North Korea threats - An AXIS OF EVIL plot for diversion.

Cork boy 55

First some memory refreshment

The axis of evil
(as designated by George W. Bush in his SU speech as POTUS in 2002)
Iran, Iraq, North Korea

Extended Axis of Evil
(as designated by Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton in his speech 2002)
Libya, Red Cuba, Syria


Now...
Syria is currently engaged in a brutal democide against its population
who have demanded democracy and freedom and where met with death.
Syria is backed by its blood sponsor Iran.
The War there is entering a decisive phase in which the Syrian regime
is now fighting for its life and the International community of free and democratic nations is considering an intervention to save lives and bring freedom to the Syrian people.

The conspiracy is that the current North Korean threats are designed to divert Allied resources, eyes, means, and intent away from the middle east thus greatly decreasing the odds of a intervention in Syria.
and that North Korea is being rewarding by Iranians and Syrians for this in some fashion.



Lets remember the close co-operation past between the assad gang and the North Korean state.
for example
It was after all North korea which built Syrias Nuke facility thankfully destroyed by the Israelites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

and

Deep in a tunnel under Mount Myohang, in North Korea, its regime has preserved as a museum piece the Kalashnikov assault rifle and pistols sent as gifts from President Hafez al-Assad of Syria to Kim Il Sung in the early years of their friendship.

Today North Korea and Syria are ruled by the sons of their late 20th century dictators, men who share more than just a common fear of the United States and a fondness for authoritarian family rule.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1897421/posts

edit
I came up with this myself and have read it nowhere.

morlock_

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Now...
Syria is currently engaged in a brutal democide against its population
who have demanded democracy and freedom and where met with death.
Syria is backed by its blood sponsor Iran.
The War there is entering a decisive phase in which the Syrian regime
is now fighting for its life and the International community of free and democratic nations is considering an intervention to save lives and bring freedom to the Syrian people.

Freedom like Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans and Libyans? Freedom to live in perpetual terror everyday and do as your told?

Here's a list of countries off the top of my head that don't allow people to vote and are good friends with the US and Israel.

• Saudi Arabia
• Qatar
• Uganda
• Bahrain
• Oman
• UAE
• Uzbekistan

Why do you think US and Israel are happy to work with these nations despite their oppressive regimes?

These countries are not democratic and the US/Israel are quite happy to leave it that way.

If Iran still had a pro-western monarchy, they'd be a friend too.
US and Israel don't care about democracy and freedom, they never have.

They just want pro-western regimes installed in every country so that their corporations can profit from the natural resources and people, that's your "freedom" and "democracy" . . .

Additionally, Israel is not a secular state so don't expect everyone to have the same rights living there.
If you're not Jewish, you do not have the same rights in Israel...does that sound democratic to you?

The conspiracy is that the current North Korean threats are designed to divert Allied resources, eyes, means, and intent away from the middle east thus greatly decreasing the odds of a intervention in Syria.
and that North Korea is being rewarding by Iranians and Syrians for this in some fashion.

Ironically, recent actions from North Korea have been secretly welcomed by the US. It can justify large scale deployment of Navy in the disputed South China sea.

Jonny7

morlock_ wrote: »

Here's a list of countries off the top of my head that don't allow people to vote and are good friends with the US and Israel.

• Saudi Arabia
• Qatar
• Uganda
• Bahrain
• Oman
• UAE
• Uzbekistan

Just to point out, Israel doesn't have diplomatic relations with Saudi, nor Bahrain, nor UAE.

morlock_

Jonny7 wrote: »

Just to point out, Israel doesn't have diplomatic relations with Saudi, nor Bahrain, nor UAE.

Haaretz published a story about Bahrain links to Israel

On February 15, 2005, U.S. ambassador to Bahrain William Monroe met with the leader of the small kingdom, Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa - the same king whose position is now threatened by popular protests.
After that meeting, Monroe wrote to Washington that "He [the king] revealed that Bahrain already has contacts with Israel at the intelligence/security level (ie with Mossad) and indicated that Bahrain will be willing to move forward in other areas."

Israel also has good relations with Ugandan dictator Museveni

Eitan, now a businessman, helped organize Museveni's visit to Israel. He has been trying to establish business operations in Uganda and to set up a cattle ranch in the country.

This is the second visit to Israel for Museveni, who has been Uganda's president for 26 years. On his previous visit, in 2003, Museveni met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and with Netanyahu, who was then foreign minister, mainly to discuss Israeli arms sales to Uganda.

"Freedom!...Democracy!..Human rights!... Liberation!....rar rar rar...har har bleh blah blah"

Jonny7

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The conspiracy is that the current North Korean threats are designed to divert Allied resources, eyes, means, and intent away from the middle east thus greatly decreasing the odds of a intervention in Syria.
and that North Korea is being rewarding by Iranians and Syrians for this in some fashion.

Well the current North Korean threats are directly a result of the US/Chinese sanctions.

I would imagine the North Korean hierarchy cares a heck of a lot more for their personal bank accounts than solidarity with a Middle Eastern country.

morlock_

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well the current North Korean threats are directly a result of the US/Chinese sanctions.

I would imagine the North Korean hierarchy cares a heck of a lot more for their personal bank accounts than solidarity with a Middle Eastern country.

Someone proposed the US/South Korea were deliberately provoking North Korea in order to draw attention away from wide scale Syrian deaths over the last month. (not that I support that theory)

There was an interesting comment made not long ago by a US army veteran Eric Harroun fighting for Al-Nusra which wants to overthrow Assad and create a Pan-Islamic state under Sharia law.

Al-Nusra even has Chinese nationals fighting for it...
To me, they're just a bunch of mercenaries terrorising Syria, killing civilians and bombing infrastructure with the financial support of pro-Zionist nations.

Here is Eric doing the good work of Zionism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XnMCsd8mV0

Harroun at the time shrugged off a question about fighting alongside Al Qaeda terrorists who have joined the Syrian rebellion, saying, "the U.S. plays both sides, too." He said the offshoot of the terror group behind the 9/11 attacks welcomed him.

Whatever could Eric mean?

Jonny7

morlock_ wrote: »

There was an interesting comment made not long ago by a US army veteran Eric Harroun fighting for Al-Nusra which wants to overthrow Assad and create a Pan-Islamic state under Sharia law.

Al-Nusra have been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, and are relatively new to the conflict. Many in their ranks are vets of the Iraq insurgency whether under the Sunni groups or broad Al Qaeda umbrella - vicious bastards.

They aren't "Zionist" supported. The last thing Israel wants to see is these particular brand of guys forming an Islamic state right next to them.

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Al-Nusra have been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, and are relatively new to the conflict. Many in their ranks are vets of the Iraq insurgency whether under the Sunni groups or broad Al Qaeda umbrella - vicious bastards.

They aren't "Zionist" supported. The last thing Israel wants to see is these particular brand of guys forming an Islamic state right next to them.

Unless it gives them an excuse to act out?
Just theorizing here.

morlock_

Jonny7 wrote: »

They aren't "Zionist" supported. The last thing Israel wants to see is these particular brand of guys forming an Islamic state right next to them.

I don't believe the Neoconservative/israeli lobby think tanks in US know the damage they're doing to the future and security of Israel...

The Arab Spring of 2005, published in 2005 obviously...

The democracy project is, of course, just beginning.

A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile General Pinochet eight years after he's left office, and becomes a human-rights hero — a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone.

Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing — Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria, and, until yesterday, Saddam and his sons — nothing.

No sympathy. No action. Indeed virulent hostility to America's courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.

The author makes you believe it's in the interests of America to be the police man of the world on behalf of Israel.
It's like US are just "stupid mule" as Brzezinski once commented...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEGiJ2ZxDM

Chuck Hagel said the following in 2008.

Iran. I know it’s easy to dismiss Iran - oh we’re not going to talk to Iran, they support terrorists, they support Hezbollah, they’ve got their tentacles wrapped around every problem in the Middle East that is anti-Israel, anti- the United States.

Those are realities. Those are facts.
Now we’ve got a choice here.

We can continue to push Iran out, back, and say to Iran “we will give you the privilege of sitting down and talking with us based on our preconditions.” As that goes on, Iran continues, most likely, to develop nuclear activities, it continues to enhance its position with a significant population in the Middle East, which is a direct threat against Israel, a direct threat against the interests of the United States, a threat against Iraq.

In fact, the United States solved two of Iran’s biggest problems: Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban.

Why did Iran cooperate with the United States and work with the United States after the US first invaded Afghanistan?

Because it was in their interests. I don’t think it was because they wanted to do us a favor. It was clearly in the interests of Iran not to have that problem on their Eastern border. Drugs, terrorists - that is not in the interest of Iran.

That somehow Christians are more noble than Jews, or Jews more noble than Muslims.

I don’t think so.
I think all people love their children and their families, and want a better world.

That has led me to one very fundamental observation about the world and somehow it eludes us in this great dilemma in the Middle East, and that is the human condition.

...when you look at the world today - 6.5 billion people - the regions of the world that have been left behind since World War II, that in fact have not enjoyed human liberties and advancement of the human condition, an increase in the standard of living, and hope and possibilities. They are the most troubled areas of the world and we know where they are: the Middle East, much of Asia, Africa, a good part of South America.

It is about the human condition, and when we do not deal with the human condition, the human condition will deal with us.

Senator Chuck Hagel, rumored to be President Obama’s nominee to serve as Secretary of Defense, is under attack for his views on Israel. Certain Jewish organizations and conservative commentators have voiced concerns about his support for Israel, even coming close to calling him anti-Semitic for his remarks about the “Jewish lobby.”

more here

You can read a good analysis of the "Arab Spring" here

First of all, I don’t believe that there was a genuine revolution in Egypt in the first place. Like the “colour revolutions” in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere, the so-called “Arab Spring” was orchestrated by the regime change specialists at the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict and the wider network of groups engaged in what is euphemistically called “democracy promotion.”

I think you have 2 camps.
1 wants to bomb Iran directly and the other wants to try regime change through other means.

I can't imagine why attacking Iran would be good for Israel in any way at all. I've tried to rationalise the opinions of "likudniks" and die hard conservatives like John Bolton who advocate airstrikes or carefully targeted "surgical" strikes....

These people are stupid if they think dropping a dozen bunker busters on nuclear sites in Iran is going to solve anything at this point.

Jonny7

morlock_ wrote: »

I can't imagine why attacking Iran would be good for Israel in any way at all.

I may be veering too off topic here (or some would argue on topic for this forum)

Speaking very frankly..

The Israelis have a siege mentality - historically and geographically

Persecution, wars, genocide - they pretty much had the bad end of the stick as a race for much of this millenium (generally speaking, not victimised excuses) Now that they have their tract of land - they are not going to let anyone or anything threaten them..

Hence, the thought of their arch-enemies getting a weapon capable of wiping them out or being able to pass that weapon onto someone else (however far-fetched and unlikely) - they do not want even the vaguest possibility of this ever happening - so they aren't going to let it happen.

They know this, the Iranians know this and the world knows this.

As much as we all love to dislike, complain and get frustrated at the "unfairness" and hypocrisy of the Israeli government, the "Zionists", and so on - they do not care one jot for international opinion on the matter of their own security. They have learnt one surefire method - force - and it works, in the short term anyway, and that's good enough for them.

North Korea is a different kettle of fish entirely.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

They aren't "Zionist" supported. The last thing Israel wants to see is these particular brand of guys forming an Islamic state right next to them.

1- There will be no Islamic state.

The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front
- Oded Yinon, The Zionist Plan For The Middle East.

2- The opposite is true. Israel has been planning for decades the destruction of Syria. See the clean break document, drafted by American Neocon Israel-firsters who later found themselves in the Bush administration for Netanyahu in the 90's. In "A Clean Break" Perle, Wurmser etc advocated attacking Syria with Israeil proxy forces AFTER Saddam Hussein had been removed from power.

This is from a follow up document called Coping with Crumbling States:
A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant from the same group
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat2.htm

The issue is not whether Syria in its Baathist form will survive or prevail in the long run. Like communism, Baathism’s days are numbered. The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance.

Seymour Hersh revealed that by 2007 this "redirection" of supporting radical Sunnis against the Shia had already begun.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh#ixzz2PRHApJbm

The Zionist plan that went back to the 80's.

"Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us".

Brown Bomber

General Wesley Clark's revelation of the 7 states to be destroyed in 5 years is also important information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8

Tzar Chasm

just'a'thought here, the us has bases in afghanistan, krygistan & kazhakstan and uzbekistan with friendly regimes in pakistan and south korea, thailand is not overly hostile to us interests.

so whilst people have been concentrating on the us encircling iran could there be a bigger picture of getting boots on chinas doorstep?

currently most of the bases are to chin as less/populus and industrial west,

a bit of freedom spreading in north korea and burma would radically alter the us ability to strike at china.

studiorat

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

a bit of freedom spreading in north korea and burma would radically alter the us ability to strike at china.

Other than China is about 4.5 times bigger.

Tzar Chasm

4.5 times bigger than what?

burma and north korea could be used as staging points for both ground troops and missiles

Jonny7

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

4.5 times bigger than what?

burma and north korea could be used as staging points for both ground troops and missiles

NK is directly threatening the US with a nuclear strike - it's not like a reason has to be manufactured

As for Burma - it's been reforming since last year, the first private newspapers have just been reintroduced after 50 years

Tzar Chasm

well they invaded iraq on the premis that they might be capable of a nuclear strike at some point

so why aren't red hot shards of freedom being spread the length and breadth of north korea, when they have clearly demonstrated that they are willing and able to nuke americans

Jonny7

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

well they invaded iraq on the premis that they might be capable of a nuclear strike at some point

so why aren't red hot shards of freedom being spread the length and breadth of north korea, when they have clearly demonstrated that they are willing and able to nuke americans

Only if you pretend the two situations are identical (and possibly have a time machine)

namloc1980

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

well they invaded iraq on the premis that they might be capable of a nuclear strike at some point

so why aren't red hot shards of freedom being spread the length and breadth of north korea, when they have clearly demonstrated that they are willing and able to nuke americans

Have they???

Tzar Chasm

ok able might be subjective, but the have tested a missile delivery system capable of striking american bases in south korea and they have tested a few nuclear weapons, whether they can combine the two elements waits to be seen, but if all america does is posture then it will seriously prompt iran to develop a nuclear deterrant

Jonny7

They reckon the North Koreans haven't got a handle on the miniaturisation yet in order to get a nuclear warhead onto a missile

Also their ballistic missile space program has a 20% success rate.

A far bigger worry would be their chemical weapon capability.

Sonics2k

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

well they invaded iraq on the premis that they might be capable of a nuclear strike at some point

so why aren't red hot shards of freedom being spread the length and breadth of north korea, when they have clearly demonstrated that they are willing and able to nuke americans

Because Obama knows that Iraq was a disaster for the US over the last 10 years and isn't too keen on another war.

Contrary to CT belief, the man is not a war monger.

Torakx

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because Obama knows that Iraq was a disaster for the US over the last 10 years and isn't too keen on another war.

Contrary to CT belief, the man is not a war monger.

What do you base that on?

old_aussie

The west wants the "war" in Syria to continue.

The muslim terrorists are being sucked into coming to Syria to fight the good "Holy" war in the name of allah.

The west doesn't have to find and chase the muslim terrorists, the stupid terrorists are coming to the killing fields(Syria). Makes it kind of easy to kill them in one spot and not have to tidy up after.

weisses

old_aussie wrote: »

The west wants the "war" in Syria to continue.

The muslim terrorists are being sucked into coming to Syria to fight the good "Holy" war in the name of allah.

The west doesn't have to find and chase the muslim terrorists, the stupid terrorists are coming to the killing fields(Syria). Makes it kind of easy to kill them in one spot and not have to tidy up after.

How do you know that it is Terrorists who go over there and fight and not ordinary muslims ?

thiarfearr

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

well they invaded iraq on the premis that they might be capable of a nuclear strike at some point

so why aren't red hot shards of freedom being spread the length and breadth of north korea, when they have clearly demonstrated that they are willing and able to nuke americans

I'd imagine part of the reason being that Seoul will be reduced to rubble within the first day of conflict?

North Korea aren't yet capable of nuking America

Sonics2k

Torakx wrote: »

What do you base that on?

Based on the fact he has yet to declare war on any country in his 4+ years in office despite various calls for it.

That and he did say the war in Iraq was too high a cost and that he's been slowly withdrawing troops from the country.

Minor incursions to Libya don't count as declaring war, and they stayed out of Egypt too.

Combine that with the fact he's staying silent on the North Korea issue until completely necessary. Rather he is preparing for an attack against the US, and not actively preparing to invade anyone.

So yeah, he's not a war monger.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

Based on the fact he has yet to declare war on any country in his 4+ years in office despite various calls for it.

That and he did say the war in Iraq was too high a cost and that he's been slowly withdrawing troops from the country.

Minor incursions to Libya don't count as declaring war, and they stayed out of Egypt too.

Combine that with the fact he's staying silent on the North Korea issue until completely necessary. Rather he is preparing for an attack against the US, and not actively preparing to invade anyone.

So yeah, he's not a war monger.

Minor Incursions?
It's called war - and an unconstitutional war and an abuse of executive powers by Obama at that.

Stayed out of Egypt?
Try supporting the hired dictator until it was untenable and then putting forward his deputy, a torturer, as the compromise.

In short Obama is a text-book "war-monger". Piles of corpses -- including the corpses of his own citizens he ordered dead -- in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan attest to this.

Jonny7

Pulled out of Iraq, currently in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan, not taking military action on nuclear threats from North Korea. Has re-established two decade old links with the Somali government, Has the support of the Yemeni, new Libyan, and even Pakistani government.

Here's his statement on Syria, despite 2 years of predictions to the contrary on these forums.

What we've done is organize the international community, saying Assad has to go. We've mobilized sanctions against that government. We have made sure that they are isolated. We have provided humanitarian assistance, and we are helping the opposition organize. But ultimately, Syrians are going to have to determine their own future. Everything we're doing, we're doing in consultation with our partners, including Israel and Turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this. Now, what we're seeing taking place in Syria is heartbreaking, and that's why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. I am confident that Assad's days are numbered, but we also have to recognize that for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step.

International opinion and polls have indicated a complete shift from overwhelming negative to broadly positive. He's actually reducing the size of the US military, got rid of the Czech and Polish missile plans. Mended most of the post Iraq war fractured relationships with "Old Europe" and to a large extent Russia. And even the French populace like him.

Not a president I'd label a war-monger.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Pulled out of Iraq, currently in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan, not taking military action on nuclear threats from North Korea. Has re-established two decade old links with the Somali government, Has the support of the Yemeni, new Libyan, and even Pakistani government.

Here's his statement on Syria, despite 2 years of predictions to the contrary on these forums.

What we've done is organize the international community, saying Assad has to go. We've mobilized sanctions against that government. We have made sure that they are isolated. We have provided humanitarian assistance, and we are helping the opposition organize. But ultimately, Syrians are going to have to determine their own future. Everything we're doing, we're doing in consultation with our partners, including Israel and Turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this. Now, what we're seeing taking place in Syria is heartbreaking, and that's why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. I am confident that Assad's days are numbered, but we also have to recognize that for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step.

International opinion and polls have indicated a complete shift from overwhelming negative to broadly positive. He's actually reducing the size of the US military, got rid of the Czech and Polish missile plans. Mended most of the post Iraq war fractured relationships with "Old Europe" and to a large extent Russia. And even the French populace like him.

Not a president I'd label a war-monger.

Your argument is extremely weak in face of his actual warmongering. He was ejected from Iraq and was only following through on Bush's agreements anway and there are still thousand of state department contractors there now. Troop numbers in Afghanistan are more or less the same now as when he took office since he added nearly 40,000 in his first term and the future is unclear. Not responding to the yearly blather from North Korea doesn't mean much and as for the "support" of the client states you mentioned, well that means absolutely nothing.

Even more worthless is Obama's quote as everything the liar says is worthless.

“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” — candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

Torakx

“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” — candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

I guess thats where terrorists come in handy.

Brown Bomber

Torakx wrote: »

I guess thats where terrorists come in handy.

Yeah. That and total disregard for the Consitution you've sworn to uphold, a complete disregard for the people who voted for you on the basis of your lies and a willingness to abuse your Presidential power to kill people overseas.

Y'see while Obama said
“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” — candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

He actually did the exact opposite when he declared war on Libya illegally. There was no threat to the nation and Obama didn't go through Congress.

studiorat

Y'see while Obama said
“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” — candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

He actually did the exact opposite when he declared war on Libya illegally. There was no threat to the nation and Obama didn't go through Congress.

That's just opinion and twisted logic. No one declared war on Libya.

Bomber is fooled or trying to fool you by craftily twisting his words here.

Only congress in the states has the power to declare war. The constitution says the president is commander and chief of the army and navy.

According to Thomas Woods
"Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — which refers to the president as the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States' — has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html

Please provide proof that Obama declared war on Libya. Actual proof war was declared.

Torakx

In general I think America needs to keep their noses out of everyone elses business.So I tend to agree generally with what he is saying.
Even if officially it was not correct, I see them as being at war in Syria,maybe not in the traditional way.

studiorat

Torakx wrote: »

Even if officially it was not correct, I see them as being at war in Syria,maybe not in the traditional way.

What's at war but not in a traditional way actually mean?

According to Syria's envoy to Tehran, Assad is still in power thanks to the assistance of Iran, Russia and China. So using the same logic you have are we to believe that Iran, Russia and China are also at war?

How many Russian military staff are stationed Syria? Are they at war also?

I think you'd agree that it's not just the US who needs to keep their noses out of other peoples business.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah. That and total disregard for the Consitution you've sworn to uphold, a complete disregard for the people who voted for you on the basis of your lies and a willingness to abuse your Presidential power to kill people overseas.

Y'see while Obama said
“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” — candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

He actually did the exact opposite when he declared war on Libya illegally. There was no threat to the nation and Obama didn't go through Congress.

Obama never declared war on Libya.

Technically France and the UN declared war, the US offered assistance.

studiorat

Sonics2k wrote: »

Obama never declared war on Libya.

Technically France and the UN declared war, the US offered assistance.

No one in the UN security council opposed.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

No one in the UN security council opposed.

... The No-Fly Zone.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

Obama never declared war on Libya.

Technically France and the UN declared war, the US offered assistance.

Define "war".

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

That's just opinion and twisted logic. No one declared war on Libya.

Bomber is fooled or trying to fool you by craftily twisting his words here.

Only congress in the states has the power to declare war. The constitution says the president is commander and chief of the army and navy.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html

Please provide proof that Obama declared war on Libya. Actual proof war was declared.

I see you've reverted back to quoting me and then speaking of me in the 3rd person.

I'm not arsed either way but if that was was directed towards me as implied by quoting me and you want me to respond I suggest you have the common decency to address me properly.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Define "war".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He actually did the exact opposite when he declared war on Libya illegally. There was no threat to the nation and Obama didn't go through Congress.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Obama never declared war on Libya.

Technically France and the UN declared war, the US offered assistance.

I'm just pointing out.

You said he declared war, when he didn't. France did, and the US, UK and a few others assisted them.

I like how you sprout out about Obama being bad, when others actually did invade, but you chose to ignore this to focus on him. You biased is getting tiresome. We get it, you don't like him. I was no fan of Bush, but I didn't blame him for everything going wrong.

Penn

Calm it down, both of you. Discuss the topic, not each other.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Define "war".

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82914163&postcount=1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65341402&postcount=1

Perhaps a definition of what it means to "declare war" would be more appropriate first. Defining war would be pointless in this discussion.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/05/13/obama_declares_war_on_cheerios

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIOYsK2TPQw

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm just pointing out.

You said he declared war, when he didn't. France did, and the US, UK and a few others assisted them.

I like how you sprout out about Obama being bad, when others actually did invade, but you chose to ignore this to focus on him. You biased is getting tiresome. We get it, you don't like him. I was no fan of Bush, but I didn't blame him for everything going wrong.

???

I was only asking you to define "war". I was thinking we could see how your definition does or does not apply in Libya.

I take it you aren't going to do this then?

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???

I was only asking you to define "war". I was thinking we could see how your definition does or does not apply in Libya.

I take it you aren't going to do this then?

I'll save it for another thread that suits the question, as Penn requested.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82914163&postcount=1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65341402&postcount=1

Perhaps a definition of what it means to "declare war" would be more appropriate first. Defining war would be pointless in this discussion.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/05/13/obama_declares_war_on_cheerios

Wow. A different context giving a different meaning :eek:

If you want to be pedantic you can replace "declare war" with the more appropriate term "make war". The initial point is the same.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'll save it for another thread that suits the question, as Penn requested.

He didn't indicate that you can't give a definition of "war".

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic you can replace "declare war" with the more appropriate term "make war". The initial point is the same.

More nonsense and twisting words, very poor. In the context of the post in question he doesn't need congress' approval to "make war". Once again the hyperbole we can expect. If the poster wasn't so partial to exaggeration why did he say Obama "declared war" in the first place? Because he knows very well that there is a difference.

I suppose the same poster thinks Belgium also declared war on Libya. Denmark and Bulgaria too. NORWAY DECLARES WAR ON LIBYA!!!

Obama need approval from congress within sixty days, not beforehand. Congress rebuked the president for the military action in Libya because for the most they didn't want to stretch the military thin. Yet they still sanctioned the funds for the US intervention alongside NATO and members of the Arab League.

Furthermore in that same context of the whole thread "make" and "declare" are very different. Considering North Korea have declared war on South Korea.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

More nonsense and twisting words,

How is it twisting words? I am correcting myself. I used "declaring war" too loosely and have recalibrated to "making war". If you prefer we can use Obama's own term "a military attack".

I take it you agree with the initial point then?

Obama's

total disregard for the Consitution you've sworn to uphold, a complete disregard for the people who voted for you on the basis of your lies and a willingness to abuse your Presidential power to kill people overseas.

I take it that you also will refuse to define "war" like the other guy?

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I take it that you also will refuse to define "war" like the other guy?

I've already addressed that if you would once again please take the time to read what's written and try and assimilate the information.

As for agreeing with an initial point there's so much embellishment there it's quite hard to figure out what exactly the point is that you're trying to make. What Obama said during his campaign in the context of Iran is irrelevant. The minutiae of US constitutional law is of no interest to me. Any point you think you're trying to make is just fluff. The plain fact of the matter is neither Obama or the US government declared war on Libya period.

So before this thread goes completely off topic I point out the following:
There was already a civil war in Libya. In case BB didn't realize. What he also doesn't seem to realize is that the UN security resolution 1973 wasn't just a no fly zone as he has tried to point out aalready. It authorized whatever force was needed to ”protect civilians and civilian populated areas,” not just to impose a no-fly zone. The authorization of an "occupying force" was explicitly excluded. However much of the mainstream media seems to have mis-understood that this didn't actually remove the possibility of military forces on the ground. Occupation as opposed to colonialism or annexation of a territory.

MonaPizza

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well the current North Korean threats are directly a result of the US/Chinese sanctions.

I would imagine the North Korean hierarchy cares a heck of a lot more for their personal bank accounts than solidarity with a Middle Eastern country.

But why are there sanctions?