PDA

View Full Version : No Thoughts on Syria?


Tyburn
08-29-2013, 08:01 PM
:huh:

President Barack Obama promised the American people that if the President of Assyria was to commit genocide using chemical or biological weapons that he would be forced to intervene in a military capacity in the ongoing civil war.

Right now American Forces are heading towards Syria.

There are a few issues...first, whether biological weapons were used...secondly, who used them on who...and thirdly...what is the point in a one off military strike as a deterance AFTER the weapons have already been used.

If Noone wants regieme change...then Military action has no long term aim...except to provoke a response.

Politicians lie all the time, as a Second Term President, Barack Obama can not hope to win the next General Ellection...so he has nothing to looose by breaking this promise IMHO.

The British Position was first very vocal, as you might expect, America came-a-calling, and up poped the Governor...er...I mean Prime Minister of England to assert his approval. Fortunately, the party that took us into Iraq, is in opposition now, as a direct consequence...and obviously they do not wish for a repeat performance and have demanded that the British Government wait and go through the United Nations. So far, they have got their wish, and whilst the House of Commons debates Assyria...the vote this time will not sanction military action.

The United Nations, promises to release by Saturday, the results of on the ground testing in Syria. On that basis they will of course go to the United Nations Security Council for a Vote on allowing Military Action.

The problem with that, is that two of the Security Council Members are supporting President Assad. Let us just say that Russia appears deadly serious over Assyria...more serious then I have seen her in years about defending a friend. She is so serious, that when the Americans arrive in Waters near Assyria, they will not be alone. Russia is also sending battle ships, and she has no intention of sitting passively by.

I am fearful, because, whilst Russia often makes a lot of noise, once threatening, for example, to aim her missiles at European Capitols if they allowed the Eastern Block to aid the American Starwars programme...the point is...she didnt actually act.

If she is sending Warships, then it can be considered more then one of her usual immature threats.

China has a prime directive believe it or not. They believe that you should not interfere with the internal workings of a different soveringty, unless it has breached its own soverignty first. So far President Assad has not attacked other nations, only a rebellion. As far as the Chinese are concerned, its got nothing to do with anyone else.

The European Union is silent on the issue because Angela Merkel has bigger fish to fry...like getting ellected for a third term...Oh Yes, the German Chancellor could take a dive next month...sooo she's unavialable for comment...except to say the Euro Crisis is all the fault of Greece, which she said to a rally of her supporters (Germans and Rallys shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentance...but thats what the officials called it...) and Spain, which is just as bankrupt is trying to distract everyone by threatening the British Realm of Gibraltar...I mean FFS! :laugh:

Bonnie
08-30-2013, 02:35 AM
:huh:

President Barack Obama promised the American people that if the President of Assyria was to commit genocide using chemical or biological weapons that he would be forced to intervene in a military capacity in the ongoing civil war.

Right now American Forces are heading towards Syria.

There are a few issues...first, whether biological weapons were used...secondly, who used them on who...and thirdly...what is the point in a one off military strike as a deterance AFTER the weapons have already been used.

If Noone wants regieme change...then Military action has no long term aim...except to provoke a response.

Politicians lie all the time, as a Second Term President, Barack Obama can not hope to win the next General Ellection...so he has nothing to looose by breaking this promise IMHO.

The British Position was first very vocal, as you might expect, America came-a-calling, and up poped the Governor...er...I mean Prime Minister of England to assert his approval. Fortunately, the party that took us into Iraq, is in opposition now, as a direct consequence...and obviously they do not wish for a repeat performance and have demanded that the British Government wait and go through the United Nations. So far, they have got their wish, and whilst the House of Commons debates Assyria...the vote this time will not sanction military action.

The United Nations, promises to release by Saturday, the results of on the ground testing in Syria. On that basis they will of course go to the United Nations Security Council for a Vote on allowing Military Action.

The problem with that, is that two of the Security Council Members are supporting President Assad. Let us just say that Russia appears deadly serious over Assyria...more serious then I have seen her in years about defending a friend. She is so serious, that when the Americans arrive in Waters near Assyria, they will not be alone. Russia is also sending battle ships, and she has no intention of sitting passively by.

I am fearful, because, whilst Russia often makes a lot of noise, once threatening, for example, to aim her missiles at European Capitols if they allowed the Eastern Block to aid the American Starwars programme...the point is...she didnt actually act.

If she is sending Warships, then it can be considered more then one of her usual immature threats.

China has a prime directive believe it or not. They believe that you should not interfere with the internal workings of a different soveringty, unless it has breached its own soverignty first. So far President Assad has not attacked other nations, only a rebellion. As far as the Chinese are concerned, its got nothing to do with anyone else.

The European Union is silent on the issue because Angela Merkel has bigger fish to fry...like getting ellected for a third term...Oh Yes, the German Chancellor could take a dive next month...sooo she's unavialable for comment...except to say the Euro Crisis is all the fault of Greece, which she said to a rally of her supporters (Germans and Rallys shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentance...but thats what the officials called it...) and Spain, which is just as bankrupt is trying to distract everyone by threatening the British Realm of Gibraltar...I mean FFS! :laugh:

Ever since his election and seeing just what he meant when he said he wanted to "fundamentally change America", I've considered Barack Obama a dangerous man for this country, but I didn't realize how dangerous. On the night we were attacked in Benghazi and Americans died, our Commander in Chief was where? I believe he went to bed and just left our people to die, and still to this day, no one has been held accountable. When Hillary Clinton finally dragged her sorry butt up the Hill to answer questions, she screeched, "What does it matter now?" And that's the point with this administration, it didn't matter, their lives didn't matter to any of these soulless gutless cowards, from the President straight on down the line. He doesn't act when he should, and acts when he shouldn't.

He's backed himself into a corner over Syria with his comment last year about a "red line" and now he's wanting to take military action by shooting a shot over Syria's bow to send a message to Assad. He has no idea what he is doing and what he is possibly starting. The British House of Commons has spoken and they have said, "No", so it looks like, for now, if Obama does this, we are on our own in this. When Bush was President, Obama said the President had no authority under the Constitution to take military action without bringing it before Congress unless we were in immediate or imminent danger. Well Bush did get the approval of Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan, but Obama refuses to call Congress back in session and present this to them for their approval. Where does he go to explain himself yet again, on another television program, this time PBS. He can't meet with Congress, but he has time to do a bus tour to keep campaigning, and he has time to do television interviews to discuss Syria, but he refuses to meet with Congress or come before the American people to explain what he's about to do and why. :angry:

He's a one-man wrecking crew about to get us into a real dangerous mess if he doesn't stop and start thinking strategically about what action is best for the security of our nation.

We should all be scared, Dave.

Bonnie
08-30-2013, 05:37 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23904167

U.S. media: "The British aren't coming, the British aren't coming!" :laugh:

Secy Kerry was just on tv talking about Syria. At the end of it he says, "Now the American people know and Congress knows"...now Obama can say he's informed Congress. :rolleyes:

Tyburn
08-30-2013, 07:17 PM
1) He doesn't act when he should, and acts when he shouldn't.

2) When Bush was President, Obama said the President had no authority under the Constitution to take military action without bringing it before Congress unless we were in immediate or imminent danger. Well Bush did get the approval of Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan, but Obama refuses to call Congress back in session and present this to them for their approval.

3) We should all be scared, Dave.

1) I kind of aggree...His whole Administration has been to do exactly what his people dont want him to do. He appologises to the Arabs, He sends aid to the palestinians, he keeps holding his country at fiscal cliff levels, he pushed through a basic National Health Service in the United States, he left Hosni Mubarack to hang in Egypt, and now he wants to fire a round of misiles into Assyria to prevent something that has already happened :blink: He wiped millions of the shares of BP for that oil spill, and pretty much abandoned his citizens in Benghazi.

2) The US President doesnt need Congress to authorise war :huh: Now...even with afghanistan and Iraq...both the US and UK put the war to a vote. No internal laws were violated by either Nation...I assumed that Obama would immediately call Congress and have them assemble for a vote on the use of American forces in Syria...even if it is just a few missiles rather then a full scale land invasion..which ironically, the latter would at least make sense...whereas I simply dont understand the point in warning somebody for a using a weapon...when they already used it...deterents work best when deployed before the action they prohibit take place :laugh: I dare say this is what happens when you put a civilian with no military experience, in a high ranking military position...obviously...he doesnt get it :laugh:

3 I dont fear America bombing Syria...neither do I fear Syrian response...what I fear is the Russians deciding to attack the United States in retribution...we've seen how countries get sucked into wars due to alliances...look at how the first world war began...the echo is there...I fear a conflict between the US and Russia for two reasons...first, I fear the conflict itself may happen in the med, where Russia could sink US ships. Secondly, the US is running low on money, and we have a president comming to the end of his time...it wouldnt be a good time for the US to find itself in any strife at all. Finally...the last thing we want is to be dragged into a REAL war between America and Russia...

You see how Syria has become a by-word...just like Yugoslavia, Serbia, Bosnia did in the first world war...people forget that the triggers are not usually the focal point a year onwards.

Tyburn
08-30-2013, 07:22 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23904167

U.S. media: "The British aren't coming, the British aren't coming!" :laugh:

Secy Kerry was just on tv talking about Syria. At the end of it he says, "Now the American people know and Congress knows"...now Obama can say he's informed Congress. :rolleyes:

:laugh:

Noone expected the Commons to dare actually defy the US...I mean, most of us dont want to do anything about Syria...but what the people want dont mean anything to the Government anymore.

Yesterday they didnt just upset the US...they also upset the Prime Minister...it looks very bad when you, as a leader, want one thing...and your Government, and people say you cant have it :laugh:

Bonnie
08-31-2013, 08:17 PM
The US President doesnt need Congress to authorise war :huh:

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the power to declare war, but Article 2, Section 2 gives the President power as Commander in Chief over our armed forces.

Article 2 of the Constitution:

Section 2: Presidential powers

Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons[edit source]

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President is the military's commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the exclusive right to declare war. Presidents have often deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but without an explicit declaration of war. According to historian Thomas Woods, "Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — which refers to the president as the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States' — has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress."[4] Since World War II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. "police action", which are deemed legally legitimate by Congress, and various United Nations Resolutions because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Authorization for Use of Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Bonnie
08-31-2013, 10:30 PM
:laugh:

Noone expected the Commons to dare actually defy the US...I mean, most of us dont want to do anything about Syria...but what the people want dont mean anything to the Government anymore.

Yesterday they didnt just upset the US...they also upset the Prime Minister...it looks very bad when you, as a leader, want one thing...and your Government, and people say you cant have it :laugh:

Speaking of looking bad, first, the President threw out that "red line" comment last year without any thought, and obviously with no afterthought to prepare to back it up, then he talks as if he will definitely be taking action, all the while announcing what he's planning--"limited and narrow", "shot over the bow"--but now he's willing to wait to get Congress' approval AFTER they return from their break. He's leaving Tuesday to go to Sweden and then on to Russia and Congress doesn't get back 'til Sept 9.

Is Obama hoping Congress will say, "No", so he has a way out of this? :wink:

VCURamFan
08-31-2013, 10:44 PM
Speaking of looking bad, first, the President threw out that "red line" comment last year without any thought, and obviously with no afterthought to prepare to back it up, then he talks as if he will definitely be taking action, all the while announcing what he's planning--"limited and narrow", "shot over the bow"--but now he's willing to wait to get Congress' approval AFTER they return from their break. He's leaving Tuesday to go to Sweden and then on to Russia and Congress doesn't get back 'til Sept 9.

Is Obama hoping Congress will say, "No", so he has a way out of this? :wink:

For the first time since WWII, the POTUS is actually allowing the Congress to do their job.

Bonnie
08-31-2013, 11:49 PM
For the first time since WWII, the POTUS is actually allowing the Congress to do their job.

Why do you say "first time since WWII"? President Bush went to Congress to get approval for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I heard some say the President didn't need Congress' approval to act militarily on Syria and others say he did so I was confused. If I'm understanding what I've read regarding Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, by virtue of being Commander in Chief, a President is allowed to take military action without having to go to Congress. He can't declare war, only Congress has the power to do that.

Don't get me wrong, I think he should go to Congress...he should have gone to Congress before now, before he made all these public statements about taking action. And he certainly shouldn't be leaking information and talking publicly about what action he's planning to take! I just don't understand the way he's going about this, it's hurting his credibility even more, if that's possible, and it's hurting our country's credibility, our standing in the world.

This will just embolden countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Russia even more.

Tyburn
09-01-2013, 04:16 PM
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the power to declare war, but Article 2, Section 2 gives the President power as Commander in Chief over our armed forces.

Ahhh...the good old "Queens Perogative" :ninja:

In England the Speaker of The House of Commons acts as The Queen. You see in olden days, the Queen would sit in the Houses and Chair the debates...Now the Speaker does that. However, The Prime Minister may act in War without the consent of the Queen, Speaker, or Parliament...using something called "The Queens Perogative" its the only time the Prime Minister can act As the Queen, by litterally, over-rulling EVERYONE.

Not even Tony Blair did that...With Iraq, whilst he did not seek permission from the Queen, He DID take it to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons voted.

NO prime minister that I have ever heard of, has used The Queens Perogative...Its the ultimate mark of the dictator.

I am not suprised your country has an exception clause also...even if it merely shifts the President from an office where he can not authorise action, to an office where he can, as the same person, and keep his position in both.

But we all know he shouldnt act without Congress.

Tyburn
09-01-2013, 04:26 PM
Speaking of looking bad, first, the President threw out that "red line" comment last year without any thought, and obviously with no afterthought to prepare to back it up, then he talks as if he will definitely be taking action, all the while announcing what he's planning--"limited and narrow", "shot over the bow"--but now he's willing to wait to get Congress' approval AFTER they return from their break. He's leaving Tuesday to go to Sweden and then on to Russia and Congress doesn't get back 'til Sept 9.

Is Obama hoping Congress will say, "No", so he has a way out of this? :wink:

REALLY?

Wowser...He is waiting for Congress...I expect he absolutely IS hoping they say no. He's had a change of heart...because David Cameron RECALLED PARLIAMENT FOR THE VOTE.

IF Obama really wanted to do this he would have done one of two things. Done it alone. OR Recalled Congress for an immediate vote. The fact that he didnt act first is primarily because he assumed he would have the backing of the international community, and therefore it wouldnt matter...if everyone was behind him, then Congress, sooner or later, just like the UN did in iraq, AFTER the invasion...they give post dated approval.

When the UK said NO...and only the French said yes...and Russia started moving...I think he hesitated because he realized that, if the majority of the International Community dont want it...that changes things...suddenly, not least, financially and fatality...HE is bearing the brunt alone...if Congress dont back date it with affirmation he suddenly done something very bad indeed.

Now...he tries to play it cool...to do a recall would look bad coz he didnt do it soon enough...so now he just plays it cool...and either way it works out for him. If Congress say YES...then it looks like he's done his job properly...and they can share the blame if it goes tits up...if they say NO...then as a respector of democrasy he will appologise for his promise, knowing full well, he doesnt need votes, coz his tenure cant be extended, and bable about how Congress has spoken, and this is democrasy, and now the leaders, shoulder to shoulder, go to the United Nations, and press for sanctions...which was always okay by him anyway, blah, blah, blah.

Democrasy has bitten two world leaders on the ass this week. Lest they NEVER forget that!

rearnakedchoke
09-04-2013, 02:11 PM
Why do you say "first time since WWII"? President Bush went to Congress to get approval for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I heard some say the President didn't need Congress' approval to act militarily on Syria and others say he did so I was confused. If I'm understanding what I've read regarding Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, by virtue of being Commander in Chief, a President is allowed to take military action without having to go to Congress. He can't declare war, only Congress has the power to do that.

Don't get me wrong, I think he should go to Congress...he should have gone to Congress before now, before he made all these public statements about taking action. And he certainly shouldn't be leaking information and talking publicly about what action he's planning to take! I just don't understand the way he's going about this, it's hurting his credibility even more, if that's possible, and it's hurting our country's credibility, our standing in the world.

This will just embolden countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Russia even more.

some how i don't think any way obama could have handled this would have made you happy ... obama is doing the right thing in getting the ok from congress, but it has to be twisted so that he is only doing it to blame them later down the road

Neezar
09-04-2013, 09:23 PM
some how i don't think any way obama could have handled this would have made you happy ... obama is doing the right thing in getting the ok from congress, but it has to be twisted so that he is only doing it to blame them later down the road

I think the more important question is 'Why is Obama trying to handle this at all?'

:laugh:

rearnakedchoke
09-05-2013, 04:32 PM
I think the more important question is 'Why is Obama trying to handle this at all?'

:laugh:

well ... i know you are not being serious .. but i will go and answer anyway! ..... because obama doesn't want things to get out of control in that region as syria is close to israel ... obama has the interests of israel in mind and is taking steps to ensure everyone around them is kept in check ... he takes care of his allies!

Tyburn
09-05-2013, 08:20 PM
he takes care of his allies!

Not all of them :mellow:

:laugh:

Israel can defend herself. America has already made sure of that. Assad only threatened Israel AFTER Obama threatened him. Assad is not interested in Israel...he is only insterested in his own CIVIL War and keeping power.

Had Obama said nothing, Assad wouldnt be threatening Israel right now.

By clumsy speech, Obama might have come close to having "taken care of" Israel...and I dont mean that quote in the friendly sence of the word neither.

:ninja:

rearnakedchoke
09-05-2013, 08:39 PM
Not all of them :mellow:

:laugh:

Israel can defend herself. America has already made sure of that. Assad only threatened Israel AFTER Obama threatened him. Assad is not interested in Israel...he is only insterested in his own CIVIL War and keeping power.

Had Obama said nothing, Assad wouldnt be threatening Israel right now.

By clumsy speech, Obama might have come close to having "taken care of" Israel...and I dont mean that quote in the friendly sence of the word neither.

:ninja:

so no one should threaten syria for what they are doing, because they will threaten to attack israel ... got it .. that is assad's only move ... you are right, israel can defend itself ... but if the US attacks first, they are pretty much going to take out a lot of syria's offense making it tough to attack israel ..

Neezar
09-06-2013, 11:07 AM
In college Obama did his thesis on How to destroy America from the inside.

I'm thinking he got an 'A'. lol

rearnakedchoke
09-06-2013, 01:34 PM
In college Obama did his thesis on How to destroy America from the inside.

I'm thinking he got an 'A'. lol

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

at least you get to choose the next pres in a couple years .. who do you want? hilary or biden?

Tyburn
09-06-2013, 05:58 PM
so no one should threaten syria for what they are doing, because they will threaten to attack israel ... got it .. that is assad's only move ... you are right, israel can defend itself ... but if the US attacks first, they are pretty much going to take out a lot of syria's offense making it tough to attack israel ..

If Syria responds at all, they will try and attack Israel...but Israel is already prepared for that.

What the Americans should be worrying about is not Assyria, nor Israel, but Mother Russia :ninja: If anyone attacks either the US fleets near Syria, or the US Home Soil...it will be the Russians....the US should be made well aware that the Russians also have ships in that location and will react on Syrian behalf

rearnakedchoke
09-06-2013, 08:21 PM
If Syria responds at all, they will try and attack Israel...but Israel is already prepared for that.

What the Americans should be worrying about is not Assyria, nor Israel, but Mother Russia :ninja: If anyone attacks either the US fleets near Syria, or the US Home Soil...it will be the Russians....the US should be made well aware that the Russians also have ships in that location and will react on Syrian behalf

please .. russia wouldn't EVER attach US .. if you think they would, you are sorely mistaken ... putin may be tough with obama on syria and that snowden, but he won't let syria start WWIII

Bonnie
09-07-2013, 12:28 AM
some how i don't think any way obama could have handled this would have made you happy ... obama is doing the right thing in getting the ok from congress, but it has to be twisted so that he is only doing it to blame them later down the road

It was the right thing to go to Congress, I said that. He should have done that as soon as he made the decision that he wanted to take action against Syria. As soon as he made the "red line" comment last year he should have been laying the groundwork, working behind the scenes, quietly preparing for if Syria did cross the line. The fact that he didn't do any of that just goes to show that comment was made with thought, but just made as a political tactic during an election campaign. And no one has to twist anything, playing the blame game has been his pattern since he became President, he's responsible for nothing, it's always someone else's doing or fault.

Who of our allies is backing Obama's plan to take military action? The British said, "No"; the French said something should be done, but I haven't heard any concrete plans from them or anyone else. Who else is going to be there with the U.S. in this? Canada? If this blows up in our face, who will be there for us?

For Pete's sake, who announces to their intended target what their plan of action is?! :blink:

Tyburn
09-07-2013, 12:37 PM
please .. russia wouldn't EVER attach US .. if you think they would, you are sorely mistaken ... putin may be tough with obama on syria and that snowden, but he won't let syria start WWIII

I would hazzard a guess, dear fellow, that I know a hell of a lot more about politics then you...and probably a hell of a lot more about Russia then you.

Russia told Obama quite straight at the end of the G20 summit that he would defend Syria from a United States attack....As he has been supplying weapons to syria since the arab revolution...I think its fair to say that he's serious about Syria...the Russians have gone to GREAT lengths...I've never seen them so staunchly defend a foreign power before.

Besides...Russia wouldnt attack the US Homesoil...its the ships belonging to the US in the waters near Syria that it could viably sink...Honnestly...it would only take a single missile froma Russian boat...or a chemical missile from Syria to hit an American Naval ship...and you'd soon have a more dramatic conflict.

Dont under-estimate Vlad...he's not as stupid as he looks. :laugh:

Tyburn
09-07-2013, 12:39 PM
who announces to their intended target what their plan of action is?! :blink:

:laugh: you have a point there :laugh:

Bonnie
09-08-2013, 01:17 AM
Ooops, I realized I said "with" instead of "without"...makes a difference! :laugh:

The fact that he didn't do any of that just goes to show that comment was made without thought, and just as a political tactic during an election campaign.

rearnakedchoke
09-09-2013, 01:41 PM
I would hazzard a guess, dear fellow, that I know a hell of a lot more about politics then you...and probably a hell of a lot more about Russia then you.

Russia told Obama quite straight at the end of the G20 summit that he would defend Syria from a United States attack....As he has been supplying weapons to syria since the arab revolution...I think its fair to say that he's serious about Syria...the Russians have gone to GREAT lengths...I've never seen them so staunchly defend a foreign power before.

Besides...Russia wouldnt attack the US Homesoil...its the ships belonging to the US in the waters near Syria that it could viably sink...Honnestly...it would only take a single missile froma Russian boat...or a chemical missile from Syria to hit an American Naval ship...and you'd soon have a more dramatic conflict.

Dont under-estimate Vlad...he's not as stupid as he looks. :laugh:

you may know more a lot about me . sure, sounds good ... but there is no way that vlad does anything if the US attacks syria, he may be their ally, but he won't risk getting his ass handed to him for them ..

rearnakedchoke
09-09-2013, 06:01 PM
Russia doing everything they can ... trying to get assad to give control of his chemical weapons ... Russia don't wanna piece of the US .. they can't handle it ...

Tyburn
09-10-2013, 05:13 PM
Russia doing everything they can ... trying to get assad to give control of his chemical weapons ... Russia don't wanna piece of the US .. they can't handle it ...

Not exactly True...the Russians are successfully attempting to undermine Barack Obama by causing a rift in the Washington Administration, to proove how stupid they are.

The Foreign Secretary of the United States said a very silly remark...without thinking...it runs in that administration...and the Russians are calling them on their word, knowing full well that Kerry didnt mean what he said officially.

Kerry said that if Assad were to give up all his chemical weapons, the US would not attack Syria. The Russians said..."Okay then" :laugh:

With the State of the US Economy, and the depletion of its troops thanks to Afghanistan and Iraq, the US would not be in a good position if Russia moved against them in the Med. Especially if it had the backing of the Chinese, which it almost certainly would have.

Europe is in a financial crisis, thanks, also, to the Americans and the fact that whilst they choose to ignore the consitution on everything else...they decided to grant the bankers complete freedom and privacy to mess everything up for the developed world :laugh: Dont expect Mrs Merkel or the Fourth Reich to aid the US...and now the England has Succeeded from the Union, I wouldnt imagine our position to have changed...Cameron is a year and a half from re-ellection without a coillision.

America is on her own...and no man is an island...not even America...

rearnakedchoke
09-10-2013, 06:10 PM
Not exactly True...the Russians are successfully attempting to undermine Barack Obama by causing a rift in the Washington Administration, to proove how stupid they are.

The Foreign Secretary of the United States said a very silly remark...without thinking...it runs in that administration...and the Russians are calling them on their word, knowing full well that Kerry didnt mean what he said officially.

Kerry said that if Assad were to give up all his chemical weapons, the US would not attack Syria. The Russians said..."Okay then" :laugh:

With the State of the US Economy, and the depletion of its troops thanks to Afghanistan and Iraq, the US would not be in a good position if Russia moved against them in the Med. Especially if it had the backing of the Chinese, which it almost certainly would have.

Europe is in a financial crisis, thanks, also, to the Americans and the fact that whilst they choose to ignore the consitution on everything else...they decided to grant the bankers complete freedom and privacy to mess everything up for the developed world :laugh: Dont expect Mrs Merkel or the Fourth Reich to aid the US...and now the England has Succeeded from the Union, I wouldnt imagine our position to have changed...Cameron is a year and a half from re-ellection without a coillision.

America is on her own...and no man is an island...not even America...

putin is a snake ... we'll see if syria complies in a timely manner ...

Tyburn
09-11-2013, 05:17 PM
putin is a snake ... we'll see if syria complies in a timely manner ...

Putin is lots of things...but he IS NOT a dumbass...and the American Administration ought to make note of what happened here. The Russians play games, and they are running circles around Washington...they were exceptionally fast to exploit what happened with the US Secretary of State...and they HAVE succeeded already in delaying the US Congressional Vote...and in essence the only people to blame for this are the US Cabinet...Barack Obama makes a silly throw away comment...and now Kerry does exactly the same...let it be known that The Russians have been doing this sort of thing consistantly for decades, with many different cultures.

There many tactic is to try and completely embariss their opponents, humiliate them. That is what they have done to the US President, exploited the fact his own cabinet cant toe his party line, this is now Kerry as President, you understand...wherever this goes, its due to Kerry and Putin and Assad...Not Barack Obama :laugh: They tried to do it with England after the Commons vote...when Putin then went and said that we were just a little island that noone ever listens to...but he is not out to get us...and that commons vote is the direct cause of Barack Obama going to congress.

Far from "no influence" the British Parliament influenced Washington Congress in one of the most radical ways since world war two. We caused a Rogue American President, to follow our lead and example, by following his own democratic process.

He knew that with Englands Prime Minister being put in check, AND respecting the will of the people, that if he did not...he would be called Tyranical and undemocratic. The American people have the Britons to thank for the fact that Congress (supposedly, them) are now going to have the final say.

So, to say we have no influence is wrong...we proved our influence, and maybe for the first time since Maggie Thatcher...we actually HAD an influence that swayed a super power.

We remain, of course, just an Island :mellow:

:laugh:

CAVEMAN1
09-13-2013, 04:51 PM
This is probably for the Christianity section, but there are some bible scholars who believe that this current relationship between Russia and the Arab countries could be the beginning fulfillment of the Gog and Magog War which is spoke of in the book of Ezekiel.

rearnakedchoke
09-13-2013, 06:13 PM
This is probably for the Christianity section, but there are some bible scholars who believe that this current relationship between Russia and the Arab countries could be the beginning fulfillment of the Gog and Magog War which is spoke of in the book of Ezekiel.

you may be right!

Tyburn
09-13-2013, 06:35 PM
This is probably for the Christianity section, but there are some bible scholars who believe that this current relationship between Russia and the Arab countries could be the beginning fulfillment of the Gog and Magog War which is spoke of in the book of Ezekiel.

I have just finished readinG ezekiel in my daily bible study :)

For those of you who are unfamilair with Ezekiel, it is one of my favourite old testment texts. It follows what happens when the Jews are so naughty that GOD decides to have the mighty Babylon come and squash them so badly, the Original Temple of the Jews is left in Ruins at Jerusalem, and as with many Empires of that day...when you conqured a land, you displaced the people back to your hub. So the Jewish nation was taken away from the promised land.

Nebuchanezza who was the King in Babylon at the time, he warmed to the Jews eventually...and towards the end of his reign...and I think into his Successor who I think could have been Cyrus, the Jews were slowly allowed to return in dribs and drabs, so they were back in the promised land when Babylon itself fell.

There are three distinct parts to the Oracle. The first is how GOD felt about what had happened, and for this visual demonstrations of symbolism were required for the poor prophet to do infront of the populus. During this time, GOD can be heard wrestling in words with the fact that he longs for an amicable relationship with Israel, where he is their GOD, and they are His People on the one hand...with the truth that they are a rebellious house, that go whoring after native idols on the other. The second part of the book deals with Prophecy which could be completed, or might yet still be to come, depending on if you view it as separate, or if you tie it into the third component of the Book.

The final component of the book involves an act of vision, Where Ezekiel is transported through time to the End Times in Jerusalem, and gets to see the Millenial Temple. Which is the version of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, during the time when Christ has his Millenial Reign, and from where he Judges the Nations...and possibly where final judgement takes place. They dynamics, Schematics, and the people who can enter and leave by which gate. The Highest authority in the land appears to be "The Prince" indicating, that the Throne may be occupied by Christ The King.

Gog and Magog are used in two very different contexts in the Bible. but needless to say they are two closely linked Places, or closely linked friend. Some say infact sons of each other, that is to say that Gog creates, or is followed by in some way Magog.

Ma-Gog, would therefore be the reference "from, or of, Gog" They characterize the Earthly influenced enemies of GOD. Therefore, Gog could be the place of the Ruller Magog, who may be Lucifer during the Tribulation.

But in Ezekiel, Gog and Magog, are also represented as places, because they are mention in their proximity to other names of places which we know existed at the time. The difficulty is that names change. but the most implicated place is Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, and Turkey believe it or not. Now Assyria is probably meant to be the entire bulkan region as well, Israel is probably meant to cover everything from Egypt to Saudi, and maybe up as far as modern day Syria. Turkey probably can be extended to everything between Italy, and maybe as far inland as Pakistan. Babylonia is Iran, Iraq, Kuwiat, and everything within the Tigris and Euphraties basin. Persia is one step further out and may include some of northern India, and some of the Eastern Block Russian states.

Cush is also mentioned, and that could be the African Areas boardering the Red Sea below Egypt, so you're looking at Nubia, Sudan, Ethiopia, possibly as far as Kenya

One final name arrises in those related to Gog and Magog which is really interesting considering the spark that kicked off the Arab Revolution. A place known as Put. Put is North Africa, WEST of Egypt. Thats fascinating, because along north Africa you have Morroco, Tunisia and Libya

That would be full coverage of the arab world today inhabited by the Islamic Faith, disregarding central Europes slow conversion. Ezekiel hints at one other issue. According to him, Gog and Magog are enemies of GOD which are from the North. Now bear in mind when he receives his vision, he is NOT in Israel. Therefore, when we think North...it has to be somewhere NORTH of the main arabian basin...it could therefore be anything North East of Turkey.

That would of course implicate Russia and China :ninja: unless you want to claim the Baltic States harbour the anti-christ which I would find hard to believe

However...one must also note, that Germany is north East of Turkey along with the whole of the European Union, and Europe which has been decimated by two world wars in the last century, one effectively aimed at irradicating the Jewish race...it is possible, that Gog and Magog could have been a reference to the Germanic Wars...understanding Adolf Hitler, the second world war was a direct consequence of the first...Magog, from Gog.

But who knows. :laugh:

The only thing we do know is that the End Times cant reach a conclusion just yet...no one has built a Temple to the correct Ezekielian Specifications.

CAVEMAN1
09-16-2013, 08:52 PM
Obama letting Russia handle the conflict in Syria is just more proof that the USA has lost it's status as a world leader.

CAVEMAN1
09-16-2013, 08:58 PM
Here is a view that does not seem that far fetched.

http://www.cbn.com/tv/2665220102001

Tyburn
09-19-2013, 05:58 PM
Obama letting Russia handle the conflict in Syria is just more proof that the USA has lost it's status as a world leader.

that is NOT Obamas fault...that is COMPLETELY Kerrys fault. :laugh:

Barack Obama didnt want to consult the people, but David Cameron forced him to

Barack Obama didnt want a diplomatic solution, but Kerry forced him to.

As long as Syria plays ball with Russia, the US and the Washington administration are going to be humiliated as stupidly saying things they dont mean, not communicating between cabinet members...and being held accountable for what they say...which hasnt been the case since prior to the bombing of pearl harbour.

You bet that Barack Obama wants nothing to do with this whole thing anymore, I bet he wishes it would all just vanish...and the Russians are truely loving this...if Assad gives them ANY chemical weapons, that would be the icing on the cake...you bet the first thing they will do is say liken their diplomatic solution, to the one that America failed to get with Iraq...it will be all "well, if we, the russians, were dealing with Iraq, we wouldnt have needed to invade, coz we would just have talked Saddam into giving us the weapons...just like we've just done with Assad...arent we great...and arent they stupid" you just wait for it. :rolleyes: