09-20-2013 05:13 PM
368 1234 ...
tools
  1. Serial Fordicator's Avatar

    Should Obama go to Congress? Probably, if you're going to go strictly by the Constitution. However, considering the mess that is Congress, I don't blame him for being highly skeptical and reluctant to deal with that band of fools. They will argue and bicker while Syrian cities burn and more children die. Have you watched the video of those children dying? I have, and wish I hadn't. It's viscerally uncomfortable to watch.


    Sent via Note II
    Do we really trust one man with that much power? Would you trust rand Paul knowing how you feel about him? Heck, I like him, but even I don't want him to have that much power.

    Please be careful when the media replays Obama complaining about congress. Please ask how you would feel if it were bush or Paul.

    535 people are a lot less apt to make a wrong call than one.



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    08-29-2013 09:57 AM
  2. msndrstood's Avatar
    Do we really trust one man with that much power? Would you trust rand Paul knowing how you feel about him? Heck, I like him, but even I don't want him to have that much power.

    Please be careful when the media replays Obama complaining about congress. Please ask how you would feel if it were bush or Paul.

    535 people are a lot less apt to make a wrong call than one.



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Not particularly. There are too many in Congress that want to see the President fail and have done everything and anything to make that happen. I don't trust them to make a rational decision. If you have read the stuff I have read about some of these nut jobs, your hair would curl, if it isn't already curly.

    I agree, it's a lot of power for one person to hold. But, I do believe he is an intelligent person and does want to do the right thing. I'd feel better about Congress if there weren't so many people in the House and a few in the Senate, who are hell bent on destroying this President. You cannot deny that fact, it's well documented. They could very well deny the authorization, just because they want to embarrass him on the world stage.

    I just don't trust them. They've made nothing but poor decisions, in my opinion, thus far. Trying to repeal Obamacare 40 times rather than pass any legislation that provides jobs (or offer their own healthcare plan) and basic sustenance for our own hungry kids is inexcusable and intolerable to me. They have their own agenda and its not good for this country.

    My money is on the President.

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough and GadgetGator like this.
    08-29-2013 10:28 AM
  3. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Here is why we are going to syria.
    http://m.youtube.com/?reload=2&rdm=u...%3D9RC1Mepk_Sw

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-29-2013 11:25 AM
  4. msndrstood's Avatar
    Here is why we are going to syria.
    http://m.youtube.com/?reload=2&rdm=u...%3D9RC1Mepk_Sw

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    That interview was from 2007, I'm pretty sure he was discussing the Bush administration plans, not the current Administration, since they weren't in office yet.

    If Obama was planning this war in accordance to that interview, he would have done it two years ago when the uprising began.

    You can't pin that on him. Sorry.

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 11:49 AM
  5. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    That interview was from 2007, I'm pretty sure he was discussing the Bush administration plans, not the current Administration, since they weren't in office yet.

    If Obama was planning this war in accordance to that interview, he would have done it two years ago when the uprising began.

    You can't pin that on him. Sorry.

    Sent via Note II
    Not pinning it on obama. This plan was hatched ten years ago but he is still following in the footsteps. As I have said before, I'm not a party hater. I either like your policies or I don't. I don't look at party lines. I have yet to find one good reason we should be going to war. Can anyone give me one? I know what Assad allegedly did was terrible but like I said before, the people in that region need to handle it. Its not out of compassion we are there. Again I point to mexico. I can give you one good reason not to go...Russia.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-29-2013 01:53 PM
  6. msndrstood's Avatar
    Not pinning it on obama. This plan was hatched ten years ago but he is still following in the footsteps. As I have said before, I'm not a party hater. I either like your policies or I don't. I don't look at party lines. I have yet to find one good reason we should be going to war. Can anyone give me one? I know what Assad allegedly did was terrible but like I said before, the people in that region need to handle it. Its not out of compassion we are there. Again I point to mexico. I can give you one good reason not to go...Russia.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    I agree, Russia is a problem. More like Putin is the problem.

    Unfortunately, this is a red line in the sand. Chemical weapons cannot be allowed to be used in any circumstance. It's beyond terrible, it's a step on the brink of worldwide disaster. If Assad gets away with this, it sets a precedent for others, and that genie is out of the bottle.

    As I said, he won't put boots on the ground. He's a thinker, he sees the potential for disaster. He also won't be going it alone.

    As for Mexico? It's a different situation, yes, the cartels are killing people down there, but it's not the government gassing its own people just because they are a different religious sect. There is an intact legitimate, elected government and they have to deal with their issues. Assad was neither elected nor proven to be legitimate in the way he rules his people.

    We watched the Germans decimate the Jews, we watched the Rwandan massacres, if we don't stand up for humanity, who will?

    We assumed that mantle a long time ago. It's kind of hard to sit back and do nothing, if you have any empathy for those that don't have a choice in this situation like the children who died a horrible death just because they belonged the wrong religious sect.



    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough and GadgetGator like this.
    08-29-2013 02:31 PM
  7. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I agree that something needs to be done. But what do you do? If chemical weapons are a red line in the sand , then we definitely done need to add the possibility of nuclear intervention with Russia.
    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 02:36 PM
  8. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    Even the state department has no proof that the government did it. There is no case for it. Again, our government has no hard proof. We strike and we support Al Quads.

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4
    08-29-2013 02:36 PM
  9. msndrstood's Avatar
    Even the state department has no proof that the government did it. There is no case for it. Again, our government has no hard proof. We strike and we support Al Quads.

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4
    We don't know what proof we have. We just know that hundreds of children are dead from some form of gas. I think we should wait until the proof is laid out for the American public before we condemn a decision before its made.

    If the Arab-region governments would police their own, we wouldn't be discussing this today. They have failed to do their due diligence.

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 03:08 PM
  10. JHBThree's Avatar
    Even the state department has no proof that the government did it. There is no case for it. Again, our government has no hard proof. We strike and we support Al Quads.

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4
    Just because they haven't released it publicly doesn't mean there isn't proof. The Obama administration is not one to speak in strident tones when it comes to things like this, so the fact that they are should tell you that they have undeniable proof that the Syrian government was behind this.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    08-29-2013 03:20 PM
  11. JHBThree's Avatar
    They said to do air strikes on the airport port, transport hubs etc. So I don't think that's the case.

    Posted via Android Central App
    The russians don't want anyone to do anything. No airstrikes, no aid, no nothing. They want Assad to remain in power and the citizens and rebels to be squashed like bugs.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    08-29-2013 03:21 PM
  12. JHBThree's Avatar
    As for my opinion; this is a very difficult situation because of who most of the rebels are.

    On one hand, the use of chemical weapons on civilians, and the way the Syrian regime treats its people, is unacceptable. On the other, most of the rebels are sympathetic to al Qaeda and are not necessarily the good guys.

    Limited airstrikes on Syrian military assets is probably the best and only route that could be taken. They wouldn't be meant to turn the tide of the war and knock Assad out of power, but they would send a strong warning that use of banned weapons on civilians will not be tolerated by the international community. Such a strike could also lead to some feelings of goodwill towards the US by the rebels (and perhaps al Qaeda), but that's probably a stretch.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 03:26 PM
  13. llamabreath's Avatar
    Why does the world suddenly draw the line when chemicals are used, but blowing people up and shredding people to pieces (as in suicide bombings , I.E.D's, every other form of killing, etc) is something the world could live with?

    08-29-2013 03:43 PM
  14. msndrstood's Avatar
    Why does the world suddenly draw the line when chemicals are used, but blowing people up and shredding people to pieces (as in suicide bombings , I.E.D's, every other form of killing, etc) is something the world could live with?

    So we shouldn't have intervened in WWII?

    What do you think we should do?

    And, chemical weapons were banned after WWI, and renewed 15 years ago. As if a moral high ground isn't enough.

    http://www.opcw.org/news-publication...s-and-figures/
    08-29-2013 03:47 PM
  15. llamabreath's Avatar
    So we shouldn't have intervened in WWII?
    How can you possibly draw that conclusion from what I said?

    08-29-2013 03:57 PM
  16. msndrstood's Avatar
    How can you possibly draw that conclusion from what I said?

    Because you wanted to know why we draw the line at chemical weapons rather than bombs etc.

    We took so long to enter WWII, how many lives would have been saved if we hadn't looked the other way?

    Reagan didn't intervene when the Kurds were gassed. Clinton didn't intervene in Rwanda when people were getting hacked to death by the millions.

    Maybe Assad is testing it on his own people before he lobs a few over to Israel. Time will tell. He was warned not to use chemical weapons and he did anyway. He's emboldened now. If we don't stop him, who will?

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 04:12 PM
  17. llamabreath's Avatar
    Because you wanted to know why we draw the line at chemical weapons rather than bombs etc.

    We took so long to enter WWII, how many lives would have been saved if we hadn't looked the other way?

    Clinton didn't intervene in Rwanda when people were getting hacked to death by the millions.
    That's exactly my point.
    How come the world's ears perk up when it hears 'chemicals', but every other horror and devastation is just routine thinning of the herd?

    08-29-2013 04:19 PM
  18. msndrstood's Avatar
    That's exactly my point.
    How come the world's ears perk up when it hears 'chemicals', but every other horror and devastation is just routine thinning of the herd?

    Gas is insidious. It can be deployed using a variety of stealth methods.

    I read a novel years ago about a nationwide attack where gas was dispersed in subways, on trains on buses, in crop dusting planes, in buses and trains it was by using such devices as lightbulbs, balloons etc. It's odorless and colorless, easily transported. And, it's a horrible way to die. Not quick, quite excruciating and silent. The worst of all evils.

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 04:36 PM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    Cameron just lost the vote.

    08-29-2013 04:37 PM
  20. msndrstood's Avatar
    If Obama puts it to a vote he'll lose the vote too, but for different reasons.

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 04:37 PM
  21. JHBThree's Avatar
    That's exactly my point.
    How come the world's ears perk up when it hears 'chemicals', but every other horror and devastation is just routine thinning of the herd?

    Because chemical weapons can kill an order of magnitude more people than simple bombs can. There's a reason why chemical weapons were banned internationally

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    08-29-2013 04:49 PM
  22. JHBThree's Avatar
    Cameron just lost the vote.

    Not surprising. The British want the US to do it for them.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    08-29-2013 04:50 PM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    Because chemical weapons can kill an order of magnitude more people than simple bombs can. There's a reason why chemical weapons were banned internationally

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Bombs have obliterated whole cities. Please see WWI, WWII, etc etc

    08-29-2013 04:56 PM
  24. msndrstood's Avatar
    Bombs have obliterated whole cities. Please see WWI, WWII, etc etc

    But, we know when they're coming and have deterrents. Gas can be delivered silently.

    Sent via Note II
    08-29-2013 05:04 PM
  25. llamabreath's Avatar
    But, we know when they're coming and have deterrents.
    That's your rebuttal?
    Can you explain that to the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dead and maimed bomb victims over the past hundred years?

    08-29-2013 05:09 PM
368 1234 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD