President Obama Seeks Congressional Approval On Syria

Syrian Christians, per se, are not my problem. Honey, I don't NEED "handlers" to rip YOU to shreds... It's a no-brainer...

We've been talking about Bush and his illegal, unnecessary, unpaid-for, wars based on lies and cooked intelligence since 2003... What makes you think I need to "go back" to it?

No compassion for Syrian Christians? Should have known. To you Syria is all about Red State/Blue State. For some of us here, global decisions goes beyond who is in the White House this month.

Totally off the rails, but how about the Obama/Kerry realpolitik in SE Asia this month? Per the Economist, the Cambodians just had a fairly free election and their strongman took a big hit but still around. Vietnam refuses to hold fair elections. Vietnam is being wined and dined at the White House. Cambodia can't get their foot in the front door. Why, you ask? Enemy of your enemy. The US is cozying up to Vietnam because they want to balance out China's expanding military. Cambodia is unlikely to piss off one of their best allies, China.

FredHayek wrote: No compassion for Syrian Christians?

NONE... Syria doesn't have a "First Amendment" protection for "free speech", "freedom of assembly", "freedom of religion", and if someone chooses to live in an area where believing in the wrong "sky fairy" can get you killed--(while a megalomaniac uses Sarin gas on his people, regardless of WHAT they personally believe)--it's not the problem of the United States.

And I just want this Randroid, (who thinks he wants to run for President in 2016!!) to keep making appearances on TV and saying what he's saying......YAY!!! :pop

Rand Paul Praises Assad (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON - Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.

"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Paul, a first-term senator and vocal opponent of U.S. intervention overseas, including U.S. foreign aid, said the U.S. should pursue a negotiated settlement where "Assad is gone, but some of the same people [from Assad's regime] remain stable," because, he said, "that would also be good for the Christians."

PLEASE....Jus' keep doin' what yer doin'....

And it won't matter to you, because whatever Obama does, you'll be against it anyway.

More info about Syrian Christians: They did take to the streets to try to get Assad to fix the economy and bring in more free market reforms. But once the fighting started, the fundamentalists recognized them as traditional allies of the Assad family so started persecuting them. So the community has been torn apart, some fighting against Assad with the rebels and some supporting the strongman.

Assad troubles: Like Hilary Clinton said, Bashir Assad did start out as a reformer when he came in after his father died, but worries of a coup shut that down fast. He started rewarding his allies with exclusive business interests and allowed a lot of corruption and bribe taking to happen. This slowed the economy and made people restless.

Due to the corruption, it was very hard to get a satellite dish or even the proper permits to fix up your homes. So when the fighting started, you could tell which towns were held by the rebels because people were fixing up their homes and installing dishes on the roofs.

No More Obama-Bush War. No More Offensive War. No More Police Actions.

We cannot afford it. We could not afford the previous ones.

on that note wrote: No More Obama-Bush War. No More Offensive War. No More Police Actions.

We cannot afford it. We could not afford the previous ones.

Boehner is for attacking Syria. It will be interesting to see the way the House breaks. I am guessing, the moderates vote yes, the TEA Party and Lefty Peaceniks go will back Assad, Putin, & Iran.

Hey Note.....the pie is indeed finite.....not as we embraced the SOCALIST myth when LBJ burped up "The Great Society".....we cannot today afford 10 TRILLION $$$ for illegals (and new anchor babies) and 10 TRILLION $$$ over 10 years for unearned Medicaid..........and defend our national interests. LBJ and his lap dogs in Congress gave us bankruptcy and an unsafe world. WEAK leaders always kill innocent Americans usually on the battlefieldand fund garbage benefits for the underbelly.

LadyJazzer wrote: Syrian Christians, per se, are not my problem. Honey, I don't NEED "handlers" to rip YOU to shreds... It's a no-brainer...

We've been talking about Bush and his illegal, unnecessary, unpaid-for, wars based on lies and cooked intelligence since 2003... What makes you think I need to "go back" to it?

Kerry, your Sec of State compared you to those Americans who turned away the SS St Louis before WWII.

I suppose you don't care about Jews fleeing the Holocaust either?

Just kidding, I think there is a big difference between refusing political refugees and spending millions to attack one bad guy who has been attacking Al Qaida forces.

FredHayek wrote:

on that note wrote: No More Obama-Bush War. No More Offensive War. No More Police Actions.

We cannot afford it. We could not afford the previous ones.

Boehner is for attacking Syria. It will be interesting to see the way the House breaks. I am guessing, the moderates vote yes, the TEA Party and Lefty Peaceniks go will back Assad, Putin, & Iran.

Interesting...but not surprising...that the binary-knuckle-draggers see: "No More Offensive War. No More Police Actions; We cannot afford the previous wars" as: "backing Assad, Putin, & Iran."

Nothing for you but the Idiot-Son Bush-Binary, huh? "You're either with us or against us." I'm not really surprised. Your reasoning-skills haven't evolved beyond "makers vs. takers"...Why should we believe you can handle concepts any more nuanced than that?

It seems to me that if you supported the Iraq war due to WMDs (particularly the chemical weapons which were used against the Kurds), then you should also support Obama on Syria due to chemical weapons used. At this point, I'm not sure either case has been proven better than the other.

And if you opposed Iraq, you should also oppose Obama's Syria action.

At least to seem consistent.

I can see some arguments that could be made for not being consistent, but they don't seem strong to me. Or maybe I'm missing something?