Obama is OUT OF HIS MIND

[MisterTinkles]

The herds do need thinning out, dont they?

Especially the stupid ones.

[Eros]

What the hell if happening with humanity? :c ugh, why can't we all ignore each other and just be happy and fat? ;C

[Dreamer]

Obama is a fucking joke.


He comes off as extremely inconsistent, on this subject,
from his silly red line being crossed long ago,
to him promising a brutal attack as early as Thursday,
which has passed.


Despite that,
the American people only support any action on Syria by 9%....
and those are probably just the usual war-mongering,
ancient conservative white men,
slowly dying out
(thankfully).


We don't want it!


We still have blood on our hands
from other conflicts
we'd started long ago.


It's time for the American government
to take it's hands out of that war machine of a cookie jar, ASAP!


Just because we have the military means to do so,
doesn't mean we should.


I'd rather his administration focus on the endless problems,
here at home first,
instead of pretending to play hero,
while taking on exterior motives,
just for it to blow up in our face.


The UK, our closest allie,
has already backed out
(at least they got it right),
and I wouldn't be surprised
if others followed suit.


He doesn't give a shit about the American people,
despite his convincing facade,
which got my vote, regrettably, twice.


The countless violations of The Fourth Amendment,
which he promised to uphold at his inauguration,
along with the rest of The Constitution,
is something, long ago, he wiped his ass with.


To think he's doing this
out of the goodness of his heart
is ignorant at best!


He's Bush 2.0!

The only real point is that it sends a message, as Matty71 pointed out.

Besides, if we did nothing, the innocent civilians would be just as likely to die at the hands of one local faction or the other. (shrug)

That "message" is going to turn to all out war with Syria and their allies.


They aren't going to sit by, nonchalant, as we bomb their country!


War is the motive,
not to help the Syrian people.


You think bombing the Syrian government
is really going to stop the civil war,
or the use of chemical weapons on their own people?
(NO!)


Shit is only going to escalate, and very fast!


There's going to be massive collateral damage,
something our military loves taking part in.
That means more dead civilians.


It's going to be a big fucking mess!

[tavi]

Yeah, lets just stay out, just giving terrorist more excuses to kill our civilians at home.

This conflict too is muddled, with smaller conflicts swept up in it, what can a big superpower do, maybe our problem is were even talking about intervening

These countries are us 70 years ago, let them battle it out. If not then bomb the fuck out of them till there nothing left.

[Joshular]

I still admire Obama but he seems to be losing touch with reality. You can't just bomb your way out of the Syrian problem.

You totally could. Quick action.
Nek minute: Russa attacks. YAY!

[Vigilias]

If chemical weapons have been used in Syria we should be asking ourselves who sold them these weapons and the means by which they were delivered.

If, as I think I read somewhere earlier this week, Tomahawk missiles were used as the delivery system, then we need look no further than the U.S. Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon Company and Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS) - two major American defense contractors.

Is there independent and plausible evidence that chemical weapons have been used and if so by whom? Has Uncle Sam been holidaying in the Ghouta area of Syria lately?

Remember, that fourteen years ago we went to war with Iraq because Bush told Blair and Blair told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching Britain.

Before and leading up to that time, there was supposed to have been a No-Fly Zone over parts of Iraq and a Naval blockade. We were further expected to believe that weapons and weapon components were getting through when powdered baby formula wasn't!

What Iraq had, were whatever Scud missiles they had left after the 1990-1991 conflict and a Scud Missile is nothing more than a pimped up V2 Rocket (nod to Wernher Von Braun - all this is HIS fault!).

It has to be remembered that of those Iraqi Scud Missiles fired at Israel, not all of those that penetrated Israeli air defences reached their intended targets. How the buggery-bollocks where they ever going to fly the 4100 Km/2,548 Miles to the UK? (I use Baghdad to London as an example)

Obama said on Wednesday, "The U.S. has 'concluded' that the murderous Bashar Assad regime killed hundreds of its own people in a toxic chemical weapons attack." I liked that part, "The U.S. has concluded." Later the same day David Cameron's plans to repeat the mistakes of history not yet learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, were defeated by 285 votes to 272.

The UK will not be joining in yet another U.S. lead middle eastern conflict - today anyway, although something tells me Cameron will find a way.

It's true what Mark Twain said, "God invented war to teach the Americans geography."


.

[Vigilias]

I should also add that at a time when the UK is supposed to balancing the books, we can't afford another long drawn out and expensive war.

In the last financial year the UK spent £17 Billion on foreign economic aid. Meanwhile the poorest and most vulnerable in our society are being cruelly squeezed until the pips squeak. Supposedly one of the eighth richest nations in the world yet more people are having to resort to Trussell Trust Food Banks!

We've had enough in the UK of watching the coffins of servicemen and servicewomen coming back on RAF Hercules planes having died in a war caused by the U.S. Tired of seeing servicemen and women struggling to cope with missing limbs.

Can anyone in the U.S. imagine a scenario in which Islamic Fundamentalist line the routs of official state/military funerals and call for U.S. servicemen to be beheaded?

These are all things that we have to put up with because the U.S. have started another war in the middle east.

The U.S. are also guilty of changing and swapping allegiances, getting their allies involved in messy conflicts then getting out and leaving their allies to it - as they have in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How long have the U.S. and their allies been "keeping the peace" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yet neither of those countries are any more peaceful and safe than they were several years ago.

[davearoo]

[align=center]
That "message" is going to turn to all out war with Syria and their allies.


They aren't going to sit by, nonchalant, as we bomb their country!

Assad's military has its hands more than full with the Syrian rebels. It's totally impossible for them to go to war with anyone else right now.

Assad's only ally is Putin, and he has nothing to gain by sticking his neck out. Mutually Assured Destruction, and all that...

[Matty71]

If chemical weapons have been used in Syria we should be asking ourselves who sold them these weapons and the means by which they were delivered.

If, as I think I read somewhere earlier this week, Tomahawk missiles were used as the delivery system, then we need look no further than the U.S. Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon Company and Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS) - two major American defense contractors.

Is there independent and plausible evidence that chemical weapons have been used and if so by whom? Has Uncle Sam been holidaying in the Ghouta area of Syria lately?

Remember, that fourteen years ago we went to war with Iraq because Bush told Blair and Blair told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching Britain.

Before and leading up to that time, there was supposed to have been a No-Fly Zone over parts of Iraq and a Naval blockade. We were further expected to believe that weapons and weapon components were getting through when powdered baby formula wasn't!

What Iraq had, were whatever Scud missiles they had left after the 1990-1991 conflict and a Scud Missile is nothing more than a pimped up V2 Rocket (nod to Wernher Von Braun - all this is HIS fault!).

It has to be remembered that of those Iraqi Scud Missiles fired at Israel, not all of those that penetrated Israeli air defences reached their intended targets. How the buggery-bollocks where they ever going to fly the 4100 Km/2,548 Miles to the UK? (I use Baghdad to London as an example)

Obama said on Wednesday, "The U.S. has 'concluded' that the murderous Bashar Assad regime killed hundreds of its own people in a toxic chemical weapons attack." I liked that part, "The U.S. has concluded." Later the same day David Cameron's plans to repeat the mistakes of history not yet learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, were defeated by 285 votes to 272.

The UK will not be joining in yet another U.S. lead middle eastern conflict - today anyway, although something tells me Cameron will find a way.

It's true what Mark Twain said, "God invented war to teach the Americans geography."


.

Regarding Syrian chemical weapons programs and the most recent attack: Syria produces its own chemical weapons in their own plants spread throughout their country. Those facilities will most likely be a main target of a U.S. strike.

And, no, the attack was not with tomahawk cruise missiles. We do not sell or provide such technology to countries such as Syria. From images I have seen from the attack (on the BBC), the chemical-delivery vehicles were much smaller. Most likely of Russian or Iranian origin.

[OrphanPip]

The USA must act at this point the only debate is in what way. To not act makes the USA look weak and it would significantly weaken their political influence in the Mid-East. In terms of geopolitical reach America has to act, and they probably would have been better off if they had come in stronger in support of the Syrian rebels before Al Qaeda started to fill in for the lack of Western support.