It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:02 PM
What do you mean WE Chemowasabi?

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:03 PM

If Obama wants to go to war, He needs to lead on the battlefield just like Washington, Andrew Jackson, Napoleon, or Alexandra did.

Like Bush and Cheney did? Oops.

I'm pretty sure that when Bush was talking about spreading freedom to the middle east the same people here attacking Obama didn't have a problem with it.

Why is it only wrong when Obama does it?

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by CB328

How many countries did Bush/Cheney hand over to the Muslim Brotherhood?

People say Bush was a tool of the MIC. People say Bush started wars for oil. The same people act as if Obama has benevolent reason for waging war that make Islam stronger.


posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:22 PM
reply to post by neo96

If we are at 'war with Al Qaeda' why are we arming them, and sending them money?

Horse crap, let's not drag unrelated internet video into this.

While I don't believe that we should help the Syrian people in their internal struggle, as it's their own business. It doesn't mean that the people who are fighting for their own freedom are Al Qaeda.

That's just bigoted nonsense to believe that every group over in the middle east is just a offshoot of Al Qaeda. Try at least to learn about the groups you hate, so you can at least be informed and don't look like a giant douche.

I don't believe that we should get involved. The reason is that, the more that we get involved, the more likely we will get a government who resents the US and would supply real terror groups to attack us.

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:22 PM
Assad is one of the worst dictators around, why is it that people who cheered Bush for talking about fighting dictators for freedom attack Obama for actually doing it?

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by beezzer




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

But I thought you and your Cronies said that was the Reason to take Out Saddam ?????
Or is that "different" , because it was Bush??

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:37 PM
You know, if the government was an entity that acted with noble intentions, I could possibly buy this. But this is not the case at all. It has been shown time and time again that the US government "covertly" sticks its nose in conflicts all over the globe. Not only that, but we initiated many of those conflicts to begin with. When the US talks about assassinating great people like Hugo Chavez, you know something is wrong. And that is not even very recent. Everything is about profit and control, for those who have yet to realize this fact. The government does all kinds of illegal things under the guise of "protecting" US citizens, when the truth is that this government is the biggest roadblock to democracy in their own country.

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:56 PM
Why don't we have a moral obligation to intervene in the rest of the countries where human rights are violated regularly?

Worst of the Worst 2012: The World's Most Repressive Societies

Or how about Nigeria? Isn't there a righteous moral imperative to liberate the people?

Human rights in Nigeria

The most serious human rights problems during ... [2011] were the abuses committed by the militant sect known as Boko Haram, which was responsible for killings, bombings, and other attacks throughout the country, resulting in numerous deaths, injuries, and the widespread destruction of property; abuses committed by the security services with impunity, including killings, beatings, arbitrary detention, and destruction of property;

The song remains the same. The powers decide what the war agenda is, then begin the campaign of manipulation. There is absolutely nothing moral about the intentions of the US or the UN regarding Syria. Money and power, and an insatiable desire for more of both.

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by neo96

Lol. The only thing these warmongering swine have a moral obligation to do is kill themselves

But there's no profit in suicide now, is there?

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:49 PM

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)

Sorry, I'm with Beezzer on this one. He said "to the refugees", which implies the people who fled the country, and are now outside it and on the run with nowhere to go and no means of supporting themselves, so that there is no potential for recreating the Somalia debacle by having the aid meant for the refugees seized by the bad guys.

I don't know when it became a "moral obligation" to interfere in the purely internal affairs of sovereign nations (like the Syrian Civil War. Keeping it internal is sort of the whole idea of a "civil war"), but if it now is, I for one am suddenly a staunch supporter of IMMORALITY.

Folks whining "Muslim this and Muslim that", and the whole time can't figure out that for some odd reason we've started supporting the REAL enemy who DOES want to kill us (viz. AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood) against the ones that DON'T want to kill us! It's the damndest, confusingest thing I've ever witnessed in my life, and that covers a LOT!

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Danbones
What do you mean WE Chemowasabi?


Is that some kind of hot sauce made of sulfur mustard?

Damn that made me laugh...

(I think the original one was Keemosahbee :lol

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by TheWrightWing

Obama is directly responsible for what is happening in Syria and for every death that has occurred since he ordered our CIA to arm the population and initiate a civil uprising to over throw the current Syrian leadership. This is another fine example of a stereotypical psychopath at work. He murders your children then shows up 15 minutes later to help you clean up the mess with what appears to be genuine sincerity. Hitler would be proud of obama's work.

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:32 PM
I think the modern industrialized Western countries are morally obligated to assist developing countries as our economic superiority is tightly linked to the long(and more recent than we like to admit) period of overt colonization and oppression.

Only such a policy can suppress the anti-Western radicalism in the long term.

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:40 PM
Oh sure the puppet says we have an obligation to end the slaughter and ensure a stable Syria. If we have this obligation then why don't we have the same obligation to the people of Palestine?

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by neo96

So he can pick up a rucksack and go over there his damn self.

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by camaro68ss

You said it. Salute to you.

This is what Veda says. Veda makes it mandatory for kings to go into battle.

This is the reason only warriors became kings.

What is the point of a 'politician-king'? These people make only unnecessary laws while they just skip the main part of good governance and keeping people safe.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:06 AM
Oh no, gasp, Obama wants to help people and end slaughter. Well, as a conservative I will not put up with his shenanigans. I love slaughter and if Obama wants to end it he can go to hell! Die Syria, die while we stand by watch you bleed.

I hate Obama and his "Morals".

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:05 AM
reply to post by neo96

first of all I'm American lived in America all my life.Wth does Syria have to do with us or our security(bunch of political crap ) .Our politicians don't need to keep their noses up every country's ass.if they want to kill each other,let them,so what.Why does our country's politicians have to have their asses in everyone else business?
Our sons and daughters are not their police.let the dam politicians strap on a weapon and uniform nd go fight it themselves.f cowards will send our children' bs is all it is.if they had to go to fight these punk A#$ wars then they would think twice about wanting to stick their filthy noses in other country's affairs.
I'm fed up with hearing about this country or that one.IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:03 AM
Unbelievable.We have no more moral obligation than anyone else in this world and you don't see them jumping at the chance to put more troops in the Middle East. I think it would be more morally responsible for us to let these countries retain their sovereignty and figure it among themselves. Our involvement benefits no one, not even Israel. It just teaches them that we'll back up their antics, no matter how absurd. Unreal. If Obama feels a moral obligation maybe he should suit up and go do it himself.. He is the Messiah you know?

Obama you're drunk, Go Home.
edit on 10-5-2013 by ZiggyMojo because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:25 AM
reply to post by neo96

"A stable Syria" That's a laugh, I guess he means like he did in Egypt and Libya and how Iraq and Afghanistan are so stable.

I don't see how this elitists shill can still lie with a straight face, he has not "STABILIZED" anybody, he has just armed the Brotherhood and in so doing "al qaeda".

He is truly proving the insanity of the liberal socialist by doing the same thing expecting a different outcome or maybe its something all together different. An Arabic proverb; the enemy of my enemy is my friend..................the free world being Obama's enemy.

Maybe he is truly carring on in his fathers foot steps, just my opinion.


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in