It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I do support our president

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by canucks555

Dear canuck555,

Wonderful response, thank you. Don't tell anybody, but I do get tired of posters taking controversial positions then defending them with sarcasm and name-calling. Maybe it's the Canuck in your name, both of my parents were born and married in Winnipeg. Perhaps we're kindred spirits.

Believe it or not, I don't see a good option for the president, and I don't know which bad option is worse. I really don't have a strong opinion and you provided me with some clarification I was looking for. You've answered some of my questions quite nicely, but there are one or two I'm still unsure about.

One of those questions concerns his relationship with Congress. I'm sure he would like to get overwhelming Congressional approval, but his approach seems to be taking a big risk. The French are starting to express great unhappiness that they might be the only nation supporting him, and if they back out, Congress is all he has. It won't help him if the vote is close, or if the vote total is seen as being driven by party loyalty. In those cases it would be seen as Obama against the world. (And against the vast majority of Americans' opinions.)

And if, by some small chance, Congress says "no," he (and the US) is basically finished as an international force, with over three years left in his presidency and a world in turmoil.

I understand he doesn't want to alienate Congress any further, but it's going to take more than that to smooth over the ripples he's caused with the Republican House. Besides, announcing that he's going to ask for approval, but has the authority to do what he wants regardless, wouldn't make me warm up to him. It would make me ask, "Then why waste my time? If you're going to do what you want anyway, go do what you want."

Maybe he wants to send a message that dictators who murder their own people must be held accountable.
That's a perfectly valid reason. (I'm not sure that's his reason, though.) But the idea of accountability confuses me. If he killed al-Assad, I could understand it. If he killed thousands of Syrian troops, I could understand it. But if the missiles (or whatever) don't directly hurt al-Assad, or significantly weaken his power, won't he just shrug it off and tell the world he's survived unhurt? That, of course, announces to the world that the US is feeble.

Obama has announced he doesn't want to change the balance of power in Syria, so I have to confess I don't know what his goal would be. I think Krauthammer said, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union."

He's supporting the Syrian people that are struggling (two million refugees) because Assad has lost control of the situation. "The AQ elements in the FSA" is a false statement. The FSA hate AQ and actually fight them when they don't have their guns trained on the dictator Assad.
Ok, I'll take your word for it that it's a three-sided war. Obama's hope is that FSA wins, I assume. It's easy enough for him to defeat al-Assad if he wanted to, he and his forces are a pretty clear target. (Except, he's said he doesn't want to do that.) But how in the world would he assure that AQ doesn't take power in Syria as the Muslim Brotherhood did in Egypt?

Maybe his solution is to let all sides fight until exhaustion, with one side crawling to the top. Then, if he doesn't like the winner, snuff them out?

I repeat that I don't have a strong feeling on what should be done. I'm hoping that you, or some other equally brilliant poster, can show me that there is a sane and reasonable way to proceed from here.

With respect,

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 03:00 PM
Thanks you Charles I've always respected your opinions on ATS and have always appreciated your candor here.

Believe it or not, I don't see a good option for the president,

I believe that you are correct on this. I guess it's kind of like having a plugged toilette. You can let it lie and put up with the stink, or try and unplug the sucker. Which, we all know, is not very fun, but has to be done at some point.

I'm thinking that the toilette will not unplug itself in this situation. Leave it be and the entire strata will be inundated in filth.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by JoeP2247

George W Bush 2001 "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

It was wrong then and it's wrong now. We are supposed to discuss our differences, not DEMAND and declare someone an enemy if they disagree.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Turkenstein
Obama is a good president ...

No he's not. He has passed Jimmy Carter as the worst president ever. There is no reason for us to be in Syria. None at all. Obama just wants to put Americans into a meat grinder so he can support his Muslim Brotherhood buddies.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by FlyersFan

100 000+ dead.
2,000,000 refugees. (That's two million)

The plug your ears and cover your eyes approach won't make things better either.
Just saying ")

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by canucks555

Dear canucks555,

You pose an interesting problem, another "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation. The numbers you provide certainly give us justification for going in and stopping the mess. (Whether it's enough justification, or how we should "go in," I'll leave alone for now.)

Syria is not the only place, not even the only place in the Middle-East, where innocents are getting killed by governments or large identifiable groups. It would seem consistent to stop those killings as well. I don't even have any objection to that.

But to do it, the US needs a lot of soldiers and weapons. The UN is useless as a source of support, and there is no other country in the world willing to help, so I guess we are "World Police." But that's going to require increased military spending, which is against everything our current administration stands for.

Morality and conscience is expensive, I'm not sure America is willing to pay the price. But I have no idea how we'll live with ourselves if we don't.

With respect,

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by Khaleesi

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." George W Bush

We are told by our Government and their minions that the terrorists HATE our freedom.

The question to be asked is WHO are the real "terrorists"?

Those in control are a group of criminals, crooks and killers AKA Illuminati.

Those who claim to lead the fight against terror are in reality terrorizing the entire world.

Confused? See the quote in my signature...

The biggest "terrorist" threat to the People in the U.S.A. is not Ossama bin Laden or any other so-called "terrorist" leader or group. While Americans are preoccupied with a rigged phony election and "wars for PROFIT" in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Illuminati controlled Federal Reserve "terrorists" are orchestrating a financial collapse in the U.S.A. that could destroy the U.S.A. and other countries in the world much more than the Great Depression of 1929-32.

The biggest threat to America are the "terrorists" that are conducting "FINANCIAL WARFARE" in America and other countries of the world, possibly leading to s Global Financial Meltdown. These "terrorists" are a small covert, clandestine, London, European and American based organization operating in the U.S.A. as a supposed "U.S. government agency".

They're called the Federal Reserve, which is controlled by the most EVIL "terrorists" in the world, the "Elite terrorist" group of criminals, crooks and killers, known as the Illuminati. By the President and Vice president of the U.S.A. and every Senator and Congressman making it appear that the Federal Reserve is a Government Agency, when it's an independent PRIVATE company, should show the American citizens the extent to which this most

The Illuminati Controlled Federal Reserve 'Terrorists'

The man who claims to lead the fight against terror is terrorizing the entire world. He terrorizes little old American ladies by making them strip naked at airports and having their private parts probed by minimum-wage security Nazis searching for weapons of mass destruction. He terrorizes allies around the world with bribes and threats into saying exactly what he says regardless of what they actually think. He terrorizes opposition party politicians into nervous silence when planes fall out of the sky with no explanation.

The belligerent little twit from Texas has single handedly has turned the world's greatest democracy into a paranoid police state. He recently killed 5,000 people in Afghanistan without a shred of verifiable evidence, and now is threatening to do it again ... and again and again and again.

The Real Terrorist Is George W. Bush

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by JoeP2247
And I think if there is indeed an EMP weapon - use it now on Syria. Do so and I think you will scare the crap out of the Russian and Chinese.

If we have such a weapon use it now - and we may just avoid a third world war. Would there have really been a second world war if we could have a Hiroshima in advance of it - a warning??

And I think people who do not rally behind our president - or any other elected president at such a juncture in history - are bordering on treason. Even if it was W I would support him at such a time as this. All politics stop at waters edge.


You're bordering on treason by supporting actions that do not have the best interests of our country and our military in mind.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:30 PM
I would love to know how this thread managed to get 4 flags. This guy posts a thread that is on par with the bilious spew that we get from Obama and his ilk in Washington, and he gets flags on ATS for it?

I'm disappointed.

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in