what are the chances Congrees will give authorization?

[JakeStarkey]

Sherri, you are no intelligence operative, merely a poster on the Board like all of us sifting the information. The government is right to have "high confidence" in its story.

If the US hits Syria, and if there is any nonsense out of Hezbollah, Israeli supported by massive US assets will root it up for once and all.

 

[deltex1]

“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War



Oops!

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Sherri, you are no intelligence operative, merely a poster on the Board like all of us sifting the information. The government is right to have "high confidence" in its story.

If the US hits Syria, and if there is any nonsense out of Hezbollah, Israeli supported by massive US assets will root it up for once and all.

What I am is an American citizen who has watched my country rely on false intelligence to start unlawful wars. WITH Iraq, we had false Intelligence from Israel and we see the same thing happening again. I do not support killing more babies and innocent civilians in the ME for Israel. YOu want to kill babies for Israel, go buy an airline ticket. Leave the rest of us Americans out of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sherri, you are no intelligence operative, merely a poster on the Board like all of us sifting the information. The government is right to have "high confidence" in its story.

If the US hits Syria, and if there is any nonsense out of Hezbollah, Israeli supported by massive US assets will root it up for once and all.

What I am is an American citizen who has watched my country rely on false intelligence to start unlawful wars. WITH Iraq, we had false Intelligence from Israel and we see the same thing happening again. I do not support killing more babies and innocent civilians in the ME for Israel. YOu want to kill babies for Israel, go buy an airline ticket. Leave the rest of us Americans out of it.

You have every right to your beliefs, but you are on the wrong side of this. End of story.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Sherri, you are no intelligence operative, merely a poster on the Board like all of us sifting the information. The government is right to have "high confidence" in its story.

If the US hits Syria, and if there is any nonsense out of Hezbollah, Israeli supported by massive US assets will root it up for once and all.

What I am is an American citizen who has watched my country rely on false intelligence to start unlawful wars. WITH Iraq, we had false Intelligence from Israel and we see the same thing happening again. I do not support killing more babies and innocent civilians in the ME for Israel. YOu want to kill babies for Israel, go buy an airline ticket. Leave the rest of us Americans out of it.

You have every right to your beliefs, but you are on the wrong side of this. End of story.

Opposing unlawful wars is never the wrong side to be on. And it looks like over 80% of Americans oppose a US war with Syria.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The act is not unlawful, certainly not because of what you say, Sherri.

The missiles are an act of war, not an invasion, and if you don't understand that, the American people will.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Once again, Fake's mental instability leads him to speak on behalf of "the American People".

Seek help, Fake.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The act is not unlawful, certainly not because of what you say, Sherri.

The missiles are an act of war, not an invasion, and if you don't understand that, the American people will.

The War of Ideas in the Middle East

Illegal. Immoral. Dangerous. Why Congress needs to say No!

The United Nations Charter, the fundamental core of international law, may be vague about a lot of things.* But it is unequivocal about when military force is legal, and when it isn’t. Only two things make an act of war legal: immediate self-defense, which clearly is not the case for the U.S.* The horrific reality of chemical weapons devastated Syrian, not American lives. This is not self-defense. The other is if the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorizes the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security. That’s the authorization President Obama knows he cannot get – certainly Russia and China would veto, but right now a British veto would certainly be a possibility if Cameron wanted to respond to his public. And it’s not at all clear a U.S. resolution to use force would even get the nine necessary votes of the 15 Council members. The U.S. is thoroughly isolated internationally. Illegal. Immoral. Dangerous. Why Congress needs to say No! | Mondoweiss.

 

[Mac1958]

.

We still think we're the world's policeman.

We are so full of ourselves.

Man oh man, I hate to see this.

.

 

[deltex1]

This debate highlights the lack of an overarching ME policy, which should provide a logical framework for our actions. Instead every decision is made as if we are in an unforeseen situation. We even debate the basic rules of our constitution as if we've never been here before. Focus and lead mr president...if you can.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

We still think we're the world's policeman.

We are so full of ourselves.

Man oh man, I hate to see this.

.

We can either face WMD in the ME or we can face it here. What's your choice?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

.

We still think we're the world's policeman.

We are so full of ourselves.

Man oh man, I hate to see this.

.

We can either face WMD in the ME or we can face it here. What's your choice?

That's lousy fearmongering. You can do better than that. You could at least have shown the planes flying into WTC 1 or 2.

 

[FA_Q2]

.

We still think we're the world's policeman.

We are so full of ourselves.

Man oh man, I hate to see this.

.

We can either face WMD in the ME or we can face it here. What's your choice?

Sure. Let’s just make the random assertion that for some reason that you cannot pin down, going to war with Syria (or Iraq for that matter) is going to lessen the chances of terrorist attacks here with WMD.

Of course the reality is that it INCREASES that possibility but don’t let that get in your way. Killing peoples families, no matter how justified, makes for some zealous warriors and there is no faster way to lose control of a chemical or other wmd storage than removing the agency that happens to be controlling it.

Tell me, name ONE logical way that going to war with Iraq lessened the terrorist WMD threat? Do the same for Syria.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Rabbi's real concern is with Israel, not the US.

 

[deltex1]

.

We still think we're the world's policeman.

We are so full of ourselves.

Man oh man, I hate to see this.

.

We can either face WMD in the ME or we can face it here. What's your choice?

Sure. Let’s just make the random assertion that for some reason that you cannot pin down, going to war with Syria (or Iraq for that matter) is going to lessen the chances of terrorist attacks here with WMD.

Of course the reality is that it INCREASES that possibility but don’t let that get in your way. Killing peoples families, no matter how justified, makes for some zealous warriors and there is no faster way to lose control of a chemical or other wmd storage than removing the agency that happens to be controlling it.

Tell me, name ONE logical way that going to war with Iraq lessened the terrorist WMD threat? Do the same for Syria.

Was there evidence that Iraq,under Saddam, sponsored terrorism? Is there evidence that Iraq sponsors terrorism now?

 

[The Rabbi]

.

We still think we're the world's policeman.

We are so full of ourselves.

Man oh man, I hate to see this.

.

We can either face WMD in the ME or we can face it here. What's your choice?

Sure. Let’s just make the random assertion that for some reason that you cannot pin down, going to war with Syria (or Iraq for that matter) is going to lessen the chances of terrorist attacks here with WMD.

Of course the reality is that it INCREASES that possibility but don’t let that get in your way. Killing peoples families, no matter how justified, makes for some zealous warriors and there is no faster way to lose control of a chemical or other wmd storage than removing the agency that happens to be controlling it.

Tell me, name ONE logical way that going to war with Iraq lessened the terrorist WMD threat? Do the same for Syria.

Like there arent enough people hating us in the ME already.

The war with Iraq convinced Muammar Ghaddaffi to give up his nuclear weapons program. Ghaddaffi had been a state sponsor of terrorism for about 30 years.

If we allow people to use chemical weapons then their use will increase because the penalty for doing so is small. If we increase the penalty to unacceptable levels then we will see less use.
It's pretty simple. At least if you aren't a chicken shit isolationist getting your ideas from Ron Paul's ass.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi's real concern is with Israel, not the US.

Fuck you. Your real concern is Ron Paul's withered buttocks.

 

[FA_Q2]

We can either face WMD in the ME or we can face it here. What's your choice?

Sure. Let’s just make the random assertion that for some reason that you cannot pin down, going to war with Syria (or Iraq for that matter) is going to lessen the chances of terrorist attacks here with WMD.

Of course the reality is that it INCREASES that possibility but don’t let that get in your way. Killing peoples families, no matter how justified, makes for some zealous warriors and there is no faster way to lose control of a chemical or other wmd storage than removing the agency that happens to be controlling it.

Tell me, name ONE logical way that going to war with Iraq lessened the terrorist WMD threat? Do the same for Syria.

Like there arent enough people hating us in the ME already.

The war with Iraq convinced Muammar Ghaddaffi to give up his nuclear weapons program. Ghaddaffi had been a state sponsor of terrorism for about 30 years.

If we allow people to use chemical weapons then their use will increase because the penalty for doing so is small. If we increase the penalty to unacceptable levels then we will see less use.
It's pretty simple. At least if you aren't a chicken shit isolationist getting your ideas from Ron Paul's ass.

There are more than enough but morons like you want to make MORE and then think it is a good idea. Then we prosecute a war based on ‘intelligence’ that makes no conceivable sense that Syria used chemicals. Of course it would make no sense for them to do so, tons for the rebels to do so AND (above all) we were DIGGING for this excuse long before it even came out.

If you were not a warmongering idiot getting your ideas out of the end of the GOP’s dick perhaps you would notice that the wars we have been prosecuting have only WEAKENED our military and international influence.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the prezbos check list for war

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/obamas-checklist-for-war.jpg

 

[Katzndogz]

The evidence that this administration says exists, claims that the use of chemical weapons points to Assad. This regime is quite capable of manufacturing any evidence it wants. Or, just release a report that says there is evidence. There doesn't need to be evidence. They can say the evidence came from Israel. That doesn't mean it did. It just means that this lying regime totally lacking in credibility says it came from Israel.

Whatever evidence exists has been presented to the UN and to Britian. They are not convinced. The evidence is tainted or manufactured.