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

page: 8
46
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
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.




posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Don't believe what he says! A promise breaker.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

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.


Actually no, but close I suppose. Obama has a moral obligation to execute the functions of government - which is to say, to enforce laws which have been passed. If there are laws against killing, his obligation is to see that those laws are enforced, but not to dream up new ones on his own, without ever once enforcing the old ones. His moral obligation is not within the realm of lawmaking at all, it is in the realm of enforcement of what is, and execution of the laws that already are.

What he does on his off time is none of our business, so if he wants to put on a cape and roam back alleys to thwart evil doers by making up his own "laws" as he goes along, during his off hours, that's cool - just don't do it under the guise of the presidency, while he's on the clock we citizens are paying for.

We already have a law-making body, called "congress". THEY have the moral obligation to create laws if a law is called for, not the president. His job is execution of the law that already is.





edit on 2013/5/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Really Obama?

Then how about we.......STOP FUNDING AL QAEDA BACKED REBELS IN SYRIA !?!?!?


You know...for starters....

And if he really wants to get advanced, how about a moral obligation to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic? yea, I know I'm delusional to even fathom that he would be capable of such horrible acts.

That guy is full of crap and if some of you out there haven't realized it yet, better start opening your eyes wider to figure it out.
edit on 13-5-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
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)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

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)


Yes I know but I can't believe the nerve some people have to come here and sell their BS with such fancy sophistry that mocks people in the face like that. The democrats and republicans must think everyone is a complete moron beyond belief.

Americans don't run america. The world royal families and bankers do. People thought that monarchies were a thing of the past because we have parliament or congress and a president or prime minister. Boy did they get fooled easily.

Indians have more common sense than americans. Thanks for the reply!



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   

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.


Obama, the Neo Liberal can feel free to pack his bags anytime and go help the Al Queda Terrorists anytime he likes. Not with my tax dollars he doesn't. He will have to find his own way there.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

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.


Thanks Fission.
You hit the nail on the head.
The main prize is Iran.
They are not technically siding with Al Queda if they can use them to do their bidding, like they used the Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan against the Russians.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Like almost all US politicians, Obama is a fool looking to protect his interest and the interest of the ruling capital class. Syria is a total crab storm at this point. All vested parties plans have fell a part. But as we know, the US gov is a stubborn lot. They will still attempt to get what they can out of the situation until the end.
edit on 14-5-2013 by freedomwv because: grammar and spelling



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


It is a very dangerous game that CIA is playing.

CIA has managed to unite the fanatic Islamic elements that can easily boomerang on the West.

This is how empires fall, when they overplay their hand.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

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.


A. You can disrepect me anytime you wish. It is your free will, BUT DO HAVE RESPECT for this site's T&C, because if you who dares call yourself a member can so blatantly set the example to say to hell with ATS's T&C, then it is only a matter of time before ATS becomes another trash site like glp.


B. You ignore my simple question, and yet have the cheek to ask me questions instead. Is it a discussion that you want, or an attempt to detract and foister your own very clear ignorance to the readers on ATS?


C. I am not petty, and will answer your questions posed - not one as you claimed, but SIX QUESTIONS. Are you senile, on drugs or drunk that you failed to notice? Anyway

- 1) If Russia does not care, does that mean we makind are to follow Emperor Putin's lead? No. If he doesnt have a heart, it does not mean the rest of mankind does not have a heart, though I am not sure about you as you sure aint Putin.

-2) If USA has a heart to stop the violence and tragedy in Syria, should we stop such humanitarian acts or follow heartless russia, and let civilisation go to the dogs? NO, President Obamam as an elected head of state, representative of the american People, made a stand. If you have no heart and want nothing humanitarian to do with ending the violence in Syria as an american - the airports are open 24/7

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.

5.) The citizens of Libya were in outright revolt with Gaddafi, whom had ruled, oppressed and slaughtered them mercilessly. They cried out to the world for help. Same as Kosovo did. USA and the world responded. And today, Libya is liberated, to find their way to rebuild their own country.

6.) No. America is no superman or batman. Those are figures of imagination. USA and the american people are real and live by the principles it was founded on. For those who do not accept those principles to live by - the airports are open 24/7


Despite my patience and effort to respond to your troll attempt and insult upon ATS and me, I doubt if this post will ever go appreciated. But that's ok. Be glad and thank your lucky stars I had the time, or I would have simply ignored your attempt that only shows your personal lack of intellect or just plain wilful ignorances to even answer those questions you yourself posed.

Do that trolling again, which I believe you will, and you will enjoy my refusal to reply as a sign of open contempt towards you.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Many feel this was the plan all along..to introduce radical elements to the Syrian theatre as a pre-text for invasion.
edit on 15-5-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Since you have failed to (or more likely been unable to) answer any of my questions put to you thus far, I suppose I'll try to approach from another angle. My hope is that at some point you'll find a question you can answer, with some degree of logic.

You speak as one who is wholly unfamiliar with the dynamics at play inside Syria. You seems to be unaware, for example, that your heroes exhibit cannibalistic tendencies (there is actual video of them eating the heart of a deceased soldier - something I'm sure you are aware of, even if you refuse to acknowledge it), or that your heroes have promised to visit genocide on Shi'ites, Alawites, and in fact every faction that is NOT Sunni in Syria should they win. These are just consequences to the Syrian people, not even counting their avowed enmity to the US and the entire western world.

In light of that, how can you continue to support them in their conquest of a sovereign nation, i.e. Syria? We see what they have done in Libya, Egypt, etc, so WHY do you insist on supporting them in their quest to dominate their next domino? WHY do you support them when they are clearly the enemies of not only the US, but ALSO the Syrian People?

Monsterslayer Assad, while not a very nice guy, has at least guaranteed religious freedom to the Syrian people. Yet you support those who would not only take that away, but who would also, by their own admission, engage in genocide in Syria. I'd like to know why. I've given you reasons on top of reasons to stay the hell out of internal Syrian affairs, but have yet to see you give valid reason to meddle in them.

The very men, women, and children you CLAIM to support would be in mortal danger should your heroes prevail, and I'd like to know why you ache to see that slaughter.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   

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.




Iraq: Who are the nations that formed this 'coalition of the willing'. Only those countries who are allied overtly with the US and share US interests.

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.

Afghanistan:

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.
edit on 15-5-2013 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

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.


He could have been erased by a 4 man team, and ALL of the subsequent bloodshed avoided. Personally, I didn't see any need for even THAT degree of involvement - Saddam was already buttoned down, couldn't even patrol the north or the south of his OWN country, and was no danger to anyone at that point other than himself.



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.


Negative. The Taliban came to power due to the Pakistani ISI, as a proxy government in Afghanistan. They originated in Pakistani Madrasas (hence the name "Taliban", from Arabic "talib" - "student"), and at the time they originated (1994) the CIA had no more interest in Afghanistan than they had in my breakfast that morning. The Soviets were long gone, and when they bailed, so did the CIA.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Syria is a no win situation now. We had a chance to influence things on the ground but that time has pretty much passed by.

The best armed/organized rebel groups are AQ inspired at the very least if not AQ proper. Assad will fall and the Islamists will take power there and forget about any Democracy or respect for all Syrians.

The time for us to have a "moral obligation" would have been when the FSA was forming and us supporting the groups friendly to us. We could have involved Turkey in playing "peacekeeper" in Syria. That was our best shot at having a Moderate government form post-Assad.

Now Syria will go from the hands of a dynasty of despots to a ragtag group of Taliban wannabee's, just as despotic as Assad. Great foreign policy there. Truth be told it would have been a really long stretch to put in power a pro-Western government in Syria, even if every card fell into place.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
How many more attrocities will we allow?



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   

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.


Yeah, kinda funny how that "Arab Spring" worked out huh? Track record isn't that good for Secularism, Democracy, Multi Party Governments ect. Seems they all replaced one rotten leader with other "New" rotten leaders. Had we done the "velvet revolutions" like we did in Eastern Europe, things would be looking quite different. I don't claim for us to be saints politically. It would have been in our best interests to mold/shape the changes that took place in the Arab Spring. We didn't support the pro Democracy groups strong enough against the better organized Islamists Groups that don't want any part of Democracy or all those other human rights that flow with it. They just exchanged one boss for another.





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join