US forces 'ready to strike Syria'

[hulagway]

---

reklamo mo kay lage mag apil-apil ang US,ang ilang presence ni create ni ug balance sa mga super power nga nasud nga kusog mo bully.

[M.A.D.]

Man... those zionists are getting desperate they are letting other nations do their wars for them, spend the costs for them... etc.

[Gharid]

reklamo mo kay lage mag apil-apil ang US,ang ilang presence ni create ni ug balance sa mga super power nga nasud nga kusog mo bully.

front rman na na lahi lahi cla ug idealism but the core of these two countries are as black as charcol.. trade partners bya na cla a war between US and China will never happen.. kita ray gi ilad aning mga kanahan..

a serpent with one body it just have two heads..

[godwhacker]

The Brits made the wrong choice this time IMO. The problem is that public is weary of conflict. Britain has sacrificed a lot over the years and there's not much appetite for intervention right now. Iraq.. or rather the twisting of truths in order to get a green light for military action has also created mistrust of intelligence.

Why should the US intervene:

1. It's the right thing to do.

2. Obama drew a red line on behalf of America. Not backing that up with action hurts the US globally.

another warmonger fool here in istorya... lols

[M.A.D.]

Honestly, I think this war or sortie won't be successful. There is a very high chance it won't succeed. The US is already suffering from a lagging economy and its trade deficit is still not going to subside. The more the US makes enemies everywhere in the world the faster the US dollar declines in value. The US knows the US dollar is no longer as potent as it was before and other superpowers such as china and russia are beginning to diversify from the US dollar.

The IMF sees that in the future there will finally be a world where there will not be one reserve currency but there will be a basket of reserve currencies consisting of the USD, EUR, RMB/CNY/CNH, RUB, INR, etc. While some of these are not fully convertible unlike the US dollar, some of them are beginning to liberalize their currency by slowly removing the control of the government of their currency via the central bank.

In the current economic situation, the easy money policies of the central bank led by the fed was potent at first but it is no longer as effective as it was before. The free market is beginning to see through all what the central banks have to offer but they are no longer listening. It seems that the government through the central bank can no longer wield much influence to determine how the financial system works as the market has shown.

The quagmire that is going on in the middle east is a way on which US and its arab state clients want to portray that they own the middle east, any other superpower such as Russia is not welcome to do business there. Same thing with africa, US is actively trying to kick china out because they want to keep africa to themselves. Unfortunately, the window for becoming a sole hegemony in the world has closed for the US and US knows it. In the future the world will no longer be dominated by a single superpower in a unipolar world but it will be a multipolar world dominated by regional superpowers.

[cebu_doki]

in US most people are now holding on gold, platinum. it can easily be encash.

[ghostie2472]

Haven't really following the news lately, domestic or international. I'm just wondering what's the US have to do with this mess? "Global Police" napud ni sila?

[M.A.D.]

Actually in economics, finance, international politics and diplomacy there are requisites that a reserve currency issuer such as the US has to fulfill to maintain its monopoly as being the world's only issuer of the reserve currency. One of this is being able to demonstrate its influence beyond its borders be it through persuasion(culture, media, pro-gay rights, etc) or coercion(economic sanctions, military actions, etc).

Every time the US fulfills these obligations such as waging war the US dollar goes up in value, most investors would flock to the US dollar, however this effect has a limit and it may have been breached a long time ago. The US no longer has the definite advantage over other countries in terms of technology and manufacturing. This is a critical period for the US as it begins to transition into a new type of economy that focuses more on innovation rather than manufacturing plus the fact that their debt is already astronomical.

Also, they can't balance the interests of their domestic economy with that of the international economy because each one has a different interest, the domestic requires less prices therefore less USD in circulation while the international requires more USD to facilitate international transactions. When they go to war the costs rises, leading to more money printing to finance these wars in other countries which leads to a higher trade deficit which devalues the US dollar because of increasing money supply.

The US is really in a difficult situation right now. Russia can choose to let the US get caught in the war and let the US stay in there indefinitely and let their economy hit a hard landing. The same thing with China they can just let the US go at it and wait until it will find it very hard or extremely difficult to sell its debts to foreign countries.

Haven't really following the news lately, domestic or international. I'm just wondering what's the US have to do with this mess? "Global Police" napud ni sila?

[godwhacker]

Republicans skeptical of Syria attack approval

While Obama has said that he seeks congressional approval for attacking Syria, he has not made it explicit whether he would use his authority as the commander-in-chief to attack Syria if Congress rejects his call for action.

Three Republican congressmen have expressed skepticism that US lawmakers would approve military action against Syria as President Barack Obama says he would seek congressional approval for such a measure.


Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), have predicted that US Congress would not approve military strikes against Syria.

On Saturday, Obama said he has decided that Washington should launch military strikes against Syria but he said that he would seek authorization for an attack from Congress when US lawmakers return from recess on September 9.

Obama formally submitted a draft resolution authorizing the use of military force against Syria to both the Senate and the House of Representatives on Saturday.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) both promised to schedule a vote soon after federal lawmakers return to Capitol Hill from recess.

“I don’t think they will [approve],” said Inhofe on Fox News Sunday.

“It may sound real easy when people like Secretary Kerry say this is going to be quick and we’re going to go in and we’re going to send a few cruise missiles and wash our hands and go home. It doesn’t work that way. This could be a war in the Middle East. It’s serious,” Inhofe added.

Rand Paul, who opposes a possible US military action against Syria, also said on NBC News’ Meet The Press that he believes the odds are “50/50” that US lawmakers at the House would approve the resolution but US senators “rubber stamp what [Obama] wants.”

Meanwhile, Peter King, a hawkish member of the House supporting military action against Syria, said on Fox News Sunday, “It is going to be difficult to get the vote through in Congress, especially when there is going to be time during the next nine days for opposition to build up to it.”

While Obama has said that he seeks congressional approval for attacking Syria, he has not made it explicit whether he would use his authority as the commander-in-chief to attack Syria if Congress rejects his call for action.

The US released an intelligence report on Friday alleging the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched a chemical weapons attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, killing 1,429 people. The Syrian government has strongly rejected the allegation.

US allegations come as United Nations experts have taken blood and urine samples from victims and soil samples from areas where chemical weapons were alleged to have been used. The samples will be tested in Europe.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) has also said that members of the US military have told him to vote against military intervention in Syria, arguing that Obama “hasn’t come close” to justifying war against Syria.

A number of US military officers, from captains to a four-star general, have also expressed serious concerns over the wisdom and the consequences of a possible US military strike against Syria.

President Assad said on Sunday that his country is capable of confronting any external aggression after over two years of dealing with foreign-backed “internal terrorism.”

- - - Updated - - -

Obama was forced to ‘back off’ initial plans for Syria war

An American author and investigative journalist says US President Barack Obama “was forced to back off” US plans to attack Syria as early as last Thursday because there is a growing public opposition to a military action against the Middle Eastern country.


Last week, unnamed senior US officials told NBC News that Washington had planned to launch missile strikes against Syria “as early as Thursday.”

However, on Saturday, Obama said he would seek authorization for an attack against Syria from Congress as he announced his decision that the US should launch military strikes against Syria.

A US Congress vote on a draft resolution to authorize the use of military force against Syria could be scheduled after US lawmakers return from their recess on September 9.

“Obama was forced to back off. He has now said that Congress would have to approve an attack on Syria. And, I think behind this is a growing doubt about any evidence that Syria was behind the gas attack,” said Dave Lindorff in a phone interview with Press TV on Sunday.

The US released an intelligence report on Friday alleging the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched a chemical weapons attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, killing 1,429 people. The Syrian government has strongly rejected the allegation.

“It’s now increasingly looking like it may have been the rebels who accidently set it off because of weapons they’d been given by Saudi Arabia that they didn’t know how to handle. And, I think as that evidence grows, we may see even more opposition growing to the idea of a US attack,” Lindorff added.

There has been growing public opposition to a possible US attack on Syria. People in the US and around the world have taken to the streets to protest against a US military action against Syria.

Meanwhile, some US congressmen and members of the US military have warned against the consequences of such a measure. British MPs in the House of Commons also voted Thursday against military action against Syria.

[jeremy lin]

cge raman ni og ready ang USA pero walay strike