Obama wants an invasion

[GrinningYMIR]

Obama has officially asked Congress for permission to conduct offensive military action against the Syrian government

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-1-1 ... 23103.html

Looks like we're going in anyway folks

[Nonsensei]

I heard congress told him to go fuck himself.

[Shiranu]

If it was Bush, the Republicans would be asking why we haven't nuked them yet...

I wonder how many Democrats want war just because he is a fellow Democrat? Need to see the results, I am interested to seeing how that goes...

[mykcob4]

Since the repuklicans invade Iraq on made up pretences, I find it ironic and hypocritical that conservaturds are even balking at the President wanting to end murder by gas attack.
BTW OP the president DOESN'T want to INVADE. That was a LIE by YOU!!!!!!
The situation in Syria is a very complicated one. This nation is war weary thanks to the neo-cons. The Russians and Chinese are doing there level best to gain control of the middle east and the oil there. They will do anything to weaking the UK and the USA in the area. They don't care about the people there. The thing is that Obama actually CARES about people,....ALL people everywhere. He doesn't start wars on ficticious intelligence reports. So yes the USA NEEDS to do something, but boots on the ground isn't even in the discussion at this point. So quit lying about it. Your OP is offensive and nothing more than a FOX parroted piece of crap!

[GrinningYMIR]

Hmm, interesting counter argument, lots of caps lock involved, I suppose you think that makes your argument stronger? And I suppose you think I'm conservative? Nope

I'm against action in Syria because it's not our fight, and chemical weapons killed, what three or four hundred people? when the war itself has killed over 100,000?

Also note I never said invade, I said military action, so before you go off about me spouting fox propaganda, take a second to read my damn post instead of going pissed off internet guy mode all over it.

Oh and we invaded Iraq on false pretenses? the WMD's weren't there, yeah, but isn't it good to kill a genocidal maniac who was rebuilding his military? Isn't that a good things? At least Assad wasn't murdering his own minority groups before the war broke out.

Lastly, I never said he wanted to invade it, I literally said he asked for permission to conduct military operations in Syria. Stop shoving words in my mouth.

[GrinningYMIR]

Shit, okay I did miss name my post, I apologize for accusing you of putting words in my mouth.

That said, you can still fuck off.

[The Whit]

He sending back his Nobel?

[Jack89]

I'm just glad to see he's asking congress, as is required.  Saying that, I hope they tell him no.

[Solitary]

It all depends on how much money the politicians and their friends are making in oil and the war machine if we go to war.  :roll: Solitary

[mykcob4]

Hmm, interesting counter argument, lots of caps lock involved, I suppose you think that makes your argument stronger? And I suppose you think I'm conservative? Nope

I'm against action in Syria because it's not our fight, and chemical weapons killed, what three or four hundred people? when the war itself has killed over 100,000?

Also note I never said invade, I said military action, so before you go off about me spouting fox propaganda, take a second to read my damn post instead of going pissed off internet guy mode all over it.

Oh and we invaded Iraq on false pretenses? the WMD's weren't there, yeah, but isn't it good to kill a genocidal maniac who was rebuilding his military? Isn't that a good things? At least Assad wasn't murdering his own minority groups before the war broke out.

Lastly, I never said he wanted to invade it, I literally said he asked for permission to conduct military operations in Syria. Stop shoving words in my mouth.

Nope goofball. Check out the title of your OP. The word "INVASSION" is specifically there.
Syria IS our fight. Humanity is the responsible of every nation. Assad HAS been murdering his own people. Don't you know anything? Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing but under FALSE pretences is just a lie. Obama has REAL proof not made up lies about WMDs! Saddam's military WAS at full capacity and had been for years. He wasn't rebuilding anything. The gas attack killed over 1400 people, 400+ were children. Just because the war had already killed 100,000 before the confirmation of a gas attack isn't justification to allow it to go on. That is just a stupid arguement. As far as you being a conservative, I'm sure I don't know, but posting the thread that you started reads as if FOX wrote it. Because it is full of lies and false impressions. It's full of justifications for those lies. It's a piece of crap.
I cap for emphasis!

[Shiranu]

Just because the war had already killed 100,000 before the confirmation of a gas attack isn't justification to allow it to go on.

If we don't get involved, what happens? The civil war goes on, Al-Asad either wins or he doesn't and Syria will most likely return to roughly how it was before.

If we get involved, what happens? We aid Al Qaeda and other radical groups that will make former opposition "mysteriously disappear" as well as anyone suspected or accused of having been an Al-Asad supporter. They will also enforce stricter and stricter religious laws, but unlike places like Egypt where there was some government in place to stop this from getting too bad... Syria does not have a strong enough government or military to keep them in check.

We either have a civil war full of human rights abuses, or we support the opposition group that will increase the number of human rights abuses. It's lose/lose either way, don't pretend that if we throw our army at it Syria will become the next Utopia.

[GrinningYMIR]

capping for emphasis makes you look like a child yelling for attention, and as you missed my apology for the miss name I'm going to assume that youre one of those internet liberals who yells really loud and does not accept any argument.

This is backed up by accusing me of writing like fox...what are you smoking? 1,400 people is a lot of people yes, but again, we don't know who used them, it could have been the government or it could just as easily been the rebels. And if you claim that you have proof, then show it to me, show me the article where they had definitive proof, not just some rep saying "We have reliable evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons"

We know the things were used, just not who used them.

Lastly; it's a civil war, people will kill each other. Do the kills made by governmental forces count as murder? what about rebel kills? what are they considered? justice? I bet the family who's son was killed by rebel's don't see it that way.

There is no right side in this war, both sides hate us, both sides will run the country with an iron grip at best, or the country will turn into another Libya/Egypt.

[GSOgymrat]

We either have a civil war full of human rights abuses, or we support the opposition group that will increase the number of human rights abuses. It's lose/lose either way, don't pretend that if we throw our army at it Syria will become the next Utopia.

Agreed.

Syria isn't the only country where war and human rights abuses are taking place. The use of chemical weapons is what makes Syria exceptional. I understand that Obama feels compelled to respond to the use of weapons that civilized nations agree not to use, such as chemical, biological and radioactive, but the question is will US military involvement make the situation in both Syria and the Middle East as a whole better or worse? Personally I don't think it will improve the situation because without the leadership and support of other countries US military action will play right into the propaganda of our enemies. I'm also skeptical that strategic bombing will be an effective deterrent to other tyrants who want to use these weapons. Additionally, and probably most important, there is no clear, achievable goal in a military action that has any probability of bring Syria closer to being a secular, democratic society, which is what would be necessary to improve human rights in the long term.

[LikelyToBreak]

So, what happens when one of Obama's bombs kills a Russian adviser?  "(Reuters) - Russia is sending two warships to the east Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, but Moscow denied this meant it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers prepare for military action against Syria."

I don't know about you guys, but I don't think it is a good idea to risk all out nuclear war to just to make Obama look good in the press.  It is a lose, lose situation at best.  At worst, it could cause the end of the world as we know it.  

Just so you liberal Obama lovers understand, Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about the people of Syria, or anywhere else for that matter.  He cares about pleasing his monied masters, who want to retain their control over oil in the middle east.  The Russians and Chinese don't want the American oil men to retain control or to get anymore control, so they see it in their best interests to stand up to American imperialist tactics.  They are tired of backing down to the American 1% who want to own the world.  If they draw the line in Syria, things could escalate really quickly.

Go ahead and continue worshiping the ground Obama walks on, but don't doubt for a minute his administration will lie, and has, to the public.  Just because B.O. is a Dem rather than a Rep, don't think he can't lie.  They all lie to further the interests of monied elite, or they don't stay in power.

As far as using gas to kill its' people, America has used it in the past.  There were 80 people killed in Waco when a flammable gas, which was banned by the Geneva Convention, was injected into a building there.  Did the US do anything about the miscreants then?  No, they all denied they knew it was being used and denied knowing anything about how it might be a problem if they did know it was being used.  Did Russians bomb our factories, to maintain world order then?

[Mermaid]

From what I can glean from friends and coworkers affiliated with both sides of the political fence, this is not a popular notion.

I do not support this invasion. This is UN territory and as vile and disgusting and unfathomable things over there are, it's not up to us, particularly without the support of allied governments.