkey, Jordan, and Israel." Listing Israel as last...nice tactic.

[The Feral Slasher]

Obama declares we will strike Syria with a precision strike, then says he's going to let Congress decide, then says he's withdrawing the request for a vote. In a matter of 10 minutes!!

I also thought it was interesting that he listed our allies/Syrian neighbors as "Turkey, Jordan, and Israel." Listing Israel as last...nice tactic.

Yeah that was hard to take. Maybe the Mods can change the thread title to "I watched the President speak for insight on Syria....and nothing"