We could also approach Russia with the promise to hold off bombing if they give us that punk Snowden back.

Then we could torture the f'k out of him to find out what info he gave away before putting him in Gitmo as an enemy combatant. (He obviously gave his citizenship up for Russia).

You mean the leader that was installed by us after we orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected leader because we didn't like him nationalizing his own nation's oil industry (which up until then was being exploited by the Brits)? The leader we installed who ruled as a monarch for over 25 years because we were paying the bills? That leader?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Since you advocate cutting foreign aid as a solution to the national debt, one would have thought you'd have been pleased about a foreign nation telling the USA to take its monetary aid and get stuffed.

who? europe.

we can't win. if we get involved, some complain. if we don't, others complain.

we should and must do what's best for us.


bah, who am i kidding. whomever the bankers want us to back is who we will back.
i'm sick of the wars, the middle east. what have we gained after years of blood and treasure? not a damn thing.

No way...he's the one holding back..

Amen to that..

Is that why our war ships are moving into position in the Mediterranean?

We always move ships to the middle east when trouble brews..

http://news.yahoo.com/on-syria--is-o...151321791.html

President Barack Obama, sure to fall short of getting explicit U.N. approval for any military strikes against Syrian strongman Bashar Assad’s forces and facing potential divisions inside NATO, has instead been assembling allies and partners in a coalition of the willing that recalls the Iraq War.

And where then-President George W. Bush at least got Congress to authorize him to use force against Saddam Hussein, Obama shows no sign of asking lawmakers to do so, preferring instead to engage in “consultations” with key players.

This time, with polls showing weak support for intervention in Syria, lawmakers show no inclination to launch a formal debate on whether to use force against Assad.


so, the un isn't unanimous....neither is nato, with germany not wanting to engage.
congress seemingly won't be asked to weigh in (so much for checks and balances) and the american people don't support intervention either.

there's definitely a lack of consensus. so now what?

to what end do we engage? what goals?

to wage war three things are necessary:
authority of the sovereign
a just cause
a rightful intention

of course that's from st augustine, not the constitution....



does obama have the authority?
what is the cause he wishes to fight for?
what is his intention if we wage any kind of war?


of course there's another quote about three things being necessary to fight.

those would be money, more money and yet more money.

No win situation for him...damned if he does and a puzzy if he doesn't:wf

since there's not a consensus, we can bow out. if both nato and the un aren't in support...

and like i said, what is our goal? is it in our interests to intervene? if so, what interests are those? and how do we intervene? drop a couple bombs? for what?

how does killing people dissuade assad from killing people?