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

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 



Why is it only wrong when Obama does it?


A better question would be - Why is it only RIGHT when Obama does it?

I don’t hear a whole lot of resistance from the left. In fact, many are cheerleading.

How is that anti-war Hope and Change working out for you guys??




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
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...


"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Syrian boys ought to be doing for themselves." - Andy1972..with a helping hand from LBJ



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


If Obama wants to go to war in Syria, then lets give him a gun, pack him a lunch, put him on a plane, and send him right over so he can do his "moral obligations." Otherwise, it seems like the rest of the world is saying "thanks, but no thanks."



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Like the president told McCain, the election campaign is over.
K? he won twice. You guys can stop with that pro obama stuff now too because now youre looking just as silly as McCain did that day.

This has nothing to do with who sits in that office, and everything to do with us repeatedly getting involved in ME issues. The Middle east is a friggin black hole of problems and every time we get involved we always look like we're doing wrong. And if you guys really wanted look out for Obama, youd not encourage that he acts on foreign (specifically middle east) issues at all outside of promoting PEACE. We shouldnt take sides in civil wars. we've fought ours. It sucked. Syrians are fighting theirs now, and that sucks for them.

Am I appauled by whats happening there? HELL YES. It sickening and saddening to see a nation destroy itself. People are dying, from babies to old people and everyone in between. Can you explain to me how sending money is going to discourage or stop that? Anyone? Why the hell isnt anyone promoting a halt to that war? Do they even want to stop? Or would both sides prefer more dead children? I dont see either side stopping. Therefore I see no reason to help them continue.
edit on 10-5-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
As a person responsible for instigating the civil war and causing the instability and slaughter Obama should commit suicide, after killing his advisors. That is the only moral course of action open to him, if he is human. But then, he is an American, so "moral" could mean anything.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
More like, "We have a moral obligation to eliminating Russia's last remaining foothold in the Middle East".

That's the ONLY strategic gain I see out of this for us, and really, why? At a time when we need Russia as an ally, why the hell do you want to go and piss him off? Seriously....why?

If anything, we should just wash our hands of the whole mess and let them kill each other. No matter who wins, they are STILL going to hate us anyhow...so why spend the money, time, and lives needed? Madness....sheer madness.

There has to be SOMETHING we're not seeing or being told here. Has to be some real REASON for it...especially if it involves arming terrorists.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
There has to be SOMETHING we're not seeing or being told here. Has to be some real REASON for it...especially if it involves arming terrorists.


Donald Rumsfeld's memo of 2001...regime changes in 7 countries in 5 years...maybe it was 15 years and not 5...


Something else i found intersting from MIDDLE EAST ONLINE...

"Islamists among these fighters believe that the US hostility and refusal to arm them, including, they believe, deliberately preventing them from destroying Assad, was because of Washington’s concern with Salafi/jihadi enmity towards Israel. While Israeli interests are paramount in US Middle East policy, including towards Egypt, the better theory is that the goals of Washington and Tel Aviv are aligned in removing Assad. To this end, for the US, the best of all worlds is to accelerate regime change, paradoxically through Salafi and jihadi military gains, precisely in order to stem and weaken the growing power of these elements in Syria caused by protracted war. This, however, is a dangerous game that will not work."

They want Assad out, but dont want the Jihadists in because they threaten Israel....



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 


As nearly as I've been able to piece together, Israel and the US want rid of Assad because he's allowing Syria to be a conduit for Iran to funnel arms to Hezbollah. For example, the recent Israeli strikes against Syria were allegedly more a response to two recent missile transshipments than they were in support of the jihadists in the Muslim Brotherhood and AQ arrayed against Assad.

It makes no sense to me to attempt to replace a devil with a devil. Where is the net gain? it would make more sense to let them duke it out under their own steam, without our assistance, and then have only a weakened adversary to deal with, whichever won.

Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in their efforts to seed even more spread-centers for their caliphate is madness. What do they think is going to happen when the MB consolidates and has an arc stretching all the way from the Maghreb to Indonesia? Yeah, THAT ain't gonna turn out at all well! Trade the MB for Assad in Syria and they'll only be trading Hamas for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Still no gain, but a HUGE potential loss, since Hamas will have the backing of not just Iran or Syria, but of the entire MB caliphate. Once they have that power in place and consolidated, there ain't gonna be "no more Mr Nice Guy".

And here we are, trying to help them set the shop up! Madness, pure and simple.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by andy1972
 


As nearly as I've been able to piece together, Israel and the US want rid of Assad because he's allowing Syria to be a conduit for Iran to funnel arms to Hezbollah. For example, the recent Israeli strikes against Syria were allegedly more a response to two recent missile transshipments than they were in support of the jihadists in the Muslim Brotherhood and AQ arrayed against Assad.

It makes no sense to me to attempt to replace a devil with a devil. Where is the net gain? it would make more sense to let them duke it out under their own steam, without our assistance, and then have only a weakened adversary to deal with, whichever won.

Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in their efforts to seed even more spread-centers for their caliphate is madness. What do they think is going to happen when the MB consolidates and has an arc stretching all the way from the Maghreb to Indonesia? Yeah, THAT ain't gonna turn out at all well! Trade the MB for Assad in Syria and they'll only be trading Hamas for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Still no gain, but a HUGE potential loss, since Hamas will have the backing of not just Iran or Syria, but of the entire MB caliphate. Once they have that power in place and consolidated, there ain't gonna be "no more Mr Nice Guy".

And here we are, trying to help them set the shop up! Madness, pure and simple.




Have a butchers at this....What does America want with Syria..

The rebels apparantly want to finish Assad off, but the USA wont supply the weaponry to do it...yet they dont want to do it over the negociating table either..
edit on 10-5-2013 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
There are more people getting killed on the streets of Chicago. Where is the moral obligation to look in his own back yard?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Does france feel the same way? Does italy feel the same way? Does russia feel the same way? Does iran feel the same way? DOES ANYONE AT ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY, EXCEPT FOR AMERICA?

WTF is with america trying to police everyone while letting down american citizens in their own home? The government is overspending itself into oblivion and still wants more conflict. Sure the contractors are gonna make a handsome buck again when all is said and done. Congressman will make a handsome buck with insider trading.

Russia and China are not liking this one bit mind you, and they have every reason to be pissed. We are stealing trading partners from them and monopolising the middle east oil and arms trade against them.

Obama and Bush are everything that is wrong with this nation. Americans better wake up fast and impeach this treacherous piece of # before world war 3 starts. And israel better learn to fend for itself as we have given them tons of support, financial and military, and they have squandered nearly all of it. Enough is enough, we need to get out of the middle east and fast. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should have won the past election as they were the only ones with an ounce of common sense left in them. Too bad!



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Does france feel the same way? Does italy feel the same way? Does russia feel the same way? Does iran feel the same way? DOES ANYONE AT ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY, EXCEPT FOR AMERICA?


NO !!!

And why ???

Because no other country has a project planned to take control of the worlds resources this century....America has no "moral obligation" to any country except America, and it doesn't take it's obligations very seriously at home..



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The American Government has no moral obligation in Syria.

The rebels have apparently used chemical weapons as well as the Government, proving that the new boss is just as bad as the old boss.

No moral guidance needed here.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Does france feel the same way? Does italy feel the same way? Does russia feel the same way? Does iran feel the same way? DOES ANYONE AT ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY, EXCEPT FOR AMERICA?


NO !!!

And why ???

Because no other country has a project planned to take control of the worlds resources this century....America has no "moral obligation" to any country except America, and it doesn't take it's obligations very seriously at home..


I am pretty sure the same people who control the babylonian union also control the USA, it is just that they choose to use USA because it has an awesome military and because they want to bankrupt USA once and for all while they wait for the PIIGS nations to self-destruct from their greedy social welfare state.

Its all been planned my friend. Extreme coincidences don't happen that often. The american people are not bad people, but they are very naive and misinformed about a lot of stuff.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by RomaSempre
There are more people getting killed on the streets of Chicago. Where is the moral obligation to look in his own back yard?


Though Chicago has the highest death rate in the US currently, there have not been 70,000 people killed there in the last 2 years. Your post is a bit of hyperbole.

God Bless,



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You must intervene because you have done such a fine job of stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan right?

You must provide more of your humanitarian aid that killed countless civilians ( mostly children ) ?

How dare they speak of morality in the same breath as expanding their wars...

Where is your morality to provide for (US) the American People ? Who have almost nothing left!

Where is your morality for the soldiers who commit suicide that outnumber those who die in your wars?

Where is your morality when you dump dead soldiers remains in the trash when they get shipped home?

Where is your morality for every 50 civilians killed for every 1 "Terrorist" in your Drone strikes ?

Where is your morality to keep poison ( chemical weapons )out of our drinking water, our food, our medicine, and our air ?

When you speak of humanitarian aid and morality people should run for the hills.. because scorched earth will follow..

How many more millions will we help and watch them slaughter in the name of keeping us safe ?

Will we ever wise up and STOP them ? Will we ever regain our humanity and tell them NO!

Will we wake up before "WE" become part of their many, many dead.......

And make no mistake..... it's only a matter of time before we become the meat for the grinder.....

Our country is on the verge of economic collapse, we ( the American People ) need help, and they continue to spend Trillions of dollars (of our money) on death & destruction....

Shame on them ...and Shame, SHAME on us....
edit on 10-5-2013 by ReAwakened because: mispelling



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.


For once I completely agree with you! Have a star



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Does france feel the same way? Does italy feel the same way? Does russia feel the same way? Does iran feel the same way? DOES ANYONE AT ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY, EXCEPT FOR AMERICA?


NO !!!

And why ???

Because no other country has a project planned to take control of the worlds resources this century....America has no "moral obligation" to any country except America, and it doesn't take it's obligations very seriously at home..



Not exactly "no". According to the link you gave, which I just finished reading, both Britain and France have operatives on the ground in Syria right now, so they evidently have some plans there, too, which are aligned with US plans, whatever those may be. Likewise, the same link indicates that the opposition is being supported by the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, with the approval of the US, so it's not like we are the Lone Ranger in pursuit of this lunacy.

The Gulf States and Saudi Arabia I can see supporting Sunnis, and the wahabbist Muslim Brotherhood and AQ in particular against everyone else, since Saudi was the birthplace of Wahabbism. They're just pushing their own agenda. the rest, particularly the outsiders like the US, France, and Britain, I CAN'T see a rational reason for their involvement.

At all.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


'Moral obligations' are political tag words to justify an action that may be morally obligated or just another gladiator spectacle in the grand arena.

While I am all for defending this nation and its allies by way of force when needed, America has long since fulfilled any moral obligation to the world playing beat cop.

A genuine moral obligation can be found here at home with people who need jobs and a culture that has become so lacking a moral compass that its corruption is spilling over into our streets.

'Nuff said.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Ending the slaughter, huh? We're not so good at that. Expand the slaughter? Sure. Amplifying it? Okay. Even hiding it? No doubt. But ending it? Not so much.

It's not in our skill set. On our resume under "slaughters ended" there ain't much there. Nothing recently.

And, of course, morals has nothing to do with any of this.

So we can rephrase Mr. Obama's statement:

"We have a obligation to expand the slaughter."

Now that could be true. We may have such obligations to our evil overlords. It's amazing how, after a little decoding, everything comes into focus.



new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join