isn't that what the bushie boy supporters said for iraq son?New word for war is Humanitarian Assistance.
So much kinder to kill by bombs than CW
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.
#975126 Sep 3, 2013
#975127 Sep 3, 2013
...used car dealers are lower than porno actors...
Since: May 11
#975128 Sep 3, 2013
The point was that you implied it was the major reason. It was not.
#975129 Sep 3, 2013
DEMOCRATIC GLOBALISTS MURDERERS The U.S. government has admitted to using white phosphorous and new types of napalm as weapons against Iraqis. The best way to discourage that behavior is not to bomb Washington.
The U.S. government has used chemical weapons against “its own people”(always far more outrageous in the eyes of the U.S. media than killing someone else’s people) from the military’s assault on veterans in the Bonus Army to the FBI’s assault on a religious cult in Waco, Texas. The best way to discourage this behavior is not to bomb Washington.
The U.S. could also stop supporting the use of chemical weapons by certain nations, including Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iranians. The U.S. could sign onto and support the International Criminal Court. And the U.S. could abandon its role as top weapons supplier to the world and leading war-maker on earth. Less war means less use of all weapons, including various internationally sanctioned weapons that the United States both uses and exports, such as cluster bombs and depleted uranium.
Obama’s intention to “disrupt,”“prevent,” and “degrade” can be taken seriously only at the risk of much higher casualties, as sending missiles into supplies of chemical weapons is extremely risky
#975130 Sep 3, 2013
The Left's infamous straw man argument.
#975131 Sep 3, 2013
Idiot Yeah doesn't think the American voter should have a say.
Tell your congressman your vote on the Syrian war.
#975132 Sep 3, 2013
We New York liberals like to ban guns for law abiding citizens and keep the police from finding guns on thugs, because that is "racial profiling."
Meanwhile, since Spring 2013 16 children have been shot with guns in New York City, most recently a 1 year old was shot in the head. None of the shooters belonged to the NRA. None of the guns were legal.
16 children, four more and we've caught up with Newtown in less than a year.
#975133 Sep 3, 2013
THE PHONY OBAMA AND THE GLOBALISTS LEFTISTS LIBERAL CREDIBILITY: LA COSA NOSTRA
The purpose of missile strikes, according to the corporate U.S. media is, of course, not the reduction of chemical weapons use, but the maintenance of “credibility.”
We don’t all teach our children that when they disagree with another child on the playground they must either murder that child or lose their credibility. But our televisions and newspapers feed that type of message to us nonetheless, through news about the next possible war. Julie Pace of the Associated Press warns:
“For more than a week, the White House had been barreling toward imminent military action against Syria. But President Barack Obama’s abrupt decision to instead ask Congress for permission left him with a high-risk gamble that could devastate his credibility if no action is ultimately taken in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack that crossed his own ‘red line’.”
And here I would have thought that bombing countries in the name of “democracy” against the will of an overwhelming majority at home was costing our government what little credibility it might have had. Didn’t Britain gain in credibility when its Parliament represented its people and said “No” to war on Syria? Doesn’t that step do more for the image of democracy in Western Asia than a decade of destabilizing Iraq has done? Couldn’t the U.S. government do more for democracy by leaving Syria alone and dropping its support for brutal governments in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, etc.?
#975134 Sep 3, 2013
Del. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA): I happen to believe there has to be a response. I do, I do believe in crimes against humanity need to be addressed, and I am, I can’t believe that the only way to address it is a slight bombing which will somehow punish somebody or deter somebody. I don’t know if there’s some way other than a military way to address this.
BILL PRESS, HOST: You’re kind to join us this morning, Congresswoman. Let me just ask you one final question before we let you go. If, as you said, if the vote were held today, the president would probably not win it. If he doesn’t win it, a week from now, do you think the president will be justified in taking action on his own, you know, unilaterally with Congress having voted against it?
HOLMES NORTON: No, oh boy, no. I think it’ll be like the red line trap. He said if the red line you cross it. I think once you say, "I’m going to Congress," you can’t say,“Okay, I’m going to do it anyway.”
PRESS: Yeah, yeah, I don’t…
HOLMES NORTON: So I think he’ll be in real trouble if he then does it anyway. No president has done that.
PRESS: It’s not an easy decision for any of you, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
HOLMES NORTON: Oh, and I’d like to say, Bill, that if he gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because, it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage.
PRESS: Yeah, right.
HOLMES NORTON: At the, at the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it.
#975135 Sep 3, 2013
LEFTISTS GLOBALISTS AGENDA THE LAW PROBLEM
And shouldn’t a credible enforcer of the rule of law obey the law? Under no possible conception is it legal for the United States to send missiles into Syria. The Kellogg-Briand Pact bans any such action. The most common excuse for ignoring that ban is the U.N. Charter and its loopholes for wars (wars that are defensive or U.N.-authorized). A U.S. attack on Syria is not defensive, and the White House isn’t seriously pretending it is. A U.S. attack on Syria is not U.N. authorized, and the White House isn’t pretending it is or pursuing such authorization in any way. Other U.S. wars carried out in violation of these laws have put up a pretense of internationalism by cajoling some other countries to help out in minimal ways. In this case, that isn’t happening. President Obama is proposing to uphold international norms through an action that the international community of nations is against. France looks like the only possible, and at this point unlikely, partner — not counting al Qaeda, of course.
A president also cannot go to war without Congress. So, it is encouraging that President Obama has now suggested he will try to rise to the standard of George W. Bush and bother to lie to Congress before launching a war. But if Congress were to say yes, the war would remain illegal under both the U.N. Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. And if Congress were to say no, President Obama has indicated that he might just launch the war anyway.
If you look at the resolution that Obama has proposed that Congress pass, it doesn’t grant permission for a specific limited missile strike on a particular country at a particular time, but for limitless warfare, as long as some connection can be made to weapons of mass destruction in the Syrian conflict. The White House has made clear that it believes this will add exactly nothing to its powers, as it already possesses open-ended authorizations for war in the never-repealed Afghanistan and Iraq authorizations, which themselves added exactly nothing to White House war powers, because the president is given total war power through the Constitution in invisible ink that only the White House can see.
#975136 Sep 3, 2013
With age comes multi-tasking... Yeah Gilligan... can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart, shit and pee all at the same time...
It's the culture...
#975137 Sep 3, 2013
Obama is a clone of Bushie boy he just uses his dark complextion to get over thats what the CFR and the BILDBERGS put him in place for hands of he can get away with murder
#975138 Sep 3, 2013
I've seen businesses that are worse son.
However, since you're for more capitalism, perhaps you'd like to push for deregulation of that market? And while you're at it, add the new car market too!
#975139 Sep 3, 2013
"Implied" is that the new buzz word for "I misstated your comment than argued and ranted for hours against a straw man"?
#975140 Sep 3, 2013
lol! Have you convinced yourself yet?
Then keep repeating it to yourself son!
Since: Jul 08
We will not go gentle
#975141 Sep 3, 2013
You're not a democrat, Jane, hell, you're not even human. I make a deal with you: I'll never go into a school repeatedly shooting an assault weapon until I've killed twenty babies and six adults and you can go on with having your twenty abortions and just keep lying about it. Seems fair for a condumb mentality, no?
#975142 Sep 3, 2013
LIBERAL LEFTISTS GLOBALISTS FILTH THE LYING PROBLEM
All of the above remains the same whether the Syrian government used chemical weapons or not. The way to end a war is to arrange a cease-fire, de-escalate, disarm, cool tensions, and start talking. Pouring gasoline on a fire doesn’t put it out. The way to uphold the rule of law is by consistent example and through prosecutions by courts, not vigilantism. This remains the case whether the Syrian government has done what President Obama claims or not.
It is important, however, that so few people around the world and in the United States are willing to take Obama’s word for it. If Obama’s goal is to “send a message,” but most people in the Middle East disagree with him on the facts, what kind of message will he possibly be sending? That is, even if his claims happen to be true, what good is that if nobody believes U.S. war justifications anymore?
The super-healthy skepticism that has now been created is not all attributable to Iraq. The world has been flooded with false claims from the U.S. government during the wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria, as well as during the drone wars. Past claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons have fallen flat. And the current claims come packages in lies, including lies about the Syrian government’s willingness to allow U.N. inspections, and the speed with which it allowed them. The U.S. government discouraged the use of inspectors, seeking to rush into war on the basis of its own assertions. The White House has produced a dodgy dossier lacking in hard evidence. Analysts see little basis for confidence in White House claims. Insiders are risking “espionage!” accusations to voice their doubts.
And should it be true that someone in the Syrian military used chemical weapons, the White House clearly has nothing but its own suspicions and desires to suggest that the order came from the top, rather than from some rogue officer with an interest in provoking an attack. Circumstantial evidence, of course, makes that more likely, given the bizarre circumstance of the incident occurring less than 10 miles from the U.N. inspectors’ hotel on the day they arrived.
Maybe it’s just too difficult to hold a proper investigation during a war. If so, that is not something to be deeply regretted. Obama’s proposed response would be disastrous. Our priority should be avoiding it and ending the war. Creating a better climate for criminal investigations is just one more reason to bring the war to an end.
#975143 Sep 3, 2013
LEFTISTS GLOBALISTS DEMOCRAT LIBERALS MURDERERS THE MILITARY PROBLEM
While hawks and profiteers within and without the U.S. military favor bombing Syria and just about any other military action one might propose, many are resisting. They include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous officials risking Edward Snowden / Chelsea Manning treatment by talking to the Washington Post, and others to the New York Times. The military does not clearly understand its new proposed role as punisher of a crime that it itself regularly commits, and it does not share in Obama’s claimed confidence that a limited action will remain limited.
THE CONGRESS PROBLEM
House Speaker John Boehner asked President Obama these as-yet-mostly-unanswered questions:
· What standard did the Administration use to determine that this scope of chemical weapons use warrants potential military action?
· Does the Administration consider such a response to be precedent-setting, should further humanitarian atrocities occur?
· What result is the Administration seeking from its response?
· What is the intended effect of the potential military strikes?
· If potential strikes do not have the intended effect, will further strikes be conducted?
· Would the sole purpose of a potential strike be to send a warning to the Assad regime about the use of chemical weapons? Or would a potential strike be intended to help shift the security momentum away from the regime and toward the opposition?
In fact, the White House has been clear that it has no intention to shift momentum in the war.
· If it remains unclear whether the strikes compel the Assad regime to renounce and stop the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or if President Assad escalates their usage, will the Administration contemplate escalatory military action?
· Will your Administration conduct strikes if chemical weapons are utilized on a smaller scale?
· Would you consider using the United States military to respond to situations or scenarios that do not directly involve the use or transfer of chemical weapons?
· Assuming the targets of potential military strikes are restricted to the Assad inner circle and military leadership, does the Administration have contingency plans in case the strikes disrupt or throw into confusion the command and control of the regime’s weapons stocks?
· Does the Administration have contingency plans if the momentum does shift away from the regime but toward terrorist organizations fighting to gain and maintain control of territory?
· Does the Administration have contingency plans to deter or respond should Assad retaliate against U.S. interests or allies in the region?
· Does the Administration have contingency plans should the strikes implicate foreign power interests, such as Iran or Russia?
Since: May 11
#975144 Sep 3, 2013
This tells you who they are & ho is likely to run the country if they can defeat Assad.
The last time chemical weapons were used in large quantities was Iraq in the late 80's. There were doubts as to who used them & Ronald Reagan did nothing.
Obama says we should punish Syria. Looks like Congress will agree.
#975145 Sep 3, 2013
Really? What have they done except to pass meaningless gun control legislation?
Add your comments below
|Dashcam Video of Laquan McDonald||22 min||buddy light||5|
|black people get a grip!||24 min||buddy light||9|
|Laquan..He Dindu Nuffin.||27 min||Stinkyblackapes||1|
|Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09)||45 min||Gas Woman||70,187|
|sixteen||1 hr||DFL Corrupt||6|
|Monkees running amok||2 hr||pathetic||5|
|Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09)||2 hr||A Noted Observer||101,124|
|BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09)||5 hr||Jacques Ottawa||201,919|
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC