Aid to Syria

[chrlswltrs]

So now that the Al Qaeda rebels have admitted they were responsible for the chemical weapons, does that mean that Obama will want to fight Al Qaeda instead of helping them???

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

 

[buzzcon]

The logic of firing any kind of chemical weapon at this moment in the Syrian civil war rests much more heavily on the rebels, especially some of the al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists who have little regard for killing civilians if that will advance the cause.

Such doubts regarding the possibility that the United States is being lured into a military attack on a sovereign nation by an al-Qaeda affiliate should be enough to give President Obama and his entire administration pause. They should at least avoid a rush to judgment even if that means getting baited by the neocons and a war-hungry press."

These paragraphs read as if you read my mind. I highly doubt that the Syrian government would be so stupid to launch chemical weapons at such a convenient time.

John McCain's recent comments makes me glad he was defeated in his last bid to become president.

 

[chrlswltrs]

These paragraphs read as if you read my mind. I highly doubt that the Syrian government would be so stupid to launch chemical weapons at such a convenient time.

John McCain's recent comments makes me glad he was defeated in his last bid to become president.

McCain would have been a bad president, but if he had won we wouldn't have Obamacare destroying America. The last good president we had was Kennedy, look what happened to him when he tried to do the right thing America, he was killed by our own government.

At this point I don't know what to do, but I won't stop fighting.

The federal reserve and international banks run our government. Defy them and you die. Jefferson was right when he said the single biggest threat to liberty was a central private bank in control of a nation's currency.

Over 6 hours before John Kerry's speech today the news broke that Al Qaeda was responsible for the chemical weapons, but just like everything else this administration will ignore facts and push an agenda. They will try to hid it, but the truth will come out. The truth and freedom movement is too big. The Internet is too big. They can't hide everything!!!!

 

[Gmash]

Really, Infowars again? Even if it is true, that article says some weapons went off in a tunnel and killed 12 militants, not that they were responsible for killing 1400 civilians. It's not like Obama wants to get into this. I'm sure he would welcome evidence the rebels were responsible, it would let him off the hook. Unless he is flat out lying, the evidence Kerry presented seems pretty strong against the Syrian government forces. The insinuations about Obama being a militant Muslim are too asinine to respond to. John McCain is the one who has been pushing to arm the rebels, with Obama being harshly criticized for refusing to do so.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Really, Infowars again? Even if it is true, that article says some weapons went off in a tunnel and killed 12 militants, not that they were responsible for killing 1400 civilians. It's not like Obama wants to get into this. I'm sure he would welcome evidence the rebels were responsible, it would let him off the hook. Unless he is flat out lying, the evidence Kerry presented seems pretty strong against the Syrian government forces. The insinuations about Obama being a militant Muslim are too asinine to respond to. John McCain is the one who has been pushing to arm the rebels, with Obama being harshly criticized for refusing to do so.

For those that are too closed minded and blinded to believe anything at all on InfoWars until someone else also reports it (how many times do they have to be right before you will finally accept that they are credible?), here are a couple other sources:

Syrian rebels admit to being behind chemical weapons attack - National Government | Examiner.com

'Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis' - source - News - World - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events,

Or are those not good enough either? CNN, CBS, NBC, etc are not going to report it. They spend far more time covering for the current administration than reporting the news.

 

[psionandy]

For those that are too closed minded and blinded to believe anything at all on InfoWars until someone else also reports it (how many times do they have to be right before you will finally accept that they are credible?), here are a couple other sources:

Syrian rebels admit to being behind chemical weapons attack - National Government | Examiner.com

'Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis' - source - News - World - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events,

Or are those not good enough either? CNN, CBS, NBC, etc are not going to report it. They spend far more time covering for the current administration than reporting the news.

So.. skipping over the' trust-worthyness' issue issue.. and just assuming that the report that it is 100% the Syrian Rebels, working on this, then I assume you're against action against Syria.. based on the facts that
1) the internal conflict is going on there (so it can't be US/UK/Nato self defence) and there's no UN resolution to back intervention, so it would be an illegal act of war to intervene...

2) US/UK/Nato/French intervention wouldn't achieve anyone stated aims at present and

3) The cost of the ongoing war budget of the US dwarfs costs of Obamacare, that is perceived by some to be crippling America.

 

[chrlswltrs]

So.. skipping over the' trust-worthyness' issue issue.. and just assuming that the report that it is 100% the Syrian Rebels, working on this, then I assume you're against action against Syria.. based on the facts that
1) the internal conflict is going on there (so it can't be US/UK/Nato self defence) and there's no UN resolution to back intervention, so it would be an illegal act of war to intervene...

2) US/UK/Nato/French intervention wouldn't achieve anyone stated aims at present and

3) The cost of the ongoing war budget of the US dwarfs costs of Obamacare, that is perceived by some to be crippling America.

Absolutely I am against ANY action in Syria. Which side is the "good guys"? Assad isn't good, and the Al Qaeda rebels sure aren't any better. America intervenes in WAY too much. We have way too many problems at home to go around dropping freedom bombs all around the world just to stay constantly at war.

BTW, currently 91% of Americans oppose any action in Syria according to recent polls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

 

[TracfoneUser]

It is not our responsibility to save the world

Yes it is given in WW2 without forementioned you would all be residing the 3rd reich given 1944 and beyond was lead by the US.You were in NA but got your asses kicked by ER and DAK until GP stepped in who had equivalent prowess to ER but keyword is equivalent you would have lost NA if Hitler was a better leader.For one he never listened to his COs ER said he needed rein in NA Hitlers recompense was victory or defeat.In OB ER was not even present due to his wife Bday and casualties were still high over 10000 thousand since the entire beach was presighted,zeroed,and lined with over 80 MG42s each firing plus 1200 ronds a min.In current past is prerequisite to what is about to come fruition

 

[OutofDate1980]

From the tongue-in-cheek news source.

Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

"

 

[Thatdad]

Absolutely I am against ANY action in Syria. Which side is the "good guys"? Assad isn't good, and the Al Qaeda rebels sure aren't any better. America intervenes in WAY too much. We have way too many problems at home to go around dropping freedom bombs all around the world just to stay constantly at war.

BTW, currently 91% of Americans oppose any action in Syria according to recent polls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

George Washington told us to limit our foreign relations. Ha.

And as for the 91% of Americans not wanting us to take action..

Pay off a leader of Al Qaeda to attack us on our soil, again, you'll have mindless drones of Americans mindlessly saluting to the prospect of patriotism. Again.

 

[Thatdad]

From the tongue-in-cheek news source.

Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

"

 

[out of ideas]

It's a satirical newspaper.


another good one

Target Of Future Drone Attack Urges American Intervention In Syria | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Target Of Future Drone Attack Urges American Intervention In Syria

DAMASCUS—The target of a future U.S. drone strike aimed at taking out anti-American extremists strongly urged swift U.S. military intervention in Syria, sources confirmed Thursday. “President Obama and American forces must step in and help us overthrow Assad,” said the radical Islamist who will be the object of what will one day be an intense and lengthy manhunt by the CIA and whose death will reportedly be hailed as a major strategic victory by counterterrorism officials. “There needs to be a new regime in Syria immediately.” At press time, a non-target of a future drone strike, currently indistinguishable from the target of one, was saying the same thing.

 

[Thatdad]

It's a satirical newspaper.


another good one

Target Of Future Drone Attack Urges American Intervention In Syria | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I know, it's just upsetting because the government tries to persuade people to believe that. It makes me sick.. :/

 

[Gmash]

Obama has really screwed up on this one. He should have just went ahead and done some limited missile strikes and been done with it so he could say he did something, and people would already be forgetting about it. Instead he got Congress involved, (hasn't he learned his lesson about that?) and now it's being dragged out into a huge deal. The same republicans who like to criticize him for doing nothing are now finding excuses to vote against doing _something_ because Obama asked for it. What a shock. I think Britain voting against getting involved spooked him and he wanted to force republicans to be on the record so they couldn't blame anything that went wrong on Obama alone, but he again fell into the trap of thinking the republicans wouldn't put their hatred of him above the best interests of the country. He loses that bet every time.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Obama has really screwed up on this one. He should have just went ahead and done some limited missile strikes and been done with it so he could say he did something, and people would already be forgetting about it. Instead he got Congress involved, (hasn't he learned his lesson about that?) and now it's being dragged out into a huge deal. The same republicans who like to criticize him for doing nothing are now finding excuses to vote against doing _something_ because Obama asked for it. What a shock. I think Britain voting against getting involved spooked him and he wanted to force republicans to be on the record so they couldn't blame anything that went wrong on Obama alone, but he again fell into the trap of thinking the republicans wouldn't put their hatred of him above the best interests of the country. He loses that bet every time.

Gone ahead and launched missiles? You mean started WWIII just to try and save his reputation? He let Congress get involved? I think you mean he followed the Constitution for the first time in his presidency.

This has NOTHING to do with Republican and Democrat. Not much does anymore. This has to do with what is in the best interest of the country, and frankly the world. The ONLY people this attack would help is Al Qaeda!

Plus, when Bush went into Iraq, he had a coalition of multiple countries, Congressional approval, 75+% support from citizens, and UN approval. Obama had none of that at all. It wasn't proven that Iraq didn't have WMD until after we went to war. This time the rebels admitted a week ago that they were responsible for the chemical attack.

One of the worst possible reasons I can think of to go to war is to save someone's reputation. If Obama really wanted to go to war to save his reputation the administration just needs to admit the truth, then attack Al Qaeda in Syria (the same as every other country we are fighting in right now)

 

[JohnLaird]

If it were in any other context I would say that Obama actually asking permission from congress to make war was a good thing...even inspiring. In this case...it was a horrible idea...it gave Syria, Iran and everyone else in the region time to react. A very well orchestrated, lightening strike against a small, well defined target...probably either on Assad himself or his air force...could have been successful and might have actually helped to improve the situation. The time window for such a strike closed a long time ago. Any action right now would react in a pitched battle with Iran and maybe even Russia. Iran does not have the reach to launch a counterattack on the US itself but they can certainly hit our warships and allies in the region.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Obama has really screwed up on this one. He should have just went ahead and done some limited missile strikes and been done with it so he could say he did something, and people would already be forgetting about it. Instead he got Congress involved, (hasn't he learned his lesson about that?) and now it's being dragged out into a huge deal. The same republicans who like to criticize him for doing nothing are now finding excuses to vote against doing _something_ because Obama asked for it. What a shock. I think Britain voting against getting involved spooked him and he wanted to force republicans to be on the record so they couldn't blame anything that went wrong on Obama alone, but he again fell into the trap of thinking the republicans wouldn't put their hatred of him above the best interests of the country. He loses that bet every time.

I blame Cameron for this one. He had the great idea to go ask Parliament, changing decades of precedent, and weakening himself.


I also love how Outofdate1980 and Chris agree, it shows that once you go far enough to one side, you get the same result.

Classy guys, I hope someone doesn't send some Sarin your way some time, and if they do, I guess we'll know you were 'evil terrorists'.

 

[chrlswltrs]

I blame Cameron for this one. He had the great idea to go ask Parliament, changing decades of precedent, and weakening himself.


I also love how Outofdate1980 and Chris agree, it shows that once you go far enough to one side, you get the same result.

Classy guys, I hope someone doesn't send some Sarin your way some time, and if they do, I guess we'll know you were 'evil terrorists'.

So by your comment I'm assuming you think WW3 should be started by helping the Al Qaeda "rebels" who admitted already that they were the ones responsible for using the chemical weapons???

 

[Thatdad]

This is honestly a human rights issue. If this isn't pushing government interests, I don't know what is!

 

[ElasticNinja]

So by your comment I'm assuming you think WW3 should be started by helping the Al Qaeda "rebels" who admitted already that they were the ones responsible for using the chemical weapons???

a) AQ affiliated groups are what, 4-5% of the fighters? It wasn't so different in Bosnia, big deal.

b) WW3, my god.

c) Just because you read it on infowars.com, doesn't make it true.

 

[Thatdad]

a) AQ affiliated groups are what, 4-5% of the fighters? It wasn't so different in Bosnia, big deal.

b) WW3, my god.

c) Just because you read it on infowars.com, doesn't make it true.

I think the issue is the fact that we don't know who is AQ and who isn't.

We need to take into account that different terror groups will scramble to claim any act of terror to bolster fear and terror.

Why does the US always feel like they have to barge right in?

Isn't this what the UN is for?

 

[Gmash]

a) AQ affiliated groups are what, 4-5% of the fighters? It wasn't so different in Bosnia, big deal.

b) WW3, my god.

c) Just because you read it on infowars.com, doesn't make it true.

Get ready for a lecture about "The Liberal Media" yadda yadda. Like Obama's opponents would really not be screaming from the rooftops if there was a shred of truth to that story. Hell, they won't even shut up about that fake Bengazi "scandal" yet.

 

[Thatdad]

Get ready for a lecture about "The Liberal Media" yadda yadda. Like Obama's opponents would really not be screaming from the rooftops if there was a shred of truth to that story. Hell, they won't even shut up about that fake Bengazi "scandal" yet.

I'm not sure about all of the benghazi stuff, but they still need to explain why they died.

They still kind of act like they are avoiding the topic as much as they can.

 

[EarlyMon]

Thought some of you would be interested in this hangout with John Kerry -

https://plus.google.com/u/0/app/basic/events/crns7bqaccuvuehb44vdsrsmp8o

 

[Thatdad]

a) AQ affiliated groups are what, 4-5% of the fighters? It wasn't so different in Bosnia, big deal.

b) WW3, my god.

c) Just because you read it on infowars.com, doesn't make it true.

And you're acting like WW3 couldn't get started from this.

If Iran, Syria, China, and Russia go against us.. You know Israel, Australia, and obviously the US will fight. Perhaps even France and Britain would join in on the US side. I think that would be considered a world war don't you think?