Quake3World

obama decides to go it alone on Syria - rest of world isolated

like we ever needed your peasant help.
USA USA USA

Sooo Brits call timeout and everyone gets cold feet ?

well it's understandable, you need your star player for this one

Don't worry...we will still bomb Syria...

What Putin has to say about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... l?hp&_r=2&

Saudi Arabia has been training and sending their death row murderers, rapists, and drug smugglers to Syria for jihad.

Memphis wrote:

Eraser wrote:What Putin has to say about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... l?hp&_r=2&

God talk. Wotamoron.

He's trying to appeal to Americans. What better way is there to appeal to Americans than throwing a little Lord & Savior in there?

Seriously though, you're focusing on two insignificant lines here. The important thing is that Putin here is talking more sense than any US official has done in the past month.

Eraser wrote:He's trying to appeal to Americans. What better way is there to appeal to Americans than throwing a little Lord & Savior in there?

Just talk to Americans like you would a scared six year-old.

Eraser wrote:The important thing is that Putin here is talking more sense than any US official has done in the past month.

The aforementioned scared six year-old would talk more sense than any US official has done in the past 30 fucking years.

losCHUNK wrote:Sooo Brits call timeout and everyone gets cold feet ?

yeah was thinking the same thing. parliament said no, then Obama realised he'd be going to war with just the French, and started prevaricating

some people say Britain should punch above its weight. well guess what, i think it just did

lol

No thanks to David, blue nose bastard

feedback wrote:Saudi Arabia has been training and sending their death row murderers, rapists, and drug smugglers to Syria for jihad.

Saudi Arabia is deploying American soldiers?

^ so edgy

seremtan wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:Sooo Brits call timeout and everyone gets cold feet ?

yeah was thinking the same thing. parliament said no, then Obama realised he'd be going to war with just the French, and started prevaricating

some people say Britain should punch above its weight. well guess what, i think it just did

The reason Obama backpedaled was 80% of Americans were against getting involved and congress was going to echo that sentiment. Which is why Obama postponed the Congressional vote. If the American people didn't want to go, Congress didn't approve and the UN doesn't support you, there is now other way to justify a strike on Syria. I'm sure having our closest allies along would have been nice, but completely unnecessary. So don't break your arms patting yourselves on the back.

Disapproval never stopped you before, same as the Brits, we both had some of the largest protests of all time for Iraq ?.

The only change in all this is how quickly Britain changed its tune because Labour required more evidence before shooting down any chance of support in parliment the day after whilst the Obama administration were already preparing excuses to proceed without support from the senate

First support dictators in the Middle East.
Shake until demand for weapons settles down.
Then support rebels.
Profit!

Does anyone here think ousting Gaddafi in Libya was a good idea ?, I'd imagine most of you don't ?, because I can't see why you would approve of intervention in Libya over Syria.

Again, Gaddafi served his purpose, but got a little uppity so he had to go.
Same with Assad now, really.
You install these puppets, but then they get full of themselves

lol aye, my reasoning too along with not being entirely sure if much of a change can be made without deploying ground troops. I'm in 2 minds but I am a big fan of consistency.

I just don't approve of intervention against the international community but I also think we should be screaming at the countries who refuse to do anything through our politicians and media outlets rather than discussing some stupid red line that may or may not have been crossed because it's not an acceptable source of death then blame them countries for dragging their feet in allowing it to deteriorate into what it has become.

I did like the way Obama worded his speech n all, something about giving the Russians idea a go ?. Puts responsibility firmly on their shoulders like.

Everyone seems to be all against any kind of intervention at anytime, I'm not so sure I see it like that

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... syria.html

That's like 4 days old moron...

YourGrandpa wrote:The reason Obama backpedaled was 80% of Americans were against getting involved and congress was going to echo that sentiment.

you're talking as if the United States were a democracy

>Obama says chem/bio weapon deployment is 'red line' for intervention
>someone uses sarin in Damascus
>Obama has to make good on threat or look weak
>doesn't want to because it's a lose-lose situation with no clear outcome but he's painted himself into a corner
>closest allies say no, and polls say no. Obama starts sweating, punts decision to Congress to buy time and spread blame
>Biden makes 'joke' about Assad handing over all chem weapons; probably not really joke at all, just seeing if anyone salutes idea
>Lavrov pops up suggesting 'joke' become actual policy; thinks he's outwitted Americans
>Obama privately congratulates Biden for his 'joke'; thinks he's outwitted the Russians
>no intervention

Obama wasn't warned off intervention by public opinion; he never wanted to intervene in the first place, and public opinion provided the perfect cover. also, he didn't have to consult Congress (he didn't over Libya, for example) because he wasn't 'declaring war' (in the old, formal sense of sending a communique to that effect to the enemy)

seremtan wrote:you're talking as if the United States were a democracy

>Obama says chem/bio weapon deployment is 'red line' for intervention
>someone uses sarin in Damascus
>Obama has to make good on threat or look weak
>doesn't want to because it's a lose-lose situation with no clear outcome but he's painted himself into a corner
>closest allies say no, and polls say no. Obama starts sweating, punts decision to Congress to buy time and spread blame
>Biden makes 'joke' about Assad handing over all chem weapons; probably not really joke at all, just seeing if anyone salutes idea
>Lavrov pops up suggesting 'joke' become actual policy; thinks he's outwitted Americans
>Obama privately congratulates Biden for his 'joke'; thinks he's outwitted the Russians
>no intervention

Obama wasn't warned off intervention by public opinion; he never wanted to intervene in the first place, and public opinion provided the perfect cover. also, he didn't have to consult Congress (he didn't over Libya, for example) because he wasn't 'declaring war' (in the old, formal sense of sending a communique to that effect to the enemy)

Then why would it matter what Britain's position was if Obama never wanted to intervene in the first place? Your support for one idea and then presentation of another would lend credence to the theory that you are a bit flippant.

YourGrandpa wrote:Your support for one idea and then presentation of another would lend credence to the theory that you are a bit flippant.

lol @ the opinion of a stupid redneck