Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I was only pointing out that the U.S. shouldn't perpetually get away with looking so innocent and how serious it is.
How does talking about using a chemical that was used 35 years ago and was was intended not as an attack but to defoliate the jungle areas the Vietcong were hiding accomplish that exactly?
Not sure how with my views though you think that I think the US is "innocent," maybe it's because you've been to busy telling me what I think to ask me.
That's what we're talking about, right?
How does talking about using a chemical that was used 35 years ago and was was intended not as an attack but to defoliate the jungle areas the Vietcong were hiding accomplish that exactly?
Not sure how with my views though you think that I think the US is "innocent," maybe it's because you've been to busy telling me what I think to ask me.
That's what we're talking about, right?
You need to make a more lucid argument and or statement.
I said I disagree that Agent Orange makes us Syria. I am not defending agent orange or saying we're innocent. I oppose attacking Syria and I oppose the way we fought Vietnam. I am able to make more gradient distinctions though other than "good" and "bad." Though I did like Ghostbusters.
Yeah no difference between Willy Pete, which is an incendiary, and Sarin, which is a nerve gas. None whatsoever. Just like there is no difference between American troops in Iraq and the Gestapo. Right?See, understand that for putzbags like Contumacious, there is no distinction between things if he wants to make a comparison. So there is no difference between the US using a defoliant and Syria using nerve gas. And there is no difference between Israel erecting a protective fence and the Nazis walling in the Warsaw Ghetto. None whatsover.
That's what makes him a lame brain.
"Messamore said the US military used white phosphorus a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh in 2004 in the Iraqi city of Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents.
Fallujah residents and US soldiers revealed in a televised interview how the US government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death.
Again in Iraq in 2003, the US military littered the environment with munitions made from depleted uranium which is a toxic nuclear waste product.
As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 2010 were born with birth defects, said Messamore."
.
Did Reagan need congressional approval for Grenada? No. Did Carter need congressional approval for Desert One? No. Did GHW Bush need approval for Panama? No. Did Clinton need approval for Somalia or Serbia? No.No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.
Obama is CinC. He is responsible for foreign policy, not Congress or the GOP. He didnt need Congress' approval to do anything. He said so himself. Even so he had support from prominent GOP congressmen. It was his own party that wouldn't support him.
Will Democrats ever take responsibility for anything?
Yes, he does need congressional approval to commit an act of war.
WTF is wrong with people? Read the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
Yeah no difference between Willy Pete, which is an incendiary, and Sarin, which is a nerve gas. None whatsoever. Just like there is no difference between American troops in Iraq and the Gestapo. Right?See, understand that for putzbags like Contumacious, there is no distinction between things if he wants to make a comparison. So there is no difference between the US using a defoliant and Syria using nerve gas. And there is no difference between Israel erecting a protective fence and the Nazis walling in the Warsaw Ghetto. None whatsover.
That's what makes him a lame brain.
"Messamore said the US military used white phosphorus a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh in 2004 in the Iraqi city of Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents.
Fallujah residents and US soldiers revealed in a televised interview how the US government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death.
Again in Iraq in 2003, the US military littered the environment with munitions made from depleted uranium which is a toxic nuclear waste product.
As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 2010 were born with birth defects, said Messamore."
.
Two articles from the same source so posting both in one new thread.
President Obama has said he does not want or plant a "boots on the ground" war and, judging by his past, it would be more likely that he would use drones for a surgical strike.
Whatever he does, its been nice to see the worthless Rs actually pretend to do their job, if only for a little while. They'll soon be back to their usual tight schedule of vacations broken up by phony votes against ObamaCare.
Two articles from the same source so posting both in one new thread.
President Obama has said he does not want or plant a "boots on the ground" war and, judging by his past, it would be more likely that he would use drones for a surgical strike.
Whatever he does, its been nice to see the worthless Rs actually pretend to do their job, if only for a little while. They'll soon be back to their usual tight schedule of vacations broken up by phony votes against ObamaCare.
Puddly, Puddly, Puddly......
View attachment 27526
Two articles from the same source so posting both in one new thread.
You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong
Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.
Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally and even did so in Libya two years ago?
During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.
So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.
=========
Syria War Resolution: Congress Is a Pawn In Obama's Secret Plan
To say that President Obamas response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria has been controversial would be a gross understatement. He has managed the rare feat of pleasing no one before even deciding what response he will take. The latest chapter in this story has proven particularly inflammatory; Obamas decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike has led to accusations that he is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief, giving Assad the opportunity to hide and protect his resources, and of cynically play[ing] politics with American credibility. Yet while there may be bits of truth to these claims, when you look at Obamas decision to go to Congress from the perspective of geopolitics it is clear it was not an admission of weakness or an attempt to avoid action it was a strategic masterstroke.
This is because Obama is looking at the big picture. He is determined to make striking Syria about more than just human rights. Its about the global reputation of the U.S., drawing a positive comparison against China and Russia, and retaining the ability to act against Iran in the years to come.
Obama knows that nothing damaged U.S. credibility in the past decade more than the war in Iraq. The use of deceit to unleash unilateral American power caused a huge backlash against American leadership. Obama wants to act in Syria, largely to uphold the credibility of the U.S. and the international system it leads, but he cant let it look like a repeat of Iraq. Obama campaigned for the presidency on the promise to change how America engages the world and has proven extremely reluctant, outside of drone strikes and the Bin Laden raid, to act abroad unilaterally. Consequently, he wants as much support as possible for an attack on Syria, and unlike the intervention in Libya where NATO had approval from the UN Security Council to act and did so in conjunction with several Arab allies, this time around, the U.S. would be, at best, acting with just one significant partner, France. As such, Congress is the last available option to add credibility to a U.S. strike. Its not a perfect solution, as Congress also voted to go to war in Iraq, but its better than Obama acting alone.
President Obama has said he does not want or plant a "boots on the ground" war and, judging by his past, it would be more likely that he would use drones for a surgical strike.
Whatever he does, its been nice to see the worthless Rs actually pretend to do their job, if only for a little while. They'll soon be back to their usual tight schedule of vacations broken up by phony votes against ObamaCare.
You can spin this any way you want. obama is still going to stink.
Two articles from the same source so posting both in one new thread.
You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong
Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.
Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally and even did so in Libya two years ago?
During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.
So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.
=========
Syria War Resolution: Congress Is a Pawn In Obama's Secret Plan
To say that President Obamas response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria has been controversial would be a gross understatement. He has managed the rare feat of pleasing no one before even deciding what response he will take. The latest chapter in this story has proven particularly inflammatory; Obamas decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike has led to accusations that he is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief, giving Assad the opportunity to hide and protect his resources, and of cynically play[ing] politics with American credibility. Yet while there may be bits of truth to these claims, when you look at Obamas decision to go to Congress from the perspective of geopolitics it is clear it was not an admission of weakness or an attempt to avoid action it was a strategic masterstroke.
This is because Obama is looking at the big picture. He is determined to make striking Syria about more than just human rights. Its about the global reputation of the U.S., drawing a positive comparison against China and Russia, and retaining the ability to act against Iran in the years to come.
Obama knows that nothing damaged U.S. credibility in the past decade more than the war in Iraq. The use of deceit to unleash unilateral American power caused a huge backlash against American leadership. Obama wants to act in Syria, largely to uphold the credibility of the U.S. and the international system it leads, but he cant let it look like a repeat of Iraq. Obama campaigned for the presidency on the promise to change how America engages the world and has proven extremely reluctant, outside of drone strikes and the Bin Laden raid, to act abroad unilaterally. Consequently, he wants as much support as possible for an attack on Syria, and unlike the intervention in Libya where NATO had approval from the UN Security Council to act and did so in conjunction with several Arab allies, this time around, the U.S. would be, at best, acting with just one significant partner, France. As such, Congress is the last available option to add credibility to a U.S. strike. Its not a perfect solution, as Congress also voted to go to war in Iraq, but its better than Obama acting alone.
President Obama has said he does not want or plant a "boots on the ground" war and, judging by his past, it would be more likely that he would use drones for a surgical strike.
Whatever he does, its been nice to see the worthless Rs actually pretend to do their job, if only for a little while. They'll soon be back to their usual tight schedule of vacations broken up by phony votes against ObamaCare.
I have never seen such a large pile of horseshit in one place before in my life!
Let me get this straight.... Obama draws a "red line", then claims he didn't, threatens to attack Syria, then tells the world all the details of when and how, back peddles when he realizes it is a coalition of 1+ France, the American people say no, and now he bows to Putin, and this fool thinks Obama played Congress?
That's seriously fucking delusional.
No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.
I think you righties are just dying for him to make the same kinda stupid mistakes Bush did. I'm hoping he doesn't and it seems the majority of Americans are with me.
Obama stared.
Putin blinked.
And the rw's traitors are still gonna lie about it.
What drugs do you take to believe such idiocy?
You really got to love how the rightwing inmates are trying to spin this latest development as a bad thing.
The derangement continues.
They love going to war for bad reasons and creating more terrorists. The thought of not going to war hurts them.
according to luddly, obama lied and he is still luddly's hero
