Trumpets call and big guns roar: US military action against Syria imminent

since it isn't a declared war, he still needs Congress's approval. Otherwise he must declare war, and that'll get his azz in deep (*)(*)(*)(*). Either way, America must not do this. of course you meant Awful Power, right?
One day he's gonna figure out he ain't the king and it'll be a long slide down a splintered bannister.............

 

Indeed.... and for some reason, an image of liberals comes to mind watching liberals shuck and jive and spin:



And a bonus: war in Syria is far less popular than Bush's war. It's what, 9% support? Sheez, talk about pro-war fringoids!

Bwahahahahahahah!!

 

Where's the UN? Or, are they more interested in imposing climate taxes on developed nations

 

Honestly dude, its not obamas turn to kill people...

 

9%!! Hahahaha!!! Poor President Red Line Express.

 

Don't lie. Obama has not started any wars... GWB started two.

Two - nil.

 

Many say that the American people are aganist any type of intervention when it comes to Syria. I answer. The great republican Theodore Roosevelt once stated, " The best thing you can do is to do the right thing. The second best is to do the wrong thing and the the worst thing you can do is nothing at all." When it comes to Syria we have done nothing except arm the rebels and it seems that that strategy isn't working. But allow us to entertain the alternative, perharps the United States should allow Asad to kill his own citizens, slaughter children and cripple his own country. Another Rwanda, I believe that is what some people want or another genocide that is the equivalent to the demise of the Armenians. I for one think that Lady Liberty to should bestow a gift upon the Syrian people and that it should be missles raining from the sky that causes Bashr Al-Asad to ponder his reckless actions a little more carefully/

 

Why? No one cared when Bill Clinton allowed the Rwandan Genocide. He's still beloved by the Left.

- - - Updated - - -

He didn't attack Libya?

 

Look, I wish we'd stay the hell out of this, I said the same regarding Afganistand and Iraq. I have no history of flip flopping on the subject.

I can understand why these leaders are at least discussing the matter... using chemical weapons against civilians is a serious matter, but one for the UN.

If I remember well, it was the French who once intervened in a domestic British issue, during a colony uprising.... You would think the decendents of that uprising would remember the reason for their victory

 

You only say that because obama beat up on tiny countries with no ability to resist.

Lybia, syria, yemen, and he escalated the conflict in afghanistan with zero results.

 

Originally Posted by AceFrehley
The Nobel Peace Prize Winner and anti-war candidate is about to start his SECOND war.

He has not started a "war".... GWB did, twice!

 

President Obama is not up for re-election, this is the best strategic time for war politically and militarily... They are weakened by civil war, and once Syria is taken over we'll have more American military bases near our friends the Europeans.

 

Do you know where Assad is ? Hes been living on a russian warship for months.

Hes winning, not losing. Why would he use chemical weapons, when he knows it will bring America into the fight?

The answer is he wouldnt.

Im gonna bust it all down for ya.

When we invade iran, who is going to help iran? Answer: Syria, Iran, North Korea, and possibly russia.

Who is Iran going to attack if we start an invasion? Answer: Israel

Who is syria going to attack if we start an invasion? Answer: Israel

Who has the most to lose if we attack Iran? Answer: Israel

Since Assad is winning, who needs America to enter the conflict? Answer: Israel

who shares a border with syria? Answer: Israel

Who has fought wars with syria in the past? Answer: Israel

Who bombed Syrias nuclear reactor? Answer: Israel

Who bombed those new russian missiles purchased by syria from russia? Answer: Israel

Ill support this war on one condition. The IMF, the World Bank, and the Federal Reserve will absolve America of all our debts.

 

There is one thing I don't understand. The taking of innocent human life is wrong, no matter if its done with chemical weapons or conventional. So why is it such a big deal now that chemical weapons are being used when people are being slaughtered without even using them.

Either you care about human life or you don't. You don't just care about it if chemical weapons are being used.

 

Yeah, he did. He shot 115 cruse missiles into libya to suppress the libyan air defenses. America fired the first shots of the libyan invasion.

and if you wanna play baby games, The United States never declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan, congress merely authorized the use of force. War was never declared.

- - - Updated - - -

Nerve gas is bug spray for people, and theres no real defense, nor cure.

 

No, no I don't. But, regarding this, how do you view pounding the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of Afganistan for 10 years?

No where near the civilian lost of life as the US is responsible for in Iraq. Iraq was not in the middle of a bloody domestic war...

 

We'll see...what? He's already stomped your face by proving your presumptions wrong TWICE. We've ALREADY seen, liberal.

 

So you're saying that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was invented by Obama? Tell me again, why did the UN inspectors get shot at when they were investigating?

Your post belongs in the conspiracy section.

I tell you what. Just post one credible link to Assad living on a Russian war ship. Just one.

 

Bush didnt pound the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of Afghanistan for 10 years. He sent minimal forces, Obama called him out for it, and called it the war America should be fighting, then authorized a surge in Afghanistan after he claimed a surge would fail in Iraq. Well, the surge didnt fail in Iraq, but it sure did in Afghanistan......

[video=youtube;rL5Vn7Le9B4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL5Vn7Le9B4[/video]

 

Even in war, there has been a traditional morality, or rules of engagement. We followed these rules to avoid pure chaos, and to preserve most of our humanity.

Chemical weapons are not humane. There is no defense to them; they are indiscriminate in their targets, the death suffered is horrific. They do not require uniforms or tactics or exposure to risk.

We have decided as a species that if war is to be waged, it will be waged in a manner and style which represents a purer sense of dodge and parry, with the result being something with which we can cope and from which we can heal.

Dogs that use chemical weapons are examples of a form of inhumane immorality that we've decided cannot be tolerated.

 

nope, Im saying syria didnt use them, theyre winning. Using chemical weapons makes no sense at all for syria, only someone who wants America in the war would use chemical weapons in syria. The only country who would want America in the war in Syria, is israel.

 

I knew you'd take my bait (as obvious as it was too).

So the simantics apply to Bush, but not to Obama - rolls eyes.

Bush initiated two land based invastions, one lasting 10 years (and counting), the other resulting in:

1. AQ getting a foothold in Iraq
2. The deaths of 500K-1M civilians
3. The deaths of 1000's and 1000's of US servicemen and women.

But you excuse this and instead blame Obama for firing some misiles? Your priorities are really screwed up buddy.

 

So Israel used them, to suck the US into Syria?

I tell you what. Just post one credible link to Assad living on a Russian war ship. Just one.

- - - Updated - - -

How consmike does not see this is beyond me. It doesn't require a particularly high IQ to figure it out.

 

If this half-witted, autocratic "president" breaks the War Powers Act again, as he did in the Libya debacle two years ago, he must be impeached and removed!
But even if he pulls his head out of his ass and gets congressional permission to start another war this time, the question emerges of WHY?

This is a SYRIAN Civil War, and it should be resolved, one way or another, by SYRIANS! The only people who have even a peripheral right to involve themselves directly in this SYRIAN Civil War are SYRIA'S Muslim neighbors in the Middle East. Hell, except for the Obama regime's blowing around about "red lines" and about how they just somehow know that the Syrian military launched the gas attack, we've got nothing! And we've also got NO reason to go blundering into yet another war in an Islamic country!

-- Syria is NOT a U. S. ally.
-- Syria is NOT a major oil supplier to the U. S. (barely exports any oil to the U. S. at all since 1994)

BUT! Wait a minute! I think I just figured it out! Getting a war going on in Syria would get everyone's mind off of what an unmitigated, embarrassing ****-up and failure Obamacare is, and, it would prevent Obama from having to greatly downsize the American military next year (an election year!), creating tens of thousands of ex-military personnel who end up joining the numbers of unemployed and under-employed! The people who pull Obama's strings may be America-hating Socialists, but they aren't stoopid....

 

President Assad and his family 'are now living on a warship guarded by the Russians off Syrian coast'

Report says Assad residing on warship

‘Assad living on warship guarded by Russian navy’