It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jacygirl
Please excuse me for this....I am a Canadian...but I do have an opinion.
Shouldn't President Obama have a moral obligation to stop the slaughter in...the United States?
He IS the president of the U.S.A....NOT the world.
Charity begins at home....just saying...
jacygirl
Note: This is not an "anti-gun" response for those about to 'shoot me down'. Although, where I live...no one talks about guns unless they are hunters. I just honestly believe that a country's leader should have a moral obligation to the people he is leading.
Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
USSR did the right thing in Afghanistan but USA came in the way. USA is a tool for the NWO (NWO is nothing but Monarchists - they want to bring back an unelected king that rules over the world).
Russia can of course stabilize Syria but Monarchists wont let it.
edit on 13-5-2013 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by neo96
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.
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
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.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
Let me ask you a very simple question: If syria needs saving, then why doesn't russia care to save it one way or another? Why must it be the usa?
Why did the usa need to save iraq? save afghanistan? save libya?
Is usa superman or batman?
Epic fail. I think you are an evil warmonger and I couldn't give a # about the T&C of this site.
Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
3.) The liberation of Iraq was a decision not by USA alone, but a coalition of the willing comprising of other nations sharing our world whom are concerned with Sadam's belligerences on NOT allowing neutral inspectors to verify the existance of WMD weapons, and worse of all, with his continued threats to offer the 'mother of all battles' to the world. He asked for it, and his citizens welcomed the liberation from their oppressor.
4.) Afghanistan was ruled by the Taleban and oppressed their own citizens, whom offered the SLAUGHTERERS of 3000 innocent men and women on 911, a place to hide, and refused to hand them over to face justice. The Talebans asked for it.
Originally posted by GargIndia
I do not mind if US wanted to take Saddam out. However that did not need killing more than a million. US had intelligence means and weapons to target Saddam individually.
The Taliban came to power due to CIA. We have absolutely no doubt about it.
There is a deep game being played in Afghanistan. The game is not exposed yet, but will be sometime in future.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by pavil
Actually really did not have to do anything at all in Syria, or Libya both had secular leaders now?
One don't, and the other is soon on the way out.
Because of failed foreign policy decisions.