Reply With Quote
100,000 people and gassing civilians with WMDs... that's cool? Solution: Do nothing.
Because Assad is the only one who's killing in Syria
Rebels used gas attacks and executed unarmed Syrians, there is video evidence of all this.
has the MSM made a number on some ppl
100,000 people and gassing civilians with WMDs... that's cool? Solution: Do nothing.
I don't remember mentioning who the killers wereBecause Assad is the only one who's killing in Syria
Rebels used gas attacks and executed unarmed Syrians, there is video evidence of all this.
has the MSM made a number on some ppl
Kucinich: Obama Risking World War III, Not To Mention Impeachment
Kucinich is maintaining his position that if the emperor goes against Congress and strikes Syria it will be grounds for impeachment. He asks a great series of questions as to why would we take the risk, putting America on the line with no upside? Only upside is for the elite establishment. If the power elite cared they would be saying the same thing that this president is violating the law taking us to war...http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/20...n-impeachment/
Your solution?
Your thoughts on the solution being presented (in all its vaguery) by the administration?
Criticize the status quo all you want, but you could at least weigh in with something of substance.
Check the dates first before posting nonsense..
Ron Paul's potatoes are more popular than Obama's war in Syria.
Yes, I do. They left Syria a long time ago.
oh look! you changed another quote!
Do it again!
and post some more unintelligent jpegs while you're at it.
As stupid as changing quotes may be, at least 2120 contributes and discusses the thread at hand, unlike yourself who contributes near nothing. You can't even take a stand and decide for or against attacking Syria. It's not like this situation happened over night, grow a pair and state your opinion for once.
Nope. Got nothing. It'd be less difficult to give a layman's solution if the facts were ever put on display, but I doubt they will. They never are. I know the death toll and the classification of weapons used. Seeing how Russia and China reacted makes me assume the US has something important to gain. Iran maybe? Sure, that's my guess. I think the status quo sucks... maybe it's the best option, but it's still a bad one imo. Is allowing it a solution? Do you have a solution?
tbh, Its depressing to me that people are still dying at this rate. Global tension is scary right now, so whatever. Lets not start WWIII by attacking Syria. What a world.
I wonder if this soldier has signed up for Dr. Paul's subscription based recurring revenue business model?
Oh and btw, the information in your meme is wildly inaccurate. Not as off you had any credibility left to lose, but I thought I'd point it out...
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012...ming-supp.html
The fact of the matter is, Congress and the American people don't want to give 0bama the authority to wage war because they think he's incompetent. It'd be like giving a toddler a loaded gun. And the people that DO want to give him the authority think like this idiot Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
As D.C.’s delegate to Congress, Holmes is unable to actually cast a vote in the debate, but she told Press: “If [Obama] gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage.”
She elaborated: “At the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it.”
Yeah, that's a great reason. Spend American lives and treasure so 0bama isn't shamed and humiliated on the national stage.
This article is by The Nation. Not exactly a right wing magazine.
The Lies at the Heart of the Obama/Kerry Push for War—and Why They've Backfired
Greg Mitc on September 6, 2013 - 1:27 PM ET
President Obama held a press conference in St. Petersburg this morning which turned into another dismal, at times half-hearted, performance in spinning the need for an attack on Syria. Richard Wolffe of MSNBC quickly labeled it “embarrassing.” The problem for the president remains: he and his secretary of state, John Kerry, have relied on half-truths and, let’s say it, lies, in promoting the war—and as one reporter pointed out at the presser, they actually lose the backing of the public and the Congress the more they say.
That’s because, with the belated help of some in the media, it is all too easy to see through the spin.
Let us count just some of the (un)truths and lies. We won’t even get into Kerry’s repeated claim that he opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the truth is completely the opposite (he came to oppose it later).
1) Yesterday I unpacked the claims of precisely 1,429 killed in the chemical attack, noting that all other sources put it much lower—in some cases at only one-fourth that number. I won’t repeat what I wrote but note that the White House still has given no source for this. At the presser today, Obama mentioned 1,400 “gassed”—not “killed.” I presume just a slip but wish a reporter had followed up.
2) Kerry and backers in Congress—notably Senator John McCain—have claimed for the past week that the rebels in Syria are actually, in the main, “moderate” (not jihadists) and their ranks are growing daily. Yesterday The New York Times carried a front-piece disputing this along with a photo of an execution in progress carried out by those “moderate” rebels. They also had a video of it picked up widely by cable news.
Bad enough but then today we learn that a prime source for the “moderate” claim cited by Kerry and McCain—a recent Wall Street Journal piece—was written by a woman who has been paid by…the Syrian rebels. Reuters has also produced a key piece disputing the “moderate” claim.
3) Obama and Kerry have both declared over and over that his would be a very limited strike. Multiple reports at top news outlets now reveal that the target list is actually expanding and jets as well as missiles will be used. Obama call this “inaccurate” at the presser today but he has been under pressure from hawks to step up the destruction to aid the rebels in the fight.
Also at the presser, Obama denied reports that skeptical Congress members are coming out of intel briefings more, not less, skeptical about an attack. Reporters immediately disputed this.
4) Finally (for now) there’s this: Obama, Kerry and their supporters in Congress and on TV have argued that Assad has “killed 100,000” (maybe more) of his own people. This is rarely corrected by the media or in interviews. The truth is bad enough, surely, but it’s not 100,000. But that figure, so many others others, is being used as spin to induce people to back the war against Syria.
The facts, from more than one group but this leading one here, is that at least 40,000 of that total is Assad forces or militias supporting him. Militia fighting him—and non-combatants (killed by both sides)—make up the rest. In fact, not a single report or count, even by the Assad opponents and groups friendly to him, endorse the Assad-killed-100,000 figure.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of the first airstrike. Assad is bad enough, but the propaganda—from Kerry to certain MSNBC folks—just shows the weakness in their case.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176057...yve-backfired#
Oh you didn't?
What did you sign up for soldier? Defend the cons ution and show your face, then you might be taken seriously. You work for the commander in chief, you were not aware of this? And if you really are serious about the specific steps this country takes, and disagree, get out. Refuse to do what you think is morally or politically wrong and show your damn face.
Get out of uniform, show your face. The kids swept into Vietnam, and then spat upon when they came back, would rather you defect to Canada.
Last edited by pgardn; 09-07-2013 at 09:22 AM.
210 isn't a contributor. He's a spammer.
But how bout you tell me why I should side with your opinion, brave contributor
Last edited by Blake; 09-07-2013 at 10:12 AM.
Shocking, another fruitless reply. I'm not telling you to side with my opinion. I'm simply asking what yours is which apparently is too hard for you to do.
that's a chumpdumper crew tactic, never have an original opinion of your own which can be picked apart, just sit around attacking other people for theirs
i already told you I haven't formed one yet. I really haven't read up on the details of the situation.
apparently it's too hard for you to make fruitful arguments to validate your fruitful opinion.
what a fruitful, on topic post
don't you have a zionist to attack?
I would bet a dollar to a donut that its a costume. That dude has a chestful of medals.
yup youre still stupid.
What does 210 really contribute?
and boobie with the somewhat goods. I disagree with it but it least its a contribution.
for the
1) its a quibble about whether its 1200, 1400, or 2k that were gassed/killed. The issue raised is that gas was used as a WMD. The attack meets that criteria under any of the options given.
2) Demonstrating that there are extremist acts occurring in the war zone does not disprove McCain et al's assertion. This is one part where the public is just poorly informed. Its probably because its a warzone but nonetheless statements like the article's don't bring us closer to the truth. I look at it as such: it's a proxy war. We know that the Iran via Hezbollah and Russians via Assad have their proxies. We know that the Saudis and the other Sunni nations have them as does the military defectors which we fund and turkey to the north. The size of each faction is the question but pieces such as this one --or most for that matter-- don't help much.
3) If you don't want to believe them then fine but pressure for more force is what Hawks do. The he said she said of who is skeptical without even a he or a she is just ty journalsim.
4) Who gives a ?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
