This sounds like a series challenge!



PS, I'm witch-ooo!

He's not only palling around with terrorists, he's arming Al Qaeda. It should be clear to you by now - Obama had BinLaden knocked off only because he wanted to be the head of Al Qaeda.

Paulbots are the yellow jackets of politics.

now they are "Anarchists"...that seems to be the hipper thing to be now a days....

.

well put!

But you can pay for another war which will only benifit Reytheon, Etc. you are full of shit! We have been lied into every war I can remember and the MIC has made a fortune but we can't fix our bridges or pay our teachers? Fuck that! Obama the candidate sounded reasonable. Obama the president is just another corporate shill. Don't get me wrong, he was the lesser of two evils but he still takes care of the 1% over the 99% because they pay him to. Next election, same thing. Vote for the Dem or get fucked over faster but don't pretend that they actually give a shit about "we, the people". They don' t.

They also think he's a goodhearted man and the results of the Iraq war are positive.

Just as there's a surprisingly large group who think the results of the Libyan war are positive, that it was Obama who ended the Iraq war, and that the US/Saudi/Qatar Friends of Syria alliance doesn't fund and equip al Qaeda as a mercenary force. This latter group explains that the US/Saudi/Qatar Friends of Syria only support "moderate jihadists", not "extremist jihadists", and the "moderate jihadists" are called a ragtag army of moderate freedom fighting rebels. As in the case of Libya.

.

Or do you honestly believe that the only alternative to being gung ho to bomb yet another country is be gung ho for Rand16? That's an asinine POV.

Obama is a vicious warmonger, a lying sack of shit and a "pitchman for the neocons," and also a lame duck loser who nobody listens to anyway, so fuck him, and he's wrecking the Democratic brand for the next whole generation and everybody hates him anyway. Oh, he's also motivated by payments from the MIC, and always was, just like we told you in 2008...

Now that we've got all that out of the way, please be assured that none of this is about Obama HIMSELF, or his STANDING, but it's all rational assessment of policy and fuck that warmongering lying asshole fuckhead, growl, slurp, seizure, growl.

John Kerry is the same, but worse.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Say these, or be set upon by the tiny marching people. They travel in packs and they are out for blood. Luckily, I don't have to see their rampages anymore thanks to technological features on this site. I suggest you take advantage of these as well. I was for a long time opposed to the ignore feature. But I've had my fill of swill and stupidity. It's useful.

It's a radical imperialist agenda founded in war and information control, designed to accelerate the flow of $$ and power to a select few. It's an agenda that's been spelled out, that was well-known esp. to those who were dismayed at the acts of the GWB admin.

For example: bids were being tendered for cleanup and rebuilding contracts even before GWB's Iraq war was formally set in motion.

When a political agenda exactly follows the lines drawn by the PNAC/MIC/neocon agenda, people are right to say that it *is* that agenda.

war planned for Syria. Kerry was working to prevent use of force in Syria since 2005. Neither one wanted this, but, Assad lost his grip mentally over Arab Spring and the people of Syria are suffering and the suffering is spreading throughout the region.

Apparently it's become acceptable for 1/3 of a country to be wiped out by chemical attacks, killed by bombs, wounded, and displaced these days.

Apparently it's acceptable to destroy country after country, claiming to be doing good.
It's too bad that isn't anything new for the USA.

very brilliant observation (aka takedown) of the entire situation!

on edit:

THIS is most certainly not about Delrem....he just happened to hit post faster than I did. Repeat...this is NOT about Delrem's post....

Lie number one: Kerry said "killed," Obama said "gassed."

WTF?

Assad because he believes it is necessary and the best option. I'm willing to stipulate that Assad's regime used sarin in Ghouta.

I still just can't support these military strikes. I know some folks feels we should trust the President and his administration because they have more information, they're more knowledgeable in general about it, they're good people, etc, but I can't cede what I see as my responsibility to decide whether or not to support something this grave.

Our military interventions in the middle east haven't "fixed" our improved that region. I don't see how this one will. I'm unconvinced that firing off missiles will convince some future tyrant not to use chemical weapons. I don't see how this will improve the lot of civilians in Syria or in the region.

are very likely to cause a bloodbath and make matters a lost worse for everyone

I strongly recommend reading this article in salon.com by Gary Kamiya:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/

snips:

This is not a knee-jerk left-wing response. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor does it have anything to do with the proxy war between the U.S. and its allies and Iran and its allies. It is not driven by pacifism or opposition to all war. All U.S. wars are not axiomatically foolish, evil or driven by brutal self-interest (although most of them since World War II have been). The airstrikes on Kosovo and the Libya campaign were justified (although the jury is still out on the latter intervention). If arming the Syrian opposition would result in fewer deaths and a faster transition to a peaceful, open, democratic society, we should arm them.

That analysis has been provided by a number of in-depth reports, most notably a new study by the International Crisis Group, as well as the excellent on-the-ground reporting of Nir Rosen for Al-Jazeera. The bottom line is simple. The war has become a zero-sum game for Assad. If he loses, he dies. But the only way he can lose is if he is abandoned by his crucial external patron, Russia, which is extremely unlikely to happen absent some slaughter so egregious that Moscow feels it has to cut ties with him. Assad has sufficient domestic support to hold on for a long time, and a huge army that is not likely to defect en masse. Under these circumstances, giving arms to the rebels, however much it may make conscience-stricken Western observers feel better, will simply make the civil war much bloodier and its outcome even more chaotic and dangerous.

The key point concerns Assad’s domestic support. Contrary to the widely held belief that most Syrians support the opposition and are opposed to the Assad regime, Syrians are in fact deeply divided. The country’s minorities – the ruling Alawites, Christians and Druze – tend to support the regime, if only because they fear what will follow its downfall. (The grocery on my corner in San Francisco is owned by a Christian Syrian from a village outside Damascus. When I asked him what he thought about what was going on in his country, he said, “It’s not like what you see on TV. Assad is a nice guy. He’s trying to do the right thing.”) As Rosen makes clear, Syria’s ruling Alawite minority is the key to Assad’s survival: Absent an outside invasion, the regime will not fall unless the Alawites turn on it. But the Alawites fear reprisals if the Sunni-dominated opposition, some of whose members have threatened to “exterminate the Alawites,” defeats the Assad regime. The fear of a sectarian war, exacerbated by the murky and incoherent nature of the opposition, means that the minorities are unlikely to join the opposition in large numbers.

...

Our national instinct is to come riding to the rescue. It goes against our character to simply sit on our hands. Our sincere, naive and self-centered belief that America can fix everything, and our equally sincere, naive and self-centered belief that moral outrage justifies intervention, is a powerful tide, pulling us toward getting directly involved in Syria’s civil war.

But in the real world, we cannot always come riding to the rescue. Sometimes, we have no choice but to watch tragedy unfold, because anything we do will create an even bigger tragedy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/