Britain and Our Government

[Chuckie]

How can Britain team up with the US and go to war against Syria for use of chemical weapons? Does Obama wish to lead the charge?
He can't lead the U.S. The US has always led...

Chemical weapons are horrible, but how can Britain trust Obama when he can't be straight with his own governmental officials.

How can you start anything high level with Obama when his word means nothing. He feels he is above the law within his own government, and as he will with another. He does not owe anyone an explanation for anything he does, and he changes the rules in the middle of the game.

If Obama feels he is untouchable in "OUR" country...does he owe anything to another country? Does he think he can break all the laws that are set forth, and walk away as he has been tearing down our constitution. Will he destroy the relationships we have with Britain or other allies, and walk away with no explanations, just as he does our government?

Obama doesn't want to go to war; he is only saving face after being threatened. Now that Britain has said no, I feel he will start playing like a strong soldier.
No country is going to join the US against another country while he is our president.

I hope that Britain is waiting for this era to pass.

 

[slick4591]

Britain is out of it. The French are left in, but we all know how that will turn out if they show up.

 

[Chuckie]

Slick, they are thinking about it... :bs:
When I was a little kid, I asked my Dad if I could have a goat, and he said he would think about it...
I never got the goat.

 

[slick4591]

Here ya go, Chuckie.

 

[Kingfisher]

I hear he's going to nuke Syria and set his legacy in stone.

 

[Chuckie]

No one at the White House can pump his nuts up that big!

 

[Kingfisher]

No one at the White House can pump his nuts up that big!

Oh really? Who do you think is " in the white house?"

 

[Arkansas]

Might as well get ready for another War. Because we are going to strike, we didn't move 6 destroyers and 4 subs and 2 carriers into the vicinity for nothing. He has to have some kinda backing from the majority of congress in order to move that much power to that area. There is no doubt about it we will strike, With or without Britain.. Chemical weapons against civilians is a zero tolerance by U.N. and as the U.S. is the main enforcer and protector we will have no choice but to do SOMETHING. Actually a majority of all countries have been in agreement that chemical weapons against your own people is inhuman and will not be tolerated. By the time it ends we should be fighting Russia and Syria and Iran all at the same time.. According to studies we have enough Navy and Airforce to defend our country against china and Russia put together. So if we can fend them off then I imagine Russia, Iran and Syria shouldn't be a problem. Seeing how we still have 4 other small countries backing us including the French we should be fine. The only bad outcome is Iran using nuclear weapons against those countries that are allies and within striking distance of them.

 

[Chuckie]

Obama!

 

[Arkansas]

Showing nearly 80% of Americans agree against strike on Syria ? How can they have 80% I don't remember voting on that ? Should look up how the Syrians are killing Christians and Priest because there supporting the U.S. and beheading them in public. I agree with bombing there azz's, your going to behead people because they support the U.S. actions, that's a dictatorship for you right there. Everyone deserves a FREE country!

 

[TexasBred]

Might as well get ready for another War. Because we are going to strike, we didn't move 6 destroyers and 4 subs and 2 carriers into the vicinity for nothing. He has to have some kinda backing from the majority of congress in order to move that much power to that area. There is no doubt about it we will strike, With or without Britain.. Chemical weapons against civilians is a zero tolerance by U.N. and as the U.S. is the main enforcer and protector we will have no choice but to do SOMETHING. Actually a majority of all countries have been in agreement that chemical weapons against your own people is inhuman and will not be tolerated. By the time it ends we should be fighting Russia and Syria and Iran all at the same time.. According to studies we have enough Navy and Airforce to defend our country against china and Russia put together. So if we can fend them off then I imagine Russia, Iran and Syria shouldn't be a problem. Seeing how we still have 4 other small countries backing us including the French we should be fine. The only bad outcome is Iran using nuclear weapons against those countries that are allies and within striking distance of them.

UN may have zero tolerance on chemical weapons but they do not support Buckwheat on this little caper. BHO ran his mouth, drew a line and now he's backed into a corner....Sounds like a show of force in hopes that somebody else will blink first.

 

[Arkansas]

Might as well get ready for another War. Because we are going to strike, we didn't move 6 destroyers and 4 subs and 2 carriers into the vicinity for nothing. He has to have some kinda backing from the majority of congress in order to move that much power to that area. There is no doubt about it we will strike, With or without Britain.. Chemical weapons against civilians is a zero tolerance by U.N. and as the U.S. is the main enforcer and protector we will have no choice but to do SOMETHING. Actually a majority of all countries have been in agreement that chemical weapons against your own people is inhuman and will not be tolerated. By the time it ends we should be fighting Russia and Syria and Iran all at the same time.. According to studies we have enough Navy and Airforce to defend our country against china and Russia put together. So if we can fend them off then I imagine Russia, Iran and Syria shouldn't be a problem. Seeing how we still have 4 other small countries backing us including the French we should be fine. The only bad outcome is Iran using nuclear weapons against those countries that are allies and within striking distance of them.

UN may have zero tolerance on chemical weapons but they do not support Buckwheat on this little caper. BHO ran his mouth, drew a line and now he's backed into a corner....Sounds like a show of force in hopes that somebody else will blink first.

I don't know what you've been reading but the U.N. is backing us 100% there the reason were over there. Only thing is everyone has been saying will we strike without news from the U.N. is only reason there saying striking without U.N. or Britain.. Britain's out but U.N. are backing us 100% as long as the evidence points to actually using chemicals on there people... We will find out after the U.N. is out of there on Saturday..

 

[Caustic Burno]

Why would we want to get involved as I view this as a win win.
Let them kill each other off in Syria.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

Afraid the UN wants no part of Obama,s little plan. Not that he has a plan.

 

[3waycross]

Why would we want to get involved as I view this as a win win.
Let them kill each other off in Syria.

I agree but it's hard to see almost 500 kids dead. But then again nits do grow into lice and who knows maybe they gassed a future Bin Laden.

 

[Chuckie]

Here is something major for Buckwheat to think about. He is not playing "Battleship." Russia does not want the US to touch Syria, as they think John Kerry fabricated some of the evidence of who was responsible. Imagine that. (I guess the video of him running along the beach in Viet Nam; walking around with band aids on his foot and arm didn't go over so well)

So now Russia is sending over two battleships to Syria. :shock:
They have not been impressed with Obama.

Iran is the biggest problem we have at the moment concerning nuclear war. So, how are they going to re-act when Buckwheat slings a few firecrackers over at Syria for show since they are buddies.
I looked up the Iranian Air Force and they have 129 fighter planes. Syria does not have any yet, but has set in motion an order to be trained.

Russia does lease a Naval facility there. It is used to service and maintain the ships in the Mediterranean Sea so they don't have to go all the way back to Russia. It is not very large, but Russia does want to protect their interests there.

Not everyone backs the strike because they ask, "Why should we back a strike when bombing causes so much destruction and atrocities; what's the lesser of the two evils?"

 

[cross_7]

Why would we want to get involved as I view this as a win win.
Let them kill each other off in Syria.

And in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and all the rest of that part of the world

 

[Chuckie]

Obama did not go to congress to get approval to bomb Syria. He went straight to the UN and bypassed the US congress as he always does.

 

[3waycross]

Obama did not go to congress to get approval to bomb Syria. He went straight to the UN and bypassed the US congress as he always does.

and I think they already left him to twist in the wind like they always do!

 

[Arkansas]

Obama did not go to congress to get approval to bomb Syria. He went straight to the UN and bypassed the US congress as he always does.

Well he is (SUPPOSE) to go to congress to be approved to bomb them he could go over there heads even if the U.S. didn't want him to. (Hence Bush Jr.) He had to also go to congress to be allowed to send that much power over seas to Syria because he cant say I am moving naval ships and men over there with out approval of congress.<---- (Suppose to weather he got it not sure) So congress seen fit to allow that and I am pretty sure that by the time they get there evidence if it is like he says it is and chemicals were used then congress will agree to some kind of punishment. If its going to be bombing or sanctions I don't know, but he must get approved to do all things he does. Its no different in signing laws, if congress doesn't agree a majority then it doesn't make it far.

(Just realizing how screwed up our system is, that it doesn't stop a president from fighting. He only needs Congress to call it a WAR! No one man should have that much power!)