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.
Obama has just included Iran and North Korea.
He declared Syria a national security threat and said we have to strike because we have to be credible to Iran and North Korea who are listening to "our silence". And if we stay silent they might attack us.
If that doesn't strike fear in the heart of Americans. And Congress critters were urged to tell their constituents about 9/11 and that it could happen again.
US: Chemical attacks make Syria top security risk
For the first time in more than two years of a bloody civil war, President Barack Obama has declared Syria a national security threat that must be answered with a military strike — and in doing so he is warning Americans as much about the leaders of Iran and North Korea as about Bashar Assad.
..
The administration is alone in claiming such a high death toll, citing intelligence reports but refusing to be more specific. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from a network of anti-regime activists in Syria, said over the weekend that it has been compiling a list of the names of the dead and that its toll reached 502.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Obama has just included Iran and North Korea.
He declared Syria a national security threat and said we have to strike because we have to be credible to Iran and North Korea who are listening to "our silence". And if we stay silent they might attack us.
If that doesn't strike fear in the heart of Americans.
US: Chemical attacks make Syria top security risk
For the first time in more than two years of a bloody civil war, President Barack Obama has declared Syria a national security threat that must be answered with a military strike — and in doing so he is warning Americans as much about the leaders of Iran and North Korea as about Bashar Assad.
DAMN! He missed a GREAT opportunity for an 'Axis of Evil' moment.
The question is IF Congress goes along can we impeach the entire legislative and executive branches?
Why does the boy king want to start a war with Syria but ignore the far worse atrocities in North Korea? Can you obama supporters explain it?
Well, probably because North Korea has nukes and a whole bunch of artillery aimed at large civilian populations. To boot, they didn't use chemical weapons to kill over a thousand civilians. I saw you calling Obama supporters idiots in another thread, but if you're going to pretend to be conservative, you should hold yourself to a standard where your questions make sense.
Incidentally, the President can't start a war, only congress can and I haven't seen anyone looking to start a war. By the way, it was the conservative president that WE elected that got us into the mess in Iraq. Until that's far in the rear view mirror, no conservative should feel ok complaining too much about wars.
DAMN! He missed a GREAT opportunity for an 'Axis of Evil' moment.
The question is IF Congress goes along can we impeach the entire legislative and executive branches?
Oh I think he just pulled it without saying it.
While he says this is not like "Iraq" he's quick to insinuate another 9/11 will happen if we don't do anything.
Yeah..he has his axis now. Syria, North Korea and Iran.
Well, probably because North Korea has nukes and a whole bunch of artillery aimed at large civilian populations. To boot, they didn't use chemical weapons to kill over a thousand civilians. I saw you calling Obama supporters idiots in another thread, but if you're going to pretend to be conservative, you should hold yourself to a standard where your questions make sense.
Incidentally, the President can't start a war, only congress can and I haven't seen anyone looking to start a war. By the way, it was the conservative president that WE elected that got us into the mess in Iraq. Until that's far in the rear view mirror, no conservative should feel ok complaining too much about wars.
The Patriot Act gave the President powers.
He just declared Syria a threat to national security.
Does that pave the way now for him to act alone ?
I honestly don't know but I do know that everyone seems to get away with crap saying "national security threat".
Have any of you supporting the proposed action in Syria thought about what would be accomplished by such a limited action? If your concern is to make sure the Assad government can't or won't use gas again the only sure way to accomplish that end is to eliminate that government. Obama has said regiem change isn't the goal. Has the goal changed now? If it has then the only way to achieve the outcome would be a boots on the ground invasion. I don't think I have to point out how well our last attempt at regiem change by invasion turned out. This is a poorly thought out step in a very poor, generations spanning, foreign policy. It is a lose lose situation militarily, politically, and financially. Except for those few corporations who profit from supplying our war machine with its tools of the trade.
Well, probably because North Korea has nukes and a whole bunch of artillery aimed at large civilian populations. To boot, they didn't use chemical weapons to kill over a thousand civilians. I saw you calling Obama supporters idiots in another thread, but if you're going to pretend to be conservative, you should hold yourself to a standard where your questions make sense.
Incidentally, the President can't start a war, only congress can and I haven't seen anyone looking to start a war. By the way, it was the conservative president that WE elected that got us into the mess in Iraq. Until that's far in the rear view mirror, no conservative should feel ok complaining too much about wars.
NK has killed millions of civilians.
The most heinous example of these abuses is the North Korean camp system. The North Korean red dynasty established a caste system referred to as songbun. This classification of people based on ideological trustworthiness determines a person's fate from the time they are born. Those with lower songbun status are more likely to end up in the North Korean gulag system. It is estimated that at least 200,000 people languish in the death and labor camps of North Korea; their names, like Auschwitz, and Cabanatuan, should resonate with everyone, but do not. These camps, with names like Kaechon, Yodok, Pukchang, and Hoeryong, should inspire revulsion, disgust, and condemnation. These are places where torture, infanticide, starvation, and executions are daily occurrences.
In an effort to outdo his Maoist and Leninist forebears, the Kim dynasty created a camp system whereby the so-called offender is not the only one condemned, not even the immediate family, but often the generation above and below. It is therefore common for those labeled with that totalitarian catch-all favorite of the Soviets and the Chinese, "enemies of the state," to be small children and elderly grandparents. The existence of these camps is unacceptable to anyone whose faith in God, and whose belief in human rights and human liberty exist in any way, shape, or form. The World Lets North Korea's Evil Regime Fester - World Report (usnews.com)
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Oh I think he just pulled it without saying it.
While he says this is not like "Iraq" he's quick to insinuate another 9/11 will happen if we don't do anything.
Yeah..he has his axis now. Syria, North Korea and Iran.
Someday I'd really like to hear a rational explanation of just how we've allowed such stupidity to infiltrate both sides of Washington's aisles. And more importantly how we can change it? How do you do something like ban lobbyists when those who make the laws pocket so much $$$ from those very same lobbyists?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0marvin0
Have any of you supporting the proposed action in Syria thought about what would be accomplished by such a limited action? If your concern is to make sure the Assad government can't or won't use gas again the only sure way to accomplish that end is to eliminate that government. Obama has said regiem change isn't the goal. Has the goal changed now? If it has then the only way to achieve the outcome would be a boots on the ground invasion. I don't think I have to point out how well our last attempt at regiem change by invasion turned out. This is a poorly thought out step in a very poor, generations spanning, foreign policy. It is a lose lose situation militarily, politically, and financially. Except for those few corporations who profit from supplying our war machine with its tools of the trade.
A perfect validation Of Eisenhower's warning about the undue influence of the MIC and where are failure to heed that warning has gotten us.
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.
