US willing to go it alone against Syria if needed

And we're supposed to believe the empire really cares about international law even it they violate it more than any other.

 

Even Bush acted with a Coalition of the Willing.

Barack Hussein Obama: Making people miss W since January 20, 2009.

 

It's a shame that at the time in 2008, when I was 17, I publically supported Obama believing him to be more sane than Hillary Clinton, who outright said we'd go into a nuclear confrontation.

Note to self: If you want an anti-war(or at least, a smart, prudent) candidate, vet him or her properly.

 

But Obama already drew a line in the sand and they crossed it. Now if Obama does nothing the US will look like a paper tiger.........that just conquered Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, that is.

If it were me, I would attack the Sudan to pay them back for the genocide they inflicted on their people. They wiped out far more people than Assad ever did. Then I would just shrug my shoulders and splain that we thought it was Syria.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Don't disrespect Obama. He has his own coalition. It's called the "Coalition of the Al-Qaeda, Jihadi and Muslim Brotherhood Freedom Fighters"

Obama's Chechen Jihadis and Ginger Haired Al-Qaeda Africans : Bringing democracy and freedom to Syria since 2011.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-act-us-best-interests-syria-despite-british-225514012.html

British lawmakers rejected their government's call for punitive strikes against the chemical-armed Syrian regime Thursday, leaving the United States to act alone.

Before and after the shock House of Commons vote to defy Prime Minister David Cameron's bid to win support for military intervention, the White House said America was ready to take unilateral action.

"We have seen the result of the Parliament vote in the UK tonight," said Caitlin Hayden, a National Security Council spokeswoman.

"As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.

"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."

The decision also came after the failure of an improbable eleventh-hour effort by British diplomats to win UN backing for action against Bashar al-Assad's regime at a meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council.

"It is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly," Cameron said.



..View gallery."
Demonstrators hold up placards during a protest outside …
Demonstrators hold up placards during a protest against potential British military involvement in Sy …

That, combined with deadlock at the United Nations, appeared to effectively sound the death knell for the idea of a broad-based Western military coalition, although other American allies might still participate.

But even before the surprise British vote, the White House had signalled that it was ready to act regardless of UN or allied support.

"We certainly are interested in engaging with the global international community on this issue," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

"But at the same time, the president's chief accountability is to the American people that he was elected to protect.

"The president believes strongly in making the kinds of decisions and taking the kinds of steps that are necessary to protect our core national security interests that we've acknowledged are at stake in this situation."

Earlier, envoys from the permanent five members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- had met at UN headquarters in New York.

The 45-minute meeting was the second since Britain proposed a draft resolution to permit "all necessary measures" to protect Syrian civilians after a suspected chemical weapons attack last week.



..View gallery."
Foreign forces and bases in the Middle East and selected …
Foreign forces and bases in the Middle East and selected Syrian military equipment. (AFP Photo/)

But none of the envoys commented as they left.

Earlier in the week reports had suggested that a Western strike was imminent, but questions have been raised about the quality of the intelligence linking Assad to the attack.

The White House has reached out to US lawmakers and given its allies more time to placate domestic opposition and UN inspectors time to complete their mission.

Obama has said the alleged large-scale use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime is a threat to US security as well as a crime against the Syrian people.

US warships armed with scores of cruise missiles are converging on the eastern Mediterranean, and US military officials have said they are ready to launch a powerful barrage against regime targets in Syria.

Assad's ally Russia has blocked all attempts to toughen international sanctions against Damascus or authorize outside force to punish or unseat the regime.

Syria, meanwhile, is in the 29th month of a vicious civil war in which more than 100,000 people are credibly reported to have died.



..View gallery."
A member of US Secret Service uniform division keeps …
A member of US Secret Service uniform division keeps watch in front of the White House in Washington …

As the stand-off continues, a team of UN inspectors are investigating reports that last week's gas attack outside Damascus killed more than 350 people, including women and children.

A UN spokesman said Thursday that the team had collected "considerable" evidence and will brief UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon soon after they leave Syria on Saturday.

"Starting tomorrow he will try to reach out to member states and take discussions forward on the question of what is happening in Syria," the spokesman said.

Ban has appealed for the inspectors to be allowed to complete their work before the major powers decide any follow-up action.

Assad remained defiant in the face of the Western threats.

"Syria will defend itself in the face of any aggression," state television cited him as telling a visiting delegation of Yemeni politicians.

He vowed that any attack would result in "victory" for the Syrian people.

His regime has denied using chemical weapons and blamed "terrorist" rebels.

The mood among Damascus residents was fearful, while security forces prepared for possible air attacks by pulling back soldiers from potential targets and introducing tougher controls at roadblocks and hospitals.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so its very much still on, just we won't need hundreds of british troops and their thousands of dollars. Brit involvement is more of a vote of confidence, anymore since they are a weak country. We have El Salvador which is just as good, if not better.

 

So far he's been serving the best interests of the Saudis and Israelis in supporting the terrorists against Syria.

 

It'll be fun and the Italian/Swiss/French/Spanish/Greek and Swedish consortium will get a chance to test their new nEUROn drone. It is supposed to be most impressive and needs no humans to command it.

The UK is left out.

 

Saaaay, who's that redheaded guy up front hoggin' the camera?

 

A typical Syrian. He loves freedom by the look on his face. I think we should help him by sending killer robots to destroy the bad people that like that Asshat dictator guy.

 

That'd be a nice change of pace for him!

To be fair, the UK couldn't send their two airplanes anywhere without one breaking down, so they just voted no to save face. But credit where credit is due, they did send us half of their military weapons:



They saved the other one in case a soccer hooligan attacked a pub. That plus their entire military might be able to take him down as long as they didn't call in sick to watch the next episode of Dr. Who.

 

I could say don't take it too personal,
allow the UN to function and support this global body.

 

Right. A typical Syrian from Chechnya. Who knew !

Abu Omar Al-Chechen is his name. He pleaded allegiance to Al-Qaeda.



You are an Al-Qaeda sympathizer.

 

England would only have bared some of the costs of war, they weren't necessary for military backing in the Syrian conflict.

And we have Israel always siding with us we don't need Britain, as the Jews side with moral Christians who are against atrocities caused by Chemical weapons.

 

They had an easier time convincing the people to war, because they had 9/11 as a good excuse.

All the reasons are the same for going to war this time, to stop weapons of mass destruction, why aren't conservatives supporting us

 

So moral humanitarian Christians are ready to bomb Syria so that 2 million Christians in Syria can get exterminated by Al-Qaeda and Jihadis. Can you please tell me which school did you take your morality lessons at? I want to make a complain against that school and have them banned from teaching morality and humanitarianism.

 

I don't recall Syria attacking us, so I'd say there's a bit of a difference.

But y'know, turn the question around. A lot of liberals were against Bush taking us off to war. There were protests and everything. Cindy Sheehan became a media darling of the left. Why are liberals so willing to go to war for Obama with LESS pretext than Bush had?

 

the wind blew the line away so maybe he can draw a new line..maybe use chalk that way if it rains it washes it away so he can draw another one

 

Those Muslims won't retaliate against Christians, their being saved by a Christian and Jewish state aimed to topple their despot government, and protect them from a chemical weapons massacre.

 

Neither did Iraq, we went into Iraq to secure weapons of mass destruction, that is exactly why we're going into Syria now.

The difference is this time it is more likely to find weapons of mass destruction, because they've already used them on their own people.

 

What??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????????????????

"That despot government" is the side who is protecting Christians in Syria

http://news.yahoo.com/christian-valley-sends-sos-syrian-army-025035978.html

http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/syrian-rebels-to-christians-flee-or-die/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/syrians-behead-christians-helping-military-cia-shi/


Wow Just Wow. So many people have 0 clue what is going on in Syria.

 

Only this time, Russia, China and Iran stand on the opposition, and we don't have a U.N consensus.

Those are the MAJOR differences and why it's a geopolitical blunder to do this.

Germany didn't think WWI would break out if it supported Austria.

 

Assad is loyal to a minority of special kind of Muslims called the Alawites, as this Wikipedia reference states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawites

The Christians in Syria are on their own, but if America and Israel save the Rebels from Chemical attacks, they will leave the Christians alone in Syria in exchange for toppling their government, presumably.

 

Russia and China were against the war in Iraq by President Bush, there is no difference.

http://rense.com/general34/wwe.htm