Syria 'Nobody Wants This Except The Military-Industrial Complex'

It's kind of nice when a politician actually speaks the truth. Credit where credit is due, in this case the nod goes to Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) Rep. Grayson is speaking about why he cannot support a strike on Syria while taking a beautiful potshot at the Military Industrial Complex.

'Nobody Wants This Except The Military-Industrial Complex'

"One thing that is perfectly clear to me in my district, and I think is true in many other districts from speaking to other members, is that there is no desire, no desire on the part of people to be the world's policeman," Grayson said on SiriusXM's

This seems to be pretty clear to anyone who has followed this in various ATS threads. So, let's name a dastardly villain who would benefit from this war. Credit where credit is due right?

That doesn't mean that opposition is universal, Grayson allowed. "I did notice, for what it's worth, that the manufacturer of the missiles that would be used has had an incredible run in their stock value in the last 60 days. Raytheon stock is up 20 percent in the past 60 days as the likelihood of the use of their missiles against Syria becomes more likely. So I understand that there is a certain element of our society that does benefit from this, but they're not the people who vote for me, or by the way the people who contribute to my campaign," he said. "Nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex."

Now that makes me wonder about who Raytheon makes their biggest campaign contributions to. You'll never guess.

2. Barack Obama $155,803
3. John Kerry $116,508

Guess who was number one,
1. Mitt Romney $161,606

Raytheon Contributions

Good thing the Mitt lost right?

what a nice glimmer of hope from an elected official, thanks OP you made my day.

reply to post by Bassago

Good thing the Mitt lost right?

Oh yes indeed. I'm relieved, to be sure. Why, they said we'd have a new war within months, if not a year if Romney had won. They said we'd be off, on our own, starting new crap all over the place. Whew... That was a close one, huh?

I'm sure glad we have this Nobel Peace Prize winner, leading things instead. Damn..think how close we might have come to starting wars in whole new places?

I disagree with the comments in the article. It's not 'the military industrial complex'.
That's what the left always points to when these international war things happen.
But that isn't the reason for what is happening in Syria at all.
The ones who want it are overseas ... and their buddies here.
Obama's buddies with the Muslim Brotherhood. That is a major factor.

ATS thread - SYRIA - It all Comes Down to Oil/Gas Pipelines and Religion
Seems pretty clear cut .. it's oil and gas pipelines being manipulated by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Russia, Lebanon, and Syria. And it's Muslim vs Muslim infighting. It's not the 'military industrial complex'.

Originally posted by Bassago
Good thing the Mitt lost right?

We'd be in this situation with Syria with Romney or with Obama. Either one.
And Obama isn't better than Romney. One look at how he's handling this says it all.

ETA .. if you look at the numbers for the contribution to Romney and Obama ... there isn't any daylight between them. They are too close to be able to say one got a significant amount more than the other. Same/Same.

reply to post by Bassago

Good thing the Mitt lost right?

Seeing how he would have been an even bigger tool for Israel than the one in office I would say yes.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


I think if Romney had won we'd already have boots on the ground in both Syria and Iran. Romney - Obama, talk about the No-Win situation. That last election felt like a bad remake of the old movie WarGames.

there are so many Syria topics I don't know where to post so here,
Russia says it's compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack

Read more here: www.mcclatchydc.com...=cpy

reply to post by stormdancer777


Yeah, saw that earlier today. Agreed that the Syria threads almost seem to be enough to start their own forum. It;s been hard to keep up.

reply to post by Bassago


I doubt we'd be in a new war if Romney had won. Not until he won a second time, anyway.

Romney, for all the scumbaggery he's as guilty of as Obama or anyone else who reaches that level is....would have been ONE thing which Obama is not. He would have been a first term President. What does *EVERY* first term President want more than life itself? A SECOND term.

What does every Second term President want? A legacy.

The first goal is compatible with my needs because they NEED ME (and about 100 million others) to be neutral at worst, friendly at best for their hopes of future career prospects.

The second goal may or may not have anything to do with what I want as a citizen because legacy is a deeply personal thing for meaning and definition. If Obama's mental goal for a legacy is to be the man who knocked Mighty America down a few rungs for what he thinks is the world good? Then Donald Duck would have made one hell of a better President than Obama in his lame duck term.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


It doesn't say much for a man when all he cares about is getting his name in a history book. If that's the case he's preserved for posterity for all the wrong reasons.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Romney was pretty hardcore where Iran was concerned. So were his advisers.

Romney claims that he would be far tougher on Iran than the president by threatening “a credible military option.”

The Republican nominee has surrounded himself with advisors who are committed to military action and regime change against Iran, the same people who brought us the Global War on Terror and the Iraq War.

Source

To be honest Romney scared the hell out of me. With the Obama failure as well the US had no real options on a way out of the darkness.