Obama Warns Syria on Chemical Weapons

Sherman123 said:

Yes a better world order. A world order in which autocratic regimes are pressured and in which democratic regimes are secured and expanded throughout the globe. A world led by the US as the head of the democratic alliance is the best that currently exists. Also yes utilitarianism is appropriate in pursuit of this objective. That being said I absolutely do not accept your definition or moral valuation on the things you listed.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes...the old standby...'the ends justify the means'.

The new WORLD ORDER!!!

Sieg Heil!!!


Have a nice day.

MaggieD said:

The warning should have come from the U.N.

Click to expand...

The same UN who stood by in Rwandan Massacre? The same UN who doesn't have the balls to go into Somalia by itself without US help? The same UN who has done absolutely nothing of any significance in Sudan? The same UN who did nothing about the slaughtering of Zapatista rebels? I honestly support our allegiance to the UN because it serves as a good diplomatic link but to expect them to grow a backbone and give a warning when there are hundreds of little inside deals going on in its buildings is a bit ridiculous.

Sherman123 said:

That isn't how this works. You alleged a ludicrous conspiracy theory, of course there are no links saying "President Obama NOT planning to smuggle chemical weapons to the FSA", there is however the deafening evidence coming from the present situation and precedent.

Click to expand...

I will take that as a 'no'.

Thank you.


Have a nice day.

Sherman123 said:

He didn't send 1,300 Americans to their deaths, he led a country in the midst of a war. I don't like the President, and don't plan on voting for him, but I refuse your characterization. Also your comparison is silly, there is a difference between leading a war which is judged to be legitimate, and engaging in the sort of convoluted nefarious action you are talking about.

Click to expand...

In other words...you fail to take a stand on this.

Noted.


Have a nice day.

DA60 said:

Ahh yes...the old standby...'the ends justify the means'.

The new WORLD ORDER!!!

Sieg Heil!!!


Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Yes, a new world order is a positive thing and something we have been working towards since George H.W. Bush's address to congress in the early 1990's. Since that time democracy has floured or begun to emerge in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, large swathes of Africa, South and Latin America, East Asia, and even the Middle East. It is undeniable that the position of the US as global democratic hegemon has played a critical role in enabling it. The coming dividing lines in the 21st Century are between the autocratic powers like Russia and China and their allies around their world. They are far more willing to support flagging autocracies and support the spread of like minded regimes. I want to contain their threat and spread democratic liberalism and contest control over the strategic regions of the world such as Central Asia, the Caucuses, Africa, etc.

DA60 said:

In other words...you fail to take a stand on this.

Noted.


Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I've taken a stand, and I'm having a wonderful day.

Sherman123 said:

Yes, a new world order is a positive thing and something we have been working towards since George H.W. Bush's address to congress in the early 1990's. Since that time democracy has floured or begun to emerge in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, large swathes of Africa, South and Latin America, East Asia, and even the Middle East. It is undeniable that the position of the US as global democratic hegemon has played a critical role in enabling it. The coming dividing lines in the 21st Century are between the autocratic powers like Russia and China and their allies around their world. They are far more willing to support flagging autocracies and support the spread of like minded regimes. I want to contain their threat and spread democratic liberalism and contest control over the strategic regions of the world such as Central Asia, the Caucuses, Africa, etc.

Click to expand...

Okaaaaaaaaaaaay.

I think I have a good idea of what you are about.

I am done with you on this for now.



You have a nice day now.

DA60 said:

Okaaaaaaaaaaaay.

I think I have a good idea of what you are about.

My work is done here.


You have a nice day now.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you concede the irrationality of your remarks.

Sherman123 said:

I'm glad you concede the irrationality of your remarks.

Click to expand...

Lol...no, I do not concede that at all.

But I do concede that I believe your New World Order opinions are un-American, dishonorable and dangerous and I do not see the point in wasting my time conversing with persons that hold such opinions dear to them.


Have a nice day.

DA60 said:

President Threatens Military Response Against Against Any Use of the Banned Arms

'WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama threatened military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if his forces attempt to use chemical or biological weapons, the strongest indication yet Mr. Obama would consider intervening in the grinding conflict.

The president's message appeared aimed at signaling to Mr. Assad that an American military option is open, but U.S. officials hoped the threat would be enough to dissuade the Syrian leader from using such weapons.'

Obama Warns Syria on Chemical Weapons - WSJ.com

Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that you link to a WSJ article that only gives me a teaser and demands I subscribe in order to see the whole article. I decline to subscribe.

Be that as it may, Obama is doing a disservice to our country.

In this election year, the worst thing he could do is get us into another war...unless he thinks we can fight Syria from afar like we did in Libya. I have my doubts he can pull that kind of thing off again.

So, what I see here is him posturing but not doing anything till after the election. In the meantime, other countries...both allies and non-allies...will see him as weak and ineffectual. This will decrease the influence we have over world affairs and encourage other countries to disregard our positions.

Besides damaging our influence in the world, he increases the chances that some nutjob group will mount an attack on us directly. We've seen this before...typically as a result of the actions and inaction of Democratic Presidents.

Mycroft said:

It's unfortunate that you link to a WSJ article that only gives me a teaser and demands I subscribe in order to see the whole article. I decline to subscribe.

Be that as it may, Obama is doing a disservice to our country.

In this election year, the worst thing he could do is get us into another war...unless he thinks we can fight Syria from afar like we did in Libya. I have my doubts he can pull that kind of thing off again.

So, what I see here is him posturing but not doing anything till after the election. In the meantime, other countries...both allies and non-allies...will see him as weak and ineffectual. This will decrease the influence we have over world affairs and encourage other countries to disregard our positions.

Besides damaging our influence in the world, he increases the chances that some nutjob group will mount an attack on us directly. We've seen this before...typically as a result of the actions and inaction of Democratic Presidents.

Click to expand...

BBC News - Obama warns Syria chemical weapons use may spark US action

Hatuey said:

The same UN who stood by in Rwandan Massacre? The same UN who doesn't have the balls to go into Somalia by itself without US help? The same UN who has done absolutely nothing of any significance in Sudan? The same UN who did nothing about the slaughtering of Zapatista rebels? I honestly support our allegiance to the UN because it serves as a good diplomatic link but to expect them to grow a backbone and give a warning when there are hundreds of little inside deals going on in its buildings is a bit ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Not that UN, Mr. Hat.

The one that was in Libya.

Hatuey said:

Obama is black. Not for nothin' but we invented the sammich yo.

Click to expand...

Yo...why does this gotta be about him bein black (or half black...or whatever)? And what...you dont think there are some bean sprout tofu eatin brothers out there? Thats why I said he should fix a REAL sammich...and not one of those Mo'bama luncheon specials. Real men like REAL food. You think Putin is sitting back enjoying wheat germ on toasted bagel chips?

(I think you were joking...my response is in kind)

Hatuey said:

The same UN who stood by in Rwandan Massacre? The same UN who doesn't have the balls to go into Somalia by itself without US help? The same UN who has done absolutely nothing of any significance in Sudan? The same UN who did nothing about the slaughtering of Zapatista rebels? I honestly support our allegiance to the UN because it serves as a good diplomatic link but to expect them to grow a backbone and give a warning when there are hundreds of little inside deals going on in its buildings is a bit ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I recall readin an article quite a while back where the UN 'forces' in Rwanda were approached by rebels and disarmed...because even though they were in an APC and carrying weapons it was common knowledge that they werent allowed to carry bullets. If I am remembering correctly the UN troops were sent home naked. Yeah...when it comes to layin down the law...well...the UN has the layin down part right.

Mycroft said:

It's unfortunate that you link to a WSJ article that only gives me a teaser and demands I subscribe in order to see the whole article. I decline to subscribe.

Be that as it may, Obama is doing a disservice to our country.

In this election year, the worst thing he could do is get us into another war...unless he thinks we can fight Syria from afar like we did in Libya. I have my doubts he can pull that kind of thing off again.

So, what I see here is him posturing but not doing anything till after the election. In the meantime, other countries...both allies and non-allies...will see him as weak and ineffectual. This will decrease the influence we have over world affairs and encourage other countries to disregard our positions.

Besides damaging our influence in the world, he increases the chances that some nutjob group will mount an attack on us directly. We've seen this before...typically as a result of the actions and inaction of Democratic Presidents.

Click to expand...

I have a question, what makes you think we can't splash Syria from our side of the pool? And honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with showing a little gall here. I don't think this situation is as straight forward as you think. I don't know how rational it would be to compare this to the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's not the same situation at all, but there is largely a psychological factor here. I believe that sometimes it's just the idea of a danger that most scares the opposition. I think Obama is trying to draw a line to say to Syria "quit your crap." Maybe I'm wrong. But the president has had nearly 4 years dealing with international relationships. I think he has an idea of what he's doing here. I'm probably talking out my butt right now, but you are over simplifying the issue.

frogloe said:

I have a question, what makes you think we can't splash Syria from our side of the pool? And honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with showing a little gall here. I don't think this situation is as straight forward as you think. I don't know how rational it would be to compare this to the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's not the same situation at all, but there is largely a psychological factor here. I believe that sometimes it's just the idea of a danger that most scares the opposition. I think Obama is trying to draw a line to say to Syria "quit your crap." Maybe I'm wrong. But the president has had nearly 4 years dealing with international relationships. I think he has an idea of what he's doing here. I'm probably talking out my butt right now, but you are over simplifying the issue.

Click to expand...

Now, wait a minute here...you toss a bunch of stuff against the wall...but I'm wondering what the hell you are talking about.

1. "splash from our side of the pool"?? Are you saying Obama should threaten the use nukes?? Because anything else will require close-in forces.
2. "gall"?? Do you honestly think any of the middle east countries care about Obama's gall? They might give his words 30 seconds of consideration...tops.
3. "straight forward as you think"?? Every one of Obama's responses and reactions are based on the election. Don't fool yourself by thinking otherwise.
4. "Cuban Missile Crisis"?? I didn't bring that up...why are you mentioning it and then saying it's not the same thing? Oh..."the idea of danger", right? Dude, they are KILLING each other over there. Some threat by Obama isn't putting them in any more danger than they already have.
5. "quit your crap"?? Now that's an empty threat if I've ever heard one. It's better Obama keep his mouth shut than say stuff like this.
6. "Maybe I'm wrong."...Now this is the first correct thing you've said in your post.
7. And now you are back to the stupid stuff. Obama hasn't done anything effective during his four years on any international issue...except continue the course Bush laid out. Everything he's done on his own has been a failure. Even after four years, he has no idea what he's doing.
8. I won't take another shot at you...but I'm not over simplifying anything. I'm cutting through the crap to the meat of the issue.

Is Amy Goodmans reporting of the the Obama/ NATO invasion of Libya and Syria similar to the propganda/spin of support shown by corp. media RE: Bush and Iraq?

Does it qualify as "Astroturf," that is pre-packaged dissent, set up by govmnt/corporations?

"Astroturf refers to apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms."

Astroturf - SourceWatch




_________________________________________________________________

"Progressive" Journalism's Legacy of Deceit


by Prof. James F. Tracy


"Amy Goodman's Democracy Now is a case in point. Since the beginning of the “Arab Spring” color revolutions the foremost broadcast venue of “independent” progressive-Left journalism in the United States has used its reportage to obfuscate and thereby advance the campaign for regime change in Egypt, Libya, and now Syria. The tactics of disinformation and death squads employed in Libya and Syria should be easily recognizable since they were refined against popular Central American moves toward popular enfranchisement by the Reagan administration during the 1980s."


"Progressive" Journalism's Legacy of Deceit

Democracy Now is telling an awful lot of lies about the Obama wars lately!


Et tu, Amy Goodman?
Juan Cole, Consultant to the CIA and NIC
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/09/et-tu-amy-goodman/


Appalling Propaganda from Amy Goodman About Libya
Appalling Propaganda from Amy Goodman About Libya « American Everyman


Democracy NOW! – Globalist Force Continuum Tool of Propaganda
Democracy NOW! – Globalist Force Continuum Tool of Propaganda « American Everyman


DEMOCRACY NOW! AND “PROGRESSIVE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA”: CHEERLEADERS FOR IMERIALISM AND WAR « Syria 360°


Amy Goodman Sells Out All the Way – Just Quit, Amy. Just Quit « American Everyman

Where's The Change?: `Democracy Now!' Show Funder Censors Anti-War Journalist John Pilger

MaggieD said:

Not that UN, Mr. Hat.

The one that was in Libya.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute!! Several hours later I see this post of mine and think: "Hey!!! Wasn't that NATO??" Mr. Hat, you're slipping. You didn't call my post stupid!

Sherman123 said:

It was a moral travesty then too and aroused international outrage and contributed massively to the shut off of Saddam Hussein from the international community. But you're right something should have been done in 1993, we shouldn't have waited until 2003 to put a stop to those crimes and their legacy. Furthermore what makes us special is that we are the democratic hegemon and we have a unique role and position to enforce a better world order, and it is in our moral and strategic interests to do so.

Click to expand...

The shut off of Saddam Hussein from the international community/Desert Storm created the terrorist breeding ground that we know today, OBL as our arch enemy, and numerous starving children inside Iraq. Its not our business what other countries do inside their own borders. Just because we exchange goods with a country, doesn't mean we have the right to dictate their conduct. If we were really that morally upright, we would refuse to accept oil or any other products from countries such as Iraq, Libya, etc. However, our politicians aren't going to do that because it would make them lose votes. So instead, they go to war. They feel the can justify war if they trump up some kind of atrocity rap like in Syria or WMD's in Iraq. Not a single politician is losing sleep over a bunch of dead kids in Syria. They are losing sleep over rising oil prices that hurt the economy and in turn, their chances for election.

MarineTpartier said:

The shut off of Saddam Hussein from the international community/Desert Storm created the terrorist breeding ground that we know today, OBL as our arch enemy, and numerous starving children inside Iraq. Its not our business what other countries do inside their own borders. Just because we exchange goods with a country, doesn't mean we have the right to dictate their conduct. If we were really that morally upright, we would refuse to accept oil or any other products from countries such as Iraq, Libya, etc. However, our politicians aren't going to do that because it would make them lose votes. So instead, they go to war. They feel the can justify war if they trump up some kind of atrocity rap like in Syria or WMD's in Iraq. Not a single politician is losing sleep over a bunch of dead kids in Syria. They are losing sleep over rising oil prices that hurt the economy and in turn, their chances for election.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow, you are saying the isolation of Saddam Hussein and the sanctions created a breeding ground for terrorism? Possibly, and I'm not supporter of the kind of sanctions we put on Saddam, it only ends up hurting the lower classes and orders of society, for the most part at least. Which is why military intervention is preferable. But lets accept the premise anyways. Even if what we did incited Osama bin Laden to attack the US, or our intervention in Kuwait did, or our positioning of troops in the Gulf did-- I don't care. Because I judge a foreign policy decision on its merits, not on whether a fundamentalist crusader thinks it is immoral. I'm not going to let OBL and his affiliates dictate US policy.

Secondly yes we do have the right and the interest to intervene in other countries internal affairs, and we should do so aggressively. It allows for the creation of much more advantageous geostrategic situations, and the chance for greater permanent stability by assisting the spread of democracy where possible. Furthermore you refuse a moral foreign policy objective with an absolutist one. We act when it is possible for us to do so, and in the most advantageous way possible. It does not make sense for example to invade Saudi Arabia, when the better option available to us for a variety of reasons is to work through the al-Saud as means for effecting reform and securing regional stability through strong allies.

I also disagree that no politicians care about dead kids in Syria. Just because you don't care doesn't make it the norm.

What I don't get is that the Assad regime was known to have WMDs for quite some time. "In 1973, Syria reportedly obtained chemical artillery
shells from Egypt prior to the October War against Israel, but did not use them" (http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/diab51.pdf) Why is the West just now being concerned about it?

Mr. Invisible said:

What I don't get is that the Assad regime was known to have WMDs for quite some time. "In 1973, Syria reportedly obtained chemical artillery
shells from Egypt prior to the October War against Israel, but did not use them" (http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/diab51.pdf) Why is the West just now being concerned about it?

Click to expand...

Everyone's been concerned about it, but there was not much that could be done and it was at least chemical not nuclear, and it was limited to the control of the states arsenal. Not there is the potential for it being utilized or spread to other groups.

In the final analysis, Ed is just another Establishment hack lying about the wars and other topics ...

par for the course NBC

Some funny bits, one has Ed slamming a liberal tea partier over Obamas lack of transparency over constructing the health care bill ... the caller is actually correct ...



Ron Paul gets Fired Up Ron Paul vs Ed Shultz

Ed Schultz Gets Pounded Into The Ground On Libya

Sherman123 said:

That is a ludicrously paranoid perspective. Which means its par for the course on an internet forum.

Click to expand...

Good comment. We need freedom from fear.

The Pentagon has to scare you into a trillion dollar budget every year, they can't give up the cash cow.


"They threaten our lives with nuclear war. Gonna crucify us just once more"

- Stiv Bators

DA60 said:

And your link to unbiased evidence that it is 'ludicrously paranoid' is what exactly?

Click to expand...

You know darn well after Syria they'll make up the lie Iran has nukes to complete their Napoleonic complex.

Its so obvious!

America has been arming the Free Syrian Army for the last year and a half, and they are doing all the terrorism in Syria.

That is the fact the MSM and Democracy Now are hiding, the whole Syrian crisis was started by Obama, Hillary and NeoCon hawks in the State Dept./Pentagon.