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.
Anti-War Democrats are not new to me, but Anti-War Repubs? Errrr, that's kind of a new one on me. Perhaps you are more familiar, I am a Centrist and it's been a while since I was a Republican.
Centrist? Could have fooled me.
Not every republican is a old fossil like McCain who has been stuck in first gear for decades. Is the republican party turning a corner? Possibly.
Also, there is an election coming up and I think both sides are listening to the people and weighing their re-election. If they aren't listening, they should be. Americans are being very vocal about it not happening.
This military intervention is not a small issue. It may seem small to some people on the face of it - send a warning by dropping a few bombs and the Assad regime will back off - end of story, but it could end up being really big or some where in the middle.
The blame rests squarely on Barack Obama's shoulders for putting us out there in the first place. But since this President did in fact put us "out there" with his red line, we have no choice but to act, lest we let capable enemies such as Iran and others recognize our weakness as a nation. I, for one, believe that American credibility is on the line.
America needs to stop worrying about it's bruised ego and trying to fix the self-inflicted damage done to it.
Because the President put HIS foot in HIS mouth, we have to go along with it so that he doesn't look like a "punk"? Yeah, let's stick to what he said and continue to be the bully of the world. After all we don't want all those that died fighting useless wars and the billions of dollars spent on those useless wars to go to waste and have our enemies think that the US is a "punk". Best to maintain the bully status.
UN is stymied by Russia and China, Syria is not part of NATO and Arab League is calling for action. The US is the leader of the free World, like it or not. If Syria should escalate from civil war to international war, the US will get International support is prosecuting that event.
The Arab League is 'calling' for action. Big whoopdedoo. NATO has attacked non-NATO nations. Time to drop the 'leader of the free world' slogan. Leaders usually have someone or something following them. We're long past 'leader of the free world' both economically, diplomatically, and the way war is fought in 2013, militarily.
I just think, that when a President wants to go to war, we should give him a loaded .45, a parachute and a free trip to his war zone! I have a feeling that the world would be a much safer place. It is easy to fight a war with your mouth and not suffer physical risk. They could send a son or a daughter over in their place if they are too afraid to go themselves.
He could also order us out of Afghanistan before he started another conflict. What does he expect to gain from further involvement over there?
I just want to see his evidence and I want to hear the truth before I would back any war. It would also be great to know how many civilians we expect to kill as collateral damage. There is no doubt in my mind that we will kill far more civilians than any chemical weapon attack - even if Assad was responsible.
I did support action Iraq, and I still do, but I think the way it happened was wrong. Invading under false pretenses against international law was not the way to go. Endorsing action doesn't mean endorsing any action, that would be crazy. I endorse action in Syria to help civilians, but I wouldn't endorse actions like nuking it or carpet bombing the country.
If you can find something where I said differently I would like to see it. Thank you for trying to poison the well.
I never said you said anything differently. I asked you the question. If you say your position on Iraq did not follow a different set of principles than your position on Syria, I accept that.
U.S. credibility is on the line....as are our interests. Barack Obama painted us into this corner with his lead-from-the-back-of-the-pack philosophy. But more important than "credibility" is the very real situation that both our enemies and our allies are attempting to move away from the "petrodollar".....which is the only remaining source of U.S. influence in the world outside of brute military power. If we cede the power and the economic might of the petrodollar, then we are effectively ceding our power as a nation.
All the bluster about chemical weapons is real, and it should be addressed forthrightly. But the underlying "U.S. interest" is that of the petrodollar, and Syria's attempt to move away from trading oil in U.S. dollars. This is our "interest" and we should attempt to defend it.
U.S. credibility is on the line. Barack Obama painted us into this corner with his lead-from-the-back-of-the-pack philosophy. .
Thank goodness we have the Congress to make sure our credibility stays intact.
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.
