Obama to seek congress approval

[Hoffstra]

Kerry says: "this is not the time for armchair isolationism".


wow, he just lost my respect. what an asshole.

 

[dilloduck]

Funny how all the wingnuts who clamored for war because Saddam MIGHT have WMDs are now so unsure about war, after Assad actual USES WMDs.

and how many times did he violate UN resolutions ? How many times did he shoot at our planes policing the no fly zone--the gas has been covered.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Just for the record, Saddam used chems on both HIS people AND the Iranians. Still didn't justify OUR intervention any more than it does now."

 

[testarosa]

Kerry.

It's The World's Red Line.

That's funny.

I thought The World wasn't in and it was Ding a Ling's Red Line with no back up plan.

Kerry says Syria has crossed ?world?s red line? as he lobbies for move against Assad - The Irish Times - Tue, Sep 03, 2013

 

[testarosa]

Kerry says: "this is not the time for armchair isolationism".


wow, he just lost my respect. what an asshole.

You forgot "puppet", "wannabe" and the word that start with P associated with females.

 

[freedombecki]

Funny how all the wingnuts who clamored for war because Saddam MIGHT have WMDs are now so unsure about war, after Assad actual USES WMDs.

and how many times did he violate UN resolutions ? How many times did he shoot at our planes policing the no fly zone--the gas has been covered.

Here's an opinionary on Assad I found:

Op-Ed: Assad's al Qaeda murdered 1,770 US Soldiers in Iraq

Assad's orders not only killed our soldiers, he is responsible for the deaths of 100,000 in Iraq and another 100,000 in his own country. He sent Syrian al-Qaeda killers into Iraq. What they did truly hurt our efforts.

Iran also participated in the conflict by sending technology to overcome the new preventive measures we took in improving vehicles for troops with stronger IEDs given to the Republican Guard et al of Saddam Hussein. Iran has also issued threats to Israel if we discipline Syria.

Boehner has given his support to the President. Boehner doesn't have to do this but thinks it is in the interest of the American people.

I'm thinking this is likely to pass in Congress in the near future, although I'm so not psychic.

 

[Hoffstra]

Kerry.

It's The World's Red Line.

That's funny.

I thought The World wasn't in and it was Ding a Ling's Red Line with no back up plan.

Kerry says Syria has crossed ?world?s red line? as he lobbies for move against Assad - The Irish Times - Tue, Sep 03, 2013

if its the "world's" red line, why doesn't the world want to act?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are The United States Of America and not The United States of Israel. Be an American, not an American Traitor. And my argument continues to be that a US attack would violate our Treaty obligations.

First, what treaty obligations do we have with Syria?

Second, you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

The UN Charter is a Treaty and it provides for military strikes lawfully to be used against another nation when it is in self defense or pursuant to Security Council Resolution. Any attack by tbe US on Syria will constitute an act of aggression and a war crime. Treaties are the law of the land under the US Constitution. Whether Congress approves war crimes or does not will not operate to change their status as war crimes. An attack on Syria will be a war crime.

Want to explain how using actual logic and citing UN resolutions and/or the UN Charter?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact we break treaties and commit war crimes every single day does not operate to make our acts lawful or sanction our war crimes.

Why would you suppose it matters, if no one cares and no one does what the UN says to do?

If there are no penalties or enforcement against what you are calling "war crimes," why does it matter what you say, or some foreigners say who are sitting in a big building we built for them in New York City?

It simply doesn't matter.

There are a lot of problems about this apparently upcoming war, but the UN is the least of our concern.

I'd say forget about the UN and consider whether millions will die in WWIII.

Likewise, if there are no penalties or enforcement against chemical weapons attacks, why does it matter if the world condemns it?

When did the US become the world police? Who are we going to arrest? Or is the simple fact that someone used chemical weapons to kill someone mean that we can go kill whoever we want, even if we can't prove they had anything to do with it?

 

[dilloduck]

Funny how all the wingnuts who clamored for war because Saddam MIGHT have WMDs are now so unsure about war, after Assad actual USES WMDs.

and how many times did he violate UN resolutions ? How many times did he shoot at our planes policing the no fly zone--the gas has been covered.

Here's an opinionary on Assad I found:

Op-Ed: Assad's al Qaeda murdered 1,770 US Soldiers in Iraq

Assad's orders not only killed our soldiers, he is responsible for the deaths of 100,000 in Iraq and another 100,000 in his own country. He sent Syrian al-Qaeda killers into Iraq. What they did truly hurt our efforts.

Iran also participated in the conflict by sending technology to overcome the new preventive measures we took in improving vehicles for troops with stronger IEDs given to the Republican Guard et al of Saddam Hussein. Iran has also issued threats to Israel if we discipline Syria.

Boehner has given his support to the President. Boehner doesn't have to do this but thinks it is in the interest of the American people.

I'm thinking this is likely to pass in Congress in the near future, although I'm so not psychic.

propaganda piece

look at the numbers------the headlines claim 1,770 Americans were killed which in itself is some number pulled out of a hat but check out this paragraph

The problem is the group most "linked to al-Qaeda" boomerangs directly back to Syrian “President” Bashar al-Assad himself. For it is Bashar al-Assad who personally authorized thousands of al Qaeda terrorists from 2003 to 2010, to transit through Syria into Iraq, who proceeded to murder and maim thousands of precious American soldiers in Iraq with IEDs.

Now all the sudden it's thousands ? I call bullshit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

'
As Sherri pointed out, the United Nation's Charter is a treaty to which the United States is a signatory, ratified by Congress, and the law of the land according to the Constitution.

Those who think that it is all right to violate it have less respect for law and far less respect for the Constitution than even I have.

They are just much more hypocritical and morally degraded than I am.

.

We should only agree to get into it if china, russia, UK, France, Germany, Japan, et al agree to take part in "enforcement".

So if they jump off a cliff, so should we. Got it. Perfect.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

I am not surprised that a Mormon regards breaking a pledge as of less consequence than drinking a bottle of soda pop.

.

I am not surprised that your religious zealotry is compelling you to decry a sect you feel corrupted the Christian Scriptures.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree. The Arab League should be taking the lead on this. I don't see any microphones being shoved into the face of the Chinese ambassador, asking what China plans to do about this chemical attack on civilians.

But their absence in responding does not absolve us of all responsibility to respond. The United States was the main force behind the chemical weapons ban. It greatly serves our interests to not have chemical weapons on any battlefields.

unless they are being used on americans, why is it our duty to stop them? If the "entire world" wants Assad punished, then why aren't the blue hatted UN troops doing it?

It is not our role to get in the middle of every civil war in the world. But if you think it is, why didn't we stop the slaughter in Sudan and Congo?

If this is the right wing logic, then why all the obsession with Iran's nuclear program? It hasn't been used on Americans.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons on American interests, which makes them getting nuclear weapons a legitimate concern. Syria, on the other hand, has had chemical weapons for years, and never used them against us.

Yet, for some reason, you think attacking Syria because someone allegedly used chemical weapons a legitimate exercise of American power.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

unless they are being used on americans, why is it our duty to stop them? If the "entire world" wants Assad punished, then why aren't the blue hatted UN troops doing it?

It is not our role to get in the middle of every civil war in the world. But if you think it is, why didn't we stop the slaughter in Sudan and Congo?

If this is the right wing logic, then why all the obsession with Iran's nuclear program? It hasn't been used on Americans.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons on American interests, which makes them getting nuclear weapons a legitimate concern. Syria, on the other hand, has had chemical weapons for years, and never used them against us.

Yet, for some reason, you think attacking Syria because someone allegedly used chemical weapons a legitimate exercise of American power.

Iran has not threatened to use nuclear weapons. They do not have nuclear weapons. Stop lying.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Iran has not threatened to use nuclear weapons. They do not have nuclear weapons..."

True.

It's just that The West is not going to trust a theocratic gaggle of crazy phukkers like that with nuclear weapons, and will not allow the Iranians to obtain them...

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Here is the letter I just emailed to a Senator in my state.

Hello, I wanted to contact you to let you know I oppose the US starting a war in Syria. The only basis for a war is dubious Intelligence provided to us by Israel. It is not clear that chemical weapons were used in Syria AND if so, who has used chemical weapons in Syria. This is not a reasonable basis for any nation to attack Syria. And an attack shall only increase the suffering of the Syrian people. Further, an attack would be a violation of the UN Charter, which only allows attacks on other nations in situations of self defense and in cases where there is authorization by the Security Counsel. Treaties are the law of the land under the US Constitution. Please vote against military strikes in Syria, do not make us war criminals and child killers and innocent civilian killers. Diplomacy is the only answer to make things better in Syria, we will not help the people of Syria by putting Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in power there. A military operation does not serve the interests of America. We are The United States of America, not The United States of Israel. And the US people oppose a war in Syria, by a percentage of 96% to 4%. Here is a link to a poll. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/309974-war-with-syria-yea-or-nay.html People are tired of wars. Please act for the people, not the lobbies and special interests. Let us be a nation seeking peace and not one starting more wars. That is the example Jesus sets for Christians to follow, to pursue peace. Thank you for considering my comments. Sherri Munnerlyn

 

[Synthaholic]

Funny how all the wingnuts who clamored for war because Saddam MIGHT have WMDs are now so unsure about war, after Assad actual USES WMDs.

Hey moron. Just for the record, Saddam used chems on both HIS people AND the Iranians. Still didn't justify OUR intervention any more than it does now.

Are you claiming you didn't support Bush's Quagmire?

 

[Synthaholic]

Funny how all the wingnuts who clamored for war because Saddam MIGHT have WMDs are now so unsure about war, after Assad actual USES WMDs.

and how many times did he violate UN resolutions ? How many times did he shoot at our planes policing the no fly zone--the gas has been covered.

He was never going to hit out planes - they flew too high and our systems and pilots are too good.

Bush's rationale was WMD. The suspicion that Saddam had them was enough to go to war.

But the evidence that Assad has them isn't?

 

[Synthaholic]

Funny how all the wingnuts who clamored for war because Saddam MIGHT have WMDs are now so unsure about war, after Assad actual USES WMDs.

and how many times did he violate UN resolutions ? How many times did he shoot at our planes policing the no fly zone--the gas has been covered.

Here's an opinionary on Assad I found:

Op-Ed: Assad's al Qaeda murdered 1,770 US Soldiers in Iraq

Assad's orders not only killed our soldiers, he is responsible for the deaths of 100,000 in Iraq and another 100,000 in his own country. He sent Syrian al-Qaeda killers into Iraq. What they did truly hurt our efforts.

Iran also participated in the conflict by sending technology to overcome the new preventive measures we took in improving vehicles for troops with stronger IEDs given to the Republican Guard et al of Saddam Hussein. Iran has also issued threats to Israel if we discipline Syria.

Boehner has given his support to the President. Boehner doesn't have to do this but thinks it is in the interest of the American people.

I'm thinking this is likely to pass in Congress in the near future, although I'm so not psychic.

The American people are most likely not high on Boehner's list of concerns, unfortunately. But he can count. And he counts more:

• Neo-Cons who believe in militarized foreign policy
• Israel Hawks whose main concern is Israel's best interest
• Democratic Defense Industry, with major employers in their district
• Republican Defense Industry, with major employers in their district
• Democrats who want to support Obama

On the other side:

• Teabaggers worried about cost
• Paulbots and Buchananites, calling for isolationism
• Liberal Doves, who prefer negotiations to force

Now, which group would YOU throw your lot in with if you were Boehner, always worried about your job? The side with more muscle, more influence.

 

[Synthaholic]

Why would you suppose it matters, if no one cares and no one does what the UN says to do?

If there are no penalties or enforcement against what you are calling "war crimes," why does it matter what you say, or some foreigners say who are sitting in a big building we built for them in New York City?

It simply doesn't matter.

There are a lot of problems about this apparently upcoming war, but the UN is the least of our concern.

I'd say forget about the UN and consider whether millions will die in WWIII.

Likewise, if there are no penalties or enforcement against chemical weapons attacks, why does it matter if the world condemns it?

When did the US become the world police? Who are we going to arrest? Or is the simple fact that someone used chemical weapons to kill someone mean that we can go kill whoever we want, even if we can't prove they had anything to do with it?

Why do you use my question to not only not answer it, but to ask a bunch of other questions that have nothing to do with the question you are ignoring?