Even IF the chem attacks can be proven to come from Assad... Which has NOT been proven yet! How did the children who were killed end up in the kill zone? If I were a Muslim Brotherhood commander, looking for a way to get the U.S. Bombing on the behalf of the MB, and I just got a report indicating that 178 of our fighters were just killed by a chem attack on the cross streets of Main and Mecca Bvld. and I put very little value on human life, particularly young girls... Why not herd a bunch of them into the kill zone, to create the very provocation requirements that have been outlined by the U.S. as the means of getting Uncle Sam Air Support! http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-agents-us-preparing-to-release-evidence?lite How did those kids, in the middle of a civil war, end up in a kill zone?! Doesn't this situation, given what we learned from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, require a great deal more investigation! -
The point is, we DO NOT know, yet, what really happened, and we may never know. We are dealing with a conflict in which BOTH sides have shown themselves willing to use children as suicide bombers to advance their agenda! Are we foolish enough to engage in WAR without solid facts?! -
At least until the President decides to stay out of it, that is. At which time, he will immediately be described as a do-nothing appeaser. Cool.
I just think we're being manipulated into doing the Air-Power Work for the Muslim Brotherhood in their quest to create a Regional Radical Islamic Caliphate. It is not in America's or the World's to aid in or even allow the creation of an Regional Radical Islamic Caliphate. -
Exactly. And what are we trying to accomplish? From what I hear, they're all bad guys. We'd be functionally aligned with Al Queda!
Why would he do anything in the first place? What does Syria have to do with the USA? Aren't you having enough problems of your own? Ever rising poverty, almost 60 million people if not more, unemployment, degrading infrastructure across the country etc...etc... By the way, some details emerged and it appears that so called rebels are fully responsible for what happened in Ghouta. Nothing to do with the Syrian government. EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group. By Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh | August 29, 2013 Source: http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/
I think Obama will save this for the Benghazi hearings. It's a great way to keep damaging testimony off the television. [video=youtube;Rs6TgitlNIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs6TgitlNIA[/video] Don't believe me?
What if.....is no reason to act. No matter who it was that decided using a form of weaponry decidedly unacceptable by the world at large...they were used. This cannot be allowed to go unreacted to, unless the idea of worldwide (and ethical) agreement means nothing. It seems the evidence points to Assad, as well as the history. We can imagine many alternate scenarios, and spend the next couple months examining them....then hope no more take place. But, If they do while we debate it....are we culpable?
President Warlord was all set to go, but has backtracked and decided to involve Congress only because this whole stinking mess has proven to be extremely unpopular with the public in the U.S., and also in Great Britain, and even in France -- Left and Right. Obama didn't hesitate for one minute to launch warfare on Libya two years ago purely on his own personal whims, and without any vote from Congress, in flagrant violation of the War Powers Act. He believes completely in his status as Obama the Great, but his handlers have had the good sense to make him get off his pedestal for a few days and let somebody else make an ass out themselves for a change. My prediction: the whole thing will wind down to nothing after Congress overwhelmingly votes against getting involved in Syria's civil war. Obama will be praised by the kiss-ass hyperliberal "news" media for having the good sense to reject what will turn out to be inconclusive intelligence information after all, and he will be popular as ever with the welfare crowd. Soon you'll see him on the Leno show again, and out on the golf course, as though nothing had happened, smiling like a jackass eating corn....
Why don't righties doubt saddam really gassed the Kurds? Maybe it wasIran....or they gassed themselves lol
If the spineless retard folds under pressure and stumbles into a new war I will call him an idiot. But I agree with his decision so far.
No. We can be if we want to be. But in this case, we should just let them kill each other. Similar to if bloods and crips started slaughtering each other in the streets.
I was behind the decision to respond with strikes, sort of. Limited. At targets like missile batteries and the like. But, I think it was Wednesday, the President started talking about the "threat" of Syrian WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. At that point I said "Wait! Stop! NO WAY" We went down that road. I will not fall for nor stand for fear mongering. So, no military strike. No matter how "great" the "coalition." Find a way to arm the rebels but we don't fire a single shot.
The Syrians are claiming this...and that's proof? What about the intercepted phone call that says Assad and his high ranking official were behind it? There is no proof one way or the other. We will probably never know the truth. Regardless, obama is angling to get in the fight: Obama leaving door open to Syria strike, even if Congress votes no President Obama apparently is leaving the door open to moving ahead with a military strike on Syria even if Congress votes against it, adding to the confusion over the presidents evolving position. The president, in a surprise decision Saturday, announced he would seek a vote in Congress on launching a military attack against the Assad regime. One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the presidents goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force. Other senior administration officials said Obama is merely leaving the door open to that possibility. They say he would prefer that Congress approve a military attack on the Assad regime, in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons, and will wait to see what Congress does before making any final decisions on authorizing military force. Yet the possibility that Obama would move ahead without the support of Congress is sure to stir confusion among lawmakers, who had for the most part applauded his decision to seek their input first, though others claimed he was abdicating his responsibility by punting to Congress. It would raise questions about why he decided to seek congressional input at all, after having moved military assets into position immediately, and then waited days and possibly weeks for a debate in Washington. The senior State Department official told Fox News that every major player on the National Security Council including the commander-in-chief was in accord Friday night on the need for military action, and that the presidents decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them. However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the presidents earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation. Thats going to happen, anyway, the source told Fox News, adding that that was why the president, in his Rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization. Other senior administration officials, outside of the Department of State, would not confirm as much, telling reporters only that the door had been left open for the president to proceed without congressional authorization. This was confided by way of seeking to refute suggestions that Secretary of State John Kerry lost to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey in the interagency process. Absolutely untrue, the Kerry aide said, adding that everything Kerry said in his dramatic remarks on Friday was after fully consulting with the White House. The State Department official emphasized that all of the presidents national security advisers were in agreement as of Friday night on the need to proceed with strikes and that the president ultimately will. At the least, Obamas remarks do appear to leave him wiggle room. In the Rose Garden, Obama stressed that he believes he does have the authority to carry out an attack without the support of Congress. He said, though, that the country will be stronger if Congress weighs in. A White House statement released on Saturday, following a phone call between Obama and French President Francois Hollande, gave another indication as to the presidents intentions. The statement said the two leaders agree that the international community must deliver a resolute message to the Assad regime and that those who violate this international norm will be held accountable by the world. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rike-even-if-congress-votes-no/#ixzz2dcL8YhMd
How does aiding a Radical Islamic Political Movement seize control of a number of smaller middle eastern nations to form a Regional Islamic Caliphate help? This is Allot Bigger than the violation of a few or even a few hundred people's individual rights and lives. If we aid in the creation of a Regional Islamic Caliphate we will be subjecting hundreds of millions of people to the same brutal rule which beheads "dissident" journalists and shoots young girls in the head for wanting an education. There will be decades of suffering and misery for hundreds of millions of people if we do this evil act. -