Obama's State of Confusion Address Tonight 9:00 pm eastern (US)

Anyway, my last words on the subject. In my opinion, the President of the United States of America made a decision that was based more on a global rather than a local scale. Kill me if ya like. Well done sir, well done.

reply to post by RocksFromSpace


You were equally outraged when Rwanda was seeing hundreds of thousands of people hacked down with Machetes in the streets over a matter of weeks, right? Surely, you're as mad that massacres of similar scale could erupt with little notice in multiple places across the same Continent, today....right?

Lets not be too high handed about selective outrage. Palestinians aren't some special case and on an overall scale of numbers and pure misery index (considers that shopping mall in Gaza City) they are far from the most sympathetic in the world today.

reply to post by RAY1990


They're essentially giving the reins to Russia and letting them run with it, this is as close to a defeat speech as can be made.

reply to post by all2human


They're essentially giving the reins to Russia and letting them run with it,

Huh I thought not having to clean the dirty toilette was a good thing...
A victory, not a defeat, at least that's the way it is at home.

reply to post by all2human


More like Putin took the reins from him.

xuenchen

RAY1990
People, can we pipe down on the political bashing and actually discuss what was in his speech?

Or is that just too much to ask?

This shouldn't have anything to do with Republicans vs Democrats, it should be about Obama's speech and what he means. In essence it's about what the US stance is on the Syrian situation, what they will and won't do and why.

Sure.

I have a question;

According to the Geneva Convention, who are the 'legal' enforcement authorities ?

Does a country have the authority to enforce ?

Or is it the U.N. ?

I am no expert or anything but I can imagine it falls under the power of the UN to legally enforce any kind of intervention.

No nation reserves the right to enforce any military intervention on another unless they are in direct threat from said nation. Their is a reason why coalitions are the norm when going to war and why nations usually meet to discuss possible intervention.

It seems only recently that nations are standing by the rules and rightly so, Libya's intervention was pushed too far and was not what it was meant to be.

all2human
reply to post by RAY1990

 

They're essentially giving the reins to Russia and letting them run with it, this is as close to a defeat speech as can be made.

edit on 10-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

You say defeat, I say it is giving diplomacy a chance.

I guess we must disagree on that.
But your right, this is Russia's turn to kick the ball. Who knows what tricks are up people's sleeves, this could easily backfire on Russia.

reply to post by k21968


Nuff Said

Judging by most of the responses...most of you have no clue what just happened.

Obama said that action is needed to secure the national security of the US and then said that they pose no threat to our national security.

That has been the cornerstone of every politicians argument when it comes to supporting or funding intervention oversees!

Also, it seems as though its ok to side with terrorists, like Al Queda, when the situation presents itself.

I do not want to bomb Syria.....but I also didnt expect our president to come out and contradict the very propaganda that started these wars since 911.

Rand Paul's response to Obama #Syria speech.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

You were equally outraged when Rwanda was seeing hundreds of thousands of people hacked down with Machetes in the streets over a matter of weeks, right?

I was. I also knew at that time it wasn't our place to go plunging into another country to fight its battles for them.

Then, now... whenever.

This is not about chemicals or body counts.

The US has been clamoring to go into Syria for years. We were vetoed three times in the UN because we overstepped the UN mandate in Libya.

We went into Iraq on fraudulent claims of WMD. We are still in Afghanistan after a decade of "fighting".

Whats to be expected from the US this time?

What will be different than last time(s) where we lie, violate international law and stretch out conflicts for decades?

Not a thing.

reply to post by all2human


I remit to my previous comment about leaving, as do we all. But with a codicil, not only do you want to be the boss but perhaps you want to serve the cake too?

reply to post by RAY1990

I disagree. This is defeat, and turning belly up. A President who wanted to project diplomacy with strength might actually say close to the same thing (with perhaps a WHOLE lot more consistency of message from day to day ..and moment to moment). That part isn't, by itself, the problem. It's that his words are all he has.

Several reports I see say 5 Destroyers in the Med. Others say 4. Destroyers. Not Carriers. lol... We have 3/4 of our Navy sitting in port and a fair # of them, in states of refit and dis-assembly for one thing or another. Norfolk looked like Battleship Row on Dec. 5th, 1941 just here recently....but with the giant Carriers, lined up just as pretty as you could ask for.

A President with strength, may say about the same thing....but would be doing things to show intent behind the words, if failure would come. Moving a Carrier out of port and just in that general direction wouldn't put one at risk of the Yakhont Missile batteries, but it would send a message that it's more than JUST whatever his speechwriter feed into the teleprompter tonight.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Didn't he say in a way that Syria was NOT a direct threat to the USA other than the threats they suffer and counter everyday?

I think that is what he linked to the fact he asked Congress to vote on the possibility of a strike, because to just do so when no direct threat was substantial is breach of laws.

Don't know maybe I am wrong on that.

reply to post by ZombieWoof


It is rather sad that you suggest that your president, who has just avoided mass destruction, is a puppet. That is indeed sad.

reply to post by intrptr


I'm kinda confused. Are you expecting me to be for intervention? You do realize, I was among the first on here to be banging the anti-war drum for this pathetic mess... You almost sound like you think I want to see this all happen?

Odd. My comment was a reply to someone else about the specific issue of selective outrage...not intervention into other nations. Neither his example nor mine would have fit in any way for intervention anyway. Just rage at what happened and is happening in other nations. That high selectivity of people's attention and emotion is a remarkable thing to see at times.

reply to post by RAY1990


He said that they were a threat to US security (using Israel as the propaganda tool) and then said that they do not pose a threat to our national security when speaking about military action.

Obama cleary contradicted himself and this speech should be proof that propaganda is being used...double think....

They are a threat, but they are not a threat.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


The US has plenty of other resources in the area, more than enough to do surgical strikes on Syria. They do not need aircraft carriers or whole fleets patrolling the area, I can imagine strikes would be that pinpointed and that concise in timing it would render most of Syria's ability to respond null and void.

I cannot imagine Assad is dumb enough to go sending rockets into Israel or striking bases on lets say Cyprus or in Turkey. Obama has stated a few times now just what kind of a strike he would use.

Anyways I'm off to bed, look forward to reading more of this thread tomorrow after work.

reply to post by Feltrick


That would be a great plan if the Russians were made to go along with it, but you forget that there is a US plan of action:

“We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”

This was in 2007, we are now in 2013 so the plan is already behind schedule... absolving Syria of the fake motivation that will validate aggression is not in the plans, can you imagine what they will do if they fail to sell this thing ? (There are also costs to consider, backing up all those "freedom fighters" wasn't cheap and then there is the backlash like the Iraq's Sunni minority that was left hanging on Iraq War 1.0 as Bush Sr. couldn't gather international support for the fallow trough).