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.
During the past five years, military involvement by this administration suggests an eagerness to enter into, create and expand military conflicts for purposes that have had little or nothing to do with our national security.
The current proposed action in Syria is just another example of military intervention completely unrelated to our security interests.
Since war and other national emergencies (Great Depression, Cold War, War on Terror, etc.) elevates the importance of the state over the individual, has Obama joined a long list of notable and nefarious leaders who have used perpetual war to diminish the significance of the individual and opposition to dictatorial rule?
During the past five years, military involvement by this administration suggests an eagerness to enter into, create and expand military conflicts for purposes that have had little or nothing to do with our national security.
The current proposed action in Syria is just another example of military intervention completely unrelated to our security interests.
Since war and other national emergencies (Great Depression, Cold War, War on Terror, etc.) elevates the importance of the state over the individual, has Obama joined a long list of notable and nefarious leaders who have used perpetual war to diminish the significance of the individual and opposition to dictatorial rule?
More to the point, does Obama fear peace?
Really, what military involvement? Afganista, started by Bush finished by Obama. Iraq, started by Bush, finished by Obama. Lybia, air power used to stop the mass murder of civilians by the government forces, you are against that? Suggested bombing of Syrian military targets to punsh the government for using weapons of mass destruction to commit acts of mass murder of women and children, you against that also? Me thinks you should get your facts staright before attempting to discuss whether or not the President is a warmonger or not becuase it is obvious you are not qualified to do so.
Really, what military involvement? Afganista, started by Bush finished by Obama. Iraq, started by Bush, finished by Obama. Lybia, air power used to stop the mass murder of civilians by the government forces, you are against that? Suggested bombing of Syrian military targets to punsh the government for using weapons of mass destruction to commit acts of mass murder of women and children, you against that also? Me thinks you should get your facts staright before attempting to discuss whether or not the President is a warmonger or not becuase it is obvious you are not qualified to do so.
You should know that R's are only against it because a D is in office. Had Romney been in office and doing the same thing, they would be cheering it.
During the past five years, military involvement by this administration suggests an eagerness to enter into, create and expand military conflicts for purposes that have had little or nothing to do with our national security.
The current proposed action in Syria is just another example of military intervention completely unrelated to our security interests.
Since war and other national emergencies (Great Depression, Cold War, War on Terror, etc.) elevates the importance of the state over the individual, has Obama joined a long list of notable and nefarious leaders who have used perpetual war to diminish the significance of the individual and opposition to dictatorial rule?
Here's how I look at it. If someone used a bomb on a local school, and they had more bombs on them, the police would take them out if they had to in order to stop them. If the police didn't stop them, we'd all be screaming. We're not even doing that in Syria--there are no plans to remove Assad or the rebels. We're just going in to take out the ability of Syria to use their WMDS, whether it's Assad or the rebels who could gain access to them if government falls. The fact that Syria has mass quantities of WMDs, and they seem to have no hesitation in using them, makes them a threat to the entire world, including us.
Although I get called a liberal here all the time, I've never claimed to be one. I don't understand people who aren't afraid to use force to stop someone who is a threat to the planet. Just like the police, sometimes you have to do what you have to do before a criminal, a mad man or a murderer can do something worse than they've already done. That PROMOTES peace.
You should know that R's are only against it because a D is in office. Had Romney been in office and doing the same thing, they would be cheering it.
The difference being, if Romney were in office, there would be true leadership. There has been no leadership from this WH in over five years.
obama got elected so he could party with movie stars, celebrities, athletics, play golf, take luxury vacations, you know, all the fun stuff. He didn't plan on or expect to do any real work, other than promote communism in his spare time...
Had Chicago style politics not ruined the possibility of a Romney victory, this country would be in really great shape, led by a great leader.
We must hope we still have a country when azzeyes is finally done with his destruction...
The difference being, if Romney were in office, there would be true leadership. There has been no leadership from this WH in over five years.
obama got elected so he could party with movie stars, celebrities, athletics, play golf, take luxury vacations, you know, all the fun stuff. He didn't plan on or expect to do any real work, other than promote communism in his spare time...
Had Chicago style politics not ruined the possibility of a Romney victory, this country would be in really great shape, led by a great leader.
We must hope we still have a country when azzeyes is finally done with his destruction...
There isn't one thing of substance in that entire post. You don't like him--everybody gets that--but you're not backing up your argument with facts or reasoning because you can't. It's based in personal ideology vs. dealing with the facts at hand.
The truth--if Romney OR McCain were president, we would have boots on the ground now in Syria. The opposition here to action in Syria has a whole lot more to do with you blindly hating everything to do with this administration, and nothing to do with what you think should be done there.
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.
