Boehner supports military action in Syria...

[Spoonman]

I just wish I was convinced that Assad and his regime are the bad guys and that the rebels are the good guys over there. That would make it much easier to know which side to take. What I fear is that neither side has even a tarnished halo and we're just going to break some stuff, kill some people, and leave Syria is the same miserable shape as we left Lybia.

and egypt, and iraq, and afghanistan.....

IDK, you keep reading the rebels have al queda ties. that can't be good.

Plus there are five themes running around the underground news network:

1. Assad used chemical weapons on the rebels.

2. The rebels used chemical weapons on their own people and blamed it on the Syrian military to generate sympathy and assistance from the west.

3. Neither side used chemical weapons but this is the ploy Obama is using to justify intervening in the conflict.

4. The USA conspired with the rebels to plant some Sarin gas and concocted the stories to justify attacking Assad's forces.

5. Both sides have used chemical weapons--there were tons of it delivered by Saddam Hussein who shipped it to Syria as the American forces were assembling. If that is the correct version, then what is the moral highground to deal with that?

So which of these versions is the correct one? Can any of us say which with any great confidence? More than one is correct? Or none are correct?

Shouldn't we know before we go in with guns blazing and bombs falling?

you want to know what is really sad? the lack of trust i have in our government, any of them are believable. and we can't continue to use our enlisted forces as pawns in whatever games are being played by these collective governments. what happened to the will of the people? whether it's our people, the people of syria, the people of timbuktu. i don't believe any government represents the will of the people anymore. the people don't want ot be slaughtering each other. the people are sick of playing this side against that.

 

[Redfish]

I too have been wondering about Obama's global popularity. As an Independent I voted for him in 2012. However, I would not go so far as to call Obama a "global embarrassment." According to this Pew poll done in June 63% of the planet thinks Obama is doing a good job. New Poll Shows Obama's Global Popularity Slipping

50% of the people on the planet don't have any idea what obozo is doing, so subtract 50 from 63 and you may have the real number of people that think he is doing a good job --13%

You can not just make up your own numbers. We need a fact/link to believe you. Or are you just another "Obama slammer?"

the 50% was a guess, its probably much higher than that.

but you posted the "poll". how many citizens of the planet were polled? what % is that of the total population of the planet?

BTW, your poll was in june 2012--over a year ago.

 

[Beachboy]

Obama is a global embarassment....the man a joke.

I too have been wondering about Obama's global popularity. As an Independent I voted for him in 2012. However, I would not go so far as to call Obama a "global embarrassment." According to this Pew poll done in June 63% of the planet thinks Obama is doing a good job. New Poll Shows Obama's Global Popularity Slipping

50% of the people on the planet don't have any idea what obozo is doing, so subtract 50 from 63 and you may have the real number of people that think he is doing a good job --13%

You can not just make up your own numbers. We need a fact/link to believe you. Or are you just another "Obama slammer?"

Facts from a credible source please, or retract your remarks. Thank you.​

 

[Redfish]

I too have been wondering about Obama's global popularity. As an Independent I voted for him in 2012. However, I would not go so far as to call Obama a "global embarrassment." According to this Pew poll done in June 63% of the planet thinks Obama is doing a good job. New Poll Shows Obama's Global Popularity Slipping

50% of the people on the planet don't have any idea what obozo is doing, so subtract 50 from 63 and you may have the real number of people that think he is doing a good job --13%

You can not just make up your own numbers. We need a fact/link to believe you. Or are you just another "Obama slammer?"

Facts from a credible source please, or retract your remarks. Thank you.​

I read your poll, its over a year old, it does not say how many people were polled in each country.

But if you have one that shows how many people in the world don't have any idea what obama is doing or don't care, please post it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank heavens our country is not in the safekeeping of the redfishes.

 

[zeke]

I support the decision of the Speaker of the House.

He wouldn't toss his hat into the ring unless it were in the absolutely best interest of the American people, imho.

I regret that 100,000 people had to die by government murders in Syria without trial, and that there are now many, many Syrian children there who have no parents or who are so sick from being poisoned, they will likely die due to loss of health services.

Recent history has shown leaders who lash out at their own citizens with WOMD poisons are quick to attack neighbors like madmen, creating instability in the region.

We've been told it can be over quickly by top military advisers on tv today.

I still don't like it, but if it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do.

Just out of curiosity, what is my "best interest" that would require my government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars firing missiles into Syria? Is it the oil? Again? Cause that is the ONLY thing in the ME that I have an interest in.

But I bet missile manufactures wouldn't mind a re order of those multi million dollar cruise missiles. That re order would be in THEIR best interest.

Muslims have no problem with killing each other. Why should we make that killing our problem?

In Iraq, they were not killing each other in large numbers. And we still invaded. And what good did that do us. Except to make it more possible for Iraqis' to easily kill other Iraqis. After we got done killing a bunch of them. Yea, that "intervention" thing works so well.

Zeke, Iraq was killing his enemies at an alarming rate of 52,000 per year over a 25-year period. I don't know where you got your ideas from, but it wasn't the Clinton State Department nor that of Madeline Albright's successors. Saddam started war with his neighbor Iran over a 25-mile stretch of beachfront property he wanted badly. In his almost decade-long battle with Iran, over 900,000 people died in battle and from I.E.Ds that he placed in Iran and that Iran recruited poor or unwanted children to skip through the area to "find" the bombs for Allah, tying them together in groups and goading them along with prods when necessary. It's the most heinous war I ever heard of.

If you took a course in Middle Eastern history, why was this fact omitted from your courseload? Enquiring minds want to know. Saddam also invaded Kuwait and killed a lot of bright people there, and he sought after but did not find the rulers, who eluded them but went back after Saddam was run off. But not before he killed a lot of oil people and set the biggest oil well fire in history by lighting fires to Kuwait's largest oil field, which would have destroyed 5% of the world's then-known oil reserves if it hadn't been for some specialists in putting out oil-well fires from Texas. Saddam put more chemicals in the air than any other person or group on earth, and he plotted to murder President George H.W. Bush for stopping his greed for power and oil at any cost including destroying his neighbors.

You're wrong about Iraq not having casualties. In 25 years, there were well over 1,300,000 deaths, countless rapes and maimings. IOW, Saddam Hussein killed 1/20 of his people, more or less.

Did you not read the CENTCOM and newspapers that showed pictures of our troops digging up tens of thousands on top of tens of thousands of Kurdish village entire populations who were mass murdered with Saddam's chemical WOMDs? Where have you been for 25 years that Saddam was doing all this murdering people and his sickening sons who took charge of rape and torture rooms in that realm?

That was a mighty fine response you gave me. Showed what a bad terrible man Saddam was. And everybody knew it. And when he served our purpose, he was our bad man. I've read the history to some degree. Did you ever read that part about how we once supported this bad terrible man? Wasn't really upset at all when he was killing Iranians. Were we?

Anyway.

As to Saddam killing his people. I'll tell you the exact same thing I said when people used the "bad man" justification for invading Iraq; It is not, nor should it be, our problem.

One thing Iraq had with Saddam they don't have now is a functioning society. You know, one where you can go to the market and not get killed by a car bomb. Or go to your favorite mosque without the guy in front of you blowing up. Stuff like that.

That's the long and short of it. The only interest we have now or have had in the past in the ME is OIL. That's it. We share no common heritage with Muslims. We do not understand their way of life. Somehow they justify killing each other or us over shit we don't even know about.

Leave the Muslims alone. They are not our problem Or they shouldn't be. Just like Iraq was a mistake, so will be any war with Syria.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Zeke, I disagree with you but not as much as you think.

Thank you for a reasonable response.

 

[freedombecki]

Just out of curiosity, what is my "best interest" that would require my government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars firing missiles into Syria? Is it the oil? Again? Cause that is the ONLY thing in the ME that I have an interest in.

But I bet missile manufactures wouldn't mind a re order of those multi million dollar cruise missiles. That re order would be in THEIR best interest.

Muslims have no problem with killing each other. Why should we make that killing our problem?

In Iraq, they were not killing each other in large numbers. And we still invaded. And what good did that do us. Except to make it more possible for Iraqis' to easily kill other Iraqis. After we got done killing a bunch of them. Yea, that "intervention" thing works so well.

Zeke, Iraq was killing his enemies at an alarming rate of 52,000 per year over a 25-year period. I don't know where you got your ideas from, but it wasn't the Clinton State Department nor that of Madeline Albright's successors. Saddam started war with his neighbor Iran over a 25-mile stretch of beachfront property he wanted badly. In his almost decade-long battle with Iran, over 900,000 people died in battle and from I.E.Ds that he placed in Iran and that Iran recruited poor or unwanted children to skip through the area to "find" the bombs for Allah, tying them together in groups and goading them along with prods when necessary. It's the most heinous war I ever heard of.

If you took a course in Middle Eastern history, why was this fact omitted from your courseload? Enquiring minds want to know. Saddam also invaded Kuwait and killed a lot of bright people there, and he sought after but did not find the rulers, who eluded them but went back after Saddam was run off. But not before he killed a lot of oil people and set the biggest oil well fire in history by lighting fires to Kuwait's largest oil field, which would have destroyed 5% of the world's then-known oil reserves if it hadn't been for some specialists in putting out oil-well fires from Texas. Saddam put more chemicals in the air than any other person or group on earth, and he plotted to murder President George H.W. Bush for stopping his greed for power and oil at any cost including destroying his neighbors.

You're wrong about Iraq not having casualties. In 25 years, there were well over 1,300,000 deaths, countless rapes and maimings. IOW, Saddam Hussein killed 1/20 of his people, more or less.

Did you not read the CENTCOM and newspapers that showed pictures of our troops digging up tens of thousands on top of tens of thousands of Kurdish village entire populations who were mass murdered with Saddam's chemical WOMDs? Where have you been for 25 years that Saddam was doing all this murdering people and his sickening sons who took charge of rape and torture rooms in that realm?

That was a mighty fine response you gave me. Showed what a bad terrible man Saddam was. And everybody knew it. And when he served our purpose, he was our bad man. I've read the history to some degree. Did you ever read that part about how we once supported this bad terrible man? Wasn't really upset at all when he was killing Iranians. Were we?

Anyway.

As to Saddam killing his people. I'll tell you the exact same thing I said when people used the "bad man" justification for invading Iraq; It is not, nor should it be, our problem.

One thing Iraq had with Saddam they don't have now is a functioning society. You know, one where you can go to the market and not get killed by a car bomb. Or go to your favorite mosque without the guy in front of you blowing up. Stuff like that.

That's the long and short of it. The only interest we have now or have had in the past in the ME is OIL. That's it. We share no common heritage with Muslims. We do not understand their way of life. Somehow they justify killing each other or us over shit we don't even know about.

Leave the Muslims alone. They are not our problem Or they shouldn't be. Just like Iraq was a mistake, so will be any war with Syria.

Assad's country housed, fed, and allowed training camps for al Qaeda who in turn entered Iraq over a porous border and is alleged to have killed 1700 American soldiers by having had Assad sponsor them, so my information is a little different than yours.

Also, Saddam's eliminating 52,000 human beings a year for 25 years earned him the title of the most dangerous terrorist in the Middle East to scholars of the Middle East on both sides of the aisle.

Who's worst, Assad, who helped in the elimination of 1700 American troops or Saddam Hussein?

You're right. In this arena, Saddam Hussein is no longer in the discussion. But Assad did assist him and/or made certain the United States paid a price of 1700 American troops for a war he waged by proxy through people using his facilitation if not active involvement in ensuring American misery in Iraq.

Putin is using this conference to call our Secretary of State Kerry a liar, which resonates strongly with America's veterans who claim Kerry was a turncoat in Viet Nam.

Is Putin playing us, or is he telling the truth? I've seen admissions online of American vets saying they prefer Putin's propaganda over Kerry's. Kerry supporting any war rather shocked me, although I don't know why. He supported the Afghanistan war as the Senate voted unanimously along with the House I believe shortly after September 11, 2001 to let President Bush clean house on the terrorists, wherever in the world they were found.

On Kerry's side, Obama's top General testified before Congress that the evidence was convincing that Assad was behind poison gas.

Putin also claims to have convincing proof that it was the rebels and not Bashir Assad and submitted a white paper as proof to the United Nations. The Secretary General of the United Nations has urged America not to attack Syria.

Since I wasn't there and have only seen on tv what the media wants us to see, which is people shaking from horrible deaths of sarin poisoning, I can't tell who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Since the ball in in the Congress' court at this time, and they are getting a lot of negatives from constituents on both sides of the aisle, who am I to restate what I have only read?

It just seems to me that so many in the Middle East have so much to gain in power, I'm not certain we are getting the straight skinny.

I'm truly sorry someone has used Sarin. I believe we need better proof as to exactly who put on the Sarin show, or if indeed, Assad acted irresponsibly with his troops killing his enemies.

I'm so not psychic, and at this point, I'm not certain who used the Sarin--whether Assad did or the rebels did to frame the Assad regime as Putin is claiming. I can't tell.

 

[The T]

Good to get these shifty characters down on paper lol...

News for boehner supports syrian action
San Francisco Chronicle Boehner's Aboard: Obama Gains Syria-Strike Support
ABC News - 4 hours ago
President Barack Obama gained ground Tuesday in his drive for congressional backing of a military strike against Syria, winning critical ...
Boehner says he'll back Obama on Syria strikes
NBCNews.com - 6 hours ago
S&P 500 Pares Gains as Boehner Supports Syria Action
Bloomberg - 7 hours ago
John Boehner Backs Obama's Call For Military Action In Syria
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/www.huffingtonpost.com/.../john-boehner-syria_n_3860505.html
6 hours ago ... House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced on Tuesday that he would
support President Barack Obama's call for action in Syria, and ...
Boehner: I support Obama's call for action in Syria « Hot Air
hotair.com/archives/.../boehner-i-support-obamas-call-for-action-in-syria/
6 hours ago ... Not just Boehner but Cantor too. Proof that the GOP establishment is still deeply
hawkish, or proof simply that this is the safe political play?
Boehner Supports Obama's Syria Plan - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/boehner-obama-syria-military-action-strikes-assad-2013-9
7 hours ago ... NFL Player Who Allegedly Told Police 'You Can't Arrest Me, I'm A Colts...
Sections A-Z. Latest · Advertising · Careers · Education · Enterprise ...
Boehner: 'I'm Going to Support the President's Call for Action' in Syria
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...port-presidents-call-action-syria_752675.html
7 hours ago ... Read conservative news, blogs and opinion about Barack Obama, Congress,
Foreign Policy, John Boehner, Syria and War from The Weekly ...
John Boehner supports Obama's call for military action against Syria
michellemalkin.com/.../of-course-john-boehner-supports-obamas-call-for-military-action-against-syria/
7 hours ago ... Of course: John Boehner supports Obama's call for military action against Syria.


or google Boehner supports Syria action...
https://www.google.com/search?q=New...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Link Added. -Intense

And Boehner is a Statist DUPE and a Repubican as he too IGNORES the Constitution...Did you really want to make a statement here, or re-affirm that Boehner is a Statist that needs to go?

 

[Foxfyre]

Zeke, Iraq was killing his enemies at an alarming rate of 52,000 per year over a 25-year period. I don't know where you got your ideas from, but it wasn't the Clinton State Department nor that of Madeline Albright's successors. Saddam started war with his neighbor Iran over a 25-mile stretch of beachfront property he wanted badly. In his almost decade-long battle with Iran, over 900,000 people died in battle and from I.E.Ds that he placed in Iran and that Iran recruited poor or unwanted children to skip through the area to "find" the bombs for Allah, tying them together in groups and goading them along with prods when necessary. It's the most heinous war I ever heard of.

If you took a course in Middle Eastern history, why was this fact omitted from your courseload? Enquiring minds want to know. Saddam also invaded Kuwait and killed a lot of bright people there, and he sought after but did not find the rulers, who eluded them but went back after Saddam was run off. But not before he killed a lot of oil people and set the biggest oil well fire in history by lighting fires to Kuwait's largest oil field, which would have destroyed 5% of the world's then-known oil reserves if it hadn't been for some specialists in putting out oil-well fires from Texas. Saddam put more chemicals in the air than any other person or group on earth, and he plotted to murder President George H.W. Bush for stopping his greed for power and oil at any cost including destroying his neighbors.

You're wrong about Iraq not having casualties. In 25 years, there were well over 1,300,000 deaths, countless rapes and maimings. IOW, Saddam Hussein killed 1/20 of his people, more or less.

Did you not read the CENTCOM and newspapers that showed pictures of our troops digging up tens of thousands on top of tens of thousands of Kurdish village entire populations who were mass murdered with Saddam's chemical WOMDs? Where have you been for 25 years that Saddam was doing all this murdering people and his sickening sons who took charge of rape and torture rooms in that realm?

That was a mighty fine response you gave me. Showed what a bad terrible man Saddam was. And everybody knew it. And when he served our purpose, he was our bad man. I've read the history to some degree. Did you ever read that part about how we once supported this bad terrible man? Wasn't really upset at all when he was killing Iranians. Were we?

Anyway.

As to Saddam killing his people. I'll tell you the exact same thing I said when people used the "bad man" justification for invading Iraq; It is not, nor should it be, our problem.

One thing Iraq had with Saddam they don't have now is a functioning society. You know, one where you can go to the market and not get killed by a car bomb. Or go to your favorite mosque without the guy in front of you blowing up. Stuff like that.

That's the long and short of it. The only interest we have now or have had in the past in the ME is OIL. That's it. We share no common heritage with Muslims. We do not understand their way of life. Somehow they justify killing each other or us over shit we don't even know about.

Leave the Muslims alone. They are not our problem Or they shouldn't be. Just like Iraq was a mistake, so will be any war with Syria.

Assad's country housed, fed, and allowed training camps for al Qaeda who in turn entered Iraq over a porous border and is alleged to have killed 1700 American soldiers by having had Assad sponsor them, so my information is a little different than yours.

Also, Saddam's eliminating 52,000 human beings a year for 25 years earned him the title of the most dangerous terrorist in the Middle East to scholars of the Middle East on both sides of the aisle.

Who's worst, Assad, who helped in the elimination of 1700 American troops or Saddam Hussein?

You're right. In this arena, Saddam Hussein is no longer in the discussion. But Assad did assist him and/or made certain the United States paid a price of 1700 American troops for a war he waged by proxy through people using his facilitation if not active involvement in ensuring American misery in Iraq.

Putin is using this conference to call our Secretary of State Kerry a liar, which resonates strongly with America's veterans who claim Kerry was a turncoat in Viet Nam.

Is Putin playing us, or is he telling the truth? I've seen admissions online of American vets saying they prefer Putin's propaganda over Kerry's. Kerry supporting any war rather shocked me, although I don't know why. He supported the Afghanistan war as the Senate voted unanimously along with the House I believe shortly after September 11, 2001 to let President Bush clean house on the terrorists, wherever in the world they were found.

On Kerry's side, Obama's top General testified before Congress that the evidence was convincing that Assad was behind poison gas.

Putin also claims to have convincing proof that it was the rebels and not Bashir Assad and submitted a white paper as proof to the United Nations. The Secretary General of the United Nations has urged America not to attack Syria.

Since I wasn't there and have only seen on tv what the media wants us to see, which is people shaking from horrible deaths of sarin poisoning, I can't tell who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Since the ball in in the Congress' court at this time, and they are getting a lot of negatives from constituents on both sides of the aisle, who am I to restate what I have only read?

It just seems to me that so many in the Middle East have so much to gain in power, I'm not certain we are getting the straight skinny.

I'm truly sorry someone has used Sarin. I believe we need better proof as to exactly who put on the Sarin show, or if indeed, Assad acted irresponsibly with his troops killing his enemies.

I'm so not psychic, and at this point, I'm not certain who used the Sarin--whether Assad did or the rebels did to frame the Assad regime as Putin is claiming. I can't tell.

That's the problem. I don't think anybody knows for sure. And who are the rebels that the Administration seems to think hold the moral high ground over Assad's regime? Didn't work out that way in Egypt, did it? There is some question re the new power base emerging in Lybia. Is Iraq an ally of the USA now? Will Afghanistan be?

As I posted earlier, these are the possible scenarios that are being kicked around on the talk shows, on message boards, and throughout the internet news networks. . . .

1. Assad used chemical weapons on the rebels. - or -

2. The rebels used chemical weapons on their own people and blamed it on the Syrian military to generate sympathy and assistance from the west. - or -

3. Neither side used chemical weapons but this is the ploy Obama is using to justify intervening in the conflict. - or -

4. The USA conspired with the rebels to plant some Sarin gas and concocted the stories to justify attacking Assad's forces. - or -

5. Both sides have used chemical weapons--there were tons of it delivered by Saddam Hussein who shipped it to Syria as the American forces were assembling. If that is the correct version, then what is the moral highground to deal with that?

So which of these versions is the correct one? Can any of us say which with any great confidence? More than one is correct? Or none are correct?

Shouldn't we know before we go in with guns blazing and bombs falling?

 

[Foxfyre]

I was just reading in Huffington Post that Obama doesn't have the votes in our Congress yet. However, they cite ThinkProgress as their source who is compiling the data, so who knows?

But if he doesn't, will he act unilaterally without authority from Congress? And how will the folks who don't grovel adoringly at his feet react to that?

 

[Beachboy]

50% of the people on the planet don't have any idea what obozo is doing, so subtract 50 from 63 and you may have the real number of people that think he is doing a good job --13%

You can not just make up your own numbers.

We need a fact/link to believe you.

Or are you just another "Obama slammer?"

Facts from a credible source please, or retract your remarks. Thank you.​

I read your poll, its over a year old, it does not say how many people were polled in each country.

But if you have one that shows how many people in the world don't have any idea what obama is doing or don't care, please post it.

I will acknowledge that I did make a mistake by stating the poll was from June, 2013 when it was in fact June, 2012.

However you are missing the boat here. You are the one making outrageous claims with NO supporting links. There is no reason for me to submit a link, but my old link is better than your NO link. Verify your words or take them back. Or should we just write you off as unsubstantiated internet noise? It really is quite simple.

 

[The T]

Zeke, Iraq was killing his enemies at an alarming rate of 52,000 per year over a 25-year period. I don't know where you got your ideas from, but it wasn't the Clinton State Department nor that of Madeline Albright's successors. Saddam started war with his neighbor Iran over a 25-mile stretch of beachfront property he wanted badly. In his almost decade-long battle with Iran, over 900,000 people died in battle and from I.E.Ds that he placed in Iran and that Iran recruited poor or unwanted children to skip through the area to "find" the bombs for Allah, tying them together in groups and goading them along with prods when necessary. It's the most heinous war I ever heard of.

If you took a course in Middle Eastern history, why was this fact omitted from your courseload? Enquiring minds want to know. Saddam also invaded Kuwait and killed a lot of bright people there, and he sought after but did not find the rulers, who eluded them but went back after Saddam was run off. But not before he killed a lot of oil people and set the biggest oil well fire in history by lighting fires to Kuwait's largest oil field, which would have destroyed 5% of the world's then-known oil reserves if it hadn't been for some specialists in putting out oil-well fires from Texas. Saddam put more chemicals in the air than any other person or group on earth, and he plotted to murder President George H.W. Bush for stopping his greed for power and oil at any cost including destroying his neighbors.

You're wrong about Iraq not having casualties. In 25 years, there were well over 1,300,000 deaths, countless rapes and maimings. IOW, Saddam Hussein killed 1/20 of his people, more or less.

Did you not read the CENTCOM and newspapers that showed pictures of our troops digging up tens of thousands on top of tens of thousands of Kurdish village entire populations who were mass murdered with Saddam's chemical WOMDs? Where have you been for 25 years that Saddam was doing all this murdering people and his sickening sons who took charge of rape and torture rooms in that realm?

That was a mighty fine response you gave me. Showed what a bad terrible man Saddam was. And everybody knew it. And when he served our purpose, he was our bad man. I've read the history to some degree. Did you ever read that part about how we once supported this bad terrible man? Wasn't really upset at all when he was killing Iranians. Were we?

Anyway.

As to Saddam killing his people. I'll tell you the exact same thing I said when people used the "bad man" justification for invading Iraq; It is not, nor should it be, our problem.

One thing Iraq had with Saddam they don't have now is a functioning society. You know, one where you can go to the market and not get killed by a car bomb. Or go to your favorite mosque without the guy in front of you blowing up. Stuff like that.

That's the long and short of it. The only interest we have now or have had in the past in the ME is OIL. That's it. We share no common heritage with Muslims. We do not understand their way of life. Somehow they justify killing each other or us over shit we don't even know about.

Leave the Muslims alone. They are not our problem Or they shouldn't be. Just like Iraq was a mistake, so will be any war with Syria.

Assad's country housed, fed, and allowed training camps for al Qaeda who in turn entered Iraq over a porous border and is alleged to have killed 1700 American soldiers by having had Assad sponsor them, so my information is a little different than yours.

Also, Saddam's eliminating 52,000 human beings a year for 25 years earned him the title of the most dangerous terrorist in the Middle East to scholars of the Middle East on both sides of the aisle.

Who's worst, Assad, who helped in the elimination of 1700 American troops or Saddam Hussein?

You're right. In this arena, Saddam Hussein is no longer in the discussion. But Assad did assist him and/or made certain the United States paid a price of 1700 American troops for a war he waged by proxy through people using his facilitation if not active involvement in ensuring American misery in Iraq.

Putin is using this conference to call our Secretary of State Kerry a liar, which resonates strongly with America's veterans who claim Kerry was a turncoat in Viet Nam.

Is Putin playing us, or is he telling the truth? I've seen admissions online of American vets saying they prefer Putin's propaganda over Kerry's. Kerry supporting any war rather shocked me, although I don't know why. He supported the Afghanistan war as the Senate voted unanimously along with the House I believe shortly after September 11, 2001 to let President Bush clean house on the terrorists, wherever in the world they were found.

On Kerry's side, Obama's top General testified before Congress that the evidence was convincing that Assad was behind poison gas.

Putin also claims to have convincing proof that it was the rebels and not Bashir Assad and submitted a white paper as proof to the United Nations. The Secretary General of the United Nations has urged America not to attack Syria.

Since I wasn't there and have only seen on tv what the media wants us to see, which is people shaking from horrible deaths of sarin poisoning, I can't tell who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Since the ball in in the Congress' court at this time, and they are getting a lot of negatives from constituents on both sides of the aisle, who am I to restate what I have only read?

It just seems to me that so many in the Middle East have so much to gain in power, I'm not certain we are getting the straight skinny.

I'm truly sorry someone has used Sarin. I believe we need better proof as to exactly who put on the Sarin show, or if indeed, Assad acted irresponsibly with his troops killing his enemies.

I'm so not psychic, and at this point, I'm not certain who used the Sarin--whether Assad did or the rebels did to frame the Assad regime as Putin is claiming. I can't tell.

And We still need to stay OUT of this. Regardless of who used them.

As much as I LOATHE the UN? Where is Obama's Consultation with them?

NOWHERE. He hasn't consulted...

So an Attack by US alone would do what?

Britain said NO...the French are willing but NOT by themselves...

Who else has signed on with US?

Looking more unilateral at this point. NOT a good position to be in. Just remember? Obama put us HERE as HE had a chance over a year ago to deal with this.

OBAMA bungled it. Puts US in a place WE'd rather not be. HE want to act for his EGO, Low ratings/polls/ Legacy...Kerry is backing him

I say NO action.

Congress had better listen.

 

[squeeze berry]

I did hear that Boehner had important questions first, like "Is Syria a major wine exporting country?"

yes

they call their wine syrah

 

[The T]

I was just reading in Huffington Post that Obama doesn't have the votes in our Congress yet. However, they cite ThinkProgress as their source who is compiling the data, so who knows?

But if he doesn't, will he act unilaterally without authority from Congress? And how will the folks who don't grovel adoringly at his feet react to that?

If Congress says NO...and he does anyway? Impeachment time. Time to hand the petulant narcissist his ass.

 

[Beachboy]

I was just reading in Huffington Post that Obama doesn't have the votes in our Congress yet. However, they cite ThinkProgress as their source who is compiling the data, so who knows?

But if he doesn't, will he act unilaterally without authority from Congress? And how will the folks who don't grovel adoringly at his feet react to that?

As an Independent voter, I have reversed myself on Syria. 60-70% of Syria is Muslim. We help them now, and in five years the United States is blamed for all their problems. The bastards will blow up Disneyland! These people have been killing each other for thousands of years, why should we participate?

​

President Obama is at a crossroads in his career. Last night on CBS News Obama said that chemical weapons is not a red line that he drew, but that the international community had drawn it. A treaty signed in the 1920s (after chemical weapons melted the skin off soldiers in WWI), by most of the world, (including Syria), outlawed these weapons. This is a job for the U. N., not the United States.

The United States has a strong military that is in place to defend our country, not settle every injustice on the planet. I think President Obama knows this, and is looking for a gracious way out. If he is not, the latest Pew shows 48% against going into Syria. 29% for going into Syria, and the rest undecided. Let the Muslims clean up their own mess.

 

[The T]

that was a mighty fine response you gave me. Showed what a bad terrible man saddam was. And everybody knew it. And when he served our purpose, he was our bad man. I've read the history to some degree. Did you ever read that part about how we once supported this bad terrible man? Wasn't really upset at all when he was killing iranians. Were we?

Anyway.

As to saddam killing his people. I'll tell you the exact same thing i said when people used the "bad man" justification for invading iraq; it is not, nor should it be, our problem.

One thing iraq had with saddam they don't have now is a functioning society. You know, one where you can go to the market and not get killed by a car bomb. Or go to your favorite mosque without the guy in front of you blowing up. Stuff like that.

That's the long and short of it. The only interest we have now or have had in the past in the me is oil. That's it. We share no common heritage with muslims. We do not understand their way of life. Somehow they justify killing each other or us over shit we don't even know about.

Leave the muslims alone. They are not our problem or they shouldn't be. Just like iraq was a mistake, so will be any war with syria.

assad's country housed, fed, and allowed training camps for al qaeda who in turn entered iraq over a porous border and is alleged to have killed 1700 american soldiers by having had assad sponsor them, so my information is a little different than yours.

Also, saddam's eliminating 52,000 human beings a year for 25 years earned him the title of the most dangerous terrorist in the middle east to scholars of the middle east on both sides of the aisle.

Who's worst, assad, who helped in the elimination of 1700 american troops or saddam hussein?

You're right. In this arena, saddam hussein is no longer in the discussion. But assad did assist him and/or made certain the united states paid a price of 1700 american troops for a war he waged by proxy through people using his facilitation if not active involvement in ensuring american misery in iraq.

Putin is using this conference to call our secretary of state kerry a liar, which resonates strongly with america's veterans who claim kerry was a turncoat in viet nam.

Is putin playing us, or is he telling the truth? I've seen admissions online of american vets saying they prefer putin's propaganda over kerry's. Kerry supporting any war rather shocked me, although i don't know why. He supported the afghanistan war as the senate voted unanimously along with the house i believe shortly after september 11, 2001 to let president bush clean house on the terrorists, wherever in the world they were found.

On kerry's side, obama's top general testified before congress that the evidence was convincing that assad was behind poison gas.

Putin also claims to have convincing proof that it was the rebels and not bashir assad and submitted a white paper as proof to the united nations. The secretary general of the united nations has urged america not to attack syria.

Since i wasn't there and have only seen on tv what the media wants us to see, which is people shaking from horrible deaths of sarin poisoning, i can't tell who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Since the ball in in the congress' court at this time, and they are getting a lot of negatives from constituents on both sides of the aisle, who am i to restate what i have only read?

It just seems to me that so many in the middle east have so much to gain in power, i'm not certain we are getting the straight skinny.

I'm truly sorry someone has used sarin. I believe we need better proof as to exactly who put on the sarin show, or if indeed, assad acted irresponsibly with his troops killing his enemies.

I'm so not psychic, and at this point, i'm not certain who used the sarin--whether assad did or the rebels did to frame the assad regime as putin is claiming. I can't tell.

and we still need to stay out of this. Regardless of who used them.

As much as i loathe the un? Where is obama's consultation with them?

Nowhere. He hasn't consulted...

So an attack by us alone would do what?

Britain said no...the french are willing but not by themselves...

Who else has signed on with us?

Looking more unilateral at this point. Not a good position to be in. Just remember? Obama put us here as he had a chance over a year ago to deal with this.

Obama bungled it. Puts us in a place we'd rather not be. He want to act for his ego, low ratings/polls/ legacy...kerry is backing him

i say no action.

Congress had better listen.

*reposted*

 

[Beachboy]

I was just reading in Huffington Post that Obama doesn't have the votes in our Congress yet. However, they cite ThinkProgress as their source who is compiling the data, so who knows?

But if he doesn't, will he act unilaterally without authority from Congress? And how will the folks who don't grovel adoringly at his feet react to that?

If Congress says NO...and he does anyway? Impeachment time. Time to hand the petulant narcissist his ass.

You may be correct. I checked Google, and there are mainly bloggers talking Syrian involvement could lead to Obama impeachment. Here is a link from a right-wing newspaper on the subject, but they have always hated Obama. Hunter: Obama inviting impeachment if he strikes Syria without Congress - Washington Times No reputable news organizations have said anything.

As an Indy when I hear Republicans use the word "impeachment" it reminds me of getting a rap on the hand from a teacher for talking in grade school. Impeachment is nothing since Republicans misused it on former President Clinton. It is not like it would remove President Obama from office.

Andrew Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

When Andrew Johnson was impeached it was because he was a bipolar drunk who screwed up Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was a big deal. Today, Impeachment is nothing, a pimple. It sure has not hurt former President Clinton's career.

 

[The T]

I was just reading in Huffington Post that Obama doesn't have the votes in our Congress yet. However, they cite ThinkProgress as their source who is compiling the data, so who knows?

But if he doesn't, will he act unilaterally without authority from Congress? And how will the folks who don't grovel adoringly at his feet react to that?

If Congress says NO...and he does anyway? Impeachment time. Time to hand the petulant narcissist his ass.

You may be correct. I checked Google, and there is nothing but bloggers talking Syrian involvement could lead to Obama impeachment. Links like this were typical. Hunter: Obama inviting impeachment if he strikes Syria without Congress - Washington Times No reputable news organizations are saying anything.

As an Indy when I hear Republicans use the word "impeachment" it reminds me of getting a rap on the hand from a teacher in grade school. Impeachment is nothing since Republicans misused it on former President Clinton. It is not like it would remove President Obama from office.

When Andrew Johnson was impeached it was because he was a bipolar drunk who screwed up reconstruction after the Civil War. It was a big deal. Impeachment is nothing, a pimple. It sure has not hurt former President Clinton's career.

And CLINTON WAS Impeached for JUST SEX...?

Yes he was...and for LYING to the Court, TO the People...BARRED from Practicing LAW...

Obama has done FAR WORSE.

 

[Beachboy]

If Congress says NO...and he does anyway? Impeachment time. Time to hand the petulant narcissist his ass.

You may be correct. I checked Google, and there is nothing but bloggers talking Syrian involvement could lead to Obama impeachment. Links like this were typical. Hunter: Obama inviting impeachment if he strikes Syria without Congress - Washington Times No reputable news organizations are saying anything.

As an Indy when I hear Republicans use the word "impeachment" it reminds me of getting a rap on the hand from a teacher in grade school. Impeachment is nothing since Republicans misused it on former President Clinton. It is not like it would remove President Obama from office.

When Andrew Johnson was impeached it was because he was a bipolar drunk who screwed up reconstruction after the Civil War. It was a big deal. Impeachment is nothing, a pimple. It sure has not hurt former President Clinton's career.

And CLINTON WAS Impeached for JUST SEX...?

Yes he was...and for LYING to the Court, TO the People...BARRED from Practicing LAW...

Obama has done FAR WORSE.

You are not going to get an argument out of me. Perhaps those on the right would do well to realize that the Clinton Impeachment was and is viewed by most as a petty Republican issue. No one cared. If I had sex outside my marriage, I would lie to.

Technically, George W. Bush should have been impeached for lying about weapons of mass destruction, but the DNC dismissed the idea after seeing the backlash on Republicans for impeaching President Clinton. Frankly, no one did anything about weapons of mass destruction until we started looking into Syria seriously. I think that in the next week we are going to see a real test of Obama. If Obama sends us to Syria, I predict major Congressional wins for Republicans in 2016.

I am not going to argue about Obama. He is a mediocre POTUS. I voted for Obama, but really I voted against the last two whack jobs Republicans have nominated for POTUS. McCain changed his strategy weekly, and by election day he was viewed as a senile old man. Obama did not really win the election, McCain gave it to Obama. Romney was an elitist, and insulted voters on Social Security as freeloaders, Hispanics, GLBTQ, and women. I always thought these two photos summed up the election of 2012.

If Republicans nominate Chris Christie, and Democrats pick Hillary Clinton, that would be a REAL choice in my book. Speaking as an Indy, I could vote for either of them.


.
​