Stinging From His Public Humiliation, Obama Threatens Iran

Actually an "act of war" can be something as mundane as a naval blockade, the arrest and detention of ships at sea..

Pretty much the US war on drugs IS technically an act of war....and so is drone bombing, commando raids..all of that.

However, the US threw out the Geneva Convention, or at least got highly selective about it, after 911.

Like the US constitution, Barry has deemed it unnecessary as his cause is more just...

 

It better matter to obama before he starts another war in the middle east that does nothing to help America.

You realize Saddam Hussein got his VX nerve gas he used on the kurds, and Iran from America, right?




.

 

despite your bs, ethical people don't allow dictators to use chemical weapons with impunity

 

How do you know which one of obamas lies to believe?

All that guy does is lie.

Hes freakn arming al queda, hes not sending in US troops. Does that sound ethical? (*)(*)(*)(*) NO

Are we gonna have CNN reporters embedded with Al Queda fighters? (*)(*)(*)(*) NO

So we can watch them eat the hearts of their victims, on MSNBC ? Does that sound ethical? (*)(*)(*)(*) NO

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) is this bull(*)(*)(*)(*)????

If obama had any sack, hed do the right thing and send in ETHICAL WARRIORS from AMERICA, and not arm our sworn enemy.

We're in a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing war on terrorism, and hes giving weapons to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing terrorists, and you think its (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ethical.

Youre outta your (*)(*)(*)(*)n mind

 

100,000 people die, no one gives a (*)(*)(*)(*), then 1000 die a different but equally as horrible death and now it's a humanitarian thing, or as you put it, "about preventing blood from flowing and death"

Yeah, sure. Seems legit.

 

it's about the rule of law, not naive rationalizations

 

The rule of law? The (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rule of law?

Obamas sending Al (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Queda.... wtf?

Hey, do you really believe Al Queda is going to listen to Obamas orders?

What happens if Syria offers them more money, than what obama is paying them?

Then what?

 

you're projecting again

 

Why not we let Saddam? Where is the war crime tribunal for our politicians that gave the weapons to him and then looked the other way when he used them?

- - - Updated - - -

Torture and drone strikes are not against international law?

 

we let him hang for it

obama ended torture and killing criminals isn't against international law

 

Americans don't answer to international law. I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about it, and apparently, most of the country does not either, seeing as how support for any interference is very low.

And naive? Nothing is more naive than thinking that death via chemical weapons at a much smaller rate is worse than death via standard means at a much higher rate. It's literally the stupidest and most ridiculous (*)(*)(*)(*) I've ever heard.

 

ethical ones do

the vague accusations you spout are what's ridiculous

 

So ethical that you and you're kind didn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) when 100,000 people died, it was 1000 additional deaths via a specific mean. Killing people is fine, as long as you do it a certain way.

Makes sense.

 

you really don't know what you're talking about

 

You added really to your signature line. Hell of a swerve. WWF Attitude era level (*)(*)(*)(*) right there.

Please, elaborate for once in your life instead of your standard "you don't know what you're talking about" crap. Please, I'm begging you. For once in your life, say something that has an ounce of substance.

 

why do you continue to make false statements when there's a mountain of evidence that refutes what you say?

 

In the business... it is known as Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought we were talking about the rule of law, not the rule of subjective ethics...

 

i'm talking about ethical leaders that choose to adhere to the rule of law

 

By going to congress to enact an act of war?

 

you have something against that?

 

Not at all. It is a requirement (when not under attack or credible threat of such). Wouldn't you agree?

 

Here, this may help:

Act of War

Armed conflict. An emargo or naval blockade is not an act of war. Alleged "technicalities" don't mean much in political discussion. And I don't disagree with your comment regarding Obama's disregard for what an "act of war" is, my post was actually in a similar line of thought with yours, not entirely sure why you would argue semantics with a post that is pretty much in alignment with your own view...

 

Syria was and is all about Iran, its just another way in.

I wonder if anyone wouldve had issue with Iran going to war with Israel when they decided they wanted nukes for protection. Yes that wouldve been a huge issue.

 

On Obama's watch? It is this sort of arrogant stupidity which is the source of all our problems in the world!! The Middle East was already a place with an enormous number of troubles before Obama took office, nothing has changed. The same problems exist. We go around the world make moralistic statements. Acting with righteous indignation over issues we created or over activities we are ourselves involved in. We need to stop trying to control the world, because that is where all our problems stem from. We need to stop being "on watch." Let people lives their lives and mind their own business. However, that is never going to happen, because wealthy interests are too invested in our continued intervention in every part of the globe.

Something I have realized for a long time now, most people on this forum are entirely ignorant of the Middle East. They know almost nothing, yet it doesn't stop them from coming online and espousing their opinions as if they are experts. There are a handful of people at this entire forum who know anything. The complexity of the Syrian situation is beyond almost all the posters at this forum.

PS. No matter what Obama does, he will be considered an incompetent idiot by the right and a brilliant genius by Democrats. If Obama had invaded, he would be a an incompetent idiot who was siding with the turruuuurists. If he made a deal he would be weak. If he stayed silent and didn't involve himself at all, his inaction would be a sign of his weakness and incompetence. And at the same time, had he done any of those things he would be brilliant to Democrats. Stop pretending like actions actually matter, all that matters to the vast majority of posters at this forum is the letter D next to his name (and to a few idiots the color of his skin, but I don't think this is that prevalent). If people liked Democrats before they like Obama, if they didn't, they don't. Actions are irrelevant in our modern political climate.

 

What about when we use chemical weapons? Our rules tend to be, we can kill anyone we want in any way we want, because we are the best country. All our force is legitimate. However if anyone else does it, that is bull (*)(*)(*)(*)!! Unless of course they are also one of the other legitimate countries (aka the powerful countries, who make up the "legitimate" rules of war to justify and benefit their own power).