Posted in the Lewisburg Forum
#1 Sep 6, 2013
So let me get this straight... we want to bomb Syria for bombing Syrians and train and arm Al Qaeda who we are fighting in other countries. Quick!! Somebody click the ruby slippers!! The world has spoken and chooses to look the other way. It is time we let them have their way. Close the borders, and hang a sign out that says: "When you have had enough of your nonsense, knock and let us know". Until then we need to get our own government and economy back in shape. Down with welfare!!! Up with employment and jobs!
#2 Sep 7, 2013
I agree a 110% we have a lot of thing that need fixed here there are people starving right here in the USA go on line look up the Mississippi delta region it's like a 3rd world country then you have the people that government has enslaved to welfare and government hand outs we all need to wake up and figure out we own the government they are elected by us to talk for us and as for our military look back at the Clinton era how many bases was closed the dumbocrits are killing the nation look at Obama care people like me are going to pay more for ins. Because I chose to work to better myself and family and if your over 55 you life don't matter that's his idea about saving social security don't treat you like everyone else because you may only have only 10 years left then want congress to ok something you said you would go for anyway that don't make any sence to me in Washington it all about parties not what's in the countries best interest the Lincoln's the JFK the Reagan's lets read our history books and remember if we go to war with Syria you know Russia will be there to back them up maybe that is what they want to be in war with Russia and then china will help Russia I believe I have read this before in the bible last chapter ( revaluation ) just saying
#5 Sep 7, 2013
Those three nations are on America's take down list. Iraq was on that list. War is for the New World Order to fall into place.
I salute Russia's Christian Leader. He's the only one making sense.
He will not let us attack North Korea, Syria or Iran.
You know a bear is stronger than an eagle.
I feel we will be begging for Russia's help and will not receive it.
#6 Sep 7, 2013
Then go move to Russia you commie. And take your new world order with it. You read too many conspiracy sites. It's all about money and oil and balance. Russia wants Syria because it is their only international port. As long as they are able to keep that, they don't care about the Syrians or who dies. Iranians are Shiites and all they want is world domination. Ain't gonna happen.
#7 Sep 8, 2013
You might get the award for the dumbest post ever.
#8 Sep 8, 2013
Instead of just ridiculing, why not try explaining yourself.
#9 Sep 8, 2013
I just did. Can you read? Dumb!
#10 Sep 8, 2013
All you did was call it the dumbest post. I'm saying your didn't explain why. Anyone can ridicule. No points for you. You lose. Loser
#11 Sep 9, 2013
Whatever the intent of whomever is really pushing
for this strike on Syria, here are some unintended
consequences all their propaganda blitz have already
caused, a kind of "collateral damage" by which the
warmongers might be caught for once instead of
civilians. It has forced a vote for war in response
to public outcry. Result 1: for the first time in
U.S. history, Congress will vote down a resolution
for war - a precedent the warmongers surely didn't
want or 2: they will pass it in the face of heavy
public opposition showing to even the blind the writing on the wall: we don't live in a democracy
but under the military industrial complex which
Einsehower warned us about long ago. Their very stupid propaganda painted them into a corner they
could not possibly wish to be in. Power to the
#12 Sep 9, 2013
You've neglected a few points here. One, the President does not need to go to Congress to take action. He has the discretion to make military moves that last less than 90 days. Two, this is not a resolution for war, but an agreement to make a strike, one that the President does not really need. Three, this is a political maneuver that has many sides. A. So the Democrats don't look like warmongers even though major Republican figures have agreed to a strike including Sen Corker of Tenn and Boehner. B. It gives the President a 'save face' for the poor decision of making 'redlines'. C. It forces the rest of the world to commit or accept defeat at it's own hands and D. Makes the UN look totally ineffective which they are.
In fact today, the UN had the audacity to insist Syria give up it's chemical weapons and store them in Syria. WTF??? Really? How stupid is that? The UN needs to be disbanded. It is ran by Russia and China.
Now don't label me as anything. I would rather see a diplomatic solution. I would demand Syria turn over ALL chemical weapons and insist on an international destruction of such weapons. But I know better. I know that the governments of the world are beyond our control so I will continue to defend my small speck of Earth.
#13 Sep 9, 2013
to Hmmm : all of what you say may be true, that this
is political posturing, but my point is simply that
it doesn't matter what their intention was - the irony is all this warmongering rhetoric undermined
the militarism upon which it is based. Washington/Pentagon says : "war is too important a
matter to be left to civilians, we know better than you the inside knowledge, tactics, etc." The people
say now: "war is too important to be left to you
idiots who are obviously improvising on the spot."
Their manoevering was a little too clever for their own good. They walked off a cliff while the people
cheered. Time for the idea of a direct vote by the
people on issues of war. Asking authority for a
strike with Cruise missiles is asking for a vote for war, there is no legal distinction ! E.g.: it
would be absurd for the Japanese Navy in 1941 to argue "we only asked authority to strike Pearl Harbor, but that didn't mean we asked for authority
to launch war !" Sending Cruise missiles isn't an
invitation to a dance. It's an act of war.
#14 Sep 10, 2013
I don't disagree with what you say. But if the US were to bomb strategic sites in Syria, what would the response be? That is the $64,000 question. Syria is no shape to make any response of it's own due to it's civil war. Proxy groups representing Iran (i.e. Hezbollah; Shiite populations in Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Lebanon; and Hamas) have at the most oodles of small missiles, most of which have little or no guidance. Iran, which has the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps seems to be the largest threat, mainly to the the ballistic missile threat and the potential to block the Strait of Hormuz which, btw Russia also doesn't want. All in all, any response by these factions or all would still not amount to a whole lot when you consider both the US and Israel counter to those threats. Iran well knows if they pull the cork it can kiss it's political clout goodbye along with it's nuclear endeavors. That brings us the Russian/China option. China is only in this for political/economic reasons being partnered with Russia. Russia is only in this for strategic reasons: their lone international base in Syria. How far is Russia willing to go? They are not stupid and I am sure behind closed doors Russia is attempting to strike a balance where the US is satisfied while still allowing Assad to hold on to his regime. The US threatening to not only do harm to Syria's ability to use WMD's, but also to take Assad down a few notches that might enable the Rebels to get the upper hand is what is at stake for Russia. Frankly, my biggest question is why is the US backing these rebel factions with known connections to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. My only answer is it is to create a state of constant chaos in order to keep them all weak and unable to build up forces against US interests. My guess is, if Syria does not turn over the gas WMD's in a satisfactory method, the US will bomb. It has no choice. We will not let it go without response.
#15 Sep 10, 2013
The U.S. militarists can never afford to make it look as if diplomacy alone ever defuses a situation
without the backing of military violence. Then of what use would all this military budget still exceeding the rest of the world combined be ? This is
a scam to convince Congress to give it a blank check for bombing anyway no matter what Syria's response will be. How will we know whether they did not did not comply with handing over chemical weapons, rely on what the spin-doctors tell us who have a vested interest in confirming militarism, that diplomacy never works, only bombing ? U.S. hypocrisy reigns supreme while we continue to be the number one arms
dealer in the world. What better way to drum up trade than to say: "of course you need to arm yourselves to the teeth. We might visit your neighborhood next !" The scramble to get nuclear weapons and chemical weapons is precisely because it is the only thing which causes Uncle Sam to pause a moment before starting the next war. E.g.
Kerry saying the proposal to hand over chemical weapons "only has legs" because of the threat of Cruise missile strikes. Oh ? A theory that is impossible to disprove empirically is invalid. It's a self fulfilling prophecy designed to reinforce militarism: only war changes history.
#16 Sep 10, 2013
If this were true, we would be doing a lot more bombing. We have no choice but to let diplomacy take the high road. Only in areas that we are pursuing so-called Al Qaeda with drones such as in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen is diplomacy taking the low road but that is also at the invitation of those countries. As for the budget, keeping a strong military is not cheap. But... this year Russia's military budget exploded to over $907 billion, well over the US's $857 billion! And China's has been jumping up in leaps and bounds and expected to continue that course. So overall the cost of protection and staying ahead of them is not cheap. What would you suggest?
I am not convinced Obama 'wants' to bomb no matter what. I also believe this little episode of Kerry supposedly offering 'off the cuff' not to bomb if Syria turned over the WMDs and then claiming it was rhetoric and not meant to be taken as a legit offer was indeed a save face offer just as Obama seeking Congress' blessing was. Nobody, especially the US can afford to get into a 'boots on the ground' war of that size. Therefore, backdoor/closed door diplomacy is taking the high road. But I am also sure without a doubt if Syria/Russia/Iran does not make this right, it will force Obama to make his move and it won't be pretty.
#17 Sep 10, 2013
how much more bombing can you do when your economy has collapsed because of what Eisenhower warned about
long ago to the effect that the danger of spending everything on national security is collapsing from within while worrying about every new threat on the horizon from without? It's time for the American Empire to reconcile itself to war exhaustion, for the people have ! Has all this spending of billions that could have made us more educated, healthier,
made us more secure ? Why then are we still in this
situation of being told that if the United States doesn't become embroiled in another catastrophe, we will always be on the brink of a greater catastrophe? Our chief product seems to be destruction overseas and that is not a viable basis
for an economy let alone a morally sane people.All this "protection money" - a well chosen phrase doesn't protect anyone. It's akin to the Pentagon saying "pay up we'll protect you from the latest bully on the block." But guess who is the biggest
bully ? The one extorting the taxpayer for his last
dime of "protection" money. You are mistaken to personalize this by thinking "Obama wants to bomb
no matter what". The military industrial complex is
a self serving bloated bureaucracy ("Wars R Us")
which simply wants to prove it has some usefulness.
It doesn't. It is obsolete. It is a fact that we spend more money on overseas bases maintaining golf
courses for officers than we do on federal money for Headstart programs. Whom does that protect ?
Thomas Paine would be horrified to find that the democracy he envisioned had become the very Empire he despised. Time to be a nation among other nations, not an Empire pretending it can "pacify the uncivilized Barbarian."
Add your comments below
|Public Defenders Race (Jul '14)||Sat||bad girls||103|
|Schools need to be closed||Feb 15||burgerhead||7|
|OMAR Steakhouse (Nov '14)||Feb 10||TheRealDeal||88|
|meth bust (May '14)||Feb 10||Jomomma||6|
|Mexicans aren't Spanish! (Oct '13)||Feb 10||ReallyBruhhh||82|
|Mike smith||Feb 8||JustaGuy||4|
Find what you want!
Search Lewisburg Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC