Questions On The Forthcoming Syria Strike.

Fair enough, but I think with the amount of people vocally against aggressive action, it would be dumb to ignore a diplomatic solution.

People want someone to blame... The president is the easiest target as he sits upon the throne... easiest to put a face on it...

These days those it just seems like mudslinging from either side and a defense by the opposing lol...

I agree, I was making the point that I don't presume to know what's going on in Syria.

Bush was not fine until then... Bush's whole presidency was in question from day 1 let alone the questions of his own competency that raged on through his presidency...

God... stop using the whole racism thing as a crutch... as we've gone over so many times before it's not a general response to conservatives that disaprove of Obama or his actions... god.. its like a broken record has been set to play in here... No one has called you a racist here... not a single person...

The only thing you did get right there is that hate did flow from both sides... it has been for the last decade and this country is becoming more and more divided...

It sounds more like a fallback for conservatives that have nothing better to say... hey I can't make an intelligible statement so I'm just going to back off and make sure you know that I'm backing off only because I think you will paint me as a racist because I disagree with your supreme marxist overlord Obama!

As for any of you saying that an attack in Syria is the trigger for WWIII being a valid statement... Explain to me why you think that... Because as it stands I don't think that statement even holds a grain of salt...

The only reasoning I've heard was that Russia disapproved of us attacking Syria (with good reason, they depend on the warm water ports of a stable Syria). And supposedly they are our sword enemy and just need a reason to start a nuclear war... excuse me sir, there seem to be a lot of holes in your bucket.

Nor should anyone else

Russia doesn't want a war with us...

Even though they never signed it? I call BS. Why should I be liable for what somebody else signs? Or even care tbh.
here ya go

I did not say that I was called a racist. Nor did I say that conservatives are racist.

I did say that it is the liberals are generally labeling nonliberals as racists.


Before Kerry gave Assad an out? It actually looked like Obama was going to attack Syria/Assad just to save face. When Obama attacks Syria to save face, Russia will step in (they already said they would) and attack the US in response (we all know they will, Putin isn't a coward).

These attacks will continue until we got a two sided war with multiple countries joining in....aka WWIII.

they don't want to start it but they will retaliate to an attack.

Lets talk about why this is all happening anyway between Syria, US, Russia, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Bush Obama and everyone else wants to be involved because of oil Natural Gas

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline

You can call BS all you want, do you even read? All countries who signed it are required to enforce it even on countries that didn't. It's a clause in a lot of international legislation designed to prevent situations where a country provides the facilities or information covertly to another country who has the intent to use them on a mutual rival. The facts don't care what your opinion is.

As for the quote, again, just because you have said something doesn't mean you are the only one, and if I was quoting you, I'd have QUOTED you.

Gibberish, Russia stated publicly that they would not retaliate against any UN coalition, it's kinda the basis of how the UN works.

Please show us where Russia states this. As usual I cannot find anything to support your lies claims Jassik.

Only news I have been seeing in regards to Russia is they sent more war ships into the Mediterranean and they will also provide a missile shield for Syria.


Debate is one thing, lies are another.

Its not Jassik's fault you don't know how to use a search function.
This is a true statement.

Back it up. One source then please. One. Show me the public statement. It does not exist.

Stop talking out your arse.

Google it. Its not hard. I'm not rewarding your pathetic laziness and trolling. Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

This remains an actual event, don't like it too bad.

loooool really?

Russia has done no such thing. I cannot find this statement anywhere so please provide it. Is this the whole prove it doesn't exist thing again? Stop defending this stupid lie.

"don't like it too bad" loooooooooooooool srsly?

Seriously. You don't matter.

I am done even defending facts...

You didn't even begin to defend your "facts".

It's simple. Show me where I can find the public statement. It should be very easy if they made it. I assure you I know how to use a search engine so don't hide behind that juvenile taunt. They did not make this statement. You lied.

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-russia-idUSBRE98307M20130904

important parts:
For military strike without UN-mandat:

Do note:
Statement made on 4th September, if it is outdated I do not know it.

For the moment the military strike seems to be off the table and diplomacy succeeded.

Yes so if this is the only thing Russia has stated then Jassick and Visciouss were completely full of crap in their claims. Russia ruling out a response never happened in fact, as you point out, their response would possibly be to finish the missile shield for Syria to prevent more attacks from the US. But this:


never happened

Actually it does support Jassik's statement.

Putin declared to might allow a military strike if it is definitly proven that Assad ordered the chemical attack.

This statement by Putin makes Jassik's scenario
() of an "UN-coalition" being formed for a military strike possible as this requires Russia not using its veto rights.

This will not happen since there couldn't be found a definit proof. This makes Russia unable to not veto any resolution for a military strike against Assad.
If America or France would still attack it would not be an UN coalition and thus would be an illegal action. In this case Russia will shield Syria with the mentioned missile System. This case was not meantioned by Jassik in the quoted claim.



Jassik did make the same mistake as you though which created this whole misunderstanding.

His statement was a response to different scenario by Kingnobody: Kingnobody's scneario is the same case as yours in where no UN coalition was formed and Jassik changed this important point.

Kingnobody's claim that Russia would "attack the US" to be true depends on defining an "attack". If shielding (defensive act) with a Missile System is an "attack" Kingnobody's claim would be right, but I wouldn't see it in that way. Putins statement "think of moving forward" can mean anything from offensive action to just supplying Assad though. So this point is purely up to everyones personally view which can be debated freely.
It is just leaving the realm of facts here which is totally normal.

Did not rule out =/= not retaliating.

They said that if there is clear evidence that Assad used chemical weapons on Syria's citizens, then they may do nothing.

Even as of September 4th, there was not clear evidence that Assad used chemical weapons. If Obama carried out his threat to save face, and jumped the gun before an actual investigation was done, instead of one done by incompetent people, we would be in WWIII now.

How forgetful a liberal's mind is. I bet you it takes a lot of effort and energy to keep a liberal's attention.

OH LOOK, A SQUIRREL IS BEHIND YOU!!!

no, my scenario would have been that the UN finds that Assad didn't use chemical weapons but Obama attacks anyway based on "his findings."

Which, at the time, was more likely to happen. Now that Kerry gave Assad a way out, which they are taking, Obama gets to save face, but now his leadership (which is already weak) now looks weaker than before. So it is a win for Russia and Syria, but a loss of America (again).

Their logic gets so twisted to try to defend a point they made that they know is wrong. A liberal never admits when they are wrong even when it is obvious to themselves and the entire world they were wrong; even over the smallest thing like Jassick's post. Their heads have to be spinning after watching Obama tripping over his own feet during this Syria debacle and no matter what he does it will be the right thing in their minds; a stroke of genius in fact. The story will be that he somehow outsmarted Putin and Assad when everyone goes for this ridiculous deal that only the day before John Kerry said it would be impossible to verify they turned over their chemical weapons. Meanwhile who retains power in Syria and their chemical weapons? genius lol

What do you expect from someone who seriously sells "'This would be a red line for us' means one isn't drawing a 'red line'"? I betcha he's drank so much kool-aid he doesn't actually see 'desperate political backtrack' in it at all.