*LIVESTREAM* 9/3/13 2:30 PM EST - Senate Foreign Relations Committee HEARING on SYRIA. starring...

In listening to this I'm still not hearing how attacking Assad makes the chemical weapons present in Syria safer. I see that they have an objective of strengthening the opposition but many within the opposition are terrorists. So they go in to prevent further chemical weapons use but leave the chemical weapons in place, hoping to strengthen only the good guys within the opposition? Can someone explain how this could not have a high possibly of putting these weapons into the wrong hands? Maybe I'm missing something.

Okay, Kerry just answered it somewhat. Stated if weapons did happen to fall into the wrong hands then boots may have to be on the ground. So in other words, they know this may very well turn out worse than it is now.

Why the hell is the committee Chairman Menendez even asking any questions? He isn't even trying and has stated his obvious bias from the very beginning. If someone is going to ask questions, it should be from a genuine opposer of this action.

He is saying UH UH UH between every question, sounds like someone who doesn't even want to be there. Of course, he rather be in #Syria.

Originally posted by Dianec
In listening to this I'm still not hearing how attacking Assad makes the chemical weapons present in Syria safer. I see that they have an objective of strengthening the opposition but many within the opposition are terrorists. So they go in to prevent further chemical weapons use but leave the chemical weapons in place, hoping to strengthen only the good guys within the opposition? Can someone explain how this could not have a high possibly of putting these weapons into the wrong hands? Maybe I'm missing something.

Okay, Kerry just answered it somewhat. Stated if weapons did happen to fall into the wrong hands then boots may have to be on the ground. So in other words, they know this may very well turn out worse than it is now.

edit on 3-9-2013 by Dianec because: to add

It doesn't make the country any safer. *Boom! Boom!* "We said knock it off!" Like that will hold any weight whatsoever Lobbing a few missiles, or many missiles, at Syria would be like hosing a hornet's nest. It's just going to piss the nest off & you're going to get stung.

reply to post by Dianec


It is not about chemical weapons or making syria safer, it is about helping the rebels.

Wow.. this sure looks like a show to me...

Bought and paid for by the MIC and corporate interests.. IE Banks / Oil...


I guess that the MIC and global banks & oil being at risk is the National Security risk being slammed down our throats.

Go ahead and call me an isolationist, I will wear that moniker with pride...

Nothing I have heard yet [sans the voice of the protester, who was ushered out for disruption] has convinced me that the US must do something...

Think about it folks, Obama had no problem striking Libya without this sideshow, could that be a sign that he doesn't actually want to continue this charade?

IDK, what I do know is that our (US) gov't has lost a lot of trust over the past year, most all of the issues/scandals that ramped up the distrust, still to this day have not been resolved..

Can we really believe the words being said today?

I am in the "fool me once" mode, how do the rest of you feel?

Ready to rock the cruise missiles? I am not..

Dempsey just said hundreds of millions of dollars of non-lethal support have been poured into Syria.

Oh...my....gawdddd

This is as good a place as any to put this, sad to say it looks
like the writing is on the wall.

First we have Pelosi, using her 5 year old grandson to make a political
statement about why the U.S. "needs" to go to war with Syria.

*Warning - this will sicken you*



www.youtube.com...

Secondly, here is our confirmation that the U.S.did send in
CIA - agents for support into the Rebels.

First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA 'on way to battlefield'

Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.....

"There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition," Mr Graham said.

He added that he hoped the opposition would be given "a chance to speak directly to the American people" to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

"They're not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal... to only have al-Qaeda run Syria," Mr Graham said.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So there we have the admission that also, the U.S. is now backing rebels who are
supposedly a go between for al Qaeda and Assad?

Sickening.

Did you hear that word play by Kerry.

When asked to clarify his position on whether or not troops will be deployed to Syria, Kerry responds:

Paraphrasing - We will not have combat boots on the ground in Syria in relation to the Syrian war.

The is open ended no!?!?! But you will send troops for another reason?

The CHILDREN!!!! Will somebody please think of the CHILDREN!!!!

What about the Children in Rwanda? Mali? Somalia? Egypt?

Excuse my language but these guys are all full of F-ing horse dung.


Oh and did anybody else catch Kerry's very VERY personal attack on non-interventionists when he specifically pointed out the "armchair isolationists"? Direct shot at Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul/Rand Paul/Justin Amash, etc...

reply to post by MDDoxs


Left it wide open for "boots on the ground" in regards to this alleged limited effort..


Good catch..

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Thanks.

Its all word play with these people. Did you see how uncomfortable he got until he figured how he wanted to word that statement?

He practically stuttered.

Kerry pulled the "Clapper" card in regards to the intel...

Clapper is beyond reproach in his honesty with the folks

reply to post by burntheships


Pelosi is dictating policy from a 5 year old. How in the world will lobbing missiles at going to stop people in Syria from killing more children?

Only boots on the ground, and more children killed, could stop the Assad regime and the rebels from killing children in the crossfire.

Makes no sense.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Kerry pulled the "Clapper" card in regards to the intel...

Clapper is beyond reproach in his honesty with the folks

Clapper should be on trial for lying under oath right now...

Originally posted by PlatinumShatinum
reply to post by burntheships

 

Pelosi is dictating policy from a 5 year old. How in the world will lobbing missiles at going to stop people in Syria from killing more children?

Your right.

It wont, and she knows it. It is the tactic they use, they induce moral panic
to attempt to override reasoning. A very dirty tactic using her own grandson.

And as for boots on the ground, well thats a small thing to overcome, they
have done this many times. First comes the invasion, then they come back and
say well things have changed, we need troops. Its all so predicable.

And, I might point out that here is a new class of war mongers, that does not
just belong to the repubs any longer...and might as well say it, McCain is a traitor too.

reply to post by Nyiah


Yea, that's what I thought. He then gives a 'better answer' regarding boots on the ground, "it won't be with regard to the civil war is all" Wait a minute - we are going in to weaken some within this war and strengthen others. That's influencing a civil war if anything can. What I would want to know if I were in their shoes is: how does this help eliminate the use of chemical weapons? They cannot answer that - only that one portion within this war will be weakened. When asked what Russia will do, he sidesteps the question so I'm wondering why they don't say, "answer the question."

This is about making a statement and they have clearly not thought through it enough.

reply to post by burntheships


Don't forget Graham.. they have both been asking for this kind of US involvement for quite a few months..

They must be on the same corporate payroll..

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by burntheships

 

Don't forget Graham.. they have both been asking for this kind of US involvement for quite a few months..

They must be on the same corporate payroll..

Yes, thank you. Absolutely.

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by PlatinumShatinum
reply to post by burntheships

 

Pelosi is dictating policy from a 5 year old. How in the world will lobbing missiles at going to stop people in Syria from killing more children?

Your right.

It wont, and she knows it. It is the tactic they use, they induce moral panic
to attempt to override reasoning. A very dirty tactic using her own grandson.

And as for boots on the ground, well thats a small thing to overcome, they
have done this many times. First comes the invasion, then they come back and
say well things have changed, we need troops. Its all so predicable.

And, I might point out that here is a new class of war mongers, that does not
just belong to the repubs any longer...and might as well say it, McCain is a traitor too.

edit on 3-9-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Exacto.......

It always starts off with a simple strike, then when we have already invested emotionally, financially, and physically, we "must" finish the job. Then comes the billion dollar embassies, private military contractors, war crimes, and another failed war after 10 years.

I'm just glad the American people aren't sold on this one as an overwhelming majority do not support intervention in Syria.

Did i just hear Kerry talking about the safety of Israel and Jordan, that they have to intervene?
And not to long ago, assad was his great friend, but above all we will be helping Al Qaida in ousting assad, and what after that? would Israel and Jordan be safe?