yes on the syrian resolution says the congressional peeps

Across a Border, Iraqis See Replays of Past and Fears for Future

Shiites demonstrated last week in Baghdad against the possibility of an American military strike against the Syrian government.

BAGHDAD — Abu Mohaned spent Tuesday night washing the bodies of victims of that evening’s car bombs, preparing them for burial. When a couple of roadside bombs went off the next day, he did the same thing.

Now that the United States is considering missile strikes on Syria, Iraqi Shiites like Abu Mohaned say they see history repeating itself — even if across a border — and they are prepared to once again take on a familiar adversary. If the United States strikes Syria, Iraqi Shiites will see it as their fight, too, and pour across the border to assist Mr. Assad, many people here said.

“No honorable man will accept what the Americans want to do in Syria,” Abu Mohaned said, reflecting the view of Iraq’s Shiite majority who see any threat to Mr. Assad as an intervention on the side of a Sunni-led, Al Qaeda-aligned rebellion.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/syria-debate-in-iraq.html?hp

This thing is getting dumber every day= .. and those who claim this isn't Iraq all over again are getting dumber everyday.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm not so convinced. I think it'll pass the Senate and be damned close in the House.
Click to expand...

Well, you could be right, you usually are for one thing. But I just feel that they will do as they are told by their owners, and war is good for business. I say it passes...after a lot of pretending it might not.
 
If they wish to defend the gassing of babies what are you going to do?


they can go fight for Ass Sad right now if they think hes their hero for gassing muslim babies.


Big talk
 
evince said:
If they wish to defend the gassing of babies what are you going to do?


they can go fight for Ass Sad right now if they think hes their hero for gassing muslim babies.


Big talk
Click to expand...

How about you send your son to fight for Al Qaeda instead of insisting that the children of others do it.

If neither you or your son are in the fight, you've got a lot of fucking nerve to be talking about what others can do.

Big talk indeed.
 
dude the only people "fighting" will be in planes.

you don't have to fight to vote in this country if you had not noticed.


I am an American and can say what I believe even if I never served.


why are you changing the rules to swing at me?
 
evince said:
dude the only people "fighting" will be in planes.

you don't have to fight to vote in this country if you had not noticed.


I am an American and can say what I believe even if I never served.


why are you changing the rules to swing at me?
Click to expand...

I'm an American as well. The only difference is that I have a loved one in the military .. and there is no guarantee that she will not once again be in combat/off to some foreign land where everyone wants her dead..

It's real easy to talk warmongering bullshit from the comfort of your den with nothing at stake but your own embarrassment. If you know anything about the military .. which obviously you don't .. whether troops are on the ground or not, this will require a realignment of the military, which is already taking place.

Syria is not Libya, it is not Iraq, which is why the military does not want to do this. This will inflame a much larger war .. which of course is exactly what the MIC and YOU want.

As the father of a military daughter I adore .. thank you very much for nothing.
 
We should offer to solicit donations (with the moderator's approval) to send Desh and her son to Damascus (1-way) so THEY can fight Assad.
 
It's a bummer, but I don't think this is a situation where anything we do will make any kind of difference. I have yet to see an argument that would convince me otherwise.

For starters, the rebels aren't good people, for the most part - or at least according to the reporting I have seen. Attempts to portray them as such reminds me of Reagan calling the contra's "freedom fighters."

Beyond that, I just don't see how lobbing a few missiles in there will change anything. It will probably kill innocent people, and has as much potential to create an adverse reaction as it does to influence the situation in a positive way.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm just telling you how it is and what Congress ought to do if it doesn't want presidents to launch military strikes without its say so.
Click to expand...
It's more then theWar Powers Act, Congress isn't interested in doing due diligence for confirming appointments.

That's one way to be proactive -ask Kerry/Clinton/ et all "will you consel approval for Congressional authorizations for war?"

Granted this is way past due, but the idea is Congress needs to assert it's power to declare war, and not just let the executive glom up ENUMERATED POWERS because he is the Commander in Chief.


I blame the institution of Congress for getting us here, as much as I blame Obama for furthering his Cheney type vision of the presidency
 
annata said:
f*ckin' neo-con warhawks come in all colors and partys.
Click to expand...

yet, no one is acknowledging that many that were for Iraq or Afghanistan, recognized in realistic terms what a change in administration would mean. Truth is, Obama basically pulled a 'immediate pull out in Iraq," granted because of the intransigent politicians in Iraq, but that move changed probable success to likely failure.

Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish, which seemed to be recognized by the idiot Bush, not so much by Obama. How's that worked out? Then there's Libya. How's that worked out for us or them? Notice I put us first?

Now we're all such ijits to go, 'Hell yes, let's keep this up, working so well!" No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top