Just Breaking on CNN, Strike on Syria Within Hours Without Congressional Approval

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Obama deciding to attack Syria without any conclusive evidence or Congressional Approval is the actions of a Dictator!

The same type of Dictator that the US has been systematically overthrowing the last 15 years.

The US has become that which it hunts!

Congress hasn't approved a US war since 1942. This is nothing new.

Originally posted by jhn7537
Helping one group of extremists to take out another group of extremists...

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works beautifully here.

In this case it's more like: My enemy is the enemy of my other enemy. Neither the rebels or Assad are our friend. Backing either one is bad.

Originally posted by xavi1000
Latest interview with President al-Assad

Syria will never become a western puppet state!

sana.sy...

No but it was happy doing the dance for Russia and Iran.... Guess it didn't get them what they wanted in the end. Wondering if this is a show and tell session for any other states who decide to give the finger to the US. This might be the beginning of a very powerful US controlled empire in the ME.

Maybe I am reaching here, but is it just a coincidence that Al Jazeera America went live less than a week ago? If Syria is taken out of the picture, and Qatar builds its pipeline to Turkey, is it safe to assume the U.S. gets a cut of the profits, or at least some form of compensation? It seems like U.S. and Qatar have a lot to gain being buddy-buddy here.

But then what? U.S./U.K./France/Israel vs. Iran/Russia/Lebanon? Assuming Lebanon is still standing...I can see a strike on Syria oozing over into Lebanon, taking out the Hezbollah, and leaving Iran completely surrounded by U.S. occupied territories.

I know some of this has been stated before, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. I am only recently "awakened" from the consumer sheep herd so I am not as informed as many of you. Do my ideas have merit?

I don't see any breaking news happening right now on CNN about air strikes being within hours.

reply to post by bekod


reply to post by Xcathdra



I agree - stay out of it.
I've heard some say we need to do something soon because 100K are dead and while I know its not the same due to chemical weapons can you imagine how our own civil war might have turmed out with interventions like this? Our civil war was horrendous (immeasurable suffering). But it was fought from beginning to end by those whose outcome it would directly effect. Its a totally different thing due to terrorists, etc but its a civil war that should be handled within that Country (and maybe the region if it gets out of control as it has with these weapons). This is just another sign of the new global dynamic; the want of resources, power, and influence. We certainly haven't helped in other civil wars that have had far more atrocities over a longer period of time.

Many more will die if (when) we go in. They will for sure if Assad gives it all up to fight back. They will die if he is rendered unable to fight back. Can't just go bomb him. Follow through would be necessary. What are they going to do when he is gone and more chemical weapons are let off? Or civil war continues due to the splits we already know about. We might even create more fractures. In my opinion its a lose lose situation all the way around. People will get killed if we do and they will get killed if we don't. Cooperation with regional powers to end this seems like a more viable option. Kiss butt if really care - give China and Russia something to at least take chemicals out of the mix.

I liked the picture someone put up in one of these Syrian threads that had a kid asking something like "so your government is going to bomb Syria because Syria bombed Syria?" Has to be a motive beyond this chemical weapons attack. There are other options but the US and Briton are hell bent on being the leaders of this pack. I truly believe anyone of Syria's allies at this point (with bribes or not) would help with this. Now we are just @#*¥ing them off.

Originally posted by violet
I don't see any breaking news happening right now on CNN about air strikes being within hours.

reply to post by violet



twitter.com...

Originally posted by AlliumIslelily
Maybe I am reaching here, but is it just a coincidence that Al Jazeera America went live less than a week ago? If Syria is taken out of the picture, and Qatar builds its pipeline to Turkey, is it safe to assume the U.S. gets a cut of the profits, or at least some form of compensation? It seems like U.S. and Qatar have a lot to gain being buddy-buddy here.

But then what? U.S./U.K./France/Israel vs. Iran/Russia/Lebanon? Assuming Lebanon is still standing...I can see a strike on Syria oozing over into Lebanon, taking out the Hezbollah, and leaving Iran completely surrounded by U.S. occupied territories.

I know some of this has been stated before, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. I am only recently "awakened" from the consumer sheep herd so I am not as informed as many of you. Do my ideas have merit?

Way back in 2008 Israel received enough diesel and jet fuel to invade the Middle East. About the same time the Bunker Buster Bombs were sent to The Island of Diego Garcia. Israel wanted to take out the people that were making them live under a state of siege. Remember the Russians techies leaving Iran. Thinking it was all going to go off then. But Israel was advised to go down the Diplomatic road. In return they got high tech planes and the Dome defence system. So they put up with the crap of their neighbours lobbing rockets into Civilian neighbourhoods.
With Iran and Syria, singing from the same song sheet, they bided their time. Knowing they would never be able to live in peace with the current regimes in power. Since then Iran has been adopted by China, and Syria by Russia. China needs the oil, and Russia needs to keep selling Europe Gas from Gazprom. But If Israel gets control of the massive Gas find off of the "Syrian Israel Coast" Russia might have problems with its modernisation. Notice that Iran is moderating, that might be China using its influence, its not in Chinas influence to have the oil stop. But its not in the Wests interest to have a China sucking all the worlds wealth. Like it did before in the Opium wars (,they are now transferring all the cash into gold, before its worthless ) and Parry sailing in with the big ships and making China back trade?
When the strategic strikes start on Syria, i can see Israel invading Syria, after Nato. have softened, Syria up. At this stage, Russia (Putin) is highly pissed off. Because the New Missiles he's given to Syria, have taken down a few Planes but mostly are now in the hands of the IDF. Because the Mossad have made it there business to know just about everything that's going down. The question is does Putin have the balls to do a job on Nato? His mates have lost a lot of money in Cyprus, The winter warmth in Europe depends on Russian gas as the Winters get colder. I don't think Putin will commit the Post Soviet Army Navy and Airforce, against seasoned Western troops. Like he said Nukes are his only option. Its a mess but its still poker, winner doesn't take all, you can withdraw from the game. Putin is already on record for saying Assad is a dead man. As for China they will buy everything without having to fire a shot.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


But who would risk to stand up against the powerful US? Even Obama himself won't stand up against the military-industrial-banking power...nor will the Congress...nor will any other country..do not count on this, and they know it perfectly well.

We are obliged to accept the American strikes...unless we are wiped out. Strength is power.

The only solution that would work would be....sorry for this...but, I do not see any alternative....to stop the military-industrial-bankers complex...imagine the rest for yourself.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


As soon as we launch the first missiles, we can expect to see a retaliatory event from Russia and possibly China. I expect that their first hit will target a US naval vessel, when that doesn't stop us the next will likely be nuclear either here or focused on eliminating as much of our naval fleet as possible in the region. Then our economy collapses along with the value of our currency.

Originally posted by neilarm
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

As soon as we launch the first missiles, we can expect to see a retaliatory event from Russia and possibly China. I expect that their first hit will target a US naval vessel, when that doesn't stop us the next will likely be nuclear either here or focused on eliminating as much of our naval fleet as possible in the region. Then our economy collapses along with the value of our currency.

reply to post by neilarm


let's take a poll:

Who else thinks things will escalate that quickly and to that extent. If you think it will, then how soon should we expect it?

Well it seems the global markets are giving a warning to interventionists, intervene now or no more recovery. See Marketwatch and the Guardian business for some intersting comments.

Originally posted by jondave
Assad is killing thousands of people, it is time to end his terror. I say kill the mfker

Originally posted by jondave
did you see the kids dying from chemical attacks. They are human, it is insane for someone to live to do it again

Originally posted by jondave
I would rather watch a worldwide financial collapse than see more people die from chemical weapons

So you think Syrian civilians getting bombed by western forces is a nicer fluffier death than being gassed by.........Oh wait, i can't say who did it, because there is no PROOF!

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by violet

 

Similarly mankind may perish in seconds if the Earth explodes...

World War III is about to commence!

Tick, tick, tick.......tick. Boom!

It does not have to be this way.

There is another path Earth can follow and it contains no Illuminati masters at the helm!

Originally posted by neilarm
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

As soon as we launch the first missiles, we can expect to see a retaliatory event from Russia and possibly China. I expect that their first hit will target a US naval vessel, when that doesn't stop us the next will likely be nuclear either here or focused on eliminating as much of our naval fleet as possible in the region. Then our economy collapses along with the value of our currency.

That is the most ignorant post I have seen in a long time. First, an attack on a naval vessel would immediately mean a devastating attack against anyone foolish enough to do so. Second, the attack would fail as our fleets have extremely advanced defensive capabilities. Third, our fleets are spread out over the world, and a nuclear attack on them would most likely fail, and we would nuke any country in turn destroying them. A nuclear attack on the continental US would require an "all in" strategy as we have the most advanced missile shield in the world, and we would respond in kind turning every major city they own to glass.

If anything it would help our economy immensely, but not the way you want your economy to improve.

Originally posted by andy06shake
World War III is about to commence!

Tick, tick, tick.......tick. Boom!

It does not have to be this way.

There is another path Earth can follow and it contains no Illuminati masters at the helm!

edit on 27-8-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

Stop the hysteria, nothing will come of this except Syria being attacked. The fact that no country, or coalition of countries, in the world is strong enough to stand against the US means no one will. It would be like a 10 year old karate white belt challenging George St. Pierre.

Originally posted by AlliumIslelily
But then what? U.S./U.K./France/Israel vs. Iran/Russia/Lebanon? Assuming Lebanon is still standing...I can see a strike on Syria oozing over into Lebanon, taking out the Hezbollah, and leaving Iran completely surrounded by U.S. occupied territories.

I know some of this has been stated before, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. I am only recently "awakened" from the consumer sheep herd so I am not as informed as many of you. Do my ideas have merit?

Probably, the last time I checked, I think the U.S. was going to attack Syria before bothering to get information from the U.N. Security Council and since it is the U.N. Security Council's job to do this and not the U.S. anyway, Russia already warned the U.S. that it would be against the Geneva Convention. Obama is trying to resist this, but apparently, John Kerry has taken over the Presidency.

At first, it is going to be the U.S. and the U.K. against Syria, then Iran will probably join, and then Israel. Russia is annoyed with the U.S. and its bullish youth but I'm not sure if they will join or not, besides supplying Syria with weapons, including missiles that can take out naval ships.

Stop the hysteria, nothing will come of this except Syria being attacked. The fact that no country, or coalition of countries, in the world is strong enough to stand against the US means no one will. It would be like a 10 year old karate white belt challenging George St. Pierre.

That is entirely not true. Russia and Iran by themselves could wipe out the U.S., we have been weakened by too many decades of dumb wars, a monstrous debt, and our reputation and moral high ground are on very weak levels. Going in to this situation expecting to come out on top is a mistake,

It is basically a trap, possibly even being set up by people in the know who are aware that people like John Kerry will react with emotions instead of thoughts and not realize that the U.S. isn't going to get off that easy this time.

Just because we all assume from however long we remember that the U.S. is the powerhouse, well that assumption is wrong, and it is a terrible idea to find that out on the field instead of through research first.

I would expect that the first thing that would happen is some of our naval vessels in the region might be hit. The best case scenario would be if we went in, dismantled the chemical weapons capabilities, and left.

If we decided to go for a prolonged campaign in Syria, I suspect that we might not only lose before we get started, but there would also be counter-attacks.

Obama is being smart on this issue, but also being overrun, and John Kerry is a complete idiot. He seems to be blindly ramming the U.S. into a trap as one last hoorah, just to see what happens, well, it won't be very good, and he should have been patient enough to at least await the U.N. Security Council results.

Look at Kerry's demeanor - hasty, emotional, not knowing what is going on, that's a total disaster waiting to happen.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

"It would be like a 10 year old karate white belt challenging George St. Pierre."

You mean like David and Goliath?

Goliath did not fare to well if memory serves!

The bigger they are the harder and faster they fall!

UK now discussing military intervention and intervention to take as of today so within hours an international response could be very well on the way.

Most likely the threat levels have been raised.



www.bbc.co.uk...
UK draws up contingency military plans