Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb Syria

Does anyone know what that last post was about?

Last week somebody pulled David Cameron aside and told him you better go and get a vote passed in Parliament first before you start bombing Syria, if you make the wrong decision now come the next election you will be out on your arse. The consequent result of that vote has really ruffled Obamas feathers, as the guy says in the video 80% of Americans want a vote first before any action is taken so hes backtracked there to appease his voters, but its turning out to be a right hotch potch if only they had got their brains into gear before opening their mouths Cameron and Obama would look a lot more credible.

Right? :thumbsup:

The President changed his mind and you’re criticizing him for it? Shouldn’t we be applauding that? Don’t you want a President that is willing to make himself look like a bit of a fool in order to change his mind and do the right thing? I realize if it was Bush, he’d rather carry on and bomb the wrong country and kill countless innocents rather than simply change his original opinion, but Obama is not Bush. To me, him dialing down the rhetoric and coming back to reality is a strength, not a weakness. Good for Obama :bravo:

The President changed his mind and you’re criticizing him for it? Shouldn’t we be applauding that? Don’t you want a President that is willing to make himself look like a bit of a fool in order to change his mind and do the right thing? I realize if it was Bush, he’d rather carry on and bomb the wrong country and kill countless innocents rather than simply change his original opinion, but Obama is not Bush. To me, him dialing down the rhetoric and coming back to reality is a strength, not a weakness. Good for Obama :bravo:[/quote]
Well, it’s not over yet, Congress could go along with him. I personally hope they don’t.

First, there is criticism about the right strategy in Syria, which I think bombing is wrong. Then there is criticism about how he handles himself as a leader, even if he ends up doing what I think is right.

Bush would have thought about all the consequences and contingencies beforehand so that he wouldn’t get himself into pickles. Once he made a decision that was well thought out, he would go with it, minus extraordinarily unusual extenuating circumstances, which polls are not. For one thing, Bush made sure he had Congressional backing; he also took the time to cobble together an international coalition of around 50 nations, including Taiwan (if it were considered a nation).

I am criticizing Obama’s overall leadership lack of ability. His awkwardness, his untrustworthiness, his putting America’s word in derision. I believe process is important, the way a leader conducts himself, whether I agree with the policy or not. My belief that “the ends don’t justify the means” is the reason for my criticism.

[quote]Jotham wrote
Saddam wanted to invade Saudi Arabia[/quote]

Saddam had no intention of ever going into SA. This was nonsense spewed by Bush and the pro war media. Like the babies in incubators bullshit they lied about.
Kuwait was seen to Iraq as part of their country before the UK decided to make a new country. And the Kuwaitis were taking oil from Iraq. After getting what was perceived by Saddam as a green light from the US (he fell right into it) he invaded.

williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/iraq

The worrying thing about Obama (who incidentally had drones bombing people while he collected his Nobel ‘peace’ prize) going to congress is that congress is filled with representatives that are bought and paid for by special interest groups and corporations. Obama can’t start something without their approval and that has to coincide with the interest of these groups. It is a shit setup as wars are approved for all the wrong reasons.

I believe the story about Kuwait drilling at an angle to get at Iraqi oil, was also a wet dream?

[quote=“cake”][quote]Jotham wrote
Saddam wanted to invade Saudi Arabia[/quote]

Saddam had no intention of ever going into SA. This was nonsense spewed by Bush and the pro war media. Like the babies in incubators bullshit they lied about.
Kuwait was seen to Iraq as part of their country before the UK decided to make a new country. And the Kuwaitis were taking oil from Iraq. After getting what was perceived by Saddam as a green light from the US (he fell right into it) he invaded.

williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/Iraq

The worrying thing about Obama (who incidentally had drones bombing people while he collected his Nobel ‘peace’ prize) going to congress is that congress is filled with representatives that are bought and paid for by special interest groups and corporations. Obama can’t start something without their approval and that has to coincide with the interest of these groups. It is a shit setup as wars are approved for all the wrong reasons.[/quote]

Saudi Arabia asked for military assistance before Dick Cheney went over there to discuss plans that Saudi Arabia okayed.

Looking at maps alone doesn’t give us intent of war plans; don’t be silly. They moved into Kuwait first because they didn’t think the world would care so much about the small country, then they waited to see reaction before moving in. Unfortunately for them, we reacted, and they saw it.

Iraq Has Trained For Kuwait Attack More Than 2 Years

[ul][color=#000080]U.s. Intelligence Finds Detailed Plan To Capture Saudi Oil

September 24, 1990|By Los Angeles Times

DHAHRAN, SAUDI ARABIA — The United States has learned that Iraqi forces conducted secret military exercises for at least two years in preparation for their attack on Kuwait under a war plan designed ultimately to conquer the oil fields of eastern Saudi Arabia, according to U.S. officials.

Newly gathered intelligence indicates that the Iraqi plan, drafted by President Saddam Hussein as many as five years ago, envisioned no more than a strategic pause in Kuwait before Iraqi forces continued southward into Saudi Arabia, the knowledgeable officials said.

Among the “multiple” exercises now understood to have served as trial runs for the long-planned invasion was a mid-July dress rehearsal in central Iraq in which elite special operations forces practiced for the helicopter-borne assault on Kuwait City that launched the Iraqi invasion Aug. 2.

The sources said that the years of preparation also appear to have helped an advance party of Iraqi commandos make their way into Kuwait immediately before the invasion by posing as a sports delegation on a long-arranged visit. Instead, the “athletes” guided Iraqi helicopters to their targets.

By contrast, the United States was so ill-prepared for the invasion that U.S. warships dispatched hastily to the region after the attack had to wait four days before maps of Kuwait and Iraq could be prepared and loaded into computers used for guiding weapons, the officials said.

The new findings, circulated by the U.S. intelligence community, provide what the officials said was compelling evidence that the surprise Aug. 2 attack was in fact the product of a long-drafted plan aimed at winning control of half the world’s supply of oil…

Similarly, the source said that while intelligence officials now believe that the plan Hussein launched on Aug. 2 called for his forces to continue through Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia, it remains unclear whether his “strategic pause” at the Saudi border “was for military reasons or to determine whether he could get away with it.”

Arab diplomats previously told visiting U.S. Congress members of similar indications that Hussein had planned to continue southward, including reports that he offered to divide the spoils of his land grab with other Arab leaders.[/color][/ul]

Desert Storm

[ul][color=#000080]On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been making threats against Kuwait for some time, but his actual invasion caught most of the world by surprise. The magnitude of the invasion also was a surprise. Those who had expected an attack, such as the commander of U.S. Central Command, Norman Schwarzkopf, expected a limited attack to seize Kuwaiti oil fields. Instead, within a number of hours, Iraqi forces had seized downtown Kuwait City and were headed south toward the Saudi Arabia border.

Word of the Iraqi attack reached Washington, D.C., as Iraqi forces assembled at the Saudi border. The Pentagon had plans in place to aid the Saudis, and U.S. forces went on standby for the Saudis’ request. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and General Schwarzkopf met with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to brief him on the plans, which he approved. Within minutes of the meeting, orders were issued, and thus began the largest buildup of American forces since the Vietnam War. Within a short period, members of the 82nd Airborne Division, as well as 300 combat aircraft, were headed for Saudi Arabia.[/color][/ul]

SA has had a few economic booms. One was post OPEC in the 70’s with Aramco (Standard Oil to Arabian American Oil). The next major one was the first Iraq war on Saddam supplying the war effort. When it comes to American foreign policy, oil, and Saudi Arabia, I don’t think you can couch anything in adversarial terms. I.e., they asked, therefore,… like you are making some sophomoric argument. It’s not like that.

SA has had a few economic booms. One was post OPEC in the 70’s with Aramco (Standard Oil to Arabian American Oil). The next major one was the first Iraq war on Saddam supplying the war effort. When it comes to American foreign policy, oil, and Saudi Arabia, I don’t think you can couch anything in adversarial terms. I.e., they asked, therefore,… like you are making some sophomoric argument. It’s not like that.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your point. I was responding to Cake, who quoted some propaganda 911 theory kinda website that said Cheney wanted war with Iraq so he successfully strong-armed and convinced the Saudis that the Iraqis had intentions against them. I’m saying historically, the Saudis were already skittish and asked for American military intervention before Cheney met with them and told them their military plans, which they okay at that meeting. (It’s ridiculous they wouldn’t have asked for military intervention after the meeting).

The Saudis contributed a hefty share for the war in costs, perhaps some 40%?

I think the USA should drop a couple of nuclear bombs on Damascus. That will teach Assad that he can’t go around killing innocent civilians with weapons of mass destruction.

For sure, and the logic being presented by Putin, a Kurdish rebel leader and I’m sure others–why would Assad use chemical weapons in a war he’s winning with inspectors around when he knows it can only severely hurt him–while not ironclad, looks pretty convincing next to our own record of disingenuity. I don’t think that will pass unnoticed in Congress either.

According to international law which the U.S. is party to and largely responsible for having been promulgated in the first place the only legal ways a nation may use military force against another is in self defense or if authorized to by the UN Security Council. Saddam Obama met neither of these criteria when he attacked Kuwait which was the legal justification for launching Operation Slam Dunk.

The first order of business for President George Bush III then shouldn’t be getting congressional approval for Operation Slam Dunk II. It should be getting international law amended as follows so he enforces international law in a legal manner:

Member states of the United Nations are forbidden to use military force against one another except in self-defense or if authorized to by the UN Security Council, except the U.S. which may use military force against a member state whenever it has a flareup of its messiah complex or its hallucinations of weapons of mass destruction and it’s hearing the voices whispering secret evidence again.

You’d have to be pretty obtuse not to understand it, frankly.

Well, of course he did. He can’t make a decision like that all by himself. He needs backing by Congress, BIPARTISAN backing, most especially backing from the Republicans, so that he and the other Dems can run around and tell their constituents, “We didn’t do it! It was George W. Bush’s legacy! If you just would’ve voted all those Republicans out of office, we wouldn’t be at war with Syria!”

Syria: Bush’s fault, just like everything else that Obama can’t seem to figure out.

[quote=“Winston Smith”]According to international law which the U.S. is party to and largely responsible for having been promulgated in the first place the only legal ways a nation may use military force against another is in self defense or if authorized to by the UN Security Council. Saddam Obama met neither of these criteria when he attacked Kuwait which was the legal justification for launching Operation Slam Dunk.

The first order of business for President George Bush III then shouldn’t be getting congressional approval for Operation Slam Dunk II. It should be getting international law amended as follows so he enforces international law in a legal manner:

Member states of the United Nations are forbidden to use military force against one another except in self-defense or if authorized to by the UN Security Council, except the U.S. which may use military force against a member state whenever it has a flareup of its messiah complex or its hallucinations of weapons of mass destruction and it’s hearing the voices whispering secret evidence again.[/quote]
The United States traditionally defends democracies against tyrannies. I doubt that helping Kuwait is somehow against international law. We set up the United Nations because the League of Nations didn’t have enough teeth to deal with aggressors like Hitler. The United Nation’s function was as a vehicle for nations to rise up, bind together, and defend each other. But the United Nations has become so effete, it’s become another League of Nations. It seems the United States can’t be replaced for that kind of function no matter how many organizations we generate for that purpose. NATO seems to be the closest thing we have today for that function. I believe NATO was involved in Iraq, no?

latimes.com/world/worldnow/l … 3653.story

Hmm, if the case is this strong I think it’ll pass Congress. US and France, not every day.

Public opinion is suffering from intervention fatigue.

Or maybe Americans are just tired of being hustled by shoot first and get the facts later war mongers and want some real facts for a change.

Can you verify that the William Blum site is some ‘propaganda 911 theory kinda website’? He used to work for the state department until he saw the light.
Nice attempt at the strawman attack.

You think he just makes shit up or lied like say Bush did?
If you bothered to read the footers from the paragraph I quoted, you would see that he got his information from:

Theodore Draper, “The True History of the Gulf War”, The New York Review of Books, 30 January 1992
Judith Miller and Laurie Mylroie, “Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf” (Times Books, New York, 1990)
Bob Woodward, “The Commanders” (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1991)

Not the manufactured media or a suspect history site or even some conspiracy website. His books are excellent and well researched, but you will never read them of course.