dbackjon wrote:You guys are pathetic. You are mad that Obama is able to get something accomplished in the ME without dropping a lot of bombs and killing Americans.
Iraq - no WMD, Bush invades, kills and maims 10's of thousands of Americans, fails to apprehend the person responsible for 9/11
Syria - proven WMD, Obama looks like he is going to be able to get them destroyed with zero American casualities. Plus, he found and and had Bin Laden killed.
Obama/United States 2, Neo-Cons/Military-Industrial Complex/Republicans ZERO.
Wow, you are such a partisan hack.
Obama wanted/wants to drop bombs on Syria. The only reason he is changing his tune is because: 1) he knew he was going to lose in Congress and 2) Putin ran laps around Obama.
No one is claiming that Iraq was the right call, but many people are claiming that bombing Syria is the wrong call (just as bombing Libya was).
Putin/Congress may get the weapons destroyed with zero American casualties. Obama has looked very weak and stumbled into a solution not of his making. With that said, kudos to Obama on getting bin Laden!
Lastly, I'd like to smack every moron that mentions bombing Syria is a humanitarian effort. How is it that we are not willing to go to war with Assad when his regime has killed 100,000+ Syrians with conventional weapons, but are ready to send in American forces when he kills 1000+ Syrians with chemical weapons? Are we really valuing the way someone dies over the fact that they died?
A donk who gets it is Lawrence O'Donnell who "ripped the tits off" the debate last night:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/10/odonnell ... ilization/
With the United States weighing military intervention in Syria, Lawrence O’Donnell took a closer look at one of the reasons for the proposed missile strikes. “The single weakest argument I’ve heard for military intervention in Syria is that death from sarin is a uniquely horrifying form of death, uniquely inhumane,” O’Donnell said in his rewrite segment Tuesday night.
Using the example of napalm, an explosive developed during World War II, O’Donnell made the case that there are “many forms of killing that can be more inhumane than sarin gas.” He began by describing napalm’s unique ability to kill.
“Napalm attaches to human flesh in a way that is impossible to remove. But it kills in other ways…you can be killed by suffocation. You can be killed simply by breathing in carbon monoxide poison.”
Susan Rice and others in favor of military action have argued that chemical weapons, unlike other conventional weapons, are more destructive. The MSNBC host countered these assertions by saying, “How do we judge the quality of death in warfare? By the elapsed time from initial wound to death? By the pain level? I don’t think there’s a reasonable way to make that evaluation.”
In the last two years over 100,000 people have died in Syria. AK-47′s and mortars have taken lives on both sides of the Syrian civil war, and according to President Obama the use of chemical weapons killed over 1,000 people. While the effect of chemical weapons is truly horrifying, O’Donnell stressed that all means of killing are horrifying. “The red line suggests that there are civilized and uncivilized ways of death in war. But war is not civilized. War is the breakdown of civilization.”
