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've always found it fascinating that when Richard Nixon, a Republican, suceeded Democrat Lyndon Johnson in 1969 the protests against the Viet Nam War continued, became even larger and were the headlines and leading news stories many nights while, when Democrat Barack Obama became President in 2009, the protests disappeared from view immediately without even cursory coverage at the back of the paper.
I've always found it fascinating that when Richard Nixon, a Republican, suceeded Democrat Lyndon Johnson in 1969 the protests against the Viet Nam War continued, became even larger and were the headlines and leading news stories many nights while, when Democrat Barack Obama became President in 2009, the protests disappeared from view immediately without even cursory coverage at the back of the paper.
The protestors were astro turf liberals doing their partisan puppet master's bidding. It's that simple and they let the cat out of the bag, proving their hypocrisy when they disappeared. They didn't actually care about the war or the dead....it was all an act against Bush.
I love the howling monkeys that keep screaming "Bush lied, Bush Lied" without any proof.
so where is your proof? there seems to be proof that he did not lie.
Cut and paste from post #40
Four investigations by Democrats and one investigation by the British couldn't find any instance of Bush lying. They found the intelligence agencies of every nation on Earth believed Saddam had WMD.
US News and World Report - reprinted at Real Clear Politics:
Quote:
Bush, Cheney and the administration have the truth on their side. Exhaustive and authoritative examinations of the prewar intelligence, by the bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004, by the Silberman-Robb Commission in 2005 and by the British commission headed by Lord Butler, have established that U.S. intelligence agencies, and the intelligence organizations of leading countries like Britain, France and Germany, believed that Saddam Hussein's regime was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction -- chemical and biological weapons, which the regime had used before, and nuclear weapons, which it was working on in the 1980s.
To the charges that Bush "cherry-picked" intelligence, the commission co-chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb found that the intelligence available to Bush but not to Congress was even more alarming than the intelligence Congress had.
The Silberman-Robb panel also concluded, after a detailed investigation, that in no instance did Bush administration authorities pressure intelligence officials to alter their findings.
Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. But Bush didn't lie about it.
This is not the good old days before the internet when you could just tell a lie often enough that everyone just believed it, now the truth has a way of smacking you in the face with a hammer.
So unless your going to post some CREDIBLE proof, can it!
I absolutely agree that congressional approval is the first step. However, I disagree that Obama or any US President is required to obtain UN approval. While I think it is wise to build a consensus with other like-minded nations, neither I, nor the US Constitution, considers this to be a requirement.
I understand there is no requirement. But if you go in alone, expect to be alone, unless some country is willing to join the part. Any country that willingly joins the party can also withdraw from the party whenever they please. This is assuming that the battle will be confined to Syria.
What happens if Syria starts lobbing missiles into other countries?
Iran is telling the US that military intervention will cause destabilization in the region. They are not by any means threatening to react to a military intervention, but pointing out the impact it can have on neighboring countries. This is a conclusion that several other countries, political analysts, former high ranking military officials have drawn.
I've always found it fascinating that when Richard Nixon, a Republican, suceeded Democrat Lyndon Johnson in 1969 the protests against the Viet Nam War continued, became even larger and were the headlines and leading news stories many nights while, when Democrat Barack Obama became President in 2009, the protests disappeared from view immediately without even cursory coverage at the back of the paper.
The lack of war protests is not a phenomena isolated to just Obama. There were no war protests against Clinton when he invaded Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, East Timor, or Kosovo either. Nor did anyone protest the 25 month bombing campaign of Iraq between December 1998 and January 2001 by US and UK forces. Even though it was the longest sustained bombing of another nation since the end of WW II.
We have the US media to thank for that. Just as with Clinton, there has been virtually no reporting by the US media on any of our war efforts since Obama became President. When a Republican was President, the US media reported on their war efforts almost daily. When the US media reported the 1,000th US casualty occurred in Iraq while Bush was President, they were ecstatic about it. Making it their main headline story. Yet when the 1,000th US casualty occurred in Afghanistan while Obama was President, there was no mention of it in US media.
Iran is telling the US that military intervention will cause destabilization in the region. They are not by any means threatening to react to a military intervention, but pointing out the impact it can have on neighboring countries. This is a conclusion that several other countries, political analysts, former high ranking military officials have drawn.
Actually Iran said publicly that a US attack on Syria would result in thousands of missiles raining down on Israel.
It appears they have gone silent. Why is that? Where are the protests? Where is the anti war crowd? Where are the front yard signs I saw? I guess nobody cares anymore?
It's quite amazing the hypocrisy of these left handed folks.
Here is the saddest part of it all. Obama sits around a table like a child at a tea party with his little world leaders he's indulging and old Hanoi John goes out behind the podium and microphone to make the US statement. I mean how ridiculous is that? Hell I bet ketchup man was in heaven as that is the stage he always wanted to be on. I'm surprised he didn't knock the damn podium over with his woody he had to be sporting at the time. Just a pathetic mess this entire administration is.
I understand there is no requirement. But if you go in alone, expect to be alone, unless some country is willing to join the part. Any country that willingly joins the party can also withdraw from the party whenever they please. This is assuming that the battle will be confined to Syria.
What happens if Syria starts lobbing missiles into other countries?
Iran is telling the US that military intervention will cause destabilization in the region. They are not by any means threatening to react to a military intervention, but pointing out the impact it can have on neighboring countries. This is a conclusion that several other countries, political analysts, former high ranking military officials have drawn.
I agree that we should not get involved in any conflict unless we are willing to do so unilaterally. It would certainly be nice to have a coalition of other countries willing to go to war with us, but that should not be the determining factor. If there is sufficient cause to get involved in a war, any war, then we should be prepared to see it through to the end, regardless of whether other countries join us or not. If we are willing to involve ourselves in a war only because other nations support us, then we should not get involved.
If Syria starts lobbing missiles into other countries, then that gives those other countries the "casus belli" to become involved.
With regard to Iran, they are already involved on the side of Assad.
Other than increasing the number of refugees fleeing Syria, I do not see how US involvement would make things any worse. It will certainly not destabilize the governments of Jordan, Israel, Turkey, or Iraq. It will certainly tick off Russia who have use of the Naval Base in Syria, not to mention their financial involvement with Assad, but it will not destabilize the region. Lebanon is the only country that may be thrown into chaos because it is essentially a puppet State of Syria due to Iranian and Syrian backed Hezbollah influence. I do not consider that a bad thing.
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.
