71° Thunderstorm in Vicinity
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
It must be Hell to be President these days.
Definitely Hell to have Jenkins as a representative.
There's nothing like making a civil war confined to one country into an international conflict. For the excitement, I suppose.
It will end up with the United States versus Russia, Iran, and China. This is going to be much more exciting than a chess game, that's for sure.
Russia has said they won't do anything militarily.
At least, right now.
This conflict is a waste of time. If you intervene and change who is in power the result will be the same. Save our money and stay out of it. It has bee a long time since we have won a war and some of them are still in process.
For once I agree with her. Also touching--now the bloviators on both sides pull the 'moral' card and want to blow something up because children are dead.
Really? So, it's more moral to do nothing when children are killed?
Are the lives of children worth more than the lives of adults? If so, can you explain the morality of assigning a higher value to a life because of a person's age?
Jafs, you have a lot of compassion, but this is what matters. Syria is not us. Syria is not our ally. The children of Syria are not our allies. The matter is entirely civil (meaning it isn't international) and there are many neighboring countries that can intervene. America doing anything more than arming our allies that will take down Assad is not warranted.
I don't know why we don't pressure Iraq to bring Assad 's regime to justice. Tell Assad he has two choices, Surrender to Iraq or we will back any decision Israel makes in the mission of "terminating" the Ba'ath party "with extreme prejudice". Let that be known and the Syrians in the government will kill each other for the chance to surrender to Iraq.
The upsides: no more Ba'ath party, no American involvement, Iraq looks like the new leader of democracy in the region and we can insist through Iraq that the interim government must be friendly with Israel allowing time to catapult the pro-Israel propaganda in the Syrian media.
A smart US president could use this situation to foster peace throughout the Mideast. Let's see what happens.
No - I use children as a strong and clear example of innocent people who have no responsibility for the war.
There are also adults who fit that description - it's just that it's easier for people to see when you use children. And, PG used them in his post. For me, there's a huge distinction between a bunch of adults choosing to be in a violent conflict, and the other people who don't choose that. If it's the former, then I say let them fight it out (assuming that they're somewhat equally matched), but when it's the latter, I have a very different feeling about it.
That's an interesting suggestion, and certainly worth considering.
And thanks - I value compassion, as well as clarity.
This war in Syria is not about Americans, it is about Syrians who, like us, have the right to freedom and liberty. The Assad regime is oppressive and want total domination over the people. In any book, this is wroing. Is it America's role to right the wrongs? I don't think so, yet we helped the people of Kosovo and that was a great thing to do.
We don't need to have boots on the ground. Why can't we attack using missles and air? Destroy their air defenses and keep them grounded and let the rebels win and gain freedom and liberty from oppression.
I vote bomb them with missles and let them know we, Americans, will not tolerate the use of chemical or biological weapons anywhere on earth.
So what if our cruise missiles trigger Iran to lob some of their own missiles toward Israel, as they have publicly promised to do, triggering a wild defensive response from Israel, who responds by raining missiles on its neighbors? What is the point made then? Who will remember why we felt it necessary to "make a point?"
There already is no adequate response to Assad's mass killing of his own citizens, other than trying to leverage his supporters in Russia and Iran to stop supporting him and trying to build up support for the moderate Syrian factions so that they can be ready to step in when Assad finally falls. Not sexy or quick, but any other path that leads out of this quagmire is just a mirage in the heat of the Middle East summer.
Not our war. Let someone else fight for the Syrians.
So these Muslims are not part of your clan?
Do nothing and ask the House of Representatives to submit proposals.
This is a battle between two groups of terrorists ....Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaida .... And which is fighting for the freedom of the people? Seems to me a no win situation
Wow. I agree with Lynn Jenkins.
Too bad she is only taking this position to oppose President Obama, and not because of rational and ethical reasons.
First, do no harm.: the Hippocratic Oath has never been improved, even by the U.S. Constitution. In Britain, the weasels representing Syria are already warning that any "attack" will have to be "well aimed" or it will have repercussions: meaning the U.S. gets blamed for anything, even the demolition of a Damascus video store.
If it's a matter of lobbing a 1 million dollar missile to kill yet more of the undecided, let the anguished take the price out of their own local budget; send their own kids to bomb. And for what? To prove that Sunnis and Shiites hate Christians and atheists more than each other?
The U.S is forced into doing something because of Obama's big mouth a year ago with the "line in the sand' quote. So now whether he wants to or not he has to back up his word or the U.S looks weak and foolish.
So the next obvious question is what do we do? Make a lame attack just to back Obama's big mouth or launch a bigger attack to flex our muscle to show Assad 'don't mess with us'.
I would launch enough cruise missiles to make Assad wish he had never given us 'the finger' with his chemical weapons attack.
I have a feeling that Penny4 and Lynn731 would have different opinions if the president was a neo-con. Were you leveling the same statements against Bush and his big mouth? Probably not.
Like any other promise or pledge by a politician, they can say they were unable to follow through because of unseen changes. Red lines don't mean squat in today's big political lies.
Obama has consistently lied and circumvented Congress. He has acted against our constitution which he swore to protect, against enemies both foreign and domestic. He is the domestic enemy. I agree this matter should go before Congress. We cannot be the world's policeman, and every time we try, our young people in the military get killed. I believe in arming the rebels so that they can topple the current regime in Syria. Beyond that we should stay out of it, even though the dictator has committed atrocious crimes against his people.
You're thinking of the previous president...or maybe all presidents, only angry now, though. Wonder why.
She's against it because Obama's President. If Romney were President, she'd probably advocate a nuclear strike or two. Maybe even regime change.
All of Jenkins' statements regarding this issue should include the ending phrase "...unless a republican is president".
sounds like she's just asking the President to follow the Constitution regarding military action....you know, something no president has done since WWII.
And we do not know which side actually used chemical weapons - BO hasn't offered any 'proof' only "The US has determined." Assad has absolutely no reason to use them - he knows the West, BO, wants to take him out.....
and those with same political mindset will (with didn't make sense) applaud any and every thing Obama proposes or does, simply because he's Obama. No reason, just blind worship.
This morning on NPR, it was reported that both Russia, and Iran were moving war ships into the area. The chess game has already started. I say we wait for the UN inspectors report. Russia, which has good intelligence in the area, is saying chemical weapons use was not by the current goverment forces.
President Obama is contemplating actions that would be in direct conflict with his own statements made prior to him becoming President. Bush, Jr. did the same, when he said he was opposed to nation building and then overthrew the regime is Iraq.
It appears that the mere act of becoming President causes men to change their views 180 degrees. As I've said in the past, on inauguration day, the President swears to uphold the Constitution and is immediately confronted with the dilemma of how to do that while keeps 320 million Americans safe. I'm finding it hard to fault them as I think I might behave in the exact same way if I were put in their position.
I don't want to say I agree with Jenkins. I will say I am opposed to going to war in Syria.
Jenkins would NOT take this position IF a Bush or other right winger were president. At that point she would be the cheerleader of war no matter the cost. She is bogus.
Of course I do not support this oil region war for no reason ..... never have no matter who is president.
Right. As I wrote before, add "... unless a republican is president." to the end of all of Jenkins' statements to make them more reflective of her anti-Obama stance on this and most issues.
I also "agree" with Jenkins in that we should not go to war in Syria. I am on the fence about using cruise missiles to hit select targets. At the end of the day, however, this is a civil war and it seems that both sides have nasty elements. Picking sides in a conflict like this is like picking sides in "Game of Thrones", as originally stated by Bill Maher
Picking a side in Syria is like choosing between a Democrat and a Republican on election day. Regardless of which one you pick, you always have the feeling you chose the wrong one.
Assad hates America and he's a socialist, the Syrian people appear to have sided with terrorist organizations unfriendly to America. The only real choice is to open the Iraqi border to refugees and let the Arab world fight over Syria.
Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister, tweeted that the West treated Islamic nations like "a monkey with a grenade."
Its true, Jenkins would support it when a fellow conservative was in office. Its none of our business. What I don't get is how the R's can say the liberals support anything O does when this list alone is full of the opposite? And wait, is this free? We have no money for schools, head start, school lunches, health care, teacher's pay, and on and on. Why can't we just say sorry, we can't afford to send million dollar missiles your way?
Well, I need to write this on the calendar. I agree with her about not getting involved. Of course, for different reasons. My reason - we can't afford it, it's a civil war, we don't need to be the world's police --- Her reasons - Obama wants it
USA intelligence knew of and watched step by step the chemical attack... yet did nothing to interrupt? The question becomes how is it the USA government can launch an attack based on an attack that perhaps could have been subverted?
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·