i think this allows us to understand once more why his north vietnamese captors nicknamed mccain "the canary"
one hell of a patriot [/sarcasm]
what a despicable comment
I guess when it comes to the Liberal Radio Talk Shows the Syrian people aren't worth as much as the people of Iraq ...
Syria and U.S. Imperialism
"When U.S. imperialism engages in an attack on any government or movement, it is essential that the workers' and progressive political movements for change gather as much information as is available and take a stand.
It is cowardly to be neutral and rank betrayal to stand on the same side as the imperialist octopus, which seeks to dominate the world."
The Arab American News - Syria and U.S. imperialism
:shock:
NOOOO!!! Why the **** is it our business to get involved in a civil war!? I also suspect that the gov could just be totally making this **** up to get invovled. Also i suspect that we have already been arming them. Why the hell should we get on a side that allies itself with Al-Qaeda groups? This is so stupid.
U.S. to increase military support to Syria rebels | Reuters
Just announced. The US has confirmed it has undeniable proof that Assad in fact used chemical weapons against his own people and, as a result, the US will begin supplying lethal military aid to the rebels for the first time since the war began 2 years ago.
About damn time.
Seriously, this is retarded. If they want to kill each other, it's not our problem. Their civil war is their civil war. It's not our fight, what part of that does nobody seem to ever understand?
Yes, let's continue to stick our nose where it doesn't belong, and fund overly violent factions. It's not like we should learn our lessons from history or anything, like that time we provided heavy air support to the Libyan rebels, and shortly after, they thanked us by murdering our ****ing ambassador in Benghazi. That was last year for ****s sake, and now we're just going to keep doing the same old **** we've been doing for at least half a century because we cling to the hope that it might work at some point in time.
Seriously, this is retarded. If they want to kill each other, it's not our problem. Their civil war is their civil war. It's not our fight, what part of that does nobody seem to ever understand?
The reality is, it's not a civil war but actually a religious war, Sunni vs. Shiite.
It's very much a civil war, since it's a rebel faction trying to overthrow a presiding government. Regardless, their issues are not ours. The UN can do something about it if they feel that international law has been breached to the point of requiring punitive action.
hfd said:More governmental insanity. Please read.
CIA preparing to deliver rebels arms through Turkey and Jordan - The Washington Post
That seems to be new only in that we are openly doing it.
NATO vs. Syria | The American Conservative
Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.
Judging from your response to me, I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was referring to. I was referring to those who weeks ago were criticizing Obama for not being a blowhard and commit toinvading Syria because of the red line comment he made last year, without careful deliberation and investigation.
In response to what I said, here's all that matters.
Obama's Syria Policy a Mess | The Weekly Standard
Not at all, I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm assuming those who criticized Obama weeks ago for not taking action before carefully investigating the evidence are now singing his praises, since the "red line" was apparently so important to them.
Of course, if they are not, then that would suggest hypocrisy, but I didn't say anything like that. You did, but I didn't.
Judging from your response to me, I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was referring to. I was referring to those who weeks ago were criticizing Obama for not being a blowhard and commit toinvading Syria because of the red line comment he made last year, without careful deliberation and investigation.
In response to what I said, here's all that matters.
Obama's Syria Policy a Mess | The Weekly Standard
Not at all, I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm assuming those who criticized Obama weeks ago for not taking action before carefully investigating the evidence are now singing his praises, since the "red line" was apparently so important to them.
Of course, if they are not, then that would suggest hypocrisy, but I didn't say anything like that. You did, but I didn't.
There are some talking secession but that's unlikely to happen. America needs a strong leader with respect for traditional values who can bring people together, but I can't yet see anyone yet who can do it. Another BHO clone, like Hillary, would destroy the country. The people can't afford to sleepwalk through another election.
Ah, you must be privy to information the rest of us aren't.Obama is without a doubt 'not' behind the action of arming Syria's terrorist fighters. It's just too patently obvious that there has not been any use of chem/bio weapons by Assad's regime
Of course it was. I read constantly how not backing up the red line claim makes America weak. Now that the game has changed, I'd expect those same people to sing his praises and kiss his feet.Most of the criticism that I read about Obama and his "red-line" had nothing to do with any belief that we needed to commit forces.
I don't even know how to respond to this obviously false statement.Rather, it was just one more display that the strutting rooster Obama, with all of his huffing and puffing, was once again shown to be a capon, and a lying one at that.
You obviously have no idea what the word hypocrisy means. Consult a dictionary and then get back to me.I'm assuming those who criticized Obama weeks ago for not taking action before carefully investigating the evidence are now singing his praises = hypocrisy. You said it, I didn't.
:lol:Obama is the most divisive president in recent history.
Ah, you must be privy to information the rest of us aren't.
Of course it was. I read constantly how not backing up the red line claim makes America weak. Now that the game has changed, I'd expect those same people to sing his praises and kiss his feet.
I don't even know how to respond to this obviously false statement.
You obviously have no idea what the word hypocrisy means. Consult a dictionary and then get back to me.
I DID say that.
:lol:
Unlikely to happen right now. What about after 20 more years of this? 40 more years? Obama is the most divisive president in recent history. Bush pissed off liberals. Clinton ruined the reputation of the Presidency. Bush was weak. Reagan was divisive. Carter was a joke. Nixon was a criminal. JFK was a womanizer. How much longer can it go on?
No matter where I stand, it looks pretty obvious, Sunnies vs. Shiites.
That's the way it's been for hundreds of years.
How many Shia do you see fighting alongside the rebels ? How many Sunnies do you see aligned with Assad ?
Why does Obama always back the radical Islamist ?
You would think Obama would have stepped back and took a look at the Middle East and said, "I caused the Middle East to become the basket case it is today ?" and just left it to the new big boy on the block to take on the problem, the Russians.
......... Of course it was. I read constantly how not backing up the red line claim makes America weak. Now that the game has changed, I'd expect those same people to sing his praises and kiss his feet.
Yes, let's continue to stick our nose where it doesn't belong, and fund overly violent factions. It's not like we should learn our lessons from history or anything, like that time we provided heavy air support to the Libyan rebels, and shortly after, they thanked us by murdering our ****ing ambassador in Benghazi. That was last year for ****s sake, and now we're just going to keep doing the same old **** we've been doing for at least half a century because we cling to the hope that it might work at some point in time.
Seriously, this is retarded. If they want to kill each other, it's not our problem. Their civil war is their civil war. It's not our fight, what part of that does nobody seem to ever understand?
I always chuckle when people warn about getting involved in Syria by pointing to Libya. If only we could be so lucky in Syria. Libya was a resounding success compared to what we will face in Syria. Benghazi was unfortunate but it was largely an isolated event and is by no means indicative of the overall transition - unless you believe the White House narrative that it was a riot that got out of control. For most Americans, that's the only news they've read on Libya in the past year, so I can understand why people get that impression. But that's just ignorance.
Libya's NTC has already handed power over to the newly elected General National Congress. In the election Jibril's relatively secular National Forces Alliance won big against the more conservative islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya's economy has rebounded, jumping by over 50% last year. And polls show that Libyans have unusually favorable opinions towards Americans and the American gov't - they like us better than the Brits do. Benghazi notwithstanding, extremist jihadists are not going to find a sympathetic audience in Libya. Admittedly, it hasn't been all smooth-sailing and there have been some setbacks and bumps. Some of the militias enjoy their power too much and are refusing to disband and are tying to strongarm the democractic transition in their favor and the passing of the unfortunate Isolation Law, for example.
But none of these are intractable problems and the prognosis for Libya is pretty damn good. Not the case for Syria. Even the most unrealistically optimistic predictions for Syria fall far short of Libya. So, point all you want at Libya, that's only going to encourage me.
Actually, lots of people understand that. Most Americans take that position and don't want any involvement in Syria. It's the wrong position. We don't live in a vacuum. Even if you don't give two ****s about the humanitarian issues, foreign events inevitably affect us whether we like it or not. I'm not of the mind that we should sit back, cross our fingers, and just hope that things transpire in our favor.
I always chuckle when people warn about getting involved in Syria by pointing to Libya. If only we could be so lucky in Syria. Libya was a resounding success compared to what we will face in Syria. (1) Benghazi was unfortunate but it was largely an isolated event and is by no means indicative of the overall transition - unless you believe the White House narrative that it was a riot that got out of control. For most Americans, that's the only news they've read on Libya in the past year, so I can understand why people get that impression. But that's just ignorance.
Libya's NTC has already handed power over to the newly elected General National Congress. In the election Jibril's relatively secular National Forces Alliance won big against the more conservative islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. (2) Libya's economy has rebounded, jumping by over 50% last year. (3) And polls show that Libyans have unusually favorable opinions towards Americans and the American gov't - they like us better than the Brits do. (4) Benghazi notwithstanding, extremist jihadists are not going to find a sympathetic audience in Libya. Admittedly, it hasn't been all smooth-sailing and there have been some setbacks and bumps. Some of the militias enjoy their power too much and are refusing to disband and are tying to strongarm the democractic transition in their favor and the passing of the unfortunate Isolation Law, for example.
But none of these are intractable problems and the prognosis for Libya is pretty damn good. Not the case for Syria. Even the most unrealistically optimistic predictions for Syria fall far short of Libya. So, point all you want at Libya, that's only going to encourage me.
Actually, lots of people understand that. Most Americans take that position and don't want any involvement in Syria. It's the wrong position. We don't live in a vacuum. Even if you don't give two ****s about the humanitarian issues, foreign events inevitably affect us whether we like it or not. I'm not of the mind that we should sit back, cross our fingers, and just hope that things transpire in our favor.
You are siding with the Russians? They are simply being greedy mercenaries selling arms to a murderer.
Only Sunnis are radical islamists? Iran and Hezbolah are SHIA. They don't seem radical to you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?