Thread: Strike against Syria

Well, that's just it... If the international community is saying "No, there should be no strike against Syria" and our President keeps on pushing, even though the US citizens say no, and even though the International community says no, then the man is trying to be nothing but a war monger, in my opinion.

I'm not saying I don't feel for those in Syria who face bleak and dire consequences because of how the world is voting, I do. But, and this may sound a bit harsh, that's how the world progresses.

If 13 colonies hadn't decided enough was enough, the United States wouldn't be in the picture. If folks in Germany hadn't said enough was enough, the country would still be split in two by that infernal wall. If the peoples in India hasn't said enough is enough, they would still be under British rule.

My point here is that sometimes you have to fight your own battles, and if it's an uphill battle, you may win, you may not. But that's how the world has been for millenia and I don't see it changing in the near future.

If the world feels that Russia and China are wrong to declare a veto, then hey, let them start WWIII. I certainly don't look forward to that happening, but if it does, it does.

Or, if the people of Syria come out on top of a battle with a murderous regime, more power to them.

Honestly though, I feel like this whole thing has been played up and over done by our President to help shift the focus off of how terrible his presidency has been and how many times he has failed to achieve the goals he set and, based on his past actions and statements, to create a diversion to draw the American people's attention while he tries some sort of backdoor maneuver to push his agenda.

"Oh, how do I explain that I campaigned on transparency in government and abhorring spying on our citizens under President Bush? How do I explain the NSA spying on US citizens, without cause and outside the confines of Constituional law, and on other nations, including our allies? Uh... um... Syria! That's it, Syria!"

I'm sure there are atrocities going on in Syria, and no doubt they are terrible. But with so much going on here, you can't tell me Obama wasn't at least a little relieved to have a distraction from his screw ups and failures.

Just get ready to roll out the carpet for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria...obummers boys.....Hey OCD shaver....you can state all the FACTS you want when talking to a DEM...and they still won't understand...LOL

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Yeah we'll that network flew two planes full of passengers into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon, something Iran wouldn't bother to try.

Why stop there and not ask yourself why wouldn't Iran try to do overtly the same thing. And why are they willing to go though such severe sanctions to get nuclear weapons, when they can't really use them and live to tell the story.

Originally Posted by nessmuck

Just get ready to roll out the carpet for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria...obummers boys.....Hey OCD shaver....you can state all the FACTS you want when talking to a DEM...and they still won't understand...LOL

So, now I get assigned a label, which is supposed to be a shorthand for ideologically blinded? Of course, it's your right to be wrong, it's a free country after all and coming up with labels instead of coherent logical arguments is substantially easier. Good job!

My father-in law and my wifes younger sister are both DEMS....and I don't talk to them either .....

Originally Posted by gugi

Why stop there and not ask yourself why wouldn't Iran try to do overtly the same thing. And why are they willing to go though such severe sanctions to get nuclear weapons, when they can't really use them and live to tell the story.


So, now I get assigned a label, which is supposed to be a shorthand for ideologically blinded? Of course, it's your right to be wrong, it's a free country after all and coming up with labels instead of coherent logical arguments is substantially easier. Good job!

Quite simply because a sovereign nation has territory, natural resources, people, and hopefully the protection of a standing army. Basically, they have something to lose.

Exactly, and they also have the resources to achieve the same thing covertly via groups like Al Qaeda. So, with a government enemy you get the same threat as from a network, but multiplied many times. Along with far more limitations in how to dispose of it.

Nessmuck, I'm convinced.

Originally Posted by nessmuck

My father-in law and my wifes younger sister are both DEMS....and I don't talk to them either .....

That's a shame, I hope I never become like you.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Nessmuck, I'm convinced.

Told ya...they are all the same

The absolute dumbest statement of today's news cycle that I heard..

This statement after decades of Muslim Suicide/Homicide bombers..

"The CW bombs were set off in a section of Damascus that the "Free Syrian Army" was advancing, what you are saying is they set of these bombs to hurt their own people, that just doesn't make sense"


Now keep in mind that I do not necessarily saying the CW use was a set up to get a Western response, but I am saying that it sure was a possibility...