Obama's State of Confusion Address Tonight 9:00 pm eastern (US)

What this speech best exemplified is that the way the American public is now steered to an opinion is through fear and guilt. Scare 'em, and make 'em watch videos of dead kids and if you don't jump on the bandwagon, you're just a bad person.

And just reading this thread shows that what really counts for some is the face issue...should USA save face, be powerful...the point is missed not only by a few inches, but by years!

reply to post by jimmyx


Syria should be helped. Somebody should give a crap. But who gets to decide what the right thing to do is? How do we figure out who are really the bad guys while not succumbing to desire for personal gain? The countries we've ''helped'' in the past are they better off, or are we better off? I think the consensus here in part is that we don't trust that they will just jump in and save Syria, it will draw out a lot of death until something is to be gained.

jonjonj
reply to post by jimmyx

 

I disagree completely. The use of chemical weapons is anathema to any right thinking person. But here is the thing, should I, me, my wife, my children pay for the mistakes another group of people caused? Why is that more right than me saying sorry but I don't want a war, and I prefer that someone stops this group using chemical weapons?

I've had the same convo with a friend of mine. But he buying the MSM line. No one has proven who launched these weapons. That's the bottom line to me. I think the U.S. is being played.

reply to post by adjensen


Last time I checked gassing kids was a bad thing

Are you saying that gassing kids is like, "whatever" type of thing?

reply to post by jonjonj


What about the hundreds of thousands that died from bullets? Why is it okay for a despot to kill as many of his citizens with a gun, but kill a thousand with Sarin and that's a no-no? I don't get it. Dead is dead. Suffering, whether due to a bomb that blew off a limb or a gas that makes it hard to breath is still suffering.

If the use of Sarin gas is that horrific, then take the despot out. Don't thump your chest and talk about limited strikes that could possibly deter him from using chemical weapons in the future.

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by RAY1990

 

Acutally, it was a pathetic speech.
You know why he used graphic explanation of the people affected with Sarin?
To make you feel exactly how you feel right now with that post, to make you support him.
Lame and pathetic...

Really?

I couldn't really care about supporting him, not too much he can do to effect my life here in the UK. We have had our debate on this.

He is using diplomacy to try and better the situation, he has never ONCE stated he wanted to directly involve himself in stopping the Syrian civil war.

What's your problem here? You want war or diplomacy?

Don't like politicians following the guidelines and the bureaucracy in place?

reply to post by TKDRL


so?....dispute it with evidence, c.mon, I waiting....where is your proof that
Assad is not the one using chemical weapons, and that the rebels are the ones that are using it.....show me the proof

reply to post by TDawgRex


It is not in the "national" interest to reveal who is responsible, but I will not change my view. NO ONE should dictate our right to life sir.

reply to post by RAY1990


Many here (I can tell)
-are angry because he wants to strike

-and also angry because he wants to give diplomacy a chance.

Funny thing is,, they're the same people! (politically motivated)

Entitled to their opinions, but it's pretty clear that only one factor exists in their mind set.

Obama sux. Nuff said!

-Like someone mentioned earlier, no win situation.

reply to post by RAY1990


Maybe putin will come on and explain what the president of the US just tried to present.

Can't wait for putin's response.

Obama should go to Syria and 'fix' their economy.... that'll punish them.

If he takes Michelle with him, she would empty their treasury in two vacations.

reply to post by Feltrick


You misunderstand me completely
I think that it is completely wrong that people kill other people, full stop. However I do understand that under current political and sociological strata we do have nationalistic, protectionist mentalities.
I never , even once, mentioned that strikes were a good o acceptable thing. Perhaps you could re read what I posted.

canucks555
reply to post by adjensen

 

Last time I checked gassing kids was a bad thing

Are you saying that gassing kids is like, "whatever" type of thing?

It doesn't occur to you that, if "gassing kids" is what prompts a response, there will be a lot more "gassing kids" videos in the future?

Happy1
reply to post by RAY1990

 

Maybe putin will come on and explain what the president of the US just tried to present.

Can't wait for putin's response.

Putin's over in Moscow laughing his cute little KGB buns off. Our "president" is a joke.

who's confused? The whole thing is just theatre, who cares if your for or against it
fact is we should all be happy that a diplomatic solution is being considered, this is fantastic news compared to a week ago.

reply to post by jonjonj


Sorry, chose the wrong person, not directed at you.

dagnabbit!

reply to post by Happy1


Just another example of the marionette in chief at his best. He only does what he's told

reply to post by canucks555

Many here (I can tell)
-are angry because he wants to strike

Yes, he wants war.

-and also angry because he wants to give diplomacy a chance.

Wrong.
He was pushed in the corner with no choices left.