that Syrian Civil War is NO JOKE VOL. over 1300 dead after alleged Nerve gas attack

Rocky437 said:
The president is more informed on foreign affairs issues than the average citizen though
Click to expand...

The government should educate the people so we can make informed decisions. And by educate I mean tell us what's going on without lying through their teeth to manipulate our mindset.
 
but chooses to conveniently ignore the hundreds of ongoing conflicts occurring every day. Why the sudden sense of morality :rolleyes
 
SFC415 said:
but chooses to conveniently ignore the hundreds of ongoing conflicts occurring every day. Why the sudden sense of morality :rolleyes
Click to expand...
The strategic position of the conflict(Syria is right in between Iran, israel, lebanon and turkey)...... economic factors (natural gas pipeline)...and the political factor (russia maintains regional influence under Assad)
 
SFC415 said:
I know I'm making an obvious statement, but it's just @#%@#@ ridiculous how every president is basically the same. This is exactly why I don't vote. Bunch of low lived who don't give a single @#$@ about their own country but will make excuses to "help" others to serve their own interests. The whole voting process is a scam that makes Americans feel like they have a say in how the country conducts its affairs. But hey, Obama wants to invade Syria despite majority of Americans being against it. Who is he serving exactly? Smh

I just know some redneck illiterate NTer will come in and say "then why are you still here? Go move somewhere else"
Click to expand...
nerd.gif
 
McCain raises impeachment - if boots hit ground in Syria
Posted by
CNN's Jason Seher

WASHINGTON (CNN) - After endorsing President Barack Obama's plan to launch military strikes against Syria, Sen. John McCain warned the president would face impeachment if he were to put "boots on the ground."

McCain told Phoenix radio host Mike Broomhead on Thursday that the president had "bungled" the entire handling of the Syria crisis and would open himself up to impeachment hearings if he overstepped the limits of the authorization before Congress.
Click to expand...

Link
 
Hoping someone could shed some light on this but from what i have been reading and seeing is that there is pretty much Shia/Islamic extremist on both sides from Assad's regime (the Alawites) and the supposed Al Qaeda infiltration/joining of the rebels, but it seems to be more Sunni Muslims and other mixed minorities groups mixed in with the rebels at this point. My question is the government Assad is representing a Shia islamic dictatorship with influence and privilege to the Alawites? I'm trying to paint this picture in my head but when Assad is tied with the Alawites and the rebels are supposedly getting help from Al Qaeda and neighboring insurgents, wouldn't that mean both sides would have islamic extremist in them? (granted islamic extremist can be Both Sunni and Shia, but more often are Shia). As tragic as this situation is its also vastly complicated in terns of religious, political, and financial views..
 
Why didn't we threaten Israel when they uses chemical weapons (white phosporus) against the Palestians and killed around 2000 civilians?

God how I wished the press asked our politians real questions like that....
 
JJs07 said:
McCain raises impeachment - if boots hit ground in Syria
Posted by
CNN's Jason Seher

WASHINGTON (CNN) - After endorsing President Barack Obama's plan to launch military strikes against Syria, Sen. John McCain warned the president would face impeachment if he were to put "boots on the ground."

McCain told Phoenix radio host Mike Broomhead on Thursday that the president had "bungled" the entire handling of the Syria crisis and would open himself up to impeachment hearings if he overstepped the limits of the authorization before Congress.
Click to expand...

Link
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the president have the power to take any military action he wants, without consent from congress or anyone else?

That's what Commander in Chief means, yes?
 
Man that chemical nerve gas or whatever is no joke and upon reading about it , im buying me a gas mask for my family. I ts a slow painful death and nobody should have to go through that. Sad situation
 
MoonMan818 said:
 
JJs07 said:
 
McCain raises impeachment - if boots hit ground in Syria
Posted by
CNN's Jason Seher

WASHINGTON (CNN) - After endorsing President Barack Obama's plan to launch military strikes against Syria, Sen. John McCain warned the president would face impeachment if he were to put "boots on the ground."

McCain told Phoenix radio host Mike Broomhead on Thursday that the president had "bungled" the entire handling of the Syria crisis and would open himself up to impeachment hearings if he overstepped the limits of the authorization before Congress.
Click to expand...
Link
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the president have the power to take any military action he wants, without consent from congress or anyone else?

That's what Commander in Chief means, yes?
Click to expand...
yes he does.

He can deploy the Marines to any country in 36 hours for up to 90 days without the approval of congress, due to the National Security Act of 1947 which was amended in the 50s
 
In Syria the battle lines are already drawn and the forces that will fill the gap left by Assad is already on the field, there are ways to tip the odds without committing ground troops, By striking at Assad War capabilities and covertly using gulf allies to train a well armed and well equipped secular force.

Either way we respond the problem is not going away, it will just get bigger.
Click to expand...


Covertly using gulf allies to train a secular force? Been there.. DONE THAT! Operation Cyclone ring the bell? Oh yah that covert CIA mission that involved supplying arms and money to the Mujahideen militants and trained that one guy ... you know... what's his name... Osama Bin Laden! But I got you, it's different this time around, because after all there are good militants and bad militants out there. :rofl:

wouldn't that mean both sides would have islamic extremist in them?
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
Not that Obama cares, but it's great to see such a large # of American people (both Republican/Democrat) voicing their displeasure with his potential decision to go in to Syria.

Again, I seriously wonder if he would have been reelected had this issue come up last year?
 
JJs07 said:
Not that Obama cares, but it's great to see such a large # of American people (both Republican/Democrat) voicing their displeasure with his potential decision to go in to Syria.

Again, I seriously wonder if he would have been reelected had this issue come up last year?
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not.  But I feel like there are probably a few other issues that got him reelected.  And Mitt Romney wanted to go to Syria too, so it may have been a moot point.

Also, "go in to Syria"..... who is going into Syria?  As far as I know, there are no plans for ground forces in Syria.  No way in hell will they risk deploying American boots on ground in a country with chemical weapons, last time that happened, guys were stuck in MOPP gear for 12 month stretches, which seriously diminishes combat effectiveness.

I for one have always been supportive of military action against Syria, until I heard the BS that I heard on NPR this morning.  Now John Kerry is talking about ramping up the training of Syrian rebels, and sending them weapons to fight Assad.  I seem to remember the last time this happened, it turned into Osama Bin Laden 
tired.gif
 
^ like you didnt know that was the plan at first. you dont secure chemical weapons by only bombing the **** out of a country. you need boots on the ground too. if the military wasnt going in who would have to do it? yepp the ****** rebels.
 
Kspar said:
^ like you didnt know that was the plan at first. you dont secure chemical weapons by only bombing the **** out of a country. you need boots on the ground too. if the military wasnt going in who would have to do it? yepp the ****** rebels.
Click to expand...

Exactly! After the bombings then what? We're just suppose to assume that the 'good' rebels will secure the chemical weapon sites and wait for the UN envoy (which will most likely be represented by US military forces and personnel) to get there and dispose of em?

I am betting Obama in his briefing tomorrow to state something in the lines of...

"You're going to find Iraqis out cheering American troops."
-- Paul Wolfowitz, February 23, 2003

"There is no question but that they would be welcomed."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 20, 2003

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
-- **** Cheney, March 16, 2003

"Given the chance to throw off a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein, people will rejoice."
-- Ari Fleischer, March 21, 2003
Click to expand...

or

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003

"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- **** Cheney, March 16, 2003

"No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to ten years."
-- Richard Perle, March 9, 2003
Click to expand...
 
Kspar said:
^ like you didnt know that was the plan at first. you dont secure chemical weapons by only bombing the **** out of a country. you need boots on the ground too. if the military wasnt going in who would have to do it? yepp the ****** rebels.
Click to expand...


Well heres the thing. There have been "boots on the ground" in Syria for the last 10 years. The CIA, much like in Afghanistan have been there training rebel forces for years, as well as quite a few SOCOM forces (Army SF, Rangers, MarSOC, SEALS, ect). That isnt technically "boots on the ground", because most of those forces act independently of any military chain of command. I'm cool with that. Im cool with doing anything to aid the civilian population there...anything short of arming a new group of insurgents.
 
Kspar said:
^ like you didnt know that was the plan at first. you dont secure chemical weapons by only bombing the **** out of a country. you need boots on the ground too. if the military wasnt going in who would have to do it? yepp the ****** rebels.
Click to expand...


Well heres the thing. There have been "boots on the ground" in Syria for the last 10 years. The CIA, much like in Afghanistan have been there training rebel forces for years, as well as quite a few SOCOM forces (Army SF, Rangers, MarSOC, SEALS, ect). That isnt technically "boots on the ground", because most of those forces act independently of any military chain of command. I'm cool with that. Im cool with doing anything to aid the civilian population there...anything short of arming a new group of insurgents.
 
Kspar said:
^ like you didnt know that was the plan at first. you dont secure chemical weapons by only bombing the **** out of a country. you need boots on the ground too. if the military wasnt going in who would have to do it? yepp the ****** rebels.
Click to expand...


Well heres the thing. There have been "boots on the ground" in Syria for the last 10 years. The CIA, much like in Afghanistan have been there training rebel forces for years, as well as quite a few SOCOM forces (Army SF, Rangers, MarSOC, SEALS, ect). That isnt technically "boots on the ground", because most of those forces act independently of any military chain of command. I'm cool with that. Im cool with doing anything to aid the civilian population there...anything short of arming a new group of insurgents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom