US willing to go it alone against Syria if needed

I'm glad to see some semblance of majority rule still functioning in the UK; here in the Unilateral Socialist State of Amerika, it's all up to Kriegsführer Obama.

 

I remain skeptical, how much longer do we expect to be able to rain missiles over the rest of the world and incur no consequence for it?

 

9/11/2001 was a sad day, and it occurred because US was helping Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

 

The British people rightfully demand no war on secular Syria , The British parliament votes against a war and Syrian girl responds with a stupid Cartoon attacking Britain. You should be trying to make friends for Syria, Syrian girl, not trying to alienate the ones you have.

On the otherhand liberal minority seems to think that israel is going to take part in attacks on Syria along with the USA -they aren't.

 

In trying to be fair to Obama- and I do feel that we should be fair to Droneman as he ' liberated ' America from the insanity of Guantanamo George and his henchmen- I note that it was the Brits who have been clamouring for violence against Assad for months, not Obama, and that Obama has been left high and dry by the Brit hawks as they crashed and burned in their parliament last night. We should be very much aware that they were shot down by the law, their opposition calling for legal approval of war and the reprehensible Brit government being unable to furnish it. Obama should now put all his eggs in the basket of the law himself by refusing to act without international legal approval. He should make international law his ally, not his enemy, and re-set America's path out of the bloody morass created by his predecessor. Acting illegally now will permanently cripple America, morally, and the ember of hope which glowed for such a short time after Obama's election will be extinguished completely.

It is far more important for America to act within the law than to create war outside of it with no support other than that of scurrilous shysters.

 

True, in being fair, this was a British(or mainly, Cameron's) delusional strive for war. Along side Turkey. With the British Parliament and the English majority of citizens(as well as Canadians) speaking out against those ambitions, this will hopefully keep us out of the war for quite some time.

 

Nevermind, they'll be invited to participate in stabbing Caesar.

 

The Brits are such a tease. We're all hyped up and ready to go, gonna chicken out now?

 

Here's some BS for ye:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23894173

"Countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable," the US said.

International norms? Since when are there "international norms" to which any nation is subject? Syria isn't a part of any agreement that would keep them from using chemical weapons (I'm not saying the government forces even did, mind you), so the Unilateral State of Amerika now has this new "international norms" buzzword to throw around.

Always pay attention to the language these shifty liars use.

 

Chicken out? Hardly. I don;t want to be on the wrong side. On one side we have a secular regime and the othe we have religious extremists who hate us.

No brainer

 

Our Egyptian failure should show you the utter stupidity of that presumption.

Terrorists are NOT to be negotiated with, they're enemy combatants of the U.S. Mainland, as well as anything representing the will of the people or peace.

 

Duplicate

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't hang right- coming from avid fans of white phosphorous and depleted uranium.

 

I think its a mistake for the US to intervene in Syria; the tribes there have been fighting for centuries and we are not going to be able to force them to do what we think they should do. I know this sounds cold, but I think we should just let them fight it out with each other and may the best man win.

 

That's what they want too.

They want for us to leave them alone.

The only people who are asking for our help are the jihadist rebels who are slicing peoples' heads off on international television.

 

Exactly. Another thing that's really irking me right now is how certain the stupid BBC seems to be about an impending US attack. Their articles right now always talk about it as a virtual certainty.

Meanwhile, we the people aren't asked about it. We're told by our government what our government will do. We're told what's right and wrong, who's bad and who's good, etc. The tail wags the dog here.

 

The USA is acting like Germany in 30's. Pushing the whole world to the brink of another major war. The wider Middle East war could easily spread into another WW. Corrupted and incompetent politicians cannot solve the economic crisis hence deflection. Another meaningless war to divert public's attention from the real problems like falling economy, ever rising poverty and NSA scandal. Just to mention few important ones. The country is run by ruthless corporate megalomaniacs who do not give monkeys about anyone but themselves.

 

DU and WP are not considered WMDs.

 

Strange, it seems that Obama is the one who drew the 'red line' last year, not Procter and Gamble.

 

No It couldn;t. There will be no world war. The major players will not go to wa with each other.

 

For everything that can be said about NS Germany at that time, NS Germany's economy was not a war economy. They launched wars primarily due to territory disputes and their living space theorem. If anything can be accredited to NS, their economic program surrounding production remains a radical and yet perhaps correct economic thesis. Production being far more important than mere wages. I'd like to see if that theory can hold true in the 21st century.

 

Even if Iraq had wmd the war still wouldn't have been justified because the 2002 NIE makes clear that Iraq would not have attacked the United States or shared wmd with Al Qaeda unless the regime was about to be toppled and Saddam had nothing to lose. See:

The United States has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons so who has the right to attack us for it? If Bush was still president, I have no doubt you would be making a different argument.

 

The US could still change it's mind as it clearly is not going to achieve any objectives of helping the people who are in a dire state. Noticed this last night

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/syria-napalm-dropped-school-playground-bbc

If only they did not strike but instead pressured the Rebels and left it to the UN and Countries like Russia to pressure Assad to Geneva 2, For the West to actually accept that the most important thing is the ordinary civilians and not their political interest so to invite all needed people to Geneva two including, Assad, Iran and the non violent Syrian opposition. Then maybe something could be sorted out and support given where need be.

 

The US went into Iraq as part of a UN Authorized Coalition to force Iraq to adhere to the ceasefire conditions as per UNSC Res 660 - 1441. WMDs were but part of those conditions.

 

If you are referring to the no fly zones, the Iraqis were shooting at US aircraft that had been bombing them for 10 years. It was part of a destabilization for an eventual invasion should the Clinton administration's numerous coup attempts fail which they obviously did. Regime change had been the policy since 1991.