Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 22 Next >>
Topic: Do you think the US should go into Syria? (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Brennan Voboril
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 January 2011
Posts: 1741
Posted: 08 September 2013 at 9:19am | IP Logged | 1  

This shocked me as an American: 

Congressional Black Caucus instructed to hold tongue on Syria

WASHINGTON — As an increasing number of African-American lawmakers voice dissent over the Obama administration's war plans in Syria, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus has asked members to "limit public comment" on the issue until they are briefed by senior administration officials.

A congressional aide to a caucus member called the request "eyebrow-raising," in an interview with FP, and said the request was designed to quiet dissent while shoring up support for President Barack Obama's Syria strategy.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/congressional-black-caucus-in structed-to-hold-tongue-on-syria-1.239706?utm_source=feedbur ner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+starsandstr ipes%2Fgeneral+%28Stars+and+Stripes%29
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
Posted: 08 September 2013 at 1:17pm | IP Logged | 2  

Brennan asking members of your party to hold off talking about an issue publicly until the facts are all in, is nothing new. That has been happening for decades.

 My question would be, why would you want to go talk about an issue as important as this, before you are briefed with all the facts. The last thing I would want is to shoot my mouth off and then have to look like an idiot when I retract something.

Jodi Obama can't escape the fact that if he launches one missile on Syria he will have started a war.  I was watching Ed Schultz (The Ed Show) this week and agree with everything he's said on this war. 

Not historically proven to be true :

A look at major U.S. military strikes as ordered by the last five U.S. presidents and the degree of international support behind the actions.

RONALD REAGAN

— Beirut (1982-83): U.S. troops deployed to Lebanon as part of a three-nation peacekeeping force. Reagan ordered limited airstrikes, with France, to retaliate for 1983 bombing on military barracks that killed 299 U.S. and French troops.

— Grenada (1983): Invasion by an estimated 7,000 U.S. troops and 300 Organization of American States troops after a government coup; was condemned by Britain and the U.N. but supported by six Caribbean island nations that said it was justified under the OAS charter.

— Libya (1986): Airstrikes to punish leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime for a Berlin disco explosion that wounded U.S. 79 Americans and killed two. The U.K. supported the strikes but the U.N. General Assembly condemned them.

GEORGE H.W. BUSH

— Panama (1989): Invasion by more than 26,000 troops after dictator Manuel Noriega declared war on the U.S. for sanctions on its drug-trafficking government. A U.S. Marine was killed after Noriega declared war but before the invasion began.

— Iraq (1991): Invasion of Iraq with troops from 33 other counties to enforce U.N. Security Council resolution that ordered Saddam Hussein to withdraw forces from Kuwait.

— Somalia (1992): Deployed troops for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid mission under U.N. Security Council resolution.

BILL CLINTON

— Iraq (1993): Launched cruise missiles into Baghdad, hitting Iraqi intelligence headquarters, in retaliation for assassination plot against President George H.W. Bush.

— Somalia (1993): Increased troop deployment for security and stability mission with 35 other nations under U.N. Security Council resolution.

— Haiti (1994) Deployed troops for peacekeeping and nation-building mission as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.

— Bosnia (1994-96): Launched airstrikes with NATO allies over 18 months, culminating with bombings, artillery attacks and cruise missile strikes against Bosnia Serbs, by request of U.N. Secretary General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali and to enforce no-fly zones as authorized by at least three U.N. Security Council resolutions. Deployed troops in year-long NATO peacekeeping mission.

— Iraq (1996): Launched cruise missiles at targets in southern Iraq in retaliation against attacks on U.S. jets enforcing no-fly zones to protect Iraqi minorities as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.

— Sudan, Afghanistan (1998): Launched cruise missiles at terrorist training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation against U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 220 people, including 12 Americans.

— Iraq (1998): Launched cruise missiles and airstrikes on a number of Baghdad targets to punish Saddam Hussein for not complying with U.N. chemical weapons inspections as required under U.N. Security Council resolutions.

— Kosovo: (1999): Launched airstrikes and cruise missiles over more than three months at Yugoslavian military targets, power stations, bridges and other facilities as part of NATO mission.

GEORGE W. BUSH

— Afghanistan (2001): Invaded as part of NATO mission after attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. There are currently about 100,000 troops from 48 countries in Afghanistan with the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force, 60,000 of them American. By the end of this year, the NATO force will be halved, and all foreign combat troops are to leave by the end of next year.

— Iraq (2003): Invaded with "coalition of the willing" of 48 nations to overthrow Saddam Hussein. As many as 160,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq at the peak of the war and all forces withdrew in December 2011 as required under a security agreement between Iraq and the U.S.

BARACK OBAMA

— Libya (2011): Launched cruise missiles and commanded initial international military operation to enforce U.N. Security Council resolution that called for a ceasefire in the Libyan civil war and established a no-fly zone.

— Osama bin Laden (2011): While not an attack on a foreign nation, the raid that killed the al-Qaida leader is considered one of the Obama administration's top military and intelligence successes and was carried out without permission from Pakistan, where bin Laden was hiding.


Link fixed :0)





Edited by Jodi Moisan on 09 September 2013 at 5:50pm
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3303
Posted: 08 September 2013 at 2:22pm | IP Logged | 3  

Excellent research, Jodi!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3303
Posted: 08 September 2013 at 2:25pm | IP Logged | 4  

Would I have been more correct if I had used the term "lackeys" or "lap-dogs" in place of "administration"?  I think those were the kind of terms used to describe Republican Senators and Representatives when we had a Republican president in office.

Actually, we used words like "tyrant," "dictator" and "idiot" to represent your impotent republican president... but I know you were just being snarky.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brennan Voboril
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 January 2011
Posts: 1741
Posted: 08 September 2013 at 5:16pm | IP Logged | 5  

Jodi telling someone not to speak until they've heard from the administration is not American in my opinion.  It is rather Un-American.  We have the right of free speech.  I don't see the Congressional Black Caucus as comprised of people who just "shoot their mouths off" but I do see the attempt to silence them as dangerous.  Obama is not the king but the president.  He doesn't control members of Congress.  

"Despite the request, some caucus members have felt compelled to let constituents know where they stand on an issue consuming the public's attention. 'It's my obligation to speak out and say what my thought process is,' Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., a member of the caucus and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FP. 'I think it's important for me to step forward and make some statements. These are very personal matters.'"
Back to Top profile | search
 
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3303
Posted: 08 September 2013 at 6:27pm | IP Logged | 6  

I sincerely doubt that rushing to voice an opinion without regard to all sides or irregardless of facts would be considered uniquely "American", although you certainly have the right to free speech in any case. 

But when someone ends up looking like a fool because they ran their mouth off before facts or actions are actually known, they should not be surprised when they are humiliated for these statements later.

I think this is called "Bachmann-itis."

Obama is not the king but the president.  He doesn't control members of Congress.
No one ever said he was otherwise... except the Right (who in their defense are still missing King Bush II) Congress does NOT control the presidency either, no matter how much Boehner thinks Obama needs to ask him for permission.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
Posted: 08 September 2013 at 7:43pm | IP Logged | 7  

Brennan, Monte is completely right and asking someone to speak to the public after knowing all the facts, is not only the right thing to do, it is what the republicans do too. It is irresponsible to go out as a representative of the democratic party and later look stupid. It hurts the party. The republicans do this much better then the democrats. It is the one thing I do think the republicans are better at. There is an old saying "The republicans when in trouble circle their wagons and shoot outward, the democrats circle their wagon and shoot inward."  Now let's say after they are briefed they do not agree with Obama and go out and voice that opposition, more power to them.  I also love that the democrats do not block vote, they do go against their party line.  And sometimes the minority is right.I wish the minority democrats had been able to stop Clinton from signing NAFTA. Biggest black mark on the Clinton administration IMO.

I believe Assad should have to be held accountable for the action he took. I also believe in democracy, that if Obama doesn't get enough votes to pass this missile launch, he will have to deal with the loss. And hope the international community takes a stand, if found to be true. If it does play out that way, I will be sad we did not stand with this president when he was trying to do the right thing.

Excellent research, Jodi!

I would like to take credit for all that research, but I found it all on one site.




Edited by Jodi Moisan on 08 September 2013 at 7:45pm
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Brennan Voboril
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 January 2011
Posts: 1741
Posted: 09 September 2013 at 7:51am | IP Logged | 8  

Jodi if the story is correct then I feel it is Un-American to try to silence people.  

I watched the weekend news shows and it seems to me the full court press for this war is backfiring on the president.  I saw one administration talking head say they didn't have solid proof but common sense proof. They want us to go to war over that?  

I also don't buy into the administration's Orwellian language of a "limited" strike.  I feel once this is on it will be all-out war.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
L’Homme Diabolique

Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7593
Posted: 09 September 2013 at 8:14am | IP Logged | 9  

I saw one administration talking head say they didn't have solid proof but common sense proof. They want us to go to war over that?  

***

We are apparently now ready to lob missiles at a country over a "common sense" guess.

The good news is that all signs point to Congress rejecting this; for once, they seem to be listening to the constituents.  I've written to all of the Congressman from my state, encouraging them to vote NO.

Assad has apparently said that if we attack, Syria will retaliate.  And they would be justified in doing so.  If a country launched missiles at us, wouldn't we strike back?  Why do we expect another country to just take it.  Syria poses no direct, imminent threat to the US.   There is no reason for us to attack them.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3507
Posted: 09 September 2013 at 8:22am | IP Logged | 10  

Assad has apparently said that if we attack, Syria will retaliate.
-----------------
Just to clarify, because the U.S. news is spinning this all over the place, what Assad said was that his allies had discussed ways of retaliating against the United States should the United States attack Syria. He left vague just which allies he meant (Russia? Iran? China?) and what form that retaliation would take (Economic? Military? A strike at a U.S. ally?) There's been a rumor floating around the Russian and Arab press that Putin has been contemplating something involving Saudi Arabia should the U.S. get involved in Syria, as the Saudis are the primary sponsors of the Jihadist rebels in Syria, and (coincidentally?) close allies of the U.S.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security


Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10935
Posted: 09 September 2013 at 8:26am | IP Logged | 11  


Jodi - "I would like to take credit for all that research, but I found it all on one site."

****

Jodi, please change that to a link - that's too much info to cut and paste and not cite your source.





Back to Top profile | search
 
John Bodin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Purveyor of Rare Items

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3911
Posted: 09 September 2013 at 9:17am | IP Logged | 12  

 Monte Gruhlke wrote:
Actually, we used words like "tyrant," "dictator" and "idiot" to represent your impotent republican president... but I know you were just being snarky.


Speaking of snarky, I can't even begin to imagine the $#!+-storm that would ensue if someone chose to use direct language like "tryant," "dictator" and "idiot" to represent our current impotent democrat president.

[EDITED FOR TYPO]


Edited by John Bodin on 09 September 2013 at 9:18am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 22 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login