Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) - Time To Consider Syria Action

[rdean]

“If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Gadhafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi, the question for the world [is], have we gotten to that point in Syria,” Graham said on the CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Graham: Time To Consider Syria Action | FrumForum

Graham made the talk show circuit on Sunday.

This is hilarious. We've said it before, no matter what Obama does, Republicans are going to cry and cry and cry "foul". They hate the guy that much.

First screaming that he go into Libya, then screaming when he does.

Is Syria next?

Is there a Muslim country Republicans don't want to invade?

Imagine if McCain were president?

 

[California Girl]

Yea, we should sit back and do nothing while innocent people get slaughtered by their government. Is there no one that Democrats really care about?

 

[grunt11b]

Lyndsey Graham is just another leftist progressive posing as a Republican "See Olympia Snow and Lisa Murkoski for other examples". He needs to be voted out just like the rest of those turds. Noone that lives in reality takes him serious anyways.

 

[Two Thumbs]

damn you're an idiot

We are already killing people in Syria. Big 0 sent in the drones months ago.

But it's some how majically the fault of some GOPers that he's a blood thirsty war monger?

 

[Sallow]

Yea, we should sit back and do nothing while innocent people get slaughtered by their government. Is there no one that Democrats really care about?

Syria has got a very serious military and Assad is well liked on the Arab street. Libya was something that was basically "doable" because it the Arabs hate Gaddafi, Gaddafi was directly linked to a terrorist attack that killed over 200 Americans..and NATO took the lead.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Syria has oil, so it is likely that Obama will attack them again, and it is likely that just like in Libya he'll end up giving billions of US taxpayer dollars to Al-Qaeda because now they're our allies and "freedom fighters."

 

[grunt11b]

Yea, we should sit back and do nothing while innocent people get slaughtered by their government. Is there no one that Democrats really care about?

Syria has got a very serious military and Assad is well liked on the Arab street. Libya was something that was basically "doable" because it the Arabs hate Gaddafi, Gaddafi was directly linked to a terrorist attack that killed over 200 Americans..and NATO took the lead.

Nato only took the lead so Obama could avoid congressional approval, dont kid yourself, Obama is a war monger and will put our troops in harms way any chance he can get to influence middle eastern countries in a way that we as Americans do not want them influenced, Take Egypt for example, the muslim brotherhood took that over from a president that supported America for over 30 years...and Obama supported the uprising their!!! But in Iran, when the people wanted to get rid of Achmamonkey face "A real threat to liberty on a global scale and a future nuclear threat" Obama was dead silent. Obama is making all the wrong choices for America, all the wrong choices. He does not have the balls to make the hard choices like removing a serious threat, he took his street agitator skills to a global level and is now agitating third world countries into uprisings. He may in fact be the 3rd coming of the antichrist. *Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dr.Drock]

How long will RDean be able to blame Obama's warmongering, anti-diplomacy foreign policy on the GOP?

Can he keep it up for 8 years?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How long will RDean be able to blame Obama's warmongering, anti-diplomacy foreign policy on the GOP?

Can he keep it up for 8 years?

Yes.

Credibly, no.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Yea, we should sit back and do nothing while innocent people get slaughtered by their government. Is there no one that Democrats really care about?

Syria has got a very serious military and Assad is well liked on the Arab street. Libya was something that was basically "doable" because it the Arabs hate Gaddafi, Gaddafi was directly linked to a terrorist attack that killed over 200 Americans..and NATO took the lead.

That was Reagan. remember; "The Line Of Death"?
Gadd drew a line in the sea saying if we crossed this we would die. So Reagan parked a fleet on the other side. Then Gadd drew another one and Reagan crossed it again.

The current war is about oil. the EU doesn't give a shit about arabs killing each other.

 

[Sallow]

Yea, we should sit back and do nothing while innocent people get slaughtered by their government. Is there no one that Democrats really care about?

Syria has got a very serious military and Assad is well liked on the Arab street. Libya was something that was basically "doable" because it the Arabs hate Gaddafi, Gaddafi was directly linked to a terrorist attack that killed over 200 Americans..and NATO took the lead.

Nato only took the lead so Obama could avoid congressional approval, dont kid yourself, Obama is a war monger and will put our troops in harms way any chance he can get to influence middle eastern countries in a way that we as Americans do not want them influenced, Take Egypt for example, the muslim brotherhood took that over from a president that supported America for over 30 years...and Obama supported the uprising their!!! But in Iran, when the people wanted to get rid of Achmamonkey face "A real threat to liberty on a global scale and a future nuclear threat" Obama was dead silent. Obama is making all the wrong choices for America, all the wrong choices. He does not have the balls to make the hard choices like removing a serious threat, he took his street agitator skills to a global level and is now agitating third world countries into uprisings. He may in fact be the 3rd coming of the antichrist. *Just my 2 cents.

Again..you are looking at "doable" vs. "non-doable". And it hurts your argument to suggest that President Obama is "supporting" the muslim brotherhood. He's actually supporting Democracy in the Middle East. It may not look exactly like Democracy around the world, but it's far better to let people chose their leadership..then it is to have a military dictator in place under "emergency" rule for 30 years..as was the case of Mubarak and Egypt. Why was it doable in Egypt? Well the US was picking up the tab for their military. We don't have the same influence in Iran.

And I am 100% in support of killing Gaddafi. He deserved missile up his ass after Lockerbie.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Syria has oil, so it is likely that Obama will attack them again, and it is likely that just like in Libya he'll end up giving billions of US taxpayer dollars to Al-Qaeda because now they're our allies and "freedom fighters."

We are already killing people there with drones and may be doing the same in Yemen.

I often wondered why dems were so into forcing people to live like we do when it's clear they have no idea.

From what I have seen, arabs understand 2 forms of government;
Theocratic dictatorship
and
Singular dictatorship

One is mullahs having people tortured and killed b/c the book says so.
The other is for the entertainment of the dictator and family.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Libyan war about oil, U.S. lawmaker says - UPI.com


U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., the former chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, told MSNBC, however, that a primary reason for intervention was oil.

"We're in Libya because of oil," he said. "And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward."


"But it all goes back to the 5 million barrels of oil that we import from (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) on a daily basis," he told MSNBC.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Syria has got a very serious military and Assad is well liked on the Arab street. Libya was something that was basically "doable" because it the Arabs hate Gaddafi, Gaddafi was directly linked to a terrorist attack that killed over 200 Americans..and NATO took the lead.

Nato only took the lead so Obama could avoid congressional approval, dont kid yourself, Obama is a war monger and will put our troops in harms way any chance he can get to influence middle eastern countries in a way that we as Americans do not want them influenced, Take Egypt for example, the muslim brotherhood took that over from a president that supported America for over 30 years...and Obama supported the uprising their!!! But in Iran, when the people wanted to get rid of Achmamonkey face "A real threat to liberty on a global scale and a future nuclear threat" Obama was dead silent. Obama is making all the wrong choices for America, all the wrong choices. He does not have the balls to make the hard choices like removing a serious threat, he took his street agitator skills to a global level and is now agitating third world countries into uprisings. He may in fact be the 3rd coming of the antichrist. *Just my 2 cents.

Again..you are looking at "doable" vs. "non-doable". And it hurts your argument to suggest that President Obama is "supporting" the muslim brotherhood. He's actually supporting Democracy in the Middle East. It may not look exactly like Democracy around the world, but it's far better to let people chose their leadership..then it is to have a military dictator in place under "emergency" rule for 30 years..as was the case of Mubarak and Egypt. Why was it doable in Egypt? Well the US was picking up the tab for their military. We don't have the same influence in Iran.

And I am 100% in support of killing Gaddafi. He deserved missile up his ass after Lockerbie.

Against the law. There's treaties in place, that we signed, keeping us from assassinating world leaders.

Personnally, I'd like to capture him and turn him over to his own people.

Getting missiled is a quick and painless death, if it hits close enough.

Weeks - months living in fear of what's coming, on the other hand...

No that's justice.

 

[grunt11b]

How long will RDean be able to blame Obama's warmongering, anti-diplomacy foreign policy on the GOP?

Can he keep it up for 8 years?

Well ,the good thing is, maybe for another year and a half if we are lucky.

 

[grunt11b]

Yea, we should sit back and do nothing while innocent people get slaughtered by their government. Is there no one that Democrats really care about?

Syria has got a very serious military and Assad is well liked on the Arab street. Libya was something that was basically "doable" because it the Arabs hate Gaddafi, Gaddafi was directly linked to a terrorist attack that killed over 200 Americans..and NATO took the lead.

That was Reagan. remember; "The Line Of Death"?
Gadd drew a line in the sea saying if we crossed this we would die. So Reagan parked a fleet on the other side. Then Gadd drew another one and Reagan crossed it again.

The current war is about oil. the EU doesn't give a shit about arabs killing each other.

And neither do I being that they have been doing it for thousands of years anyways. We have to stop being the worlds police and start taking care of our own business here at home.

 

[Sallow]

Yea, we should sit back and do nothing while innocent people get slaughtered by their government. Is there no one that Democrats really care about?

Syria has got a very serious military and Assad is well liked on the Arab street. Libya was something that was basically "doable" because it the Arabs hate Gaddafi, Gaddafi was directly linked to a terrorist attack that killed over 200 Americans..and NATO took the lead.

That was Reagan. remember; "The Line Of Death"?
Gadd drew a line in the sea saying if we crossed this we would die. So Reagan parked a fleet on the other side. Then Gadd drew another one and Reagan crossed it again.

The current war is about oil. the EU doesn't give a shit about arabs killing each other.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dr.Drock]

Syria has got a very serious military and Assad is well liked on the Arab street. Libya was something that was basically "doable" because it the Arabs hate Gaddafi, Gaddafi was directly linked to a terrorist attack that killed over 200 Americans..and NATO took the lead.

That was Reagan. remember; "The Line Of Death"?
Gadd drew a line in the sea saying if we crossed this we would die. So Reagan parked a fleet on the other side. Then Gadd drew another one and Reagan crossed it again.

The current war is about oil. the EU doesn't give a shit about arabs killing each other.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll never take the Lockerbie excuse seriously, never heard one person pushing Bush to go to war with Libya over it.

 

[grunt11b]

Syria has got a very serious military and Assad is well liked on the Arab street. Libya was something that was basically "doable" because it the Arabs hate Gaddafi, Gaddafi was directly linked to a terrorist attack that killed over 200 Americans..and NATO took the lead.

Nato only took the lead so Obama could avoid congressional approval, dont kid yourself, Obama is a war monger and will put our troops in harms way any chance he can get to influence middle eastern countries in a way that we as Americans do not want them influenced, Take Egypt for example, the muslim brotherhood took that over from a president that supported America for over 30 years...and Obama supported the uprising their!!! But in Iran, when the people wanted to get rid of Achmamonkey face "A real threat to liberty on a global scale and a future nuclear threat" Obama was dead silent. Obama is making all the wrong choices for America, all the wrong choices. He does not have the balls to make the hard choices like removing a serious threat, he took his street agitator skills to a global level and is now agitating third world countries into uprisings. He may in fact be the 3rd coming of the antichrist. *Just my 2 cents.

Again..you are looking at "doable" vs. "non-doable". And it hurts your argument to suggest that President Obama is "supporting" the muslim brotherhood. He's actually supporting Democracy in the Middle East. It may not look exactly like Democracy around the world, but it's far better to let people chose their leadership..then it is to have a military dictator in place under "emergency" rule for 30 years..as was the case of Mubarak and Egypt. Why was it doable in Egypt? Well the US was picking up the tab for their military. We don't have the same influence in Iran.

And I am 100% in support of killing Gaddafi. He deserved missile up his ass after Lockerbie.

I agree on Gaggafi, but disagree on Iran, if anyone should have had the full support of the United States in the name of Democracy, it should have been the Iranian people wanting rid of MonkeyFace, that dude has already admitted he will nuke Israel, our closest allie right now, off the face of the planet "Which is why I believe Obama left him alone", apparently Obama wants rid of Israel also, or he would not have turned a cheek on them a few weeks back by asking them to go back to the 67 borders and set themselves up for annihilation.

 

[Sallow]

Nato only took the lead so Obama could avoid congressional approval, dont kid yourself, Obama is a war monger and will put our troops in harms way any chance he can get to influence middle eastern countries in a way that we as Americans do not want them influenced, Take Egypt for example, the muslim brotherhood took that over from a president that supported America for over 30 years...and Obama supported the uprising their!!! But in Iran, when the people wanted to get rid of Achmamonkey face "A real threat to liberty on a global scale and a future nuclear threat" Obama was dead silent. Obama is making all the wrong choices for America, all the wrong choices. He does not have the balls to make the hard choices like removing a serious threat, he took his street agitator skills to a global level and is now agitating third world countries into uprisings. He may in fact be the 3rd coming of the antichrist. *Just my 2 cents.

Again..you are looking at "doable" vs. "non-doable". And it hurts your argument to suggest that President Obama is "supporting" the muslim brotherhood. He's actually supporting Democracy in the Middle East. It may not look exactly like Democracy around the world, but it's far better to let people chose their leadership..then it is to have a military dictator in place under "emergency" rule for 30 years..as was the case of Mubarak and Egypt. Why was it doable in Egypt? Well the US was picking up the tab for their military. We don't have the same influence in Iran.

And I am 100% in support of killing Gaddafi. He deserved missile up his ass after Lockerbie.

Against the law. There's treaties in place, that we signed, keeping us from assassinating world leaders.

Personnally, I'd like to capture him and turn him over to his own people.

Getting missiled is a quick and painless death, if it hits close enough.

Weeks - months living in fear of what's coming, on the other hand...

No that's justice.

1988 is when it happened. A warrant should be put out for his arrest..and failure to comply..well you know..

You get "Bin Ladened"..