Syria / Miley Cyrus Mtv Awards twerking alternate angle

[Chris_Crime]

President says we won't put troops on the ground, but we're ready to strike at any moment.
Says military action should be limited in scope.

President will seek authorization in Congress, so Congress will vote on America's involvement when back in session.

PM in Britain blocked by the parliament.

Obama: "I believe the people's representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with a belief that right makes might, not the other way around."

War? War. Or not? Won't know until Congress etc. etc.




Different Angle: Miley Cyrus Twerking On Stage Next To Band! MTV VMA 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dts2jq3_0xA

 

[De-Ting]

If you're not logged in, you can see the results anyway.

 

[UrbanMasque]

He's played politics on this one really well. "I want to act, bbuuuuttt i understand that approval for this is low so I'm going to let congress kill it or approve it in the house"

 

[Sourdeez]

"Obama: I decided that US should take military action against Syria. I have the authority to carry out an attack in Syria without congressional approval but the country will be stronger if we have the debate."

No President Obama, You actually do not have the authority to carry out a attack unless it is against an imminent threat against our nation. I am very happy you decided to go to congress for approval as that is how the government is suppose to work but lets stop playing these power perception games.

(Without congressional approval it would be considered an illegal military action, Something both Obama and Biden swore out against including to impeach presidents for. Said before they were elected)

“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,â€

 

[Longo_2_guns]

I still don't even get why we're getting involved in the first place. Didn't they learn from Iraq that it's not worth it to get into a war against a dictator just for oil?

 

[Lien]

I still don't even get why we're getting involved in the first place. Didn't they learn from Iraq that it's not worth it to get into a war against a dictator just for oil?

I think when white phosphorus attack are involved against civilians, this is going beyond the "war for oil" excuse. And yes, i am aware that Saddam used it back in 1988 in the Halabja massacre. No, we shouldn't of let that one slide. And no, the war on Iraq was stupid and useless, even the fall of Saddam's statue was freakin' staged. Syria isn't Iraq. Mubarak is claiming the rebels are using the gas attacks when both U.S sources and independent sources on the scene, like the doctors without borders and the red cross, are saying otherwise. We even got lived victims showing the burnt wounds on their arms, back and legs.
For goodness sake, France is actually SIDDING with the U.S this time and Germany is kinda leaning on their side as well. Can we stop the war on profit excuse here and realize the Syrians are begging for help? I'd say we go for it and have them run elections before the rebels will win and turn into a junta.

And hey sourdeez? Last time U.S did a Congressional declaration of war was in June 5, 1942. Guess how many time we went to war since? Now guess when was the last time the U.N backed up a U.S military action? October 31, 2011 during the Libyan conflict lead by Obama (before that it was Haiti in 2004 for a 5 days conflict, before that? it was 19 freaking 92 in Bosnia!). We don't have Oil drills In Libya and the Libyan actually went to vote to elect their officials 6 months after the end of the conflict for the first time since 1977. The U.N was pleased that the conflict ended quickly and that the electoral process went smoothly without a hitch. Remember how the U.S congress was strongly opposed to this? I'm sure the freed Libyan are saying otherwise.
If Obama's U.S military involvement from now on is more like this rather then... whatever Bush wanted for 8 years, I'm all for his military action in Syria, congressional approval or not. If Syria wants Mubarak down and are begging for international help, then let's do it before another Halabja happens.

 

[Wes]

Dear Miley Cyrus,

You have no ass, even an 85 lbs Asian girl has a better ass. And you look like a retard.

Sincerly,
The Internet

 

[Sourdeez]

As long as we follow the constitution, I will not dog on a administration for not following it. Past and present administrations.
I was just as much against illegal wars with the bush administration as I am with the current administration.

Today was a win and I am proud that the obama administration is seeking congressional approval.


As for the Miley bit. It seemed to me like a bad acid trip.

 

[madster111]

I still don't even get why we're getting involved in the first place. Didn't they learn from Iraq that it's not worth it to get into a war against a dictator just for oil?

Because the US economy is permanently war-based. Every time the United States is not at war, the economy struggles. Thus, war with whatever place is convenient at the time.
I've been saying since 2011 that before 2015, the US will go to war again. It was inevitable.

Thus, Syria. Was it here on GR i made a post last year detailing how the US would use some form of human rights violation (hypocrisy at its finest) or other excuse to go to war against Syria?

Knowing the history of your agencies, is it really impossible to believe that someone from the CIA was indirectly involved in the attack, to give the US a reason to go to war and avoid the (otherwise) inevitable 2016 market crash, which was/is all set to be much worse than the 2008 one?

To be honest, for a while there it could've gone one of 3 ways:
US conflict with allies against Syria (ANZUS comes into effect, US is guaranteed to get our SASR and supplies+logistics at an absolute minimum)
S.Korea requests further US support, war against N.Korea (the theoretical 'curb stomp war')
A war similar to Iraq, against a smaller nation for a purpose or ideal. (Nobody would help, we would provide the minimum support as per ANZUS)

Now, considering option 3 would draw world condemnation again, the choices were either N.Korea or Syria. Seems like Syria has won the coveted 'get fucked over' award and Kim Jong-Un can live another day to eat another donut.

 

[FrozenBacon]

As a black man I feel I have to say the only part of that dance that can classify as twerkign is the first 7 seconds, and even then that is a loose classification. During the rest of the dance no booty clapping and/or shaking would be obtained from any of those moves, even if she had enough ass mass for twerking.

I would have to classify this video as a white girl shaking her booty.

 

[Green_Lantern]

"Obama: I decided that US should take military action against Syria. I have the authority to carry out an attack in Syria without congressional approval but the country will be stronger if we have the debate."

No President Obama, You actually do not have the authority to carry out a attack unless it is against an imminent threat against our nation. I am very happy you decided to go to congress for approval as that is how the government is suppose to work but lets stop playing these power perception games.

(Without congressional approval it would be considered an illegal military action, Something both Obama and Biden swore out against including to impeach presidents for. Said before they were elected)

Wrong. He can order a military strike that lasts up to 60 days withouth Congressional approval with just notifying Crongress within 48 hours.

 

[Sourdeez]

Wrong. He can order a military strike that lasts up to 60 days withouth Congressional approval with just notifying Crongress within 48 hours.

No, your wrong.

Only if it is a imminent threat against our nation or possessions. Which it is not.

If you listen, Bident even tries to say it is a "threat against our nation and our world". Really stretching imminent threat.

The U.S. Constitution says it's up to Congress to declare war and to fund the military. The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows presidents to deploy troops when there's a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the country or its possessions, but then gives the executive only 60 days to get congressional approval or withdraw troops. Presidents in the past have become engaged in conflicts without first checking with Congress and have stretched the definition of "national emergency."

Interestingly, Obama himself made a similar argument while on the campaign trail six years ago. He told the Boston Globe in 2007 that no president can use military force absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nationâ€

 

[Chris_Crime]

I find it weird that a girl with very little ass can still manage to over-sexualize twerking, a phenomena already all sexed upped

 

[UrbanMasque]

As a black man I feel I have to say the only part of that dance that can classify as twerkign is the first 7 seconds, and even then that is a loose classification. During the rest of the dance no booty clapping and/or shaking would be obtained from any of those moves, even if she had enough ass mass for twerking.

I would have to classify this video as a white girl shaking her booty.

Yup. Additionally, I had no problems with anything she did up there. Prude f'n society.

 

[Green_Lantern]

Wrong. He can order a military strike that lasts up to 60 days withouth Congressional approval with just notifying Crongress within 48 hours.

No, your wrong.

Only if it is a imminent threat against our nation or possessions. Which it is not.

If you listen, Bident even tries to say it is a "threat against our nation and our world". Really stretching imminent threat.

The U.S. Constitution says it's up to Congress to declare war and to fund the military. The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows presidents to deploy troops when there's a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the country or its possessions, but then gives the executive only 60 days to get congressional approval or withdraw troops. Presidents in the past have become engaged in conflicts without first checking with Congress and have stretched the definition of "national emergency."

Interestingly, Obama himself made a similar argument while on the campaign trail six years ago. He told the Boston Globe in 2007 that no president can use military force absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nationâ€

 

[NickKmet]

I think what they're looking to do is something close to Bosnia, or even less involvement. No troops, mostly just Tomahawks and maybe some fighter bombers. If Assad escalates things with more chemical use, I expect that the strikes will step up significantly.

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

And accomplish what, exactly?


Gloria: "Daddy, did you know that 60% of the people murdered in this country in the last 10 years were killed by guns?" Archie: "Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"

"Of course it is not good that Assad's forces may have used chemical weapons, but it is not obvious why the choice of weaponry changes the calculus of U.S. interests in this case." -New Yawk Times

 

[NickKmet]

Oh, I agree. Once it became clear they were killing innocent civilians, we should have intervened on humanitarian grounds. The chemical weapons just give them an excuse that will make it difficult for other countries that support Assad's regime to put up significant or real opposition.

 

[UrbanMasque]

Once it became clear they were killing innocent civilians, we should have intervened on humanitarian grounds. The chemical weapons just give them an excuse that will make it difficult for other countries that support Assad's regime to put up significant or real opposition.

Civilian deaths happen in a civil war. Revolution's are bloody, but they are the only way to have a grassroots long lasting change. We shouldn't be intervening in civil wars. If humanitarian interest is your game, then I can point you to a significant amount of displaced Sudanese people. Chem weapons is a big deal, so much so that Bush fabricated its existence to pull us into a war with Iraq, b/c no one will justify outward aggression otherwise. In the world community -Whats the point of making a resolution against something terrible like this (chem weapons) and having the world community agree to it accepting it, if its not going to be enforced. I think this is terrible, but we shouldn't be the one enforcing it. Also, its hypocritical for the US to support it since we use chems and our allies (Israel - Britain) do as well.

 

[Green_Lantern]

Ultimately, I feel the US is a year too late to be getting involved....Now that Al Qeada is involved with the rebel forces we really should have no involvement unless the government goes through the UN.