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.
Let's just cut through the all the bullshit and assume that it is already proven-as-fact that Bashar Assad and his regime in Syria used chemical weapons against the rebels and nearby civilians - against his own people.
Let's also cut through the bullshit in saying that precedent exists for the US to punish users of chemical weapons, as we saw served-up as the casus belli for attacking Iraq in 2003...
Let's say that is all true...
Such a state of affairs does not mean that we have to attack Syria now...
We can pick and choose our fights...
And we can pick and choose which ones to sit-out, as well...
The vast majority of Americans oppose intervention (according to the most recent polls found in the Washington Post, Drudge Report, and even our little polls here)...
The nation has been at war since 2001...
That is 12 years...
We just wrapped-up one war (Iraq) after 7 years or more in the field...
We're still engaged in another war (Afghanistan) after 12 years in the field...
We've cycled and recycled our Active-Duty and Reserve and Guard units again and again...
Our military is tired... still tough-as-nails but tired...
Our PEOPLE are tired of war... the nation is war-weary...
Our Treasury is empty after floating the cost of wars for a decade or more; we're broke, and robbing Peter to pay Paul, to float the cost of government, and to feed our poor...
There are other countries closer-by with healthy militaries that need some exercise...
Let the Europeans and the Turks and the Arab League handle this one, if they're so friggin' eager to hit Syria...
Let's sit this one out...
This is not about supporting Bush and not supporting Obama, or any related effect...
This is about the nation being fresh and pissed (after 9-11) and ready to get some Payback, in 2001, and even 2003, to kick some ass...
This is about the nation now being war-weary and broke and tired, and in-need of a season of rest and recuperation, and to let the national pocketbook cool-off for a while...
This is about us being ready-and-willing back then, and ready-and-UNwilling today...
Two different times, and two different energy levels, insofar as the National Will is concerned...
When your people are bone-tired, and there is no pressing survival-argument in favor of action, then, The People are entitled to a Season of Rest...
No disrespect or lack of support intended for Fearless Leader, but...
This is the wrong war, at the wrong time...
And the American People - those whom God or Fate has elevated you to lead - are tired, and don't want to play the game, this particular time around...
Let 'em rest... they've earned it...
Stand down...
Let's sit this one out...
The problem is every time we fall for a new development, another country falls.
The use of false flags has a history. I was just reading about an incident that happened in Kosovo. A market was shelled and the Bosnian Serbs blamed and a general even convicted by a Hague Tribunal. Yet, I am reading that a NATO investigation concluded it was a Bosnian attack on their own population. And what that story illustrates is false flags are commonly invoked in conflicts and you can come out of these incidents with it never being clearly established and agreed upon by all, what truly happened. http://justitiapaxveritas.org/peace-researcher-common-to-provoke-nato-intervention-by-false-flags/
The problem is every time we fall for a new development, another country falls.
That's the plan. All the countries that are a threat by supporting terrorist in anyway are being reduced to third rate nations with internal chaos, barely viable military abilities, and no air defense systems. This allows for the free use of drone warfare and special op's whenever a threat appears and the easy use of bribes and rewards to find such targets. Eygpt is the exception, instead of US drones the Eygtian military has been kept viable and is still able to chase down threats.
The problem is every time we fall for a new development, another country falls.
That's the plan. All the countries that are a threat by supporting terrorist in anyway are being reduced to third rate nations with internal chaos, barely viable military abilities, and no air defense systems. This allows for the free use of drone warfare and special op's whenever a threat appears and the easy use of bribes and rewards to find such targets. Eygpt is the exception, instead of US drones the Eygtian military has been kept viable and is still able to chase down threats.
So the lowest of the third world nations are becoming third-rate. LOL
Isn't Iran the only one left with any notable air-defense system? It is clear-sailing from there.
That's the plan. All the countries that are a threat by supporting terrorist in anyway are being reduced to third rate nations with internal chaos, barely viable military abilities, and no air defense systems. This allows for the free use of drone warfare and special op's whenever a threat appears and the easy use of bribes and rewards to find such targets. Eygpt is the exception, instead of US drones the Eygtian military has been kept viable and is still able to chase down threats.
So the lowest of the third world nations are becoming third-rate. LOL
Isn't Iran the only one left with any notable air-defense system? It is clear-sailing from there.
Libya was not third world. Nor was Iraq. Nor is Syria. Third world usualy refers to a counties economic position, infrastructure, etc. Third rate usualy refers to a countries military ability. And yes, Iran is the last nation on the target list. Pakistan is being given special treatment because of it's nuke position, but it is not free and clear of the target list. They know Iran is on the list in front of them. Iran won't be an activated target until Syria is finished.
I did not bring up the term third world, you did. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Sometimes common terms can have different meanings in specific professional communities or areas of discussion.So the lowest of the third world nations are becoming third-rate. LOL
Isn't Iran the only one left with any notable air-defense system? It is clear-sailing from there.
Libya was not third world. Nor was Iraq. Nor is Syria. Third world usualy refers to a counties economic position, infrastructure, etc. Third rate usualy refers to a countries military ability. And yes, Iran is the last nation on the target list. Pakistan is being given special treatment because of it's nuke position, but it is not free and clear of the target list. They know Iran is on the list in front of them. Iran won't be an activated target until Syria is finished.
This is not an economic debate, and I don't know how common terms can be excluded from one about war.
I did not bring up the term third world, you did. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Sometimes common terms can have different meanings in specific professional communities or areas of discussion.Libya was not third world. Nor was Iraq. Nor is Syria. Third world usualy refers to a counties economic position, infrastructure, etc. Third rate usualy refers to a countries military ability. And yes, Iran is the last nation on the target list. Pakistan is being given special treatment because of it's nuke position, but it is not free and clear of the target list. They know Iran is on the list in front of them. Iran won't be an activated target until Syria is finished.
This is not an economic debate, and I don't know how common terms can be excluded from one about war.
I'd prefer a bong summit.
Uphill battle for Obama: Where Congress stands on Syria
Susan Page and John Kelly, USA TODAY 6:24 p.m. EDT September 8, 2013
President Obama faces a daunting battle to win congressional authorization for a military strike on Syria, a USA TODAY Network survey finds. But a large number of undecideds may be open to persuasion.
The largest group of lawmakers remains undecided, including a majority of the Senate and the House. That could create an opportunity for the president to persuade them in a string of six interviews with TV network anchors Monday and a televised address to the nation Tuesday. The Senate could vote as early as Wednesday.
...
Congress isn't convinced. In the survey:
•Democrats haven't fallen in line behind the president, at least not yet. Congressional Democrats are as likely to oppose the measure as support it, although most say they are undecided. At the moment, 28 Democrats support action; 28 oppose it.
•Republicans who have made a decision overwhelmingly oppose Obama, by nearly 8-1. Sixteen Republicans support action; 121 oppose it.
•In a majority of states, not a single member of Congress has gone on record endorsing the president's request for authorization of a military strike. That includes a dozen states that Obama carried in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections: Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
"I think it's an uphill slog from here," House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., one of the handful of Republicans who supports the president, said on CBS' Face the Nation Sunday. He said the White House has "done an awful job" in explaining the reason for a strike and added, "It's a confusing mess."
On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he was horrified by images of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria but warned that the strikes could destabilize the country or even increase the odds that opposition forces obtain chemical weapons. "I don't think we're going to do anything to Assad," he said of the Syrian leader.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said he has heard overwhelming opposition from his constituents. "And keep in mind, my district voted 77% for the president," he said on CBS. "I think the president has work to do, but I think he can possibly get the votes. But he's got to come before the Congress and the nation."
On this issue, Obama hasn't been able to count on the classic partisan divide that has defined the capital's politics through his tenure. Some liberal Democrats have aligned with Republican libertarians to oppose a military strike. Some GOP hawks who typically oppose him (including Arizona Sen. John McCain, whom Obama beat for the White House in 2008) argue for action.
Even African Americans in Congress, who have been among Obama's most reliable supporters on other issues, are resistant. Of 42 black lawmakers, two are committed to voting "yes."
...
Uphill battle for Obama: Where Congress stands on Syria
Uphill Battle for Obama
I greatly misjudged Synth in this area. Learn something new every day.
I cannot support any institution that treats women as second-class citizens, is extremely secretive, and is coercive through shaming, ostracizing, and shunning.
I don't support Scientology, either.
I don't support Islam, either.
Who is asking for your support? Not supporting is different from what you posted.
You don't have to "support" us to avoid calling us cultists. You don't have to "support" us to avoid endorsing posts which make blanket insulting insinuations. I suspect that you have gotten information from hyperbolic sources. There may be some localized groups which practice "shaming, ostracizing, and shunning" but that is not the church I know.
I now know that you freely, openly and unapologetically insult people of my faith based on their membership in that religion. That's religious bigotry. I did think you were better than that.
So says one of the biggest HACK judges on these boards.I cannot support any institution that treats women as second-class citizens, is extremely secretive, and is coercive through shaming, ostracizing, and shunning.
I don't support Scientology, either.
I don't support Islam, either.
Who is asking for your support? Not supporting is different from what you posted.
You don't have to "support" us to avoid calling us cultists. You don't have to "support" us to avoid endorsing posts which make blanket insulting insinuations. I suspect that you have gotten information from hyperbolic sources. There may be some localized groups which practice "shaming, ostracizing, and shunning" but that is not the church I know.
I now know that you freely, openly and unapologetically insult people of my faith based on their membership in that religion. That's religious bigotry. I did think you were better than that.
It speaks to their judgement.
