• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Speaker John Boehner will support strike on Syria

Unitedwestand13 said:
What is insanity is standing by and letting the Syrian people get gunned down and murdered. Russia has supplyed more weapons to the Assad regime than it has supplied aid to the Syrian refugees.

Russia is making profits from the Assad regimes massacres of its people.

If the rebals seize the city that serves as the Russian naval base, I wonder if Russia will stand by and do nothing?
Click to expand...

80% of Syrians support the government and oppose the revolutionaries. But the $$$ is to be made in war, so war it will be. The military needs a war to justify replacing war supplies stockpiles.
 
The Syrian government didn't used chemical weapons. The revolutionaries did. But for the USA and the West, there would be no revolutionaries and civil war. The USA supplied insurgents weapons to start a rebellions. The president announces if chemical weapons are used the USA will put the insurgents into power. The insurgents of the revolution we created use chemical weapons. Now the President will reward them by putting the radically in power.

The claim that the Syrian government is who used the chemical weapons is a pre-planned calculated lie.
 
Montecresto said:
My point was always that the US manufactured and used chemical weapons for the better part of a century an supplied them to others for their use. You pointed out that they have though stopped making them and have or currently are destroying stockpiles. That's a good thing. I don't know that you and I have a disagreement really. Unless you think that Syria is bound to a treaty they haven't signed.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to expect if we attack considering both they and Iran have threatened to retaliate against Israel. IMV, if there is going to be a meaningful response, it would be directed against Iran's nuclear facilities, though I wouldn't trust the administration to carry out such an ambitious plan...
 
P. Kersey said:
I just heard kerry on tv say all the left wing emotional buzzwords while "testifying" about what our role should be.


Now to young, naive kids and idealists this all sounds SOOOOO good...but to people who have seen all this before it's typical, empty political doubletalk.

Sen. Johnson just commented/asked Kerry if it was true that; "Originally the opposition was more western leaning, more moderate and democratic and as time has gone by has been degraded and infiltrated by Al Qaeda?;

Kerry said; QUOTE "No, that is basically not true. the opposition has increasingly become more defined by its' moderation and more defined by the breadth of it's membership and more defined by its' adherence to ...some...you know...democratic process and to an all inclusive, minority protecting constitution which will be broad based and secular to the security of syria."END QUOTE

LMMFAO..I think he got them all in one sentence..."moderation", "breadth of membership", "democratic process", "broad based", "all inclusive", "minority protecting" and "security".

Now anyone over about 15 years old sees this as pure propaganda and playing on peoples emotions and prejudices..

If anyone is against bombing syria, therefore, they are not moderate (radical?), they are undemocratic, they are "exclusive" (HORRORS!), "against protecting minorities" (gotta get SOMETHING in about minorities..they've learned how THAT word works on americans) have a narrow agenda (opposite of "broad based) and would cause the country to become "insecure"..LMFAO..as if it were ever "secure" anyway.
Click to expand...

This is getting stuoid America needs to get involvrd in another war like we need another reality tv show. Bombing them will do nothing just a different rooster runn the chicken pen. I am so sick of the middle east. Really lets do this sell them all bomb, guns , ammo, sell **** that will turn their skin green and let them kill each other. Why do we have to mess with it. One we can pay down the debt??
 
danarhea said:
Article is here.



OK, it's good that Boehner, along with Cantor, are putting aside differences to back Obama on this............. But do we really need to do this? That is the question. Whatever intel Obama showed Boehner, it evidently persuaded him. However, Obama needs to persuade the American people, and keeping the reasons secret from the American people is not going to cut it.

Obama, show the American people what you have. We demand it.
Click to expand...

Obama promised Boner a new tanning bed and a lifetime supply of Marlboro's.
 
danarhea said:
Article is here.



OK, it's good that Boehner, along with Cantor, are putting aside differences to back Obama on this............. But do we really need to do this? That is the question. Whatever intel Obama showed Boehner, it evidently persuaded him. However, Obama needs to persuade the American people, and keeping the reasons secret from the American people is not going to cut it.

Obama, show the American people what you have. We demand it.
Click to expand...

CAN YOU HEAR ME OBAMA?????? Show us the proof.

You have to use large font so he'll see it from Air Force One.
 
I would never want that information released to the public.
 
That's hilarious, American.
 
But then Boehner's staff put out a memo of clarification later. Now he's back-pedaling. Can'tor be seen agreeing with the POTUS.
 
NIMBY said:
But then Boehner's staff put out a memo of clarification later. Now he's back-pedaling. Can'tor be seen agreeing with the POTUS.
Click to expand...

I don't give a ****, don't like Boehner....he's a crybaby weasel.
 
How about if we both own our nutjobs and turn the page? But you can'tor do that since you'll need mto move off of the 50-yard line.
American said:
I've never like him. Obama's your nutjob, own him.
Click to expand...
 
Two weeks ago the President and Congress probably couldn't even agree what bread to get on their sandwiches, and now all of a sudden everybody is happy? Congress and Obama have had a 4+ year standoff over EVERYTHING, now enter the United States shiny military into the mix and Congressional Republicans can't stop drooling. I think what we have learned from this is include some sort of military intervention in all new bills and it will just fly through congress.
 
iacardsfan said:
Two weeks ago the President and Congress probably couldn't even agree what bread to get on their sandwiches, and now all of a sudden everybody is happy? Congress and Obama have had a 4+ year standoff over EVERYTHING, now enter the United States shiny military into the mix and Congressional Republicans can't stop drooling. I think what we have learned from this is include some sort of military intervention in all new bills and it will just fly through congress.
Click to expand...


The MIC lobbyists have very deep pockets!
 
Everyone of your "ilk" in Congress fancies themselves as a "Chief". You have no Indians. Sen. McCain bemoaned this "fact" today.
Drake McHugh said:
We don't have "leaders",unlike you and your ilk.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Everyone of your "ilk" in Congress fancies themselves as a "Chief". You have no Indians. Sen. McCain bemoaned this "fact" today.
Click to expand...

It's much easier to be led around by the nose,like your party is. I am absolutely sure of that.
 
iacardsfan said:
Two weeks ago the President and Congress probably couldn't even agree what bread to get on their sandwiches, and now all of a sudden everybody is happy? Congress and Obama have had a 4+ year standoff over EVERYTHING, now enter the United States shiny military into the mix and Congressional Republicans can't stop drooling. I think what we have learned from this is include some sort of military intervention in all new bills and it will just fly through congress.
Click to expand...

Goes to show you that the Neocons still have a voice in the Republican Party, but the biggest freakin' Neocon of them all is Obama. Although Republicans generally get the blame for the Neocons, the Democrats have also had their fair share. Zbignew Brzinsky (sp?) was a Democrat and more of a Neocon than most Republicans. And Obama has surpassed him too.
 
Dickieboy said:
Personally I can think of no reason for Assad to gas anyone. He is reportedly winning...
Click to expand...
That's because it was the rebels who gassed the Syrian people in a false flag operation. America is now supposed to swoop in and install Al-Qaeda and replace Assad. That's McCain and Congress' plan.
 
^ In other words, Obama wants to attack Syria because Syria attacked Syria. :roll:

Our politicians have been using the word "intervention" too much in the past 10 years.
 
Montecresto said:
Our constitution does NOT allow us to attack countries for "US Interests" (read, natural resource exploitation) it is for defensive purposes not offensive.
Click to expand...

Your constitution is only as powerful and as weak as the citizens of your country allow it to be. If the President, and the congress, agree that attacking Syria or any other country is a preemptive or defensive strike to protect the US, who's going to challenge that decision? Are you or someone else going to take the government to court? Do you think the Supreme Court would overrule congress and the President when it comes to national defense?

In my view, the only time that happens is if the President and congress disagreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom