Syria

unsung

Can everyone please call their Representatives and tell them that we do not want to get involved...we do not support another war.

Otherwise if they are so intent on going to war have Congress draft legislation that declares war.

JonnyPistachio

unsung wrote:

Can everyone please call their Representatives and tell them that we do not want to get involved...we do not support another war.

Otherwise if they are so intent on going to war have Congress draft legislation that declares war.

Is it looking like we're going to get involved?
What persuasion do yo think we have calling or emailing our representatives? (honest question, i've never done it before)

unsung

It lets them know you are paying attention.

inmytree

unsung wrote:

Can everyone please call their Representatives and tell them that we do not want to get involved...we do not support another war.

Otherwise if they are so intent on going to war have Congress draft legislation that declares war.

yeah, that situation is kinda fucked...Folks are being executed in their homes...entire families...

I'm with you, though...not much we can do that we are not already doing other that military action (which I do not support at this time)...

Russia is blocking any major intervention...

gimmesometruth27

inmytree wrote:

unsung wrote:

Can everyone please call their Representatives and tell them that we do not want to get involved...we do not support another war.

Otherwise if they are so intent on going to war have Congress draft legislation that declares war.

yeah, that situation is kinda fucked...Folks are being executed in their homes...entire families...

I'm with you, though...not much we can do that we are not already doing other that military action (which I do not support at this time)...

Russia is blocking any major intervention...

yesterday russia strictly condemned the assad regime for these massacres. russia was blocking intervention, but even they can not turn a blind eye and support the assad regime any longer.

Idris

Panetta: US Won’t Attack Syria Without UN OK

Just one day after US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice insisted that attacking Syria without UN backing was “the most probable scenario” for the next presumptive military adventure by the US, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta insisted he “cannot envision” such a thing.

Instead, Panetta insisted that the US would only attack Syria after the United Nations had given them official permission to do so, saying that “the international community and the president are going to have to decide what steps we take.”

Panetta’s comments reflect those he made in early March, in which he told the US Senate that the administration’s goal was “international permission” for the war, and downplayed the idea of seeking Congressional authorization, saying only that Congress would be “informed” about the attack once the president decided.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/international/middle_east/view/20120601no_us_military_action_in_syria_without_un_authorization_leon_panetta_says/srvc=home&position=recent

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/06/01/panetta-us-wont-attack-syria-without-un-ok/

ComeToTX

Another war...that should help the economy. :fp:

unsung

Idris wrote:

Panetta: US Won’t Attack Syria Without UN OK

Just one day after US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice insisted that attacking Syria without UN backing was “the most probable scenario” for the next presumptive military adventure by the US, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta insisted he “cannot envision” such a thing.

Instead, Panetta insisted that the US would only attack Syria after the United Nations had given them official permission to do so, saying that “the international community and the president are going to have to decide what steps we take.”

Panetta’s comments reflect those he made in early March, in which he told the US Senate that the administration’s goal was “international permission” for the war, and downplayed the idea of seeking Congressional authorization, saying only that Congress would be “informed” about the attack once the president decided.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/international/middle_east/view/20120601no_us_military_action_in_syria_without_un_authorization_leon_panetta_says/srvc=home&position=recent

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/06/01/panetta-us-wont-attack-syria-without-un-ok/

This is all kinds of wrong. Since when do we take marching orders from the f-ing UN? You want to go in? The have Congress declare war and go in and get out.

I do not support any military action, but I support seeking permission even less.

Obama is a joke.

keeponrockin

I think that some sort of peace keeping mission preventing the government from massacring it's own people is a much more just cause than the two wars we currently find ourselves in, but that's just me.

fuck

keeponrockin wrote:

I think that some sort of peace keeping mission preventing the government from massacring it's own people is a much more just cause than the two wars we currently find ourselves in, but that's just me.

Actually, a "peace keeping mission preventing the government from massacring its own people" is the EXACT justification that was/has been used for Afghanistan and Iraq...

MotoDC

unsung wrote:

This is all kinds of wrong. Since when do we take marching orders from the f-ing UN? You want to go in? The have Congress declare war and go in and get out.

I do not support any military action, but I support seeking permission even less.

Obama is a joke.

I hear you, but so far, it seems the UN will do more to keep us out of war than in it. Based on what I've read of your other posts, you should celebrate that at least.

As for Congress declaring war, since when has that been necessary? (/tongueincheek emoticon)

That said, these fucks can't even figure out a debt ceiling solution after over a year; you really want them in charge if/when we need to go to war?

peacefrompaul

I don't much care for the UN.

We had better not get involved, no thanks. My heart goes out to the Syrian people, what a mess, how sad... :( I try to follow as closely as I can with both news updates and first hand accounts.

keeponrockin

fuck wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

I think that some sort of peace keeping mission preventing the government from massacring it's own people is a much more just cause than the two wars we currently find ourselves in, but that's just me.

Actually, a "peace keeping mission preventing the government from massacring its own people" is the EXACT justification that was/has been used for Afghanistan and Iraq...

Actually, Afghanistan was more of a response to 9/11 if I'm not mistaken, and Iraq some bullshit about WMD's...

jlew24asu

how many innocent civilians in Syria have to die before military action is warranted ? currently estimates are anywhere from 9000 to 20000.

maybe 100k? 1 million?

unsung

Hillary is beating the war drum.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/07 ... -strategy/

jlew24asu

unsung wrote:

Hillary is beating the war drum.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/07 ... -strategy/

".......broadened diplomatic effort to ease the embattled leader out of power"


yea, war drum so deafening.

Jason P

Russia is sending attack choppers to Syria.

The leader of a UN inspection team described the country to be in full-scale civil war at this point.

Bad times.

Jason P

Syria has confirmed that they did indeed shoot down a Turkish warplane for violation of airspace. Just happens to follow a Syrian fighter pilot's defection to Turkey a few days earlier.

http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-turns-nato-over-syrian-attack-001605065.html

(fyi - turkey is part of nato)

Jason P

In non-chicken sandwich news ... Annan has stepped down as mediator in the Syria conflict which suggests any hopes of diplomacy is out the window.

Speaking to reporters in Geneva, Annan cited "finger-pointing and name-calling" in the 15-nation Security Council as one of the reasons for his decision to step down.

"The world is full of crazy people like me. So don't be surprised if Secretary General Ban Ki-moon can find someone who can do a better job than me," Annan said when asked about a possible successor.

"There may be other plans, other approaches that may work quite effectively," he said, adding that at this stage the focus should still be on a political transition which means "President (Bashar) al-Assad will have to leave sooner or later."

...

http://news.yahoo.com/annan-step-down-international-syria-mediator-154545166.html

Looks like he is very frustrated.

Byrnzie

http://www.medialens.org/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=69

It is worth referring once again to the testimony of General Wesley Clark, the former Nato chief, when he recalled a conversation with a Pentagon general in 2001, a few weeks after the September 11 attacks:

‘He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”’

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=692:the-return-of-the-king-tony-blair-and-the-magically-disappearing-blood&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69

It is worth referring once again to the testimony of General Wesley Clark, the former Nato chief, when he recalled a conversation with a Pentagon general in 2001, a few weeks after the September 11 attacks:

‘He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”’

That's just like the US government to be behind schedule. Everything cost three times as much and takes three times longer then planned.