So what's worse, what's happening in Syria or what's happening in North Korea? If this had anything at all to do with humanitarian issues we would be in North Korea not Syria. Alas, this has nothing to do with people, it's all politics. Obama is Bush, Bush is Obama..... Wake up, we need to vote third party !
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
President Barack Hussein Obama ended Bush's Oil War in Iraq... He is on schedule to end the war in Afghanistan... and there is no plan to go to war with Syria. Invasions are the Bush legacy... Not Obama's.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
there is no plan to go to war with Syria. Invasions are the Bush legacy... Not Obama's.
Bombing countries to you are not wars? Would it be an act of war if say Russia bombed one of our cities because it had intelligence a terrorist was hiding there, let me guess that would be different
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Bombing countries to you are not wars? Would it be an act of war if say Russia bombed one of our cities because it had intelligence a terrorist was hiding there, let me guess that would be different
The USA has no plans to go to war in Syria... Just like they had no plans to go to war with Pakistan when we killed Bin Laden inside of Pakistan. The issue here isn't Christians, Muslims, Assad or his opposition. The ONLY issue promoting this attack is the use of chemical weapons. Had these weapons not been used, there would be no strike necessary.
Israel bombed an Iraqi Nuke Power facility being built by the French in 1981... the problem was the Nuke plant and the possibility that it could produce a Nuke bomb. War was not their intent. Iraq ceased it's Nuke ambitions. The bombing worked.
Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 as a response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing sponsored by Gaddafi... remember? Retaliation strikes are often for a specific purpose, and not to wage a war.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The Middle East, explained in one terrifying chart
Quoted Text
A well-known Egyptian blogger who writes under the pseudonym The Big Pharaoh put together this chart laying out the region’s rivalries and alliances. He’s kindly granted The Washington Post permission to post it, so that Americans might better understand the region.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The USA has no plans to go to war in Syria... Just like they had no plans to go to war with Pakistan when we killed Bin Laden inside of Pakistan. The issue here isn't Christians, Muslims, Assad or his opposition. The ONLY issue promoting this attack is the use of chemical weapons. Had these weapons not been used, there would be no strike necessary.
Israel bombed an Iraqi Nuke Power facility being built by the French in 1981... the problem was the Nuke plant and the possibility that it could produce a Nuke bomb. War was not their intent. Iraq ceased it's Nuke ambitions. The bombing worked.
Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 as a response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing sponsored by Gaddafi... remember? Retaliation strikes are often for a specific purpose, and not to wage a war.
Bombing another country is an act of war, there is no sugar coating it. And in this case they want to bomb a country when the OVERWHELMING majority of the people are against it, the people see the lies Obama and the idiots in Washington are trying to pull on them and only the completely brain dead zombies are believing them.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Bombing another country is an act of war, there is no sugar coating it. And in this case they want to bomb a country when the OVERWHELMING majority of the people are against it, ...
"OVERWHELMING majority of the people are against it," ...It depends on what actions you are proposing. Americans are against US troops in Syria, but FOR a stand off attack.
Quoted Text
~American voters say 61 - 27 percent that it is not in the national interest to be involved in Syria and oppose 59 - 27 percent providing arms and military supplies to anti-government groups, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
Quoted Text
~Voters support 49 - 38 percent, however, using drones or cruise missiles, which do not risk American lives, to attack Syrian government targets, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.
Quoted Text
~Republicans, Democrats and independent voters all agree that helping Syria is not in America's interest and all oppose providing arms and supplies to rebels Republicans and Democrats support drone/cruise strikes, while independent voters are divided.
Americans ARE against getting involved in Syria, but support Drone or Cruise Missiles.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Really and where are these people box, go look around the web and see if you find 50% of the people who support drone strikes, I only seen a handful and they are the die hard Obama worshippers. Also your source is from June and is out of date
Quoted Text
By Lesley Wroughton
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.
About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.
More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.
Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans' resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.
The results - and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June - suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad's regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Really and where are these people box, go look around the web and see if you find 50% of the people who support drone strikes, I only seen a handful and they are the die hard Obama worshippers. Also your source is from June and is out of date
Is that how you judge the mood of America Henry. You look around at a few Right Wing Blogs and then just invent data from your observation?
America will support reasonable actions to help prevent the return of Chemical Weapons.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
