So...when will we be invading Syria...they're slaughtering protesters (enemies, weapons)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't wait to hear the war mongers embracing McCain calling those (possibly al Qaeda) rebels his heroes.
And this means what about Syria?
These people write an editorial painting Syria as a hotbed of anti-American jihadists and we're supposed to jump in aiding civilians who may well be those very same anti-American jihadists?
Sounds pretty damn stupid to me
I'm sure you've heard the Libyan rebels are no better and have elements of AQ within their ranks.
Imagine that, the POTUS, barack hussein obama, giving money, weapons and comfort to our enemies.
It states "Since 2003 it has helped thousands of jihadists from across the Arab world travel to Iraq to attack American soldiers. " and NOW US inaction is an issue? Where have these writers been since 2003? WHERE was their concern about Syrian aiding jihadists since 2003? And WHERE are your complaints about the lack of action against Syria since 2003? Why the sudden interest in that country?
No interest in Syria here. None in Libya either. I agree with the other poster, pull all our troops out of the middle east and let them all pummel one another to oblivion. Screw them all.
Don't you find it odd though how this POTUS is picking and choosing which civilians he feels are worthy of US intervention?
No interest in Syria here. None in Libya either. I agree with the other poster, pull all our troops out of the middle east and let them all pummel one another to oblivion. Screw them all.
Don't you find it odd though how this POTUS is picking and choosing which civilians he feels are worthy of US intervention?
Yeah, he ignores the slaughter in Iran and Syria, devout enemies of the US, but helps along the overthrow of our allies in Egypt and Yemen.
Because Syria is an indirect ally of the USA. When we need them to, they comply. In 1990, we sold them Lebanon in return for their assistance in the Gulf War. When things got shaky, we made them leave Lebanon in 2005. When we need Syria again, Lebanon will be sold right back to them and all this talk about "Lebanon's independence" will be abandoned.
Likewise, although Syria and Israel are enemy states, the current Syrian regime will never launch an attack into Israel nor will it allow any citizen to. Those who try to attack Israel would probably be killed by the Syrian regime before Israel could retaliate. Since Israel is the USA's baby in the region, whatever benefits it is what the USA will go with.
us wont get involved in syria because we are much more cozy with their leadership than libya.
and to paint liberals as supporting obama, I'd say ralph nader is a bigger liberal than obama and we all know what he called obama in 2008. I'm not going to repeat it here because its a pretty bad insult, but obama is sure acting like one with his foreign policy. Essentially copying the CFR playbook.
I seriously question how American President's can look at themselves in the mirror sometimes. This is a perfect example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
