• 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!

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

EXACTLY. But don't come in here and rain on the war mongers parade.

Now now MC
nono.gif
.....you know you can't take away from what is best in life. :lol: :2razz:

 
In the short term, yes, but all options should be on the table for the future. I could see NG becoming a major factor while we explore long term solutions...

O.K. ... gotta go .. be well ...
 
So...tell me more about these "cowboys" and "neo-cons"

WillyWonka.jpg
 
Were. They've all been run off by the partisan drivel pages ago.

Oh, they'll be back, not to worry. Partisanship is a dreadful problem though. Perhaps, no never mind.
 
I don't believe I've seen your links to any other proof. I know that the mainstream media in the US is adjusting the information due to intelligence agency manipulation to gin up a war. I just read an AP (associated press) article today that said the rebels used gas in December and that is the UN report you just linked to. The rebels used the gas, and gosh, they fooled AP or own AP, as is the more likely case. War is good business. OIL in Syria. Nice port on the Med. Great pipeline route. The first profits of war go to the energy corporations like Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, BP, Total, etc. because wars run on energy and if new resources fall into the energy corporations hands as a result of the war, they will profit again. Any competent marketing department would push for new war/wars at every opportunity. Oh Wait. Wars aren't about OIL Wait, lobby money from BIG Energy corporations to politicians isn't the same as bribes.

Judging by your snark level in that post, it might come as a surprise to you that I'm not for this pending war and I'm not buying the propaghanda being pushed right now and I don't believe any war in the M.E. is far from oil as it's hidden reason or a GRREEEAAAAT "side benefit" of a war there. To me this looks like Gulf of Tonkin all over again or Bush Sr's bull**** about Saddam throwing babies out of incubators into the streets prior to Gulf War I or Rumsfeld's bullcrap of WMD's ("They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat").

I'm just not buying it. We haven't been told the truth leading us into any war since WWII and even that sell was suspect.

That being said, Russia has been an Assad ally for all this time that Assad has been our enemy. Syria has been a major foothold for Russia in the M.E. They want to keep that foothold with their buddy Assad. That combined with the stranglehold Putin and the like have on their media and any information over there makes that source of yours suspect.
 
Not emotional...? I think that you were in such a blind emotional rage that you didn't read your own post. It was laced with hatred. Fact is that the Treaty does not require members to react with force. Your opinion is just that. Your opinion also does not match the facts. The facts clearly show that 46 other nations sent military personal.

Why, yes it does show that. And when you look at the numbers most sent, the type of troops most sent and the type of missions most were sent out to do, the facts show they were going through the motions. Their heart wasn't and isn't in it.
 
Judging by your snark level in that post, it might come as a surprise to you that I'm not for this pending war and I'm not buying the propaghanda being pushed right now and I don't believe any war in the M.E. is far from oil as it's hidden reason or a GRREEEAAAAT "side benefit" of a war there. To me this looks like Gulf of Tonkin all over again or Bush Sr's bull**** about Saddam throwing babies out of incubators into the streets prior to Gulf War I or Rumsfeld's bullcrap of WMD's ("They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat").

I'm just not buying it. We haven't been told the truth leading us into any war since WWII and even that sell was suspect.

That being said, Russia has been an Assad ally for all this time that Assad has been our enemy. Syria has been a major foothold for Russia in the M.E. They want to keep that foothold with their buddy Assad. That combined with the stranglehold Putin and the like have on their media and any information over there makes that source of yours suspect.

You're correct. It would give that media about the same credibility as US Mainstream Media.
 
Oh, so THAT is why Bush went it? Who knew?

Bush " went it " after the Democrats voted to go to war, after Clinton in 98 made repeated threats to use force if Saddam didn't curtail his growing WMD program.

The false narrative that "Bush lied " has been thoroughly debunked on this forum.
 
Were. They've all been run off by the partisan drivel pages ago.

Perhaps, or the diplomats were warmongers spouting the gov't line. Now looking for a place to hide their shame.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36000.htm

"
According to the source, Russia’s ambassador in the UN Security Council, Vitaly Churkin, presented conclusive evidence – based on documents and Russian satellite images – of two rockets carrying toxic chemicals, fired from Douma, controlled by the Syrian “rebels”, and landing on East Ghouta. Hundreds of “rebels”, as well as civilians – including those children on the cover of Western corporate media papers – were killed. The evidence, says the Russian source, is conclusive. – Pepe Escobar

August 27, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "williambowles " - Shattering news if indeed it’s true, that it was two missiles fired by rebels from a place called Douma in the suburbs of Damascus, which is indeed under rebel control, that did the damage. No wonder the Empire is in a panic to go to war if it gets out that it was actually the side its arming and supporting that caused such horrendous loss of life!

The mad, panic-driven desire to destroy being exhibited by the USUK maybe the reason for the drive toward war as it will (hopefully) obscure and relegate to history what actually took place. The threat of war on Syria is some terrible psychopathic sideshow and well within the remit of the barbarians, who it is clear will stop at nothing to achieve their objectives. Unless stopped.

If what Escobar reports (and another source, see below) is really true, then it means that the rebels actually did kill hundreds of people, including its own soldiers! Maybe even a thousand or more. No wonder the West doesn’t want it to be investigated! The UN inspection team has no remit to try and find out who is actually responsible, just whether some kind gas attack took place.

All that guff about, ‘it’s too late, Assad has gotten rid of the evidence’ or, ‘you should have let us in earlier’, is just a smokescreen. What the West HAS to do, is try and cover it up, like they did to the thousands of Iraqi troops who were bulldozed in their trenches, alive, buried in sand.

More Confirmation

Below is a short promo of an interview with an Syrian activist confirming the report made by Pepe Escobar above. It’s on the Boiling Frogs website but you need a paid subscription to view the entire video, which is a bit of a drag. And I’d like to see the satellite images and any accompanying information. Why aren’t the Russians making a bigger play of the information they allegedly have? IT could stop this war thing in its tracks!"
 
l remember hiroshima

Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought a quick end to a war that would have otherwise ended with a street-by-street ground war through the cities and towns of Japan. The Tokyo Fire Bombings caused more deaths than Hiroshima or Nagasaki; but were merely done with carpet bombing using conventional weapons. For example, on one of the firebombing raids (Operation Meetinghouse) we dropped 1,700 ton's of incendiary bombs from 334 B-29's and completely destroyed 16 square miles and immediately burned 100,000 Japanese civilians to death.
800px-Tokyo_kushu_1945-3.jpg
 

Our Commander in Chief feels that Syria is an imminent threat to Americans. Keep in mind USA and NATO has about 100+ military installations within striking distance of Syria. Obama probably has reason to believe Assad is planning to use WMD's against USA troops stationed in Turkey, Libya, Iraq, Israel, and off-shore. If that is the case, it is within Obama's powers to do something. In a strange way, I almost think this is poetic justice. What I mean by that is that back in the days of JFK, LBJ, and Nixon there was definite abuses of POTUS war powers and so the War Powers Act trimmed that back. Along comes "peaceful islam" on 9-11 and because of that Congress and the Supreme Court gave the POTUS more powers again. And here we are about to lay waste to an islamic country without Congress giving an OK. It reminds me of the expression "she was dressed like she wanted it". And that's not to say Syrians committed 9-11; but they certainly danced in the streets afterwards.
 
I can't find a confirmation of the Syrians celebrating 9/11. Have you got something for us?
 
Bush " went it " after the Democrats voted to go to war, after Clinton in 98 made repeated threats to use force if Saddam didn't curtail his growing WMD program.

The false narrative that "Bush lied " has been thoroughly debunked on this forum.

Bull**** it has.
 
Our Commander in Chief feels that Syria is an imminent threat to Americans

If that is the case, then he is less intelligent than even I could have imagined.
 
Bull**** it has.

It's been debunked all over the world. It only remains in the minds of those that refuse to leave the partisan plantation.
 
It's been debunked all over the world. It only remains in the minds of those that refuse to leave the partisan plantation.
Exactly. There is a difference between being incorrect and lying. A lie in this instance would be that Bush knew there were no WMDs but used it as a predicate for war anyway. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.
 
Back
Top Bottom