Democratic leadership more pro-war than GOP leadership

[JWBooth]

Nonsense

Politics aside, jingoism is never a valid replacement for reason and rational thought.

That rational thought debate took place before the wars started. Politics now is just self defeating sabotage.

Hubris and wishful thinking do not equate to rational thought debate.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is anyone watching this monumental ASS lie right now? One right after another, after another.

 

[Flopper]

This war is not about pride or chemical weapons. It is about weakening Iran & Russia's power over $170 trillion of Mideast oil & gas. Everything else is political game-play.

It is about obama's vanity and nothing else. It was obama's foolish red line comment. That comment was made during the presidential campaign where he felt compelled to appear more presidential and in command. He was quite willing to ignore the chemical attack UNTIL he started being mocked and that comment brought up to haunt him. When people started laughing at him "what cha gonna do NOW big boy", he lashed out in the worst possible way.

As was reported in the LA Times:

Syria chemical weapons response poses major test for Obama - Los Angeles Times

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

obama just didn't count on being pushed into a corner where his pride would be weighed against WWIII.

This isn't about oil or gas. This is about totally humiliating and annihilating obama personally and harming the power and credibility of the United States generally. This is chess, this is what global brinksmanship looks like. obama is outclassed. We let him be outclassed by artificially inflating his ego. Now it's the ego that can eat the world.

*SMH* You fell for the party bullshit. We had to have a reason to go to war with Syria to continue the Mideast plan. Drawing a red line on banned illegal chemical weapons is the only legal way to achieve that. Now we are falling down over stupid party politics.

It is time to put party politics aside & back our president for the good of the country.

I'm not sure I agree that we should attack Syria but putting party politics aside is the right thing to do. Regardless of the decision there are lives at stake, the fate of a nation, and US credibility. Decisions should not be made based on political payback, deals, and campaign one-upmanship. Occasionally congressmen need to make decisions based on what they feel is best for the nation and this is one of those times.

 

[KissMy]

It is about obama's vanity and nothing else. It was obama's foolish red line comment. That comment was made during the presidential campaign where he felt compelled to appear more presidential and in command. He was quite willing to ignore the chemical attack UNTIL he started being mocked and that comment brought up to haunt him. When people started laughing at him "what cha gonna do NOW big boy", he lashed out in the worst possible way.

As was reported in the LA Times:

Syria chemical weapons response poses major test for Obama - Los Angeles Times

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

obama just didn't count on being pushed into a corner where his pride would be weighed against WWIII.

This isn't about oil or gas. This is about totally humiliating and annihilating obama personally and harming the power and credibility of the United States generally. This is chess, this is what global brinksmanship looks like. obama is outclassed. We let him be outclassed by artificially inflating his ego. Now it's the ego that can eat the world.

*SMH* You fell for the party bullshit. We had to have a reason to go to war with Syria to continue the Mideast plan. Drawing a red line on banned illegal chemical weapons is the only legal way to achieve that. Now we are falling down over stupid party politics.

It is time to put party politics aside & back our president for the good of the country.

Democrats find out that democrats lied.
Rep. Alan Grayson: Syria Intelligence Manipulated - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

What a surprise. Not that democrats lied, but the discovery would bother democrats in the first place.

What Americans should do is NOT back the president, but start impeachment proceedings against him immediately just to show the world that we do not "back" this wannabe thug. If we start the procedure to get rid of him, maybe we can avoid having it done for us.

That is not proof Obama is lying about Syria. Assad gave Obama a legal reason to attack & now neocons & neolibs lost their spine. Where were the calls for impeachment proceedings when the Bush admin was destroying Valery Plame & Joe Wilson for exposing lies?

 

[KissMy]

Obama attacked 5 countries & backed revolution in 6 countries.

- Obama Ordered escalated U.S. Military Strikes on Afghanistan.
- Obama Ordered continued U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Pakistan.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Yemen.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Libya.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Egypt.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Iran.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Tunisia.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Yemen.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Bahrain.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Syria.

I forgot to add in Somalia. New York Times 2011: U.S. Expands Its Drone War Into Somalia We had boots on the ground operations in Somalia in 2007. We also Somalia in 2009, when helicopter-borne commandos killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. Obama attacked Somalia again in 2011 with military drone strike in Somalia.

So now Obama war list looks like this:

Obama attacked 6 countries & backed revolution in 6 countries.

- Obama Ordered escalated U.S. Military Strikes on Afghanistan.
- Obama Ordered continued U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Pakistan.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Yemen.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Libya.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Somalia.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" revolution in Egypt.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" revolution in Iran.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" revolution in Tunisia.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" revolution in Yemen.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" revolution in Bahrain.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" revolution in Syria.

 

[editec]

Who the fuck is stupid enough to think that one party or more war like than the other?

Do these people actually know any history at all?

 

[KissMy]

Caution Graphic Video: Government video evidence of Syria's gas attack.

 

[Billo_Really]

What is amazing is that the those supporting Obama are saying almost the same exact words that were used to justify Iraq. Quite stunning.

I am a little peeved at those who call themselves conservatives especially media pundits. The all squawked before Obama put it to the Congress that he must put it to the Congress. Then when he does they call him weak and a coward. That is BS and makes me ashamed to be a conservative, or should I say I am ashamed they call themselves conservatives.

How do you think I feel about liberals supporting this war?

Personally, I think they can go to hell!

What I'm ashamed about is that here we are as a country, where the majority of American's, left and right, are in agreement against military action and we can't seem to work together to achieve this common, bi-partisan goal.

But I could be wrong about this, when you consider that Obama (and Congress) have been backpeddling ever since they went public with their decision to attack Syria.

 

[candycorn]

I fear that many Democrats are supporting the war simply cause they don't want Obama to crash and burn.

that is a HORRIBLE reason to support a war.

I voted for Obama thrice, twice for President and once in the 2008 primary.

I love much of his legislation and goals.

but on this issue, I think Obama is damn wrong!

Couldn't agree more.

 

[candycorn]

What is amazing is that the those supporting Obama are saying almost the same exact words that were used to justify Iraq. Quite stunning.

I am a little peeved at those who call themselves conservatives especially media pundits. The all squawked before Obama put it to the Congress that he must put it to the Congress. Then when he does they call him weak and a coward. That is BS and makes me ashamed to be a conservative, or should I say I am ashamed they call themselves conservatives.

How do you think I feel about liberals supporting this war?

Personally, I think they can go to hell!

What I'm ashamed about is that here we are as a country, where the majority of American's, left and right, are in agreement against military action and we can't seem to work together to achieve this common, bi-partisan goal.

But I could be wrong about this, when you consider that Obama (and Congress) have been backpeddling ever since they went public with their decision to attack Syria.

I would wonder what a public opinion poll on 12/6/41 would have shown about our involvement in WWII. I would imagine it was probably 80/20 against. Doesn't make intervention right or wrong but public opinion isn't always the be-all/end-all of what we should do as a nation. A lot of people don't like tanks; should they be able to allocate their tax money to only non-military activities of the government? I don't think so.

What bothers me is that the US is perpetually uncomfortable with calling our actions what they were. Afghanistan was about attacking the Al-Queda and their support. Iraq was about oil. What is this about? Revenge? Getting rid of an apparent murderous dictator? I'd rather fight over oil than that...one is in our national interest and one is not. Call it what it is.

 

[dblack]

The Republicans are against Middle East intervention now the way they were against deficits when Clinton was president,

then they got a GOP president and that immediately ended,

then we got a Democratic president again and they were back on the anti-deficit bandwagon.

This is the same. If Romney were president he'd have bombed Syria by now with near unanimous GOP support.

Obviously, much of the Republican opposition to Obama's foreign policy (or any of his policies for that matter) is unprincipled partisanship. But, much of it is due to the changes taking place within the party (ie the libertarian faction).

The really sad thing is that so many Democrats who spoke out against Bush's nonsense, now support the same shit from Obama - again, in the name of unprincipled partisanship.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democratic leadership more pro-Al Qaeda and backing Killers of Christian in Syria than GOP leadership

 

[Billo_Really]

I would wonder what a public opinion poll on 12/6/41 would have shown about our involvement in WWII. I would imagine it was probably 80/20 against. Doesn't make intervention right or wrong but public opinion isn't always the be-all/end-all of what we should do as a nation. A lot of people don't like tanks; should they be able to allocate their tax money to only non-military activities of the government? I don't think so.

What bothers me is that the US is perpetually uncomfortable with calling our actions what they were. Afghanistan was about attacking the Al-Queda and their support. Iraq was about oil. What is this about? Revenge? Getting rid of an apparent murderous dictator? I'd rather fight over oil than that...one is in our national interest and one is not. Call it what it is.

There's a big difference between WWII and now. Then, we were actually attacked by a significant military force. Germany was starting wars of aggression all over Europe. We had no choice back then, but to go to war.

That's not the way it is now. Now, we're the ones playing the role of the Germans. Making up these bullshit reasons to attack sovereign nations.

Why? The real reason behind all of this (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria, Iran, etc), is to open these country's up to the derrivitive market of the WTO, in order for the big banks to maintain their profit margin.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is amazing is that the those supporting Obama are saying almost the same exact words that were used to justify Iraq. Quite stunning.

I am a little peeved at those who call themselves conservatives especially media pundits. The all squawked before Obama put it to the Congress that he must put it to the Congress. Then when he does they call him weak and a coward. That is BS and makes me ashamed to be a conservative, or should I say I am ashamed they call themselves conservatives.

How do you think I feel about liberals supporting this war?

Personally, I think they can go to hell!

What I'm ashamed about is that here we are as a country, where the majority of American's, left and right, are in agreement against military action and we can't seem to work together to achieve this common, bi-partisan goal.

But I could be wrong about this, when you consider that Obama (and Congress) have been backpeddling ever since they went public with their decision to attack Syria.

I would wonder what a public opinion poll on 12/6/41 would have shown about our involvement in WWII. I would imagine it was probably 80/20 against. Doesn't make intervention right or wrong but public opinion isn't always the be-all/end-all of what we should do as a nation. A lot of people don't like tanks; should they be able to allocate their tax money to only non-military activities of the government? I don't think so.

What bothers me is that the US is perpetually uncomfortable with calling our actions what they were. Afghanistan was about attacking the Al-Queda and their support. Iraq was about oil. What is this about? Revenge? Getting rid of an apparent murderous dictator? I'd rather fight over oil than that...one is in our national interest and one is not. Call it what it is.

Yeah, hun, I wonder what it would have been if FDR said he wanted to fight with the Japanese after they killed 3,000 at Pearl Harbor

 

[candycorn]

I would wonder what a public opinion poll on 12/6/41 would have shown about our involvement in WWII. I would imagine it was probably 80/20 against. Doesn't make intervention right or wrong but public opinion isn't always the be-all/end-all of what we should do as a nation. A lot of people don't like tanks; should they be able to allocate their tax money to only non-military activities of the government? I don't think so.

What bothers me is that the US is perpetually uncomfortable with calling our actions what they were. Afghanistan was about attacking the Al-Queda and their support. Iraq was about oil. What is this about? Revenge? Getting rid of an apparent murderous dictator? I'd rather fight over oil than that...one is in our national interest and one is not. Call it what it is.

There's a big difference between WWII and now. Then, we were actually attacked by a significant military force. Germany was starting wars of aggression all over Europe. We had no choice back then, but to go to war.

That's not the way it is now. Now, we're the ones playing the role of the Germans. Making up these bullshit reasons to attack sovereign nations.

Why? The real reason behind all of this (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria, Iran, etc), is to open these country's up to the derrivitive market of the WTO, in order for the big banks to maintain their profit margin.

Good point. I don't support doing ANYTHING in Syria; drone strikes, bombing, invasion...nothing.

I was just pointing out that public opinion doesn't always have a place at the table.

 

[Billo_Really]

Good point. I don't support doing ANYTHING in Syria; drone strikes, bombing, invasion...nothing.

I was just pointing out that public opinion doesn't always have a place at the table.

We haven't had a place at the table since they gave corporations the same rights as living, breathing, human beings.

Personally, I think we should vote out all incumbants from both sides until we get the government we want, back in office.

 

[KissMy]

I'm not sure I agree that we should attack Syria but putting party politics aside is the right thing to do. Regardless of the decision there are lives at stake, the fate of a nation, and US credibility. Decisions should not be made based on political payback, deals, and campaign one-upmanship. Occasionally congressmen need to make decisions based on what they feel is best for the nation and this is one of those times.

The Obama administration has substantially expanded the US military operations forces into over 75 countries across the globe in Washington's "secret war" against al Qaeda and other radical organizations. We have already spent over a trillion dollars & lives or over 8,000 US soldiers, but only now people are squeamish about escalating a piss-ant war in Syria that is paid for by Saudi Arabia.