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.
Bonehead, doesn't have the votes in the house.
Reid, doesn't have the votes in the Senate.
..and this is like a sad reality show titled "Amateur Hour." Assad is moving everything Obama claims he wants to bomb. Why? Because Obama told Assad he was going to bomb them, and gave him plenty of time, with advanced warning, to move them.
This is all being done to make Obama look tough by backing up his extremely vague red line threat.
Not really. Populations around the world are imploding.
"In Italy, there are more deaths than births every year. In Japan, people buy more adult diapers than diapers for babies. China’s population will get very old and then rapidly contract. By 2050, one out of every 4 of its citizens will be over the age of 65. The United Nations projects that by the year 2100, Poland will have lost one-quarter of its population. Thirty years ago, Iran’s fertility rate was 6.5. Two generations later it has rapidly declined to 1.88. Around the world populations are contracting. The US would be on the verge of shrinking, too, if it wasn’t for Hispanic immigrants. But, their fertility patterns become more like the US native population after the first generation arrives. Governments around the world have tried some very interesting incentives to get people to have more children but most have been unsuccessful. People just don’t want more kids and the more education they have, the less likely they are to have them."
Read: What To Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster by Jonathan V Last
Somehow, these words were attributed to me in your response, but these are not my words ... someone else's thoughts tacked onto the end of my original post.
Want to know the game plan after the lobbing of a few missles. Haven't heard it, yet or whether there is even a game plan. I don't care what Cantor has to say about anything.
1. What happens if Assad is dead?
2. What happens if Assad is still alive?
3. What happens if someone attacks Israel in retaliation?
4. Who exactly are we arming in the resistance?
5. What is the expected reaction from Russia, China and Iran if we do attack and are all of those actions covered in some plan?
"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey couldn’t answer what exactly the U.S. was seeking in Syria Tuesday during questioning from Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) about a resolution authorizing military action there."
"We don’t believe we are going to war in the classic sense of taking American troops and America to war… It’s limited.” The answer hardly satisfied Mr. Paul. “By doing so you announce in advance that your goal is not winning,” he told the secretary of state. “I think the last 50 years of secretaries of defense would say if your goal is not to win, then you shouldn’t be involved.” After the heated exchange, Mr. Kerry turned Gen. Dempsey. “General, do you want to speak to that, alter that?” he asked. Gen. Dempsey quickly replied, “No, not really, secretary. Thank you for offering.”
I should not have to point out to anyone that the "real" reasons for any war are never actually announced publicly, with the narrative offered the public being pure pretense. But you can bet your last federal reserve counterfeit dollar that the good general has a pretty good idea of what this is about, even if he is not fully aware of ALL of the intricacies and connecting goals .... and I say ALL, because there is generally more than one reason driving the decision to engage military action.
The first thing people need to do, yet fail to do time and again is to ask themselves the appropriate questions and analyze the situation thoroughly, if they want to see through the veil, and understand that there is more to this than meets the eye, or that has been discussed. Break it down ... LOGICALLY ....
OK ... we have tremendous international opposition to US military action against Syria, including the UN's refusal to legitimize it with a resolution, to go along with overwhelming opposition among the American people, including military personnel, soldiers AND officers. We've also seen the British parliament reject a request for permission to join in the military operation ... this is UNPRECEDENTED in modern history ... the US and the British have never had such division, and have always walked lock step in the case of war, yet the Obama administration is insistent upon this military incursion in spite of the political opposition from all sides. Couple this with the most remarkable about face in congress to include republican support for the war, and you cannot help but conclude that there is a strategic significance to push forward this war. Given all of this, no one with an ounce of common sense could possibly buy this "chemical weapons use" excuse as the reason driving the war drums. What is wrong with people these days? Has everyone lost the capacity for rudimentary logic and simple deduction? There are obviously high stakes at play here .... certainly not anything involved with chemical weapons or even the nonsense about Obama saving face and appearing strong .... if this were about that, not a single republican would come to Obama's aid by supporting his call for war. God this is so simple, it shouldn't take 2 seconds for any thinking person to see through this contrived nonsense about sarin gas.
The truth is, Syria is a key area for furthering a much larger agenda that has multiple strategic elements and implications, with the overall agenda being the ongoing struggle between western and eastern interests, specifically Russia, and ties back to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Now, if anyone is actually interested in those details, I'd be happy to elaborate, but at this point, if the majority still insist on debating and parroting these nonsensical excuses like a bunch of brain dead carnival barkers, I'll not waste my time.
If Obama didn't want to go to war with Syria they would be against it too. People love to root for their teams, especially people that are unable to think for themselves.
We are against going to war with Syria because it's the wrong thing to do. It's irrelevant what Bush would have done. I realize the concept of having principles is difficult to understand for many liberals, but that's the reason we are against war with Syria.
See, both your President and your Vice President publicly said that Bush had no authority to attack a nation without congressional approval. Then they got into office and attacked Libya. Without congressional approval.
And unlike Obama, Bush did get congressional approval for the attacks he made.
So sorry to inform you that your attempt to say conservatives are hypocrites is a failure. The hypocrites here are the Democrats.
Wrong. We are not talking about an invasion of Syria, simply air and missile stikes to deter the Syrian Dictator from using WMDs against his own people. By the way, the "We" you refer to does not include many Republicans, including the Republican Leadership, which back the plan. Oh and just to remind you "We", the President IS getting Congressional Approval so everything is above board and legal. Oh and just another reminder, The President does not need Congressional approval to bomb another Nation, and that was the only thing Obama has done and only once, Libya. Now, you were saying?
Rand Paul questioning Kerry was the highlight of the whole session yesterday, speaking to the elephant in the room, which is his standard MO.
“James Madison was very explicit when he wrote the Federalist Papers,” Paul said. “He wrote that … the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates. That the executive is the branch most likely to go to war and therefore the Constitution vested that power on the Congress.”
“It’s explicit and runs throughout all of Madison’s writings,” he continued. “This power is a congressional power and is not an executive power.”
If we do not say that the Constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote,” the senator lectured, “you’re making a joke of us. You’re making us into theater. And so we play Constitutional theater for the president.”
In breaking news, McCain just said he opposes the Obama strike because he wants a MORE aggressive action.
See, they can't be happy letting Obama fall on his own sword. They are such egomaniacs that voting "yes" or "no" isn't enough. They have to write Obama's plan for him and then take the blame when it all goes to crap. I'm so sick of these guys being so stupid.
Please refrain from posting things that make you look ignorant and foolish, which I am sure you are not!
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.
