US Prepares For Cruise Missile Attack on Syria

[SS Junk]

I still say nothing is going to be done. Obama will then turn it around and claim US presence was readily available and "we would strike if another chemical attack was imminent..."

[Vertnut]

Obama's in a bad place. The UN has told him to fuck off, if he acts without Congressional approval he has no international backing and can be held for impeachment. If he doesn't act, he's an international lame duck and everyone's going to keep ignoring him.

He has to act, but question is, does he want impeachment?

If Barry can't be the hero, he won't do shit. If he has no one to blame other than himself, he won't do shit.

[Vertnut]

It worked for slick willie, but now that the ME knows our administration is a total joke...

Yep. Hitting that aspirin factory in the Sudan really showed them! LOL!

[Forever_frost]

Obama's in a bad place. The UN has told him to fuck off, if he acts without Congressional approval he has no international backing and can be held for impeachment. If he doesn't act, he's an international lame duck and everyone's going to keep ignoring him.

He has to act, but question is, does he want impeachment?

[SS Junk]

So, WTF is the point? Sounds like just random missiles at random targets to say "Bad, Syria! Bad!". It's a look tough approach. This regime continues in it's incompetency.

It worked for slick willie, but now that the ME knows our administration is a total joke...

[GhostTX]

Russia and China Walk Out of UN Security Council meeting on Syria

Oh, Here. We. Go.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-russia-and-china-walk-out-of-un-security-council-meeting-on-syria-its-on/

[silverranger]

Obama deciding anything scares the shit out of me

[Forever_frost]

Obama has to decide, does he want to keep expanding the power of the Muslim Brotherhood in the ME or does he want to gut our military. He can't overthrow leaders without our military

[silverranger]

DAMN THE UN

The State Department made clear Wednesday that the Obama administration plans to bypass the United Nations Security Council as it prepares for a possible strike on Syria, after having failed to win support from Russia.

In blunt terms, department spokeswoman Marie Harf said last-ditch efforts to win support for an anti-Assad resolution at the U.N. were unsuccessful, and the U.S. would proceed anyway.

"We see no avenue forward given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful council action on Syria," she said. "Therefore, the United States will continue its consultations and will take appropriate actions to respond in the days ahead."

Earlier in the day, the U.S. and its allies tried to advance a resolution from Great Britain condemning the alleged chemical attack last week in Syria, and authorizing "necessary measures to protect civilians." The Russian delegation, traditional supporters of the Assad government, immediately complained about the resolution during the discussions at U.N. headquarters in New York.

Harf said the U.N. Security Council would not be proceeding with a vote.

Launching a military strike without U.N. authorization would not be without precedent -- the U.S. acted unilaterally during the 1983 invasion of Grenada, the 1989 invasion of Panama, and missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998.

But in this case, the U.N.'s special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, is urging the U.S. to seek and obtain Security Council approval.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also urged the U.S. and its allies to wait until U.N. inspectors currently in Syria finish their work investigating last week's attack.

Harf and other U.S. officials have argued that the U.S. is obligated to respond, given the Assad regime's alleged breach of international standards on chemical weapons, in a grisly attack that reportedly killed hundreds. The images from that attack, coupled with other evidence, led Secretary of State John Kerry to declare earlier this week that the use of the weapons was "undeniable."

"It's clear Syria violated international law here," Harf said. She rejected the suggestion that the U.S. was bypassing the international community, noting that top U.S. officials have been consulting all week with leaders of other nations about the situation in Syria.

By the end of the week, the U.S. intelligence community is expected to release evidence making the case that the Assad regime used chemical weapons. British Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking a vote in Parliament on Thursday in support of responding in Syria.

Some members of Congress are now demanding that Obama seek their approval as well -- or at least greater consultation -- before proceeding.

Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., issued a blistering statement about the possibility that Obama would proceed with a strike without congressional authorization.

"The President's authority as Commander-in-Chief to order a military attack on a foreign government is implicitly limited by the Constitution to repelling an attack," he said. Further, he noted that the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which has been repeatedly ignored by U.S. presidents, dictates that the president cannot send forces into hostilities for a non-retaliatory strike without a declaration of war or approval from Congress.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2dIVj0Z73

[GhostTX]

OOoo...the response

...
Until now, President Obama and his closest advisers took a risk-averse approach to Syria. They saw the situation as too combustible, the opposition as too fragmented and weak, to get involved. Even today, the White House argues that the purpose of intervention is not regime change.
...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/as-all-signs-point-to-syria-strike-some-question-us-end-game/

So, WTF is the point? Sounds like just random missiles at random targets to say "Bad, Syria! Bad!". It's a look tough approach. This regime continues in it's incompetency.

[Txstang1]

Maybe I missed the parts where he pointed the finger at PB's brother. All I read was a referral that US troops (in general) may not have died (which includes his brother) if we had never ran into Iraq/Afganistan.

This is the "offensive" post:


Maybe all of you guys misinterpreted it. It is very simple to read. He just said if we didnt go to Iraq/Afghanistan, PB's brother wouldnt have been forced into the tragic situation that took his life. Then he said he doesnt disagree with PB's brother protecting his brothers at war. He's saying that in the end our role in Afghanistan will be a waste and their way of life will revert and when it does, all the lost lives of our troops would have been wasted. Then he agrees again that PB's brothers actions were honorable. You idiots need to slow down and think about that the guy is trying to say before you start a witch hunt.

Fuuuuuuck that. That POS needed to be outted. If I find out someone is a child molester, I'm outting his ass on principle. No prompting needed.

[Gtracer]

That was some good sheet right thur

[Woods Racing Transmission]

[no4njnk]

Reports are saying there is still no "proof" that nerve gas was used. Last I heard the evidence was damaged so it could never be test.

If I was al queda this is exactly what I would be doing. I would have gassed my "own" people and blamed it on Assad. This puts the US in a pickle. If we attack we now face a possible war or attacks from Russia and China. If we do not attack we are viewed weak and Iran knows obama will not do anything.

If it was Assad then we are aiding al queda by bombing them, I am not too keen on helping our enemies.

Also if we are bombing them with guided missiles we have boots on the ground. From multiple reports we have had SF on the ground for 3 years or so. Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all, let the French and British attack them and watch their economy go further down the toilet.

[racrguy]

No, you fucking loser piece of shit, you did. And you damned well know it, just like everyone else here knows it. So, go fuck yourself asshole. We will meet one of these days. Count on that shit. And, even though I've been told "he's a big fucker", I'm not in the least intimidated.

Chris had the balls to be a man and apologize, because he knew he was wrong. You, not so smart. Though we all know that as well.

Don't you have a war with Wylie PD to worry about?