Obama: We have a moral obligation to end the slaughter and ensure a stable Syria

page: 1
46
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+32 more 
posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   


Oh hell he actually said we have a 'moral obligation' to end the slaughter,and ensure a stable Syria!!!

Who the hell does he think he is kidding if we had a moral obligation it would not be arming Al Qaeda who are on the 'Free Syrian' side.


Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.


www.nytimes.com...

'humanitarian' aid he says!

So the Us has a 'moral obligation' to stop the blood shed in Syria?

How about stop sending arms, and cash to those middle eastern countries that are 'supplying' the FSA ?

That would be moral.

It would also be moral to stay the hell out of Syria, and let them sort their own crap out.

So what national security interest is being met arming Al Qaeda ?

Obama stay the hell out of Syria if you believe in freedom, and Democracy so much then how about starting right here in the US?

I know that's too much to ask, but hell someone has to say it.

Related reading:

hotair.com...
edit on 9-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



+4 more 
posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The hell we do.

That Obama is dependably wrong about everything. Syria can sort itself out without us creating another Obam... er, I mean, Osama Bin Laden or Hussein.

I mean Saddam Hussein...


+34 more 
posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Obama: We have a moral obligation to end the slaughter and ensure a stable Syria

NO



WE



DON'T




We have a moral obligation to respect a country's sovereignty and to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees who have suffered.

THAT'S IT!


+19 more 
posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I say that’s fine. If Obama wants to go to war, He needs to lead on the battlefield just like Washington, Andrew Jackson, Napoleon, or Alexandra did.

I bet you if all leaders were forced to lead at the frontlines, I have a feeling we would not have as many wars.
edit on 9-5-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96
 


Obama: We have a moral obligation to end the slaughter and ensure a stable Syria

NO



WE



DON'T




We have a moral obligation to respect a country's sovereignty and to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees who have suffered.

THAT'S IT!


What he said.


Sums it up best!

Cirque


+2 more 
posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





We have a moral obligation to respect a country's sovereignty and to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees who have suffered.


I thought that was what the UN was for?

I have problems 'providing humanitarian aid' too.

Saw what that got us in Somalia,what it got us in other parts of the ME.

May sound cruel to some, but hey,' let's make sure people who hate,and want to kill, have all the food, and medicine they want'.

No thanks.
edit on 9-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You can see all the pieces being put in place. Pity the Chinese and Russians don't suffer such moral obligations
edit on 9-5-2013 by EA006 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


What about our moral obligation to protect the Christians being slaughtered in Egypt????

You go Osama Obama, yours lies are so pathetic it isn't even funny.....



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
If he was worried about morality and obligations to any higher purposes regarding Syria, we wouldn't have taken sides and support to a civil war in Syria to begin with. Oh, unless it's not actually a civil war ....in which case, we're supporting outside forces to topple the legitimately recognized Government of Syria. The fact we "decide" it isn't legitimate anymore doesn't mean squat unless it's backed with force ..and THAT approach is the WHOLE problem.

There once was a doctrine strictly against nations interfering with the internal affairs of others. Oh, it wasn't necessarily followed (Contra Rebels, anyone?) but it wasn't so blatantly flaunted to kill people that national leaders took actual pride in the logic used. This is a sad and dark day for our nation and all it stands for, as we watch this progress.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 





What about our moral obligation to protect the Christians being slaughtered in Egypt????


Indeed what about them?

Thousand's if not millions of people are killed all over the globe on a daily basis.

Wasn't aware the Obama was elected to play 'savior of the world'.
edit on 9-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I think everyone should read this article to get an idea of whats really happening.

edition.cnn.com...



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Agreeing with Neo here. I dont know who the eff any of those people are or whos side theyre on, let alone what their goal is.

Do you know anyone in Syria Neo? I don't. Do you send total strangers money overseas? I don't. Why are they killing each other? No clue.
Im lost.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   


It would also be moral to stay the hell out of Syria, and let them sort their own crap out. So what national security interest is being met arming Al Qaeda ?
reply to post by neo96
 


My sentiments exactly.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by beezzer
 





We have a moral obligation to respect a country's sovereignty and to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees who have suffered.


I thought that was what the UN was for?

I have problems 'providing humanitarian aid' too.

Saw what that got us in Somalia,what it got us in other parts of the ME.

May sound cruel to some, but hey,' let's make sure people who hate,and want to kill, have all the food, and medicine they want'.

No thanks.
edit on 9-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


The UN is as useless as diet salad dressing in Michael Moore's refrigerator!



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Obama is a tool of the military industrial complex and those who would benefit from another world war.

They have been itching to go in, and the main target isn't Syria, it is Iran. These excuses about "humanitarian aid", and "preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction" are getting mighty old, and yet most people are still drinking this nasty Kool-aid.

Obama's moral obligation is to the United States of America....you know, the place he swore to protect while upholding, oh....what's that old piece of paper he keeps wiping his butt with.....oh yeah, THE CONSTITUTION.

Anybody who didn't see this coming is either blind, asleep, or stupid. Let every governmental representative that agrees with this B.S. be the first one over there, right on the front lines, and see how quickly this war-mongering stops.

But no, it'll be my kids and yours...and those in Syria who didn't do a damned thing to deserve what is surely coming their way.

It's a sad time to be an American. Obama has no conscience.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

won't watch as this POS THEY gave us in lieu of MLK or Malcom X
irks me to no end.



never agreed much with post-modernism
but you have to give the P-M's their due:
regarding hypocrisy being a sin [the only one in their book]

apparently in these post PM days even that is gone now...



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I disagree with the President on this one. We have no obligation to Syria. None at all.

The Syrian people have to work out for themselves what they want their own country to be. We should have absolutely no involvement in their internal affairs.

The US needs to stop being the world's police. If the middle east wants a more stable middle east, they need to work it out themselves.

I got an idea, how about Saudi Arabia doing something about their neighbors?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
It's more Progressive nanny statism only they think they are responsible for the whole world.

He used the term, "investing", and "international partners". So who and what are we investing in, and who are these International partners?

He seems to be signaling S. Korea in this, as the statement was made with S Korean leader standing by and the Korean flag in the background.

Apparently McCain is pushing this too.
Another conflict we have no business being in in my opinion.
edit on 9-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
The hell we do.

That Obama is dependably wrong about everything.




That position would tend to indicate legitimacy in these behaviors.

Obama is a mass-murdering psychopath terrorist, nothing more, nothing less. He will take his place alongside other monsters of history: Bush Jr, Stalin, Hitler, et. al.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
If we are at 'war with Al Qaeda' why are we arming them, and sending them money?



First he says we must fight them.
Then he says we must aid them.

Does his hypocrisy know no end?

Glad my moral compass is not what Obama says.
edit on 9-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
46
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join