Im almost certain the message was saying we would see how the Russian agreement played out, and then decide how to proceed? If the Russian arrangement works out it would make the necessity for a strike lessen.
The way I see it is the US population elected the people who are acting like monkeys in the government. So a majority of the voting population have decided this is how they wish to be represented.
Whether it's about the chemical weapons or not doesn't matter, we all know it's for financial reasons, it always is. The chemical weapons is the excuse they're trying to use though, which was pretty flaky to begin with with there being no solid evidence which side did it. Now that excuse isn't valid any longer. Obama is probably raging.
Criticize us, please. But do it intelligently.
Well that just shows how biased you are :/.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was asked by a reporter in London whether there was anything the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do to avoid a U.S. military strike.What I am worried about though, is whether just turning in the chemical weapons is feasible, enough, and accomplishes anything at all; this is essentially is just taking away a gun from a murder’s arsenal and giving him a slap on the wrist. It doesn’t solve the root of the problem, Syria is still going to be in civil unrest and people are still being killed everyday. And not to mention the obvious complication of transporting, dismantling, and deposing a large amount of chemical weapons in basically a war zone. So while I hope this is the first step toward peace for Syria and everything will somehow work out, I am not optimistic that diplomacy alone will be enough for Assad to step down or end the civil war in a way beneficial to the people. But I cannot get behind military action either, for while it could resolve the civil war faster than anything else, it also has the potential to go terribly wrong with so much unforeseen consequences.
“Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week – turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting [of it], but he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done,†Mr. Kerry saidâ€
I don't see how saying they are American automatically makes them bias...
Anyways, it's my personal belief diplomacy is always the best solution for everything. but civil uprising are historically very hard to solve with diplomacy alone, and those two are oxymoron really. But first, the chemical weapons allegedly used by Syria. While the official UN report has yet to be released many nations (other than Russia) are already pretty convinced that it was the Syrian government that used them, and major new sources claim that the UN report is very likely to point to the Syrian government as the perpetrators, but note that the report’s purpose is not to find who used chemical weapons, but to find whether chemical weapons was used at all. I think it’s also worth mentioning that it was actually the US sectary of state John Kerry not Russia that first suggested the idea of Syria turning over the weapons, though it was somewhat of an accidental remark and he did not seriously believe Syria would do it
What I am worried about though, is whether just turning in the chemical weapons is feasible, enough, and accomplishes anything at all; this is essentially is just taking away a gun from a murder’s arsenal and giving him a slap on the wrist. It doesn’t solve the root of the problem, Syria is still going to be in civil unrest and people are still being killed everyday. And not to mention the obvious complication of transporting, dismantling, and deposing a large amount of chemical weapons in basically a war zone. So while I hope this is the first step toward peace for Syria and everything will somehow work out, I am not optimistic that diplomacy alone will be enough for Assad to step down or end the civil war in a way beneficial to the people. But I cannot get behind military action either, for while it could resolve the civil war faster than anything else, it also has the potential to go terribly wrong with so much unforeseen consequences.
so really, in short, it’s a mess.
Well that just shows how biased you are :/. Don't get me wrong, I am glad this whole bombing thing is less and less likely to happen now, but you are giving the president way too much credit. This is not an isolated incident, if it was I'd incline to agree with you, but many smaller cases where public weren't as well informed, president's decision on those suggest he is not that reasonable, and the only reason he backed down is due to pressure from American people and international community.
I'm not sure where I gave him undue credit, can you point it out? Or at least expound on these other decisions you're talking about? A bullet list is fine, I'm well-versed in google.
It's not capital US, it's us. And I don't think it's any of foreigner's business who's in charge of Syria. You may not like what he's doing, but that doesn't give US government the right to overthrow it.
If you don't think that's reasonable, imagine if some countries don't like what US government is doing, would you like foreign missiles or solve this internally?
Unless i am wrong, by "us" i would presume they meant "us Americans", but if i am, then apologies.
If everything was fine, then of course it's no business of ours who's in charge of another country(though that would still be very irresponsible), but things are not fine, thousands of innocent people are being killed by their government, they wanted change but got slaughtered instead. And that is our business, not as a foreigner, but as a fellow human being to help stop this in what ways we can with any means we can. Lets not forget, the "not our business" mentality was what prevented and an intervention during 1994 in Rwanda.
As for whether i prefer "foreign missiles or solve this internally", look at Syria, they are solving this internally, and well, look at how many people are dead.... and for foreign missiles, i stand by what i said before, it's a mess, and i can only hope diplomacy plays out. But, should the day come when democracy has fallen, when the government of the United States is no longer of the people, by the people, for the people, when it's own citizens have to upraise against a government that is no longer theirs. a government that is indiscriminately killing their own people, then yes, i would pick foreign missiles, we would have fallen too far for anything else. but lets hope that never happen.
-Assassination
---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
-----Basically, he was a well-known member of Al Quaida who called for violence against the U.S and was involved in several cases that spilled American blood. In Yemen, where he was also a citizen, there was a warrant out for his capture "dead or alive."
-NDAA
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
-----While the bill affirms such power, it was passed by both houses of congress, so it can hardly be said that Obama was out of control. In addition, it's a fail-safe, much like Nexon's ToS. It is extremely unlikely the provision will see any controversial use.
-Iraq
---Pulling the troops out of Iraq required the consent of congress and some attempt to make sure the mess we made by going in didn't sour too starkly afterward. Simply leaving would have created a humanitarian disaster much greater than a slow wind-down. It would have been better not to occupy the place at all, in the first place, but Obama was not in office when that happened. Granted, the campaign promise was, at best, naive. I respect that he was willing (or forced?) to drop it in order to reach the best possible conclusion (which still sucks.)
The picture painted by those incidents is not one of a renegade, though it certainly isn't of an ideal leader either. To date, though, I think Obama has been doing fairly well. He's disappointed me plenty and earned a few salutes as well.
Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي‎ Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was an American[7] and Yemeni imam and Islamic militant.[8][9] U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.[2][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] With a blog, a Facebook page, the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet."[17][18] After a request from the U.S. Congress, in November 2010 YouTube removed many of Awlaki's videos.[19]
U.S. officials say that as imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001–02), which had 3,000 members, al-Awlaki spoke with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members.[20] In 2001, he presided at the funeral of the mother of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who later e-mailed him extensively in 2008–09 before the Fort Hood shootings.[21][22] During al-Awlaki's later radical period after 2006–07, when he went into hiding, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner.[23][24][25] Al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.
The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive."[26][27] U.S. officials said that in 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[28][29] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[30][31]
In April 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama placed al-Awlaki on a list of people whom the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities.[32][33][34] The "targeted killing" of an American citizen was unprecedented. Al-Awlaki's father and civil rights groups challenged the order in court.[32][34][35][36] Al-Awlaki was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[26] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones) in Yemen to search for and kill him,[37] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[38] before succeeding in a fatal American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[39] Two weeks later, al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[40][41][42] Nasser al-Awlaki, Anwar's father, released an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.[43]
So yeah, he was a member of al-Qaeda, stood trial, and was effectively executed according to the law. Unless you have some dispute with the sources.
The bypass is in place because "innocent until proven guilty" is a very ineffective way of dealing with terrorism. Admittedly, it's problematic, but it's transparent. Since it's a public law, the public will know when the government plays that card. Otherwise, in order to detain that individual, they'd have to resort to silent kidnapping. Which sounds more like the Gestapo to you?
Suppose the government did try to use this law. Immediately, they'd be forced to come up with some convincing evidence or there would be open revolt. Effectively, it can only be used in cases where it isn't necessary as a sort of safe guard against, yes, genius terrorist lawyers. Either way, the point stands that it's not a reflection on Obama in terms of his being "out of control."
On February 10, 1936, the Nazi Reichstag passed the 'Gestapo Law' which included the following paragraph: "Neither the instructions nor the affairs of the Gestapo will be open to review by the administrative courts." This meant the Gestapo was now above the law and there could be no legal or civil court appeal regarding anything it did.
Indeed, the Gestapo became a law unto itself. It was entirely possible for someone to be arrested, interrogated and sent to a concentration camp for incarceration or summary execution, without any outside legal procedure.
What caused Rawanda massacre was not the neutral mentality, but people thinking they know what's best. Do you know the story of how the two tribes came to hate each other in the first place? It's because European explorers thought lighter skin means more evolved, so without knowing the actual political background of the region they put the minority as ruling class thinking that's what's best for them, which caused hatred between the two tribes which caused the massacre.
Now I respect you want to help these people out, but you have to remember so did the colonial period explorers. When US makes decision that will affect the lives of Syrian people, they should maybe first consult the Syrian people. And from what I hear, they don't want armed intervention, not even the anti-government groups. Only so called "rebels", who are suspected of AL-Qaeda association.
Now I have an interesting question to ask you, what if the country suggesting the bombing is China or Russia, would you still support it? Do you think their military attack on Syrian government will prevent the death of Syrian people?