Should America Intervene In The Syrian/Russian Genocide?

[the_human_being]

Obama and Hillary have already lost the Middle East. Suck it up folks.

 

[easyt65]

According to Liberals, it all depends who is President.

Bush went into Iraq and overthrew a brutal dictator that abused, tortured, gassed, and murdered his own people. Despite Liberal politicians not only voting to give Bush the authority to do so they also argued how it HAD to be done. Liberals still attacked Bush for going into Iraq...and still do today, giving liberal politicians a pass on their part in that story.

Obama and Hillary actually allied themselves with Al Qaeida - the same guys who murdered 3k Americans and who had for years hired Jihadists to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill American soldiers, dragged the US into the middle of a civil war between the terrorists and the dictator we put in power - a dictator who had begun HELPING US FIGHT TERRORISTS in Northern Africa, and thrust the US into their own personal war - without Congressional approval to do so - to help Al Qaeida take over their own country.

Then there's Syria. A Nation should NEVER go to war or take rash action over / because of a President's EGO...but that is what we have done.

Obama stuck his nose where it did not belong, arrogantly throwing out a 'Red Line' BLUFF to Assad...and Assad called him on it...and Barry backed down in front of the whole world...and then further embarrassed himself by claiming it was the WORLD'S 'Red Line', not his. Obama became obsessed with Syria and ousting Assad to redeem himself. The outcome has been horrific:
- ISIS exploded
- Iraq Invaded
- Thousands and thousands of innocent people butchered...
- More troops on the ground and coming home in body bags...

...all for Barry's EGO and to redeem himself from the Syrian 'Red Line' BS!

If there is no reason for us to have gone into Iraq - with Congressional approval to do so - then there is certainly no reason for us to be involved in Syria without Congressional approval to be fighting a war there.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Obama and Hillary have already lost the Middle East. Suck it up folks.

Yes of course, those two did it.

 

[Fenton Lum]

According to Liberals, it all depends who is President.

Bush went into Iraq and overthrew a brutal dictator that abused, tortured, gassed, and murdered his own people. Despite Liberal politicians not only voting to give Bush the authority to do so they also argued how it HAD to be done. Liberals still attacked Bush for going into Iraq...and still do today, giving liberal politicians a pass on their part in that story.

Obama and Hillary actually allied themselves with Al Qaeida - the same guys who murdered 3k Americans and who had for years hired Jihadists to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill American soldiers, dragged the US into the middle of a civil war between the terrorists and the dictator we put in power - a dictator who had begun HELPING US FIGHT TERRORISTS in Northern Africa, and thrust the US into their own personal war - without Congressional approval to do so - to help Al Qaeida take over their own country.

Then there's Syria. A Nation should NEVER go to war or take rash action over / because of a President's EGO...but that is what we have done.

Obama stuck his nose where it did not belong, arrogantly throwing out a 'Red Line' BLUFF to Assad...and Assad called him on it...and Barry backed down in front of the whole world...and then further embarrassed himself by claiming it was the WORLD'S 'Red Line', not his. Obama became obsessed with Syria and ousting Assad to redeem himself. The outcome has been horrific:
- ISIS exploded
- Iraq Invaded
- Thousands and thousands of innocent people butchered...
- More troops on the ground and coming home in body bags...

...all for Barry's EGO and to redeem himself from the Syrian 'Red Line' BS!

If there is no reason for us to have gone into Iraq - with Congressional approval to do so - then there is certainly no reason for us to be involved in Syria without Congressional approval to be fighting a war there.

According to both "liberals" and "conservatives", it all depends who is President.

 

[easyt65]

According to both "liberals" and "conservatives", it all depends who is President.

No all.

JFK once said we would stand with any nation who sought FREEDOM. I doubt most modern-day Liberals would agree with him. Bush was basically doing that in Iraq, and most Libs crucified him for it.

Bush had Congressional approval and opinion behind him to take the nation to war. Was it right? Maybe not,, but it was 'legal'.

Hillary and Barry taking us to war in Libya to help Al Qaeida was neither 'right' or 'legal'.

Our involvement in Syria just because of Obama's failed 'Red line' fiasco is neither 'right' nor 'legal.

 

[Fenton Lum]

According to both "liberals" and "conservatives", it all depends who is President.

No all.

JFK once said we would stand with any nation who sought FREEDOM. I doubt most modern-day Liberals would agree with him. Bush was basically doing that in Iraq, and most Libs crucified him for it.

Bush had Congressional approval and opinion behind him to take the nation to war. Was it right? Maybe not,, but it was 'legal'.

Hillary and Barry taking us to war in Libya to help Al Qaeida was neither 'right' or 'legal'.

Our involvement in Syria just because of Obama's failed 'Red line' fiasco is neither 'right' nor 'legal.

Yes, yes of course, it all breaks down into partisanshit for you.

 

[MisterBeale]

Top US commander warns Russia, Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Russia 'showed-off' over use of Iran airbase for Syria strikes - BBC News

What could go wrong right?

There is no "Syrian/Russian" genocide. Stop believing western propaganda. Get real.

You don't know what is really going on. I can't blame you, your only source of info is Western, CFR, CIA controlled MSM.


The reason those planes didn't return to Iran, is because Turkey is thinking about switching alliances and making plans with Russia now b/c they have been screwed by NATO one to many times.



Turkey considering military ties with Russia as NATO shows unwillingness to cooperate – Ankara
Turkey considering military ties with Russia as NATO shows unwillingness to cooperate – Ankara


Russia says Turkey could provide İncirlik base for Moscow’s Syria campaign
EURASIA - Russia says Turkey could provide İncirlik base for Moscow’s Syria campaign


US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania
US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania


Alleged coup leader was once military attaché to Israel
Former Turkish Air Force chief Akın Ozturk maintained army ties with Jewish state in the 1990s
Alleged coup leader was once military attaché to Israel

 

[rcfieldz]

You're right. Those eastern Syrians were just in the wrong place.

 

[AntonToo]

If she wins the Presidency, Hillary will get us into a war with Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia and China. The draft will have to be reinstated and many lives on all sides will be lost and we will face enormous costs and rationing.

Can I quote you on that? Just as a reminder on your predictive prowess next time you are talking out of your ass again.

 

[easyt65]

Yes, yes of course, it all breaks down into partisanshit for you.

NO, no it doesn't! You completely miss the LEGALITY of it, if not the concept of 'treasonous behavior' as well.

Legality-wise, Democrats GAVE Bush the legal authorization to go to war in Iraq...then suddenly demonized him after getting a partisan case of 'Buyer's Remorse'. It is still a FACT, though, that Bush was authorized by Congress to go to war.

The same can NOT be said for Hillary and Obama and Libya. The TRUTH is Obama did NOT get Congressional approval to go to war because he knew there was NO WAY IN HELL he could make the argument to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 - take over Libya! So, he went it on his own...WITHOUT Congressional Authorization to do so.

Like it or not, Bush had the authority to do it. Had Congress NOT have given him permission to do so and he invaded Iraq on his own without such authorization I would be one of the loudest 'MoFos' calling for his impeachment for doing so.

Both Legally and considering who the hell they aligned themselves with and used our military to help WITHOUT Congressional approval to do so, Hillary and Obama should have been / should be held accountable for dragging the US into a personal, unauthorized war - in a civil war - to help Al Qaeida. If it would have been Bush that did so I would be demanding he be held just as accountable.

'MoFo's like YOU, however, have let partisanship rot your damn minds and come up with stupid accusations like this one while completely overlooking the facts and legality ... and hypocrisy ... of situations.

Like it or not, WITH the argument and authorization to do so given to him by Liberals, Bush took the country to war in Iraq...LEGALLY. You can make the argument all day long whether he should have and the ethics behind it, but Libs gave him the power to do so.

And if you look at it legally AND ethically, Hillary and Barry aided Al Qaeida...and ISIS now...- TERRORISTS and Murderers of American troops and civilians - take over their own nation in Libya...WITHOUT making an argument before Congress on why it had to be done and WITHOUT the same Congressional authority to do so that they gave Bush!

But at the end of the day, if you opposed Bush going into Iraq, saying we had no business being there, then you can't possibly argue that Obama was 'right' to do the same thing in Libya WITHOUT the Congressional approval Bush had.

 

[the_human_being]

If she wins the Presidency, Hillary will get us into a war with Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia and China. The draft will have to be reinstated and many lives on all sides will be lost and we will face enormous costs and rationing.

Can I quote you on that? Just as a reminder on your predictive prowess next time you are talking out of your ass again.

You can write it down and quote me.

 

[paulitician]

The answer is no, but it's too late for that. America intervenes everywhere at this point. Syria is no exception. America has been bombing & killing in Syria for some time.

 

[Gracie]

Top US commander warns Russia, Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Russia 'showed-off' over use of Iran airbase for Syria strikes - BBC News

What could go wrong right?

No. It's none of our business.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Top US commander warns Russia, Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Russia 'showed-off' over use of Iran airbase for Syria strikes - BBC News

What could go wrong right?

There would be no need to consider intervening if the US had a competent president. A competent president would make a deal with Russia supporting their continued use of their military bases in Syria in return for ending Russia's support for Assad and his allies. Assad would quickly fall and this new spirit of trust between Russia and the US would allow both countries to work together to end the fighting among the rebels and build a new Syria.

However the Russians understand Obama is simply not a man who can make such a deal and with good reason they distrust the Clintons so deeply that there is no possibility of an end to this carnage if Hillary is elected.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yes, yes of course, it all breaks down into partisanshit for you.

NO, no it doesn't! You completely miss the LEGALITY of it, if not the concept of 'treasonous behavior' as well.

Legality-wise, Democrats GAVE Bush the legal authorization to go to war in Iraq...then suddenly demonized him after getting a partisan case of 'Buyer's Remorse'. It is still a FACT, though, that Bush was authorized by Congress to go to war.

The same can NOT be said for Hillary and Obama and Libya. The TRUTH is Obama did NOT get Congressional approval to go to war because he knew there was NO WAY IN HELL he could make the argument to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 - take over Libya! So, he went it on his own...WITHOUT Congressional Authorization to do so.

Like it or not, Bush had the authority to do it. Had Congress NOT have given him permission to do so and he invaded Iraq on his own without such authorization I would be one of the loudest 'MoFos' calling for his impeachment for doing so.

Both Legally and considering who the hell they aligned themselves with and used our military to help WITHOUT Congressional approval to do so, Hillary and Obama should have been / should be held accountable for dragging the US into a personal, unauthorized war - in a civil war - to help Al Qaeida. If it would have been Bush that did so I would be demanding he be held just as accountable.

'MoFo's like YOU, however, have let partisanship rot your damn minds and come up with stupid accusations like this one while completely overlooking the facts and legality ... and hypocrisy ... of situations.

Like it or not, WITH the argument and authorization to do so given to him by Liberals, Bush took the country to war in Iraq...LEGALLY. You can make the argument all day long whether he should have and the ethics behind it, but Libs gave him the power to do so.

And if you look at it legally AND ethically, Hillary and Barry aided Al Qaeida...and ISIS now...- TERRORISTS and Murderers of American troops and civilians - take over their own nation in Libya...WITHOUT making an argument before Congress on why it had to be done and WITHOUT the same Congressional authority to do so that they gave Bush!

But at the end of the day, if you opposed Bush going into Iraq, saying we had no business being there, then you can't possibly argue that Obama was 'right' to do the same thing in Libya WITHOUT the Congressional approval Bush had.

Get off it already.

Everyone knows he intentionally manipulated intel., IOW, HE LIED to get the nation and the world to support war. Just like the current administration is manipulating intel about ISIS. Sheesh.

The Deep State does what ever it needs to. They are all the same.

Trump Is Right, Bush Lied: A Little-Known Part of the Bogus Case for War
Trump Is Right, Bush Lied: A Little-Known Part of the Bogus Case for War

There’s also one specific story proving they lied that I think hasn’t received enough attention: the curious case of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel.


Kamel was a powerful figure in the Hussein regime, perhaps second only to Saddam himself, and had been in charge of Iraq’s completely real WMD programs in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War. After Iraq was pushed back out of Kuwait by a U.S.-led coalition in 1991, the U.N. Security Council decreed that its harsh sanctions on Iraq would remain until Iraq was disarmed of all WMD programs.


By 1995, Kamel was disillusioned with Hussein’s rule and defected to Jordan. There he told the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the CIA, and British intelligence an interesting story: Iraq was in fact disarmed, with no remaining chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs of any kind. All that remained hidden, he said, was documentation from the 1980s programs, which the U.N. shortly seized from Kamel’s farm back in Iraq.


While the details of Kamel’s debriefing were not public at the time, he went on CNN to openly declare that “Iraq does not possess any weapons of mass destruction.”

 

[MisterBeale]

Top US commander warns Russia, Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Russia 'showed-off' over use of Iran airbase for Syria strikes - BBC News

What could go wrong right?

There would be no need to consider intervening if the US had a competent president. A competent president would make a deal with Russia supporting their continued use of their military bases in Syria in return for ending Russia's support for Assad and his allies. Assad would quickly fall and this new spirit of trust between Russia and the US would allow both countries to work together to end the fighting among the rebels and build a new Syria.

However the Russians understand Obama is simply not a man who can make such a deal and with good reason they distrust the Clintons so deeply that there is no possibility of an end to this carnage if Hillary is elected.

What do US citizens care what goes on in another sovereign nation? It's none of our business who they select to lead them.

Seriously.


How would you feel if some other nation, say China, was trying to affect who was leading this nation?

 

[easyt65]

And Obama has taken the country to war...TWICE...without Congressional approval to do so...to help TERRORISTS - to include the ones who KILLED 3,OOO AMERICANS - take over their own countries.

Bush at least liberated a nation. Obama neatly lost that one, handed another over to Al Qaeida, and is working on giving a 4th (Yes, 4th - don't forget he helped the tertorist Brotherhood take over our ally Egypt...before their military stepped in) their own nation is Syria.

You want to compare who has done more damage? Barry wins that one hands down. He and Hillary have been their best friends.

(Of course Hillary has been PAID ENOUGH by terrorist-supporting nations to be their bestest buds.)

 

[easyt65]

Top US commander warns Russia, Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Russia 'showed-off' over use of Iran airbase for Syria strikes - BBC News

What could go wrong right?

There would be no need to consider intervening if the US had a competent president. A competent president would make a deal with Russia supporting their continued use of their military bases in Syria in return for ending Russia's support for Assad and his allies. Assad would quickly fall and this new spirit of trust between Russia and the US would allow both countries to work together to end the fighting among the rebels and build a new Syria.

However the Russians understand Obama is simply not a man who can make such a deal and with good reason they distrust the Clintons so deeply that there is no possibility of an end to this carnage if Hillary is elected.

What do US citizens care what goes on in another sovereign nation? It's none of our business who they select to lead them.

Seriously.


How would you feel if some other nation, say China, was trying to affect who was leading this nation?

Libs scream when a Conservative intervenes...but when it's one of their own there's no problem.

 

[Preacher]

Top US commander warns Russia, Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Russia 'showed-off' over use of Iran airbase for Syria strikes - BBC News

What could go wrong right?

You mean the USA/Israeli/Saudi backed attempted regime change in Syria that's set Isis lose and led to Europe being invaded

 

[easyt65]

While we're f*ing around with Barry and Hillary's wars in Libya and Syria Putin 'annexed' Crimea.

While we're f*ing around is Syria Putin is massing an ass-load of Troops on the Ukranian border...just like he did before he took Crimea...and Barry's out playing golf, grumbling about how - thanks to Trump - he now has to go down to La and pretend he gives a damn.