"War is not the answer" Where are those liberal anti-war activists now? Is it only when a Republican wants to use military action when they oppose it and freak out? Why are they not calling for Obama's head? It shows they are not against war as they say. They are against a GOP controlled war. They are a bunch of phonies. Just an observation. Carry on.
Kerry's speech today was long on wind, and short of details.... "we know....but for security reasons can't tell you how we know.....that Assad is a murderer....we assess that it is very likely......trust our intelligence services (but not GWs).....and we will do something about it, but we haven't decided just what as of yet, but we won't look like wusses......" The "unclassified released document" cited as so condemning was not any more detailed. Basically it boiled down to "we're almost sure Assad did it, trust us when we say it was him, we're pretty sure, and we really think we should do something about it." Ok, so chems were used. But who used them? Here's the real question - who benefits? Certainly not Assad. Assad was already winning. Iran benefits. The MusBros would. Hezbo would. AQ would. If Israel really knew that Assad was using chems on his own people, and had indisputable proof to show the world, they would likely take him out overnight. If he was so insane as to order them used proactively against his own people, he'd definitely use them reactively against Israel. He's already threatening to do so if he's attacked by outside forces. He's evil, but he's not stupid. This reeks of an Iranian/Hezbo ploy to "justify" attacking Israel, pull us into a drawn out campaign, and bleed us dry.
Not sure we need to care more about these people than any other country does. Why not let some other country come their rescue?
If they protest against Obama, that means they are admitting they were wrong. Ego beats morality every time.
The simpletons in charge fail to realize the unlikely results of choosing a winning side, like there are only two sides to this conflict, the tribal make up to this region causes the area to be in a constant turmoil. As one is toppled many more arise, hence the thousands of years of slaughter, its kill or be killed, always has been always will. Until they are all dead, the deadly cycle will repeat it self with or with out our participation.
Don't think is has so much to do with being for or against war as is as to disagree with opposing party. Or going against their own party and losing their job for a "yes man"
The days of going to war to annihilate our enemies are over. Nowadays the US feels it has to be political during war. Darn it, when we go to war or become engaged in a conflict, it should be for a darn good reason. If the US only went to war due to a serious conflict and we knew collectively as a country that our mission was right, then we should unleash hell on our enemies. No more tippy toeing around when we engage. We have lost that edge because the politicians hold back the military from doing their job. The US needs to go back to being like a well behaved, yet tough, school boy. Don't pick a fight with anyone, but when someone brings it to you, punch them in the face until they are down and keep on pounding until all the other kids in the school yard don't want any of it.
I don't even see an issue here. Two of our "enemies" are killing each other, doesn't get any better than that! Obviously I feel for the innocent children but we can't go to every country's aid whenever they have it out with someone else.
And if we do get in, they will blame us for the children that might die. I say let them kill each other then take out the winner.
