Seeking Alpha

Kerry: International support growing for action against Syria

  • The number of countries prepared to participate in military action against Syria following its suspected use of chemical weapons has reached "double digits," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said yesterday.
  • In addition to the U.S., the countries include France and Denmark. The strong international support could provide cover for intervention should the UN Security Council fail to approve action, as it is expected to do because of Russia's opposition.
  • Kerry's comments came after EU foreign ministers published a statement saying there was strong evidence of Syria's use of chemical weapons. The EU called for "a clear and strong response" but stopped short of supporting military strikes.
Comments (63)
  • Viper740
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    So, if both the UN as well as the US Congress reject this fiasco, will the Obama administration STILL go to war? Something like 80% of Americans are against military intervention in Syria, meaning there's no national consensus whatsoever. Why are they pushing this thing??

     

    In fact, who exactly who is behind this maniacal drive to attack a small, weak country which has never attacked or threatened us??
    8 Sep 2013, 06:22 AM Reply Like
  • bd4uandu
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    Follow the money.

     

    http://bit.ly/18Mce0o
    8 Sep 2013, 06:28 AM Reply Like
  • apberusdisvet
    , contributor
    Comments (2860) | Send Message
     
    It's first of all about destabilizing the ME, so that the bankers can mop up assets at pennies on the dollar. Secondly, it's about who gets to have a Natgas monopoly to supply Europe, currently controlled by Gazprom. Qatar, with major Natgas supply wants a pipeline through Syria to compete against Gazprom to supply Europe. The Saudis want to maintain the Petro-Dollar. Both are supplying the rebels with $billions. Medvedev, the Russian leader, used to be the CEO of Gazprom, so Russia has a key interest in maintaining the status quo. Thirdly, the psychopathic elites need to keep the money flowing from the Military Industrial Complex to the corrupt politicians; M U S T .......H A V E ..........W A R.
    8 Sep 2013, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    It's a push to cover a weak presidents butt for a fool-hardy statement.
    8 Sep 2013, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • Viper740
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    I don't buy the oil argument. Rather, follow THIS money. AIPAC is the most connected and powerful lobby in Washington:

     

    http://bit.ly/1cUJG9f

     

    "AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action.
    Pro-Israel lobby says 250 activists will meet with their senators and representatives in Washington in a bid to win support Congressional support for military action in Syria."
    8 Sep 2013, 07:21 AM Reply Like
  • bd4uandu
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    Believe what you want but money talks, BS walks.
    http://bit.ly/14vu3VI
    http://bit.ly/14vu3VJh...
    8 Sep 2013, 07:53 AM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (968) | Send Message
     
    Seems you two are saying the same thing. And you're very likely on the right track. We're going to find out just whose country this is real soon.
    8 Sep 2013, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • SteadyOptions
    , contributor
    Comments (2315) | Send Message
     
    Sure.. no matter what happens - blame Israel.. the easiest thing to do.

     

    One of the very few things that Obama wants to do right.
    8 Sep 2013, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Israel is a thorn in the Muslims' side and something of a unifying factor, but the Shia, Sunni schism and radical Islamists insure Mid East turmoil. The U.S. has done much to upset the status quo with Israel's blessing. Now the Israel lobby has been set loose to twist Congressional arms for a strike against Syria which could well be a precursor to war with Iran.
    8 Sep 2013, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • SteadyOptions
    , contributor
    Comments (2315) | Send Message
     
    Assad is now in the exclusive club of only three leaders in the history of civilization (along with Hitler Saddam Hussein) who have used chemical weapons against his own people.

     

    If US does not act now, it will lose its right to be called a leader of the free world.
    8 Sep 2013, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (755) | Send Message
     
    SteadyOptions,

     

    We used chemical weapons against our own people, during the Bonus Army March.
    8 Sep 2013, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Whether the regime used chemical weapons is still open to question. Striking Assad as "planned" is akin to throwing an egg at your neighbor's house when torching it would remove him from the premises. I suspect the mission will result in a wider war, whether planned or not.
    8 Sep 2013, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (968) | Send Message
     
    steady - There's more to it than that. Tell me why nobody was wringing their hands when 3 million were murdered in the Cambodian killing fields. Or the millions killed by the Chinese leadership during the Great Leap Forward. Or Darfur. Or any of the other genocidal events that occurred during the last 30 years?

     

    Why all of a sudden do we get all worked up about this event but didn't give a damn about the several millions of others who have been murdered by their leaders over the years?

     

    This is nothing more than a power play by the same intrigues that always stir up trouble in the ME. This time, the United States should not be the water boy for others. If we refrain now, this cycle of games playing will either come to an abrupt end or they'll incinerate each other over there and then it will come to an end.

     

    Obama, of all people, was expected to keep us out of this crap. Instead he's falling hook, line and sinker.
    8 Sep 2013, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • SteadyOptions
    , contributor
    Comments (2315) | Send Message
     
    The fact that the US and the world watched other terrible events from the sidelines doesn't make it right and doesn't justify to stay on the sidelines this time. By doing this, the world gives legitimization to those regimes to continue their terrible actions. There are times when the civilized world has to stand together and say "enough is enough".

     

    Whoever still says that it is not clear if Assad used chemical weapons, despite all intelligence reports confirming that he did, acts like Chamberlain in 1939. Didn't we learned nothing from the history?
    8 Sep 2013, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • Mark Humphrey
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    The BATF, an agency of the US government used Bradley tanks and poison gas against the helpless residents of the Branch Davidian house in Waco, Texas. Israel used chemical weapons in Gaza. Both Israel and Syria have not signed the treaty prohibiting poison gas, together with 5 others.
    8 Sep 2013, 06:18 PM Reply Like
  • Mark Humphrey
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    Please provide a link to the intelligence reports that prove Assad used chemical weapons, as opposed to evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, by someone.

     

    SteadyOptions needs to be reminded that history, as he reports it, is at odds with well established facts. Israel used poison gas in Gaza, and the US government used it against Branch Davidians' home in Texas, which exploded into flames that murdered a lot of innocent people.
    8 Sep 2013, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Steady - what about all the African regimes that have literally gassed their people?

     

    You know - like pouring gas all over the people and villages and then letting them burn?

     

    How is this incident worse than the systemic slaughter of over 500,000 Christians in the Sudan - taking place over a decade - by the Muslim government? It still continues on a smaller scale now that South Sudan is independent.

     

    Please explain how this was ok - while Muslims killing Muslims is something we should care about?

     

    North Korea kills this many of its own citizens on a regular basis - shall we invade?

     

    Cambodia anyone?

     

    Sierra Leone is awaiting.

     

    Congo has some really bad people running around.

     

    Somalia awaits our return.

     

    I dare say that our incursion into Iraq has weakened the USA - economically, politically, and militarily. Need we do it again?

     

    I say no. Let someone else spend their money and lives getting between two groups of Muslims intent on killing each other.

     

    Throw on top - our current approach to war is to fight CNN-lite wars - and there is absolutely no reason for our military to do anything.
    8 Sep 2013, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • SteadyOptions
    , contributor
    Comments (2315) | Send Message
     
    People who say that Israel used chemical weapons in Gaza are in the same camp with people who say that Holocaust is an Israeli propaganda. To me, they are worse that Nazis.
    8 Sep 2013, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    I haven't seen the Intellegence which can be rigged in any case. Not so long ago, I was convinced that the Intellegence linking Saddam to WMDs was a "slam dunk." Unless you are prepared for the consequences of a strike, don't advocate one.
    8 Sep 2013, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (968) | Send Message
     
    That is the lamest argument I've ever heard. Clearly you are complicit in the dragging of our country into another war, where we are nothing but the lackeys for some yahoos over there that have become totally dependent on American service people to do their dirty work. We will draw the line this time, but not where you like it. We will draw the line now, to end this BS completely, by not fighting somebody else's battles.
    8 Sep 2013, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • proche25
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    So I guess gassing 400 plus children is the world NEW NORMAL, this is like WWII with Hitler we are going to do something about it sooner or later. I rather be sooner, the more we wait the more other countries like Iran, North Korea think they can do what they want !!
    8 Sep 2013, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • bd4uandu
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    Why don't we let the Canadians carry the ball then?
    8 Sep 2013, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (968) | Send Message
     
    Look. It's simple. If one of those guys does something to the U.S., then we drop the big one on them. Until they do something to the U.S., then it's not our issue to get involved in. That's what our country was founded on. If they do something to us, then we wipe them out, no questions asked. What's so wrong with that? Playing Nanny to the world is not our job.

     

    The problem historically (Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, Balkans) is that we go looking for trouble where there isn't any. Then we get all tangled up doing somebody else's dirty work, getting our young killed because we are stupid enough to get involved in a domestic dispute that is none of our business.

     

    The time has passed for inflated egos and trigger happy Presidents. Better to play it cool.
    8 Sep 2013, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    proche,
    So I guess gassing 400 plus children is the world NEW NORMAL

     

    You mean like the 500,000 Sudanese Christians slaughtered by government sponsored killing squads?

     

    Where have you been living. 400 children have been killed across Africa virtually every week for the past 40 years in one country or another. That was an easy one to determine good vs bad. You had unarmed civilians being slaughtered because they were Christians living in a Muslim controlled country.

     

    Here you have Al Qaeda versus Assad. Please let me know which side I should be supporting?

     

    Countries only think they can do what they want when they see us doing half-hearted things. How about speak softly and carry a big stick. By constant actions that end without clear winners it makes us appear to be yelling at the world and being less and less powerful.

     

    How about we worry about the NEW NORMAL at home that is constantly chipping away at our personal freedom and liberty? How about we worry about the NEW NORMAL that includes a decent percentage of our public schools failing to provide quality education to our children? How about we worry about the NEW NORMAL of bureaucrats and the president ignoring the law and implementing new laws without Congress actually, you know, passing them?

     

    How about we clean up our own house before we decide how other homeowners on our block should be keeping their yards.
    8 Sep 2013, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    The money and Israeli angle are lame conspiracy theories. There is not enough money involved for us to bother with all the nat gas and oil being discovered in the US. The Israeli's do not need Asad to collapse and Syria fall to a bunch of crazy Islamic radicals.

     

    This is just dumb US saber rattling led by Obama who really stuck his foot in his mouth. Maybe he wants to start a war before his presidency is over so he can complete his resume and say he was a tough commander in chief. This whole thing is not rationale. We are going to spend billions and risk hundreds US lives if not thousands for 1400 dead in a civil war.
    8 Sep 2013, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (3503) | Send Message
     
    @Mark
    Israel used phos, to LIGHT UP at night, a legal use. (Hamas was ambushing & hiding in tunnels.) Israel didn't direct them at civilians. The rest of the claims are hype, from the side that wanted to hype it.
    9 Sep 2013, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (3503) | Send Message
     
    @Tomas
    Agreed, Israel's purposely sat on the sidelines about Syria from day one. They do not need an unstable Al-Quada heavy state next door, any more than they need Assad next door. So blaming Israel, is just the same-old, same-old scapegoating, without rational behind it.

     

    I've wondered if Obama started it right before elections to encourage more fear which tends to lead to more voting for status quo, i.e. his party... as idiotic as that move by him would be.
    9 Sep 2013, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (3503) | Send Message
     
    Ah, when in doubt scapegoat Israel...

     

    From the beginning, Israel's been sitting neutral on the Syrian mess. Between a Assad, and rebels associated with terrorist groups... they don't want to pick.

     

    Aipac's point is NOW THAT Obama's set up his redline, if US doesn't do anything, it embollens Syria's close ally, Iran who's held annual "the world without Israel and this is obtainable" conferences... while developing their nukes. Same country that sent children to clear minefields giving them "keys to heaven" for when the "inevitable" happened. Same Iran that's attacked Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah for years. Ah, so people who don't want to see a bunch of Jews mass wiped out again, are lobbying for a small action at weapons stores.

     

    AIPAC is an AMERICAN lobby group, supported by AMERICAN money, (much of it NOT Jewish, BTW). So they're running a campaign,

     

    .....and other Israel-related lobby groups are keeping a low profile or are against the action...as the article states!!

     

    There's no good solution here. AIPAC is concerned about our ally, the democracy of Israel in the middle east.

     

    And the blame is with whoever decided to make a red line then get verbal about it prematurely -- and set up this untenable spot, with no winning solution in any direction.
    9 Sep 2013, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7617) | Send Message
     
    Steadyoptions
    Then so be it. Better that than bombs.
    9 Sep 2013, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (9826) | Send Message
     
    In what alternative universe is Denmark and France "Strong International Support"? Same press that was so derisive of Bush and the 42 countries in the Coalition of the Willing including the only ally that means anything (Britain), now calls two minor players militarily in Europe a strong international resolve. Laughable if it wasn't so sad.
    8 Sep 2013, 07:39 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    I was thinking basically the same thing. I remember the same John Kerry mocking Bush over his coalition of the willing. I couldn't remember how many countries that included.

     

    I find it amazing that we are going to bomb a country over 1400 deaths. The list of African countries demanding an intervention on humanitarian grounds is at least probably 15 by this standard.

     

    Over 500,000 Christians were slaughtered by government sponsored groups in the Sudan over a decade. I guess if you are cutting off limbs and raping and shooting unarmed women then its ok - but if someone launches a canister containing chemicals then the world must act.

     

    Very very strange logic.
    8 Sep 2013, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • Val Halla
    , contributor
    Comments (307) | Send Message
     
    pre-emptive strike. "debate over." move along...
    8 Sep 2013, 11:04 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7617) | Send Message
     
    Meanwhile, China and Russia are moving war ships into the Mediterranean Sea. Obama is about to start a major war. Wait until China retaliates in Asia and stops buying our bonds.

     

    This can only end one way ----- Very very ugly.
    8 Sep 2013, 08:06 AM Reply Like
  • bdarken
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    No good thing will come of this escapade.
    8 Sep 2013, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • idkmybffjill
    , contributor
    Comments (1554) | Send Message
     
    If China stops buying our bonds, they won't be able to maintain their trade surplus.
    8 Sep 2013, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Patent News
    , contributor
    Comments (1312) | Send Message
     
    really? sure you have tons of war experience. like balkans conflict, they achieved objective with various issues. but it must 'end very very ugly' maybe it is that way already?
    8 Sep 2013, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • User 353732
    , contributor
    Comments (4785) | Send Message
     
    The only nations that will gain from this exercise in vanity and abuse of the courage and dedication of our military are Iran, Russia and China: the Syrian civil war will continue for years and spread into Lebanon, Iraq and maybe Jordan.

     

    When the missiles and bombs flew in Libya a tyrannical but increasingly harmless state was turned into a dangerous failed state with rising tribal warfare, increased rule by force rather than law and falling oil and gas production.
    Ordinary Libyans were left much worse off and weapons and terrorists spread from Libya all over North Africa.......this now passes for moral clarity and strategic vision in the West. Any surprise that instead of being admired and liked the US is now increasingly disliked and reviled in many parts of the world.

     

    The overwhelming majority of democracies in the world are against the position of the US on this issue as indeed are the great majority of American citizens.
    Neither the Syrian not the US Regimes care about the will of the people: only about their own power, wealth and vanity.
    8 Sep 2013, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    I am skeptical of the stated mission. The Assad regime was calling Obama's bluff? Doubtful. I suspect a false flag here; designed to draw us in to a wider war against Iran and its nuclear program.
    8 Sep 2013, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2000) | Send Message
     
    Is it time to stir up yet another pot when the 'other' past 'pots' are still stirring? Hey, time to pay your bills, debt ceiling is up soon. Mind your own house, Sir.

     

    it is just too ambitious for anyone to think he/she could solve all the problems in everywhere of the world.
    8 Sep 2013, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    This is the same group that said the murder of our Ambassador in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was the result of a spontaneous protest for a YouTube video that no one has actually seen. According to them it was a coincidence that it happened on that date. Yet here we are a full year later and we still don't know what happened even though there was real-time observation of the entire event.

     

    Yet somehow we have "iron-clad" evidence that the intelligence on this issue is perfect (even though no one on our end saw it happen) in almost no time at all. Really?

     

    Why should we believe them?
    8 Sep 2013, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    Well summarized. All the lies out of this Administration make me unwilling to believe anything they say.
    8 Sep 2013, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    How would you know if the terrorists in Benghazi had seen the video or not? Did you interview them prior to their attack? Didn't think so.

     

    Do you ever think or just repeat what your puppet masters on Fox Spew for you?
    8 Sep 2013, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    Jake,

     

    Considering the well thought and reasoned response you provided this is hilarious:

     

    "Do you ever think or just repeat what your puppet masters on Fox Spew for you? "

     

    Do you actually think they attacked the "embassy" because of that video?

     

    Did you miss all that congressional testimony on the issue?

     

    Did you support the war against Saddam Hussein for using chemical weapons on his people and the people of Iran?

     

    What are you a war monger?
    8 Sep 2013, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • BruceInKY
    , contributor
    Comments (404) | Send Message
     
    So ironic that John Kerry is complicit in fomenting an Islamist version of Vietnam. "I was against war before I was for it."
    8 Sep 2013, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • dnpvd51
    , contributor
    Comments (1914) | Send Message
     
    In all of history no country has ever fabricated an incident to start a war.
    8 Sep 2013, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Good one.
    8 Sep 2013, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    There is a simple truth that no one in the media nor government wants to admit. There is a percentage of Muslims that believe they must kill all non-believers. Many religions teach that non-believers will not get to "heaven", but Islam is the one religion that has sects openly promoting the killing of "infidels".

     

    So, if we are going to keep overthrowing Islamic countries' governments - and then leave a basically failed or weak state behind - be prepared for what will follow.

     

    Saudi Arabia made their deal with the devil. As long as the "hard-liners" leave domestic affairs alone they could teach their hatred. How did that turn out for us? Oh, pretty bad as many of the 9-11 guys were Saudi's. And Thousands more have fought against us around the world - from Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia to Libya.

     

    By our definition of democracy - several countries in that part of the world will be run by Islamic extremists. They won elections in Algeria and Egypt. They would probably win in Saudi Arabia and Yemen and Oman. Parts of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan would fall under their domain.

     

    So exactly how many more countries do we want to "liberate" so that the extremists can assume power?

     

    Given that the rebels in Syria largely represent various Islamic factions - why isn't the US concerned with the 10% of the population that is Christian and likely to be attacked openly. Why isn't the US concerned with the fate of women under an Islamic regime - where instead of having rights and jobs - will be considered property?

     

    Its amazing - Obama went around the country yapping about a make-believe war on women by Republicans - yet he's the one actually waging war on millions of women - how would you like to be a woman living under the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

     

    This idea that we should get involved with Syria is nonsense - its Assad and his cronies against a bunch of Islamic extremists. And our interest lies in paying attention to our economy, our loss of freedoms and liberties to Big Brother government, our bloated bureaucracies, and our worsening education system that is failing too many American children.

     

    Yet our government seems to want to spend their time and energy bombing a regime - the result of which is to aid Al Qaeda. If you tried to write it as a movie no one would believe it.
    8 Sep 2013, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    The War on Terror serves many purposes; some of which are political, economic and diversionary. Big Government is so big, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There are factions within factions weaving webs that no one can decipher. It's anyone's guess what Syria is all about. It might be punishing Assad for you and a gas pipeline for me. Then again, it might be rearranging the balance of power and knocking Iran down a notch or two. It might be all of those things. Who benefits?
    8 Sep 2013, 08:01 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Leaders want to exercise power at times just to say they did it. Obama and Kerry have no business in Syria for just a few thousand deaths. But then again this is amateur hour.

     

    My view is that Obama got us into this mess because he could not shut his mouth. It is one thing to ramble on here in the US where the press is totally in the bag or too distracted chasing celebrities. It is another to ramble internationally where everything being said can lead to serious repercussions
    8 Sep 2013, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • Patent News
    , contributor
    Comments (1312) | Send Message
     
    the war was started irregardless of US. now something must be done or a regime using chemical weapons will be no big deal.
    8 Sep 2013, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    The world survived Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran.

     

    The world has allowed regimes to kill their own people throughout history. We have allowed African regimes to slaughter millions. We allowed regimes in Southeast Asia to slaughter millions. We have allowed North Korea to execute millions.

     

    Nothing must be done. We've done nothing to help the people of North Korea for 60 years now. Why should we be running over to Syria to help out Al Qaeda???
    8 Sep 2013, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • Robin Heiderscheit
    , contributor
    Comments (1779) | Send Message
     
    david, I agree with your perspective . . . the focus on chemical weapons is a classic bureaucratic response to an old and outdated threat while ignoring all the new and emerging threats

     

    Syria is a classic situation of "to a man with a hammer [e.g., cruise missles and drones aplenty] all the world looks like a nail"
    8 Sep 2013, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (968) | Send Message
     
    Oh. Now look who's the expert on wars and their outcomes! Hah! Maybe we need to draft you into the front lines of the advance on Syria.
    8 Sep 2013, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • losbronces
    , contributor
    Comments (616) | Send Message
     
    An excellent point with regard to the use of chemical weapons being unsanctioned in the Iran-Iraq war.
    8 Sep 2013, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    The sad truth is that just 3 weeks ago every single Obama hater in this thread was attacking the President for not intervening in Syria.... Now they are all code pink anti war purists. Talk about hypocrisy

     

    They have no morals, no standards, all the can do is hate.
    8 Sep 2013, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    Jake,

     

    So you are a supporter of a war against Syria?

     

    Were you a supporter in the war against Iraq where we know for a fact not a guess that he used chemical weapons against his people and the people of Iraq?

     

    People who are clearly hypocrites should not accuse those of us who think this is a disaster in the making from being one as well.

     

    Be objective. If it was Bush pushing this strategy you would not support it.

     

    Have a nice day.
    8 Sep 2013, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    First, If you don't want to bomb Syria that doesn't make you an "Obama Hater" - whatever that is.

     

    Second, Three weeks ago I posted nothing as there is no reason to be bombing Syria and no reason for the President to be thinking about bombing Syria.

     

    Hypocrisy youo say? Like Kerry (who I think is actually doing a good job of communicating our position - even though I'm in disagreement with it) mocking Bush for his coalition of the willing? One which was much larger than what we currently have?

     

    Hypocrisy you say? Like Obama ignoring far greater humanitarian atrocities around the world, but suddenly needing to bomb due to a poor statement a year ago?

     

    Hypocrisy you say? Like Obama criticizing Bush over his policies but exponentially increasing drone attacks? And greatly increasing the hatred of America in places like Yemen.

     

    Hypocrisy you say? Like Obama criticizing Putin for his government's approach to the opposition - yet allowing the NSA to spy on all our citizens? Or like using the IRS to silence political opposition?

     

    Hypocrisy you say? Like campaigning to close Gitma (something I personally support) and then doing........... well nothing.

     

    Hypocrisy you say? Like campaigning on immigration reform... but then realizing that doing nothing for four years means you can run on it again?

     

    Save the moralist BS. This is about a statement made a year ago. Some mythical red line. And for that we are willing to take military action that will have the impact of aiding Al Qaeda rebels fighting Assad?

     

    When I turn on the tv - it looks to me like Obama supporters are just as opposed to military action as those you label as "Obama haters".

     

    Seems your the one with no morals - willing to kill to prop up the ego of the guy you worship.
    8 Sep 2013, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    Which line was the one to sign up as an "0bomba hater?"
    8 Sep 2013, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Well if we bomb Syria and it goes bad it will be a very long line so you will be able to find it quickly.
    8 Sep 2013, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Another interesting feature of the Syria debate is the political partisanship. To some, the only issue is what party is in power. Unless you are a party apparatchik, who cares.
    8 Sep 2013, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • KJP712
    , contributor
    Comments (437) | Send Message
     
    Number of " Counties " reached double digits for Strike Support.I think that is what Kerry meant .
    8 Sep 2013, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • Closet Iguana
    , contributor
    Comments (159) | Send Message
     
    Would we be having a conversation about military action if this was China or Russia using chemical weapons?
    8 Sep 2013, 11:47 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    No.
    9 Sep 2013, 12:16 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|