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

Oh no... I wondered when the R2P ("responsibility to protect" - Wikipedia R2P article) rhetoric would come out for Syria.

When neocons want to start a war to take over another part of the world, they say we are at war with terrorism or someone has weapons of mass destruction.

When neolibs want to start a war to take over another part of the world, they say we have a moral obligation to end the slaughter.

reply to post by neo96


No, Mr. President, we the private citizens have a moral obligation to donate food and medicine to the needy around the world. YOU, Mr. President have a moral obligation to run OUR country. Pave our roads, provide for our needy, fight corruption in our country, and get the hell out of all other countries!

I think DHS should just buy up all of their bullets and the problem would just sort of solve it self...

Oh..PS
My "chemowasabi" reference earlier
was refering to the "lone arranger"...
masked man ......we don't really know who he is...bailouts
radioactive tuna....burning gasholes...

oh, I don't know

spells like dead fish....

World Police to the rescue. They are very comparable to our neighborhood police, as they always arrive late and often muck it up cuz they're incompetent.

Syria will never be stable its been like that for the past 40 years. The aid will be in the form of Americans put on the sacrificial table for Syria and the Brotherhood.

This summer that same statement will be tweaked a little to something,oh like.

You have a moral obligation to such and such , followed by We must all do our part for world peace and a stable Syria. I'm committing x amount of troops from our active duty personal. They will be followed by Our brave men and women volunteers from Selective Service . We will help re-write history together for the world. Then there will be a standing ovation at the United Nations praising chairman Obama again.

The next week you find yourself in Kansas doing basic training.

We have a moral obligation to these united states , not Syria. Syria is in a Civil War. They are not a threat to the united states. Once we put troops on the ground in Syria , Russia will come in to play. Russia will fight for that coastal port. As our president says , make no mistake.

If anyone doesn't think the draft will be implemented , think again. There have been some major troop reductions in the past two years. We are stretched thin across the globe.

Originally posted by neo96
It would also be moral to stay the hell out of Syria

Agreed. I don't think we need to be the world's policeman.

If Saudi Arabia and Iran don't see a need to get involved why do we need to?

For all we know this war could be some act of judgement by a Higher Power.

reply to post by Miracula


If USA is the superpower (the king of entire earth) as it claims, then it has the moral and legal obligation to defend the lives of Syrian non-combatants.

I find it very strange that Americans want the fruit of being superpower but shirk away from watering the tree.

The global police force as envisioned by NWO is not a silly concept. If ever there is a one-world government, a global police force is a basic requirement.

However the angels (pure souls) will never allow a tyrannical and vile one world government on earth. This is the reason USA will fail in its goals.

I can't imagine the Hell that anyone experiences when they live in a war-torn country.

If you believe in a higher power, it would be a good time to pray for these people.

So we have a moral obligation to "end the slaughter".... by slaughtering them for 10 years in an unjust and illegal war? Yea, I don't think so actually.

Obama: We have a Zionist obligation to continue to slaughter innocents for oil, and ensure our efforts to destabilize Syria, and the entire middle east.

There O.P., I fixed your headline for you.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


The problem is there is no king of USA. USA is run by a council of influential actors. These actors are NON-ELECTED and stay hidden.

Obama (or the President of USA) does not have the power to overrule the Council.

The Congress and the Senate is filled with yes-man of the Council.

American democracy is a big show. It is there because it works for the hidden rulers to keep the public in the dark.

A king does not give suggestions. A king gives orders and fixes things. So Obama is not the king. He is merely an executive or a civil servant.

reply to post by AutOmatIc


Zionists are just pawns in the game. The rulers do not care if they live or die.

The rulers take advantage of human creeds and sects to reinforce their power. This happened with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Hindu sects (Vaishnav, Shaiv, Shakt), Chinese sects (Taoism etc.).

It is the universal theme that the religions and sects have been used to keep people in bondage.

This guy is such a giant hypocrite! How about he stops helping the jews and backing them up so much, how about he stops arming Al-CIA-duh with bombs and #. UGH i hate that demon president. i hope he burns in hell.

We have a moral obligation to ensure you remain a lame duck Mr. Obama!

Obama, your pedigree reads like an Orwellian wet dream! Gun grabbing will not float! Your buddies in the Senate will be voted out over it! Just wait and see!

FYA that "moral obligation" won't be extended to DRAFTEES,he goes down or you do. Make your choice.

reply to post by neo96


Really Mr. President, yet you and your administration caused many deaths in Mexico by bringing in weapons into the hands of cartels. At least both sides in Syria are armed not like the citizens of Mexico who are defenseless and are at the mercy of cold blooded killers.. Oh and about that war on drugs I'm pretty sure your part of the problem as well.

reply to post by neo96





Getting Involved with Syria, all the while not taking care of any of the problems HERE at home !


Where is the Liberal outrage ?

Originally posted by ikonoklast
Oh no... I wondered when the R2P ("responsibility to protect" - Wikipedia R2P article) rhetoric would come out for Syria.

When neocons want to start a war to take over another part of the world, they say we are at war with terrorism or someone has weapons of mass destruction.

When neolibs want to start a war to take over another part of the world, they say we have a moral obligation to end the slaughter.

I find it worth mentioning that a POTUS as left-leaning as Obama is going according to PNAC.

www.examiner.com...

People do you realise Obama is looking for an excuse to get in there? lol...

I mean.. its a case of they want to control Iran but cant so... syria is the next port of call.