Who is up for another war?

After watching the news today, it seems evident that Obama plans to attack Syria. I use the news simply to determine which way the masses are being herded, and both Fox News and CNN are talking about Assad war crimes while conveniently ignoring the Al Qaeda backed terrorists war crimes that are fighting Assad.

First we must come up with new terms. This is NOT to be called a war, so as to avoid having to notify Congress under the War Powers Act. So what are your suggestions?

1. Happy go lucky Democracy police action.

2. Freedom loving skirmish.

3. Cruise missiles gone wild.

I'll go for "supporting the rebels."

Interesting how Obama says to forget a UN investigation because it will not prove anything. Who needs investigations? There is little doubt so just accept what we tell you. We warmongers know best. Get with the program. 😛

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'll go for "supporting the rebels."

Originally posted by whodey
After watching the news today, it seems evident that Obama plans to attack Syria. I use the news simply to determine which way the masses are being herded, and both Fox News and CNN are talking about Assad war crimes while conveniently ignoring the Al Qaeda backed terrorists war crimes that are fighting Assad.

First we must come up with new terms. This i ...[text shortened]... lucky Democracy police action.

2. Freedom loving skirmish.

3. Cruise missiles gone wild.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Why? Is it because Dutch propaganda influences you?

Your country is part of the empire too. Your people are pawns of the Neo British Empire, useful idiots.

http://nautilus.org/publications/books/australian-forces-abroad/afghanistan/coalition-forces-netherlands/#axzz2d4fuXmB7

Originally posted by bill718
It's a no win situation for America. It's either:

1. Take no action and appear weak and indecisive

2. Use air strikes only, and be accused of taking half steps

3. Launch an all out attack, and find ourselves in the same
expensive nation building quagmire as Iraq and Afganistan

The only thing we can count on, is no matter what course of
action is taken, Whodey will find something wrong with it! 🙂

Originally posted by phil3000
What is this "neo -British Empire " thing you keep bringing up ?
You seem to imply there is a secret world ruling headed by the British .
That didn't work out during the Suez crisis when the US pressured Britain , France and Israel in to ending all hostilities against Egypt.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That "so called" pressure you are talking about is just role playing. Remember when Reagan condemned Israel for bombing a nuclear power plant in Iraq while we were allies with Saddam Hussein? Our government gives a lot of lip service it doesn't really mean.

Appearance and reality are two different things.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Why? Is it because Dutch propaganda influences you?

Your country is part of the empire too. Your people are pawns of the Neo British Empire, useful idiots.

http://nautilus.org/publications/books/australian-forces-abroad/afghanistan/coalition-forces-netherlands/#axzz2d4fuXmB7

This article on US miscalculations in Middle East foreign policy is pretty good (It's critical of the Obama admin, but not a right-wing rant). Here's the bit on Syria...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324619504579028923699568400.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

Finally, the administration, rightfully concerned about the costs of intervention in Syria, failed to grasp early enough just how much it would cost to stay out of this ugly situation. As the war has dragged on, the humanitarian toll has grown to obscene proportions (far worse than anything that would have happened in Libya without intervention), communal and sectarian hatreds have become poisonous almost ensuring more bloodletting and ethnic and religious cleansing, and instability has spread from Syria into Iraq, Lebanon and even Turkey. All of these problems grow worse the longer the war goes on—but it is becoming harder and costlier almost day by day to intervene.

But beyond these problems, the failure to intervene early in Syria (when "leading from behind" might well have worked) has handed important victories to both the terrorists and the Russia-Iran axis, and has seriously eroded the Obama administration's standing with important allies. Russia and Iran backed Bashar al-Assad; the president called for his overthrow—and failed to achieve it. To hardened realists in Middle Eastern capitals, this is conclusive proof that the American president is irredeemably weak. His failure to seize the opportunity for what the Russians and Iranians fear would have been an easy win in Syria cannot be explained by them in any other way.

This is dangerous. Just as Nikita Khrushchev concluded that President Kennedy was weak and incompetent after the Bay of Pigs failure and the botched Vienna summit, and then proceeded to test the American president from Cuba to Berlin, so President Vladimir Putin and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei now believe they are dealing with a dithering and indecisive American leader, and are calibrating their policies accordingly. Khrushchev was wrong about Kennedy, and President Obama's enemies are also underestimating him, but those underestimates can create dangerous crises before they are corrected.

If American policy in Syria has been a boon to the Russians and Iranians, it has been a godsend to the terrorists. The prolongation of the war has allowed terrorist and radical groups to establish themselves as leaders in the Sunni fight against the Shiite enemy. A reputation badly tarnished by both their atrocities and their defeat in Iraq has been polished and enhanced by what is seen as their courage and idealism in Syria. The financial links between wealthy sources in the Gulf and jihadi fighter groups, largely sundered in the last 10 years, have been rebuilt and strengthened. Thousands of radicals are being trained and indoctrinated, to return later to their home countries with new skills, new ideas and new contacts. This development in Syria looks much more dangerous than the development of the original mujahedeen in Afghanistan; Afghanistan is a remote and (most Middle Easterners believe) a barbarous place. Syria is in the heart of the region and the jihadi spillover threatens to be catastrophic.

Originally posted by phil3000
Maybe Britain not helping the US in Vietnam was a tit for tat over the Suez crisis ?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No.

http://www.zcommunications.org/britains-secret-support-for-us-aggression-the-vietnam-war-by-mark-curtis.html

Originally posted by phil3000
Britain might of sent units from the sas and certainly the Australian sas where there but no regular British army soldiers fought in Vietnam .
As for secret support I would say peace meal token jesture's.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
How many commonwealth nations sent troops to Vietnam?