Senatgreen Light To Bomb Syria....!!

EdRooney said:
Assad is one of many tyrants I would love to see out of power for good. But bring it to a general vote at the UN. Then let UN peacekeepers take any action, instead of the US which has a proven track record for destroying weak countries.
Click to expand...

Compared to some US endorsed tyrants, like the Kuwait or Saudi royal families, or Ethiopian president Girma Wolde-Giorgis, I find Assad to be quite mild. Not a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination, but far from being the worst, specially when compared with some of the US friends.
I visited Syria back in 2010 and was amazed at how secular the country was. In Damascus women dressed no different than any woman in New York or London. Veils were actually outlawed, and women were highly encouraged to attend university, hold public office, become doctors, scientists or managers.
As long as one did not challenge the regime, Assad could not care less about your religion, music tastes, if you had sex before or after marriage, or even if you were gay (as long as you were somewhat discreet about it).
 
The link below pokes fun at liberals, but both sides are guilty of gross hypocrisy.

Their 'strong convictions' seem to shift, depending on which party is in power.

A pox on both houses.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTPhrINIIAAsvq-.jpg:large
 
I've had debate after debate about this with people from many different nationalities, and most seem to agree that there's absolutely nothing to gain from a military intervention. No lives will be saved in the actual conflict but, worse even, the ultimate, long-term outcome could prove to be really disastrous. I found this one article on the WP yesterday that I would highly recommend everyone to read - I have been following the events in Syria with a lot of interest since the day the protesting started there, but even then I have to admit there was a lot of information I was missing out on. The article does a great job on explaining why Syria is so crucial to Russia, why the international community feels it has to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons, why the US wants to intervene so badly (to isolate Iran), and what the future options are to this conflict.

The overall conclusion is pretty pessimistic but equally realistic: do nothing. Similar to what happened in Lebanon, which was a long and bloody civil war. The same would happen in Syria if there is no involvement from foreign military powers; many people will die, but as I said before, any military intervention would very likely kill more people. The use of chemical weapons should be punished however, but there are other ways to punish Assad for this. Economic embargo's come to mind, essentially completely isolating Syria; but, of course, countries like Russia, China and Saudi Arabia will refuse to comply. So yeah, the situation is a complete mess and most people who seem to have a strong opinion on it don't even know what factions are involved in the fight (e.g. they seem to think it's "government croonies" vs. "the rebels").

The article I'm talking about: http://www.washingto...rrassed-to-ask/
 

The top 9 real reasons to go to war in Syria

by Jon Rappoport
September 4, 2013
www.nomorefakenews.com

In no particular order:

One: Give the appearance of unifying the country behind the President, who "did his job the right way," by going to Congress for approval. This elevates Obama's ratings and, by inference, suggests that his other programs should be accorded more merit. A wartime president always gains more support.

Two: Give the people an adrenaline rush. The effect should never be underestimated. Cleanses the pores, cleans the slate, and relieves frustration by proxy, temporarily...if you have very little access to your cerebral functions.

Three: In this case, winning Congressional approval reinstates the illusion, for a few moments, that we are a Constitutional Republic, with a government dedicated to justice.

Four: Help fulfill the long-planned US-Israeli agenda of destabilizing Syria and causing it to partition into warring and chaotic ethnic factions.

Five: Stop the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Syria, which would boost Iran's economy by sending Iranian gas to Europe. Iran's economy must be torpedoed.

Six: Send a message throughout the Middle East that the US is all-powerful and the dollar must remain the reserve currency in all oil transactions.

Seven: Feed the US military-industrial complex, which demands wars.

Eight: Aid the long-term goal of Globalism/Free Trade, which involves putting the entire Middle East into unresolvable debt and suffering...and then coming in with outside elite bankster financing, to rebuild the entire region and own it, lock, stock, and barrel.

Nine: Distract Americans from a number of scandals, including: Benghazi, Fast&Furious, IRS non-profit division crimes, NSA spying, the continuing failed war in Afghanistan, and a tanking domestic economy with more and more people living below the poverty line.

None of these reasons has anything to do with "punishing Assad for using chemical weapons." In any case, that whole scenario has been thrown into extreme doubt.

Your government at work.
 
All of the genius level "Arm Chair Leaders" here have instant answers to this problem. Frankly I don't have the answer or access to the info that would assist in producing an answer. But in all honesty I am tired of the middle east and would much prefer to see the Arab League or the UN or the Swiss Army take care of the clean up. It's a no win job and it is far too expensive in terms of human lives, financial resources and intellectual energy. The good old Fortress America concept is looking better every day. End of rant.
 
Kristina plans to send a destroyer off the coast of Syria to show support. She called the navy this morning and told them to prep it for battle!
460x.jpg
 
There are ways to "hold the line" on the international agreements against the use of chemical weapons without the US striking Syria. I've said before that Syria is Russia's dog. If true that the regime used chemicals weapons then get Putin on the phone and tell him to deal with it. Secondly, this the neighborhood of the Arab League. The Arab League can take the lead on this. If chemical weapons are a serious threat then it's their families at risk.

When you have the keys to some pretty cool hardware like strike fighters and cruise missiles it's really hard not to get juiced when someone says "game on." (I know from experience). However, the last thing the US needs now is to go bomb another Arab country.
 
Iran and Iraq go at it back in the 80s using chemical weapons and nobody bats an eyelash. Syrian civil war where someone used chemical weapons and all hell busts loose. Stupid f... politicians everywhere and in every era. Absolutely insane. Mr. President, very, very disappointed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top