See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
To it I would add.
Would you support going to war in Syria if you knew it meant that you, your spouse or a son or daughter would die as a result of it?
I know many would have answered yes if asked this about WW I or II, but I certainly wouldn't answer yes about Syria.
I wish there were some way to take off this Sheriff's Badge to the world that our country seems to have on. Let someone else be the moral crusader for a few decades.
Nice thing about our government. They are sending someone else to war. When the "someone else's" come back from war, if they are lucky, then they have to fight the government to get the help they need to cope with what the war has done to their lives.
When Kerry was talking about all the atrocities that were being committed, for a minute, I thought he was referring to the innocent people being killed by drone attacks.
"I have one question to ask all you folks that want the United States to send military personnel to Syria."
Instead of one, you asked several fair questions I suppose, but before you ask them you should find someone that advocates sending military personnel to Syria. President Obama, and everyone in his administration, are not any of those people, at least not at the present time. Google this phrase:
"we're not talking about boots on the ground"
and you will discover that the first two pages of Google hits are all completely filled with that quote, and they are all referring to the situation in Syria. No one in the United States government administration has advocated sending any military personnel to Syria.
One of 20 examples, clipped from: http://www.voanews.com/content/us-not-waiting-for-un-to-respond-on-syria/1739187.html
"The president has a range of military contingencies on his table regarding Syria for when and if he would ever need to use them. Again, we're not talking about boots on the ground. We're not talking about no-fly zones at this point."
To read that quote in context, you can open the 'DoD (Department of Defense) Daily Briefings' at this website: http://www.savingreality.com/aggregator/sources/38
My personal opinion on the matter is that the United States should have stayed out of almost every internal conflict in other countries since World War II. Only rarely have the results of our involvement been good.
Thank you for this post. It's nice to see someone who reads what the President actually says and uses those quotes to support his points. And you show that it's just as easy to do a post with integrity as it is to do a post that puts words that the President didn't say into his mouth or attributes false intentions to people. As Ronald Reagan said, "Facts are stupid things." (1988 Republican convention speech)
I don't "want" to send US military personnel to Syria. Nor does the President. But if there is a chance that the Syrian govt. will stop murdering children with chemical weapons if the US carries out a strike, then a military strike is more than justified. This may be something the US needs to do. Wanting doesn't enter the picture.
President Obama has handled and is handling this situation with patience and intelligence, true to form. I'm glad he's the one making decisions and I'm even more glad that folks like Dolph Simons, George Will, Cal Thomas, and Mitt Romney aren't making them. Especially in this case.
Why do we need to do it? Why not Britain, why not Italy or Australia?
And why Syria? Why not North Korea or China? They commit murders of their citizens. North Korea keeps theirs living in poverty and fear.
Didn't we learn anything from Viet Nam, Iraq or Afghanistan? Bush was dumb for getting us involved in two wars. Obama will be even dumber if he gets us involved and we lose more American lives since he has seen the results of Bush's wars.
Obama does the right thing. He has said he wants to launch a military strike in Syria but is seeking Congressinal approval. Kudos. This is what a president should do.
Think about the hundred's of thousands of muslim children,women and men that are now dead or disabled as a result of an incident in which they played no part.
Think about the ten's of thousands of USA troops now dead and/or physically/mentally disabled that will also cost taxpayers billions upon billions to maintain these unfortunate military people. None went in expecting to die or become disabled.
"While unusually detailed, the assessment does not include photographs, recordings or other hard evidence to support its claims. Nor does it offer proof to back up the administration’s assertion that top-ranking Syrian officials — possibly including President Bashar al-Assad — were complicit in the attack."
Who would the USA attack with no hard evidence?
It seems to me politicians should keep tough talk to themselves rather than back themselves into a corner. Remember Iraq had no WMD's yet GW attacked in spite of NOT KNOWING. 11 years later the USA is mired and has expanded the war based on no hard evidence.
Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions
War mongers, both left and right, on the Sunday news shows pleading with passion and urgency to use force to intervene in Syria.
Where is that passion and sense of urgency on our domestic issues, on our children dying everyday?
I saw video last week on a UK news website showing rebels unloading chemical weapons from a truck to be used on their own people in order to draw us in. Putin also mentioned this happened yesterday. Who do we believe, the UK news and Russia, or is this potential war based on lies by Obama?
It seems that most of the world thinks that Al Assad used the gas. I don't want us in another war any more than the next guy, but do we allow him to do it again? What punishment is appropriate? Just a slap on the wrist or should we effect a no fly zone? I don't know, but I do know that:
"It is good that war should be so terrible, else we would become too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
"It seems that most of the world thinks that Al Assad used the gas."
That statement is very accurate. There have been a lot of claims that Assad's forces did it, but it seems that new evidence has come to light that the rebels either did it, or did it also. There's no real proof either way.
why must we be the ones to supposedly punish Assad?
Obama wants to throw our prestige and military force into Syria, waste it, and a year later has done nothing about the killing of an American ambassador and three brave americans in Benghazi, except lie to the american public and the dead americans' families.
Al-Qaeda is deep in the rebel ranks in Syria. no thanks.
"no boots on the ground" yu silly people think this means no casualties for americans or israelis? we have ships in striking distance of Syria/Iran.
once again we get liberal big lies about our reasons for invading Iraq/2003.
radio intercepts showed Saddam's generals discussing Saddam's WMD's. are we supposed to know about Saddam's WMD status better than his own generals? crazy.
second, there was real evidence that near the invasion Saddam shipped his WMD's to Syria and now, lo and behold *Syria is using them, and maybe the rebels.
third, Saddam did have 550-tons of enriched uranium found during the invasion. he didn't have that to manufacture glow-in-the-dark garden rocks!
obama contradicts himself now vs then if you examine many of his statements.
Beadered, I happen not to be a liberal at all. I have been to Syria in my duties in the Military and I will tell you that Assad is a brutal man that kills his own to stay in power, You have seen that yourself. But he intentionally has many forms of chemical weapons so that he can squelch any uprising against his dictatorship like his dad Hafiz Al Assad did. This is how they stay in power after the West has installed them as "presidents".
What happened in Benghazi is fully disclosed and if we want to try to find a flaw in American security there are many. It is old news and I don't think Obama or Clinton are culpable of any failure. The system failed and that is all.
Lots of brutal people in power. It is not our problem unless they pose a direct threat to us that cannot be resolved through diplomacy or if they attack.
Do you doubt that the US government would not squelch any uprising against it? Maybe they wouldn't use chemical weapons against the people but they would use deadly force. Does it matter how the government kills its citizens?
Couldn't the argument be made that the US government used chemical weapons when it filled the Branch Davidian compound with tear gas killing men, women and children? Should we have been punished?
Solve our domestic violence before wasting lives and money on countries s and people that hate us.
I will tell you, Freddy, that the people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. don't hate Americans. They hate the American Government for supporting the most brutal and terroristic state in the world: Israel. The expansion of Israel is the problem and our government allows it to happen. IF Israel would have stayed within the boundarys set up by the UN back in 1945 0r 6, there would be less violence between the Arabs and Israelis.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·