Syrian Crisis...2013

kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

perfume said:
Yep. It's the first time in over 100 years that the UK government had been defeated this way in its attempts to authorise war.

But the White House had just indicated that they are willing to go it alone, not an ace move politically, but there's no backing out now after Obama drew the 'red line'.
Click to expand...

If things don't calm down soon I find this image disturbingly appropriate. It's from the movie The Hunt for Red October. ... awesome movie if you've never seen it BUT I suspect most here have!

nVeLvWe.jpg
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

Obama will push foreword have the navy clear the magazines of TLAMs, putin will burst a vane, Assad may or may not get hit one way or the other though nothing will change as his command is basically IRGC now. then after a could days it wiull be over and we will be back watching the whole thing on CNN. in a few weeks it will all repeat it's self.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

.....
Boston Globe: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Candidate Obama 2007:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
Boston Globe:
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons....
Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
President Obama 2007
With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.
Click to expand...
I think the answer is clear... President Obama has been replaced with a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
... JK.
Ladies and Gentlemen need we any more proof that President Obama is a political animal just like the Clinton before him? HE thinks that attacks on Syria are popular and needed so he will strike but he does not want even the most remote chance of a American life at risk. He will use cruise missiles and Drones.
 
D

Dolcevita

Major
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

kwaigonegin said:
not anymore.. he just double down by implying the US may now act unilaterally. hopefully it's all political talk at this time but we'll wait and see.
Click to expand...

President Obama is wavering. Support for strike is weak. The risk and stakes are growing. The rhetoric had toned down. A limited strike, if any, will serve no purpose and only makes him look silly. But we shall see.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

Dolcevita said:
President Obama is wavering. Support for strike is weak. The risk and stakes are growing. The rhetoric had toned down. A limited strike, if any, will serve no purpose and only makes him look silly. But we shall see.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. HE might not get congress to back him but plenty of presidents have gone it alone.
Add to that he has been playing every thing form the executive branch.
 
D

Dolcevita

Major
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

TerraN_EmpirE said:
Wishful thinking. HE might not get congress to back him but plenty of presidents have gone it alone.
Add to that he has been playing every thing form the executive branch.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, Just saying he has opportunity to gracefully back down now. Risks are high and the benefits are questionable.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

There is nothing graceful about it. that's the game plan. Obama is a reactionary now Some one has called his bluff he either backs his red line or he fails to act.
He will likely strike out with drones and missiles as it places the least risk and backs this red line.
If he fails to act. All his commitments and indeed America's commitments and agreements are rendered null and void.
It's a green light for more expanded use of WMD, it renders all the warnings to Iran as worthless, It makes every US Ally question US commitment and take measures. Basically Obama tosses all his middle east policy out the window. and if you think things are nuts now...
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

Dolcevita said:
Perhaps, Just saying he has opportunity to gracefully back down now. Risks are high and the benefits are questionable.
Click to expand...
Obama painted himself into a corner. He has foolishly put his (and by extension) the US national credibility on the line in a situation where there are no US national interests in play.

If he does nothing, he will be viewed as an obvious paper tiger with no credibility.

So, I expect we will see a fairly heavy Tomahawk attack now (since the UK backed out), but one that does not materially change things on the ground. He will crow (as will the press and DNC) about how "tough" he is on WMDs and Assad, Putin will loudly and angrily protest, and then things will move forward as they were.

That's probably the best we can hope for.

As always, the wrinkle is Iran and what they will do. Putin may be able to control Assad, but he cannot control the Mullahs in Iran. It they chose to attack Israel during this...all bets are off.

In addition...in such a situation, particularly where Russian and US vessels are in relative near proximity to each other and on opposite sides of this...any mistakes can rapidly escalate out of control.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top