Syria: Listen To This Guy
“I’ll listen to the generals …” If you had a nickel for every time a politicYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
“I’ll listen to the generals …” If you had a nickel for every time a politicYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
12 comments
The Arab League wants action against Syria. The OPEC countries have plenty of money to fight a war. Why not let them do it?
Arab states urge action against Syrian government
http://news.yahoo.com/arab-states-urge-international-action-against-syrian-government-204455757.html
(Excerpt)
CAIRO (Reuters) – Arab states on Sunday urged the international
community to take action against the Syrian government over a chemical
gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians.
The final
resolution passed by an Arab League meeting in Cairo urged the United
Nations and international community to “take the deterrent and necessary
measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime
bears responsibility for”.
The League foreign ministers also said those responsible for the attack should face trial, as other “war criminals” have.
Of course OPEC nations want some action against Syria, and it has nothing to do with so-called crimes. Have you missed the prices on the pump inching up due to the “instability” in the Middle East? Yep, another conflict fattens their wallets even more while we continue to accrue more debt.
Attack Syria, they use their nuclear weapons to wipe out tens of thousands of Americans. It is plain and simple as that.
Our government is rogue, lawless, and totally corrupt and completely out of control. The American people must rise up and go to battle with these demons in DC. Even over half the US military is against these fucked up sick monsters in DC.
“Rogue, lawless, and totally corrupt and completely out of control.” Yep. Jean Toal has this part down pat. She’s ready to move to the US Supreme Court if what you say is true.
What does SC-1 Congressional Representative, former Governor, man with military background and his foreign relations credentials, and his national security clearance have to say? I hear silence.
Sanford has no military background? His service in the Air Force Reserve was a complete and utter sham. He used it to puff himself up and gain a few extra votes during an election, but when called to serve, ducked out.
BOSHAMA
http://www.doobybrain.com/2009/01/24/george-w-bush-morphing-into-barack-h-obama/
General Dempsey’s comments on Syria:
“Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides…It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not.”
“I don’t think at this point I can see a military option that would create an understandable outcome. And until I do, it would be my advice to proceed cautiously.”
“Senator, I am in favor of building a moderate opposition and supporting it,” Dempsey said on Thursday. “The question whether to support it with direct kinetic strikes … is a decision for our elected officials, not for the senior military leader of the nation”
If it was up to McCain we would be fighting in about 6 wars by now. As he pushes for American involvement putting our treasure and children in harms way, he plays a poker game on his phone. Senile and dangerous are 2 words that come to mind when it comes to this washed up politician, with Nancy Graham following close behind. (pardon the pun)
I am torn on the right answer in Syria. I understand wanting to deter WMD attacks and make tyrants fear the repercussions of using them, and I would not want anyone to vote against the authorization for the politics of opposing to Obama (although his decision to send it to Congress is cravenly political when he adamantly insists he does not need authorization and the required delay obviously hurts his argument for an imminent national security threat). National security should end at the water’s edge. But there must still be some legitimate national security interest to be achieved. And Obama has so poorly bungled the response in just about every way imaginable (the delays that embolden Assad, show our lack of commitment, and allow him to hide material or put innocents in the line of fire, the preemptive talk about how long the attacks would last, which just show there is no actual objective other than avoiding embarrassment for Obama from his redline talk, etc.) I wonder if any positive outcome can come from involving ourselves in this civil war. I am not much of an internationalist and have little faith in the UN, but I think if I were in Congress I would say that the UN should take the lead, since the only interest to be vindicated is the general principle about WMD rather than a specific US interest.
Well, now that Obama won’t even stand behind his own red line, I don’t know how a Congressman could in good conscience vote for a war with no clear objective or clear moral imperative. If I were in Congress I would definitely respond to the President that if it is the international community’s red line, then let the international community respond in Syria through the UN.
“Hey General, wanna lead a coup?”