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.
Why are there no protesting Libs? When this happened during the Bush years, you would always read about or see people protesting in the streets. Could it be because their beloved Obama/Demos are involved? I don't think you can blame Bush because B.O. has been in office for over 4 years!!!!
Progressive Ed Asner's take on it is that they don't want to be called racists by opposing Obama.
"A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama," Asner said.
That's the crop Obama has sown.
Last edited by bluesjuke; 09-08-2013 at 05:31 PM..
And we have committed "acts of wars" in bombing Yemen and Pakistan. right?
Furthermore, the right makes no noise on those "acts of war"...Why?
You're kidding right? I've spoken out against what took place in Yemen since the day Obama started playing his war drum. Where were you to speak out against it? Oh wait, you were still riding his sack like most of the liberals here are still doing.
Quote:
If we have already committed "acts of war" on other countries, how do explain your and other conservatives lack of ferver for denouncing those "wars"?
why is that?
Have you been that checked out that you didn't notice conservatives against this sort of thing?
Call it what you wish. Why do i need to call it anything other than what it is a punitve stike.
The gasing of innocent civilians is all the provocation I need.
Which means you supported the war in Iraq then right because Saddam gassed his own people too? Of course you didn't, the president back then wasn't black.
I don't like Obama or his liberal policies but I don't think he is lying about Syria. The UN has confirmed the gas was used, our government has confirmed it, Assad used the gas on 1400 people. The credibility of the US is on the line since Obama told the world that using chem weapons was a line that Syria must not cross, so now that they have crossed it the only possible action is a military strike. Also what weight does international law have regarding chemical weapons if no one stands up when those banned weapons are used? World war one teaches us the evils of these weapons and why they are banned. Im not happy about getting involved in their civil war, in fact our strike should only be against the chemical weapons plants, and the systems which deliver them. Also targets valuable to that are valuable to Assads regime should be targeted as a punitive measure. As far as support for the rebels, well this is not about them. We are not even sure they are the good guys, their video of those executions bring this in doubt anyway. Obama has made one grave mistake here though, he should never have gone to congress. He does not need to for such a limited military action, and the delay has given the Syrians time to move and hide the weapons. I bet we have been chasing these same chemical weapons around for a very long time. If you remember there were rumors that the Iraq weapons were hidden in Syria in the run-up to the invasion of that nation. Another case where we gave the enemy to much time to prepare. If a nation is a threat, or has WMD's we should not broadcast our plans on TV for weeks or months before we act. This only gives the bad guys an advantage they should not have. The day we confirmed the weapons in Syria were used we should have hit them before Syria could react. The president could then have told the American people and congress why it was necessary. If the evidence is as iron clad as they say it is everyone will understand why it needed to be done.
According to you the rest of the world missed the proof that Assad used the chemical weapons.
You've got inside info somehow that the rest of us have not seen?
We know they were used but have not seen evidence by whom..
A paragraph periodically would make that big block of text easier to read and I bet many just skipped it altogether.
Yes. I think he's being truthful. He and the majority of US Intelligence, as well as the intelligence networks of several foreign nations, believe that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people. The problem is that they cannot prove it. Yet. And if they cannot prove it, they legally should not be able to act.
The solution is that instead of focusing on who to blame for chemical weapons, that the focus should be on stopping the civil war, and getting both sides to negotiate and compromise. France, the US, Saudi Arabia, can put pressure on the rebels, and Russia can put pressure on Assad.
I truly think the threat of US military strikes escalates the violence, and causes many more problems than it resolves. The President and his advisers have access to more information than the rest of us do, and their position may rest in part on that greater information, but let's be honest about our goals. Is the United States concerned about protecting innocent Syrians, or are we more interested in effecting regime change? Assad is clearly no friend of the United States, but the alternatives are not necessarily friendly to the United States, either.
I do believe that Assad's government is at fault, simply because we know that Assad's father amassed stockpiles of chemical weapons, and refused to sign the global treaties against chemical weapons. I think that Assad has a solid foundation for believing that foreigners are driving this rebellion simply because there are so many foreign soldiers among the rebels. And I think Assad's position from the beginning was that he wouldn't use the chemical weapons at his disposal unless foreign powers intervened. He can justify the use of the chemical weapons in his own mind. But he cannot justify the use of chemical weapons in the court of world opinion, because he's killing his own people.
This is assuming there are two sides and sadly it's not that way.
It is not a liberal or conservative thang......
John Kerry, Bill Reilly and John McCain seem to be the only ones who support the great Obama(SWT.) In this endeavor. I am a registered Democrat and I oppose it. I said before, I hate to reuse an old worn out cliche but the syrian government is the lesser of the two evils here. As in The Rebels are worse....The Syrian government supports Hamas, the Rebels are backed by AL-Qaeda. So one endorses state sponsored terror, and the other endorses international terror.
All for what? Some crappy religion, which one pointed out all religions are crap and Islam is the biggest turd in the tank.
If the most blessed Obama (swt.) wants to lead the charge then perhaps he himself should fly the first stealth bomber into Syria.
However, this is not an issue that needs to be drawn on party lines, it is one that needs to be drawn on HUMAN lines, on the basis of human rights
Which may be a misunderstood concept for the religious or for the extremely selfish (misanthropists) but it is an idea which needs to flourish in the 21st century.
Many of us see McCain as an "unregistered" Democrat and have for many years.
Yes. I think he's being truthful. He and the majority of US Intelligence, as well as the intelligence networks of several foreign nations, believe that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people. The problem is that they cannot prove it. Yet. And if they cannot prove it, they legally should not be able to act.
It seems that German intelligence disagrees that Assad ordered the chemical attacks.
Quote:
President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.
The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons.
I spent a couple hours watching videos on Youtube about the mess in Syria. Those Rebels are constantly chanting Allah Akbar throughout most of the videos. About everytime they shoot, thats all you hear. They themselves are guilty of rape, executions, eating organs.......
Screw em all. Let them kill each other. I feel bad for the civillians there that are caught up in this and aren't like these animals. I hope they get out safely.
But screw the rest. We need to stay out of and let the take care of each other.
It's amazing how many M-16s/4s the rebels have though. Didn't the US military not so long ago "lose" 20,000 of those weapons somewhere over there? Hmm.....
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.
