***SYRIA***

[Fasglas]

Why is it that Benghazi generated only a "What difference does it make," while Syria has everyone and their brother fully willing to mount a full scale invasion.

Are Syrians worth more than Americans?

I think not.

FACT

[Blademaker]

Originally Posted by Fasglas

Why is it that Benghazi generated only a "What difference does it make," while Syria has everyone and their brother fully willing to mount a full scale invasion.

Are Syrians worth more than Americans?

I think not.

FACT

[VITE1]

I saw on a news conference the talking head stating that in order to discourage Hezbela and other extremist groups we need a strong response to Syria.

Yet it's been a year since the attack on our consulate in Syria and we still can't get the President to show us the order he claimed to have made to help them, tell us who he gave the order too or what they did or did not do.

Let alone going after the bad guys who killed OUR people.

[Superstreet]

I agree!

The current administration does nothing when our own people are killed and injured in Benghazi,but when people of another country get killed the administration takes action.

[JRD77VET]

Originally Posted by Superstreet

I agree!

The current administration does nothing when our own people are killed and injured in Benghazi,but when people of another country get killed the administration takes action.

The people in the Consulate weren't muslim but the Syrians are muslims so our "great leader" must protect them.

[Doug28450]

While considering whether going to war with Syria can be justified, consider the following commentary....

Would an Attack on Syria be a 'Just War'?

Would an Attack on Syria be a 'Just War'?
No Easy Answers Here

By: John Stonestreet

Published: September 9, 2013 5:30 AM

The President wants to launch an attack against Syria. How should Christians think about this issue? Stay tuned to BreakPoint.

I wish Chuck Colson were still with us. With the nation on the verge of attacking Syria, I would love to talk to him about what’s going on behind the scenes at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

No doubt Chuck would have quickly turned the conversation to a topic that concerned him more and more in the wake of 9/11: the question of Just War.

In response to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, would a U.S. strike against Syria be justified in light of the principles of Just War theory?

Just War theory helps Christians think about war within a Christian framework. From Augustine to Aquinas to the Reformers, Christian thinkers have generally agreed that for a war to be just, it must meet the following conditions:

The cause itself must be just—as well as the intention behind going to war. War must be waged by a legitimate authority. Force used in war must be proportionate to the threat and must not target non-combatants. War must be a last resort, and there must be a reasonable chance of success.
Let’s look at each of these in regards to Syria. And folks, I think you’ll see with me that there are no easy answers here.

First, is the cause just? The Obama administration is making the case that it must act to stop the Assad regime from using chemical weapons. That certainly does seem like a just cause.

However, as Gerard Powers at the Institute for Peace Studies at Notre Dame writes, just cause is “generally limited to defense against aggression.” In Syria, as in most civil wars, both sides are aggressors. In Syria, we would be taking sides, not acting against aggression.

That brings us to the question of intention. Sen. John McCain added language to a Senate resolution that would commit the U.S. to changing the momentum on the battlefield in favor of the rebels, which is highly problematic from a just war perspective.

Legitimate authority poses another tricky question. The administration points to the 1925 Geneva Protocol against chemical weapons and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention signed by 189 countries. However, as the Washington Post points out, there is no enforcement mechanism in these documents. And many countries, friend and foe alike, are questioning the legality of a U.S. attack without U.N. approval. (Of course, if the U.S. were acting in self-defense—which we aren’t—the U.N. wouldn’t be an issue.)

Now proportionality: According to Gerard Powers, “the overall destruction expected from war must be proportionate to the good to be achieved.” In that sense, launching missiles to destroy the Syrian military’s ability to launch chemical attacks seems reasonable. However, it also appears that the Syrians have begun hiding military assets in the midst of civilian populations. Aiming for those assets would put many civilian lives at risk.

And it’s possible that a U.S. “intervention” could lead to more chemical attacks, a regional war, or a jihadist takeover of Syria. As Rabbi Michael Broyde wrote in the Huffington Post, “In the real world, just war theory has to actually work, and not just theoretically work. Doing nothing is a moral option when doing anything makes a bad situation worse.”

Another question: Are we at the “last resort” stage? Have we exhausted all diplomatic and Newsletter_Gen_180x180_B economic options? I don’t know that we have.

And finally, do we have a reasonable chance of success? Answering this one requires that the administration and Congress define what success is before we go to war.

Hard questions; no easy answers. That’s where we are. On the whole, my sense is that an American attack on Syria probably would not meet the standards of just war.

I wonder how Chuck would have seen it. How do you see it? Come to BreakPoint.org, click on this commentary, and share your thoughts. And while you’re there, please check out some important articles we’ve gathered on the topic of Syria, including a great piece by my BreakPoint colleague Roberto Rivera.

And in the meantime, I’ll pray for our leaders and for peace. And I hope you’ll join me.

[69camfrk]

I've said it a million times I think already, but Syria is nothing more than a distraction to direct the attention of Americans away from the problems here. There is nothing significant there for us to gain. A broader war with other middle east countries would seem more likely. Not worth it on any front, so it again leads me back to Obozo's muslim roots. I have written my Congressman, not that I think that any politician actually listens, but have told him the same thing. Also, that I think that Islam is a cancer that the muzzies want to blight the world with. It is not just a religion, but it is a political, economic, social, military machine with religious undertones. Everywhere it has taken hold is a disaster. The only thing that unites them is a common enemy as in us. Otherwise, they are usually content to kill themselves by the thousands. Thus I have no problem with their civil war. Fewer terrorists to worry about.

We absolutely do not have a dog in the fight over there, and as I told my Senator from GA, Saxby Chambliss, the last time I checked, our country is flat broke and then some. We can ill afford another conflict. I think though that our amateur in chief wants to flex military muscle just to say he did. Or, maybe it is just to prop up his muzzie kin folk. Who knows. We just need to keep people from the middle east out of our country and press on. Meanwhile, the .gov continues to spy on each and every one of us, make us a police state, and tax us into oblivion to pay for their devious schemes. We are in way more trouble than most people realize.

[ZipZap]

Originally Posted by VITE1

I saw on a news conference the talking head stating that in order to discourage Hezbela and other extremist groups we need a strong response to Syria.

Yet it's been a year since the attack on our consulate in Syria and we still can't get the President to show us the order he claimed to have made to help them, tell us who he gave the order too or what they did or did not do.

Let alone going after the bad guys who killed OUR people.

Awesome post

[99 pewtercoupe]

Originally Posted by 69camfrk

I've said it a million times I think already, but Syria is nothing more than a distraction to direct the attention of Americans away from the problems here. There is nothing significant there for us to gain. A broader war with other middle east countries would seem more likely. Not worth it on any front, so it again leads me back to Obozo's muslim roots. I have written my Congressman, not that I think that any politician actually listens, but have told him the same thing. Also, that I think that Islam is a cancer that the muzzies want to blight the world with. It is not just a religion, but it is a political, economic, social, military machine with religious undertones. Everywhere it has taken hold is a disaster. The only thing that unites them is a common enemy as in us. Otherwise, they are usually content to kill themselves by the thousands. Thus I have no problem with their civil war. Fewer terrorists to worry about.

We absolutely do not have a dog in the fight over there, and as I told my Senator from GA, Saxby Chambliss, the last time I checked, our country is flat broke and then some. We can ill afford another conflict. I think though that our amateur in chief wants to flex military muscle just to say he did. Or, maybe it is just to prop up his muzzie kin folk. Who knows. We just need to keep people from the middle east out of our country and press on. Meanwhile, the .gov continues to spy on each and every one of us, make us a police state, and tax us into oblivion to pay for their devious schemes. We are in way more trouble than most people realize.

I agree 100% this really boils down to an attempt to divert attention from his disastrous domestic policies. Nothing like a war to get people fired up and forget about problems here. "We have to do it for the children" GMAFB

[StaticCling]

Our government isn't about us anymore.

It's for the politicians and BY the politicians. We are simply subjects. As Carlin said, 'It's a big club, and you ain't in it!'

[JRD77VET]

Originally Posted by 99 pewtercoupe

I agree 100% this really boils down to an attempt to divert attention from his disastrous domestic policies. Nothing like a war to get people fired up and forget about problems here. "We have to do it for the children" GMAFB

Here's a tin foil hat alert

Russia and China both said if we attack Syria without UN backing, they'll attach us HERE. Putin said he'd go atomic.

That gives the closet muzzie the opportunity to declare Marshall law and suspend the constitution and keeps him in as president for the duration ( which would also start an instant civil war here. )

[Blademaker]

Originally Posted by JRD77VET

Here's a tin foil hat alert

Russia and China both said if we attack Syria without UN backing, they'll attach us HERE. Putin said he'd go atomic.

O'bama is now officially Putin's bitch.............

That gives the closet muzzie the opportunity to declare Marshall law and suspend the constitution and keeps him in as president for the duration ( which would also start an instant civil war here. )

[99 pewtercoupe]

Originally Posted by JRD77VET

Here's a tin foil hat alert

Russia and China both said if we attack Syria without UN backing, they'll attach us HERE. Putin said he'd go atomic.

That gives the closet muzzie the opportunity to declare Marshall law and suspend the constitution and keeps him in as president for the duration ( which would also start an instant civil war here. )

Link?

[OddBall]

If it was about the children, the administration would have lobbed missiles at Assad, thousands of children ago.

Obama pussied out of getting involved in the first place, and left the door wide open for Al queda and other extremist to exploit the situation.
Obama stuck his foot in his mouth, made a dare about the gas and pussied out again when he got called on it.
Now Russia and Assad are playing Obama like a yo-yo, and Obama just keeps bouncing on the string.

It's apparent to everyone he is only trying to save face at this point. And that arrogant dipshit is to self-absorbed to realize the world see's him for the clown he is. He has already humiliated this nation the worse it has been in over 30 years, and has lost all respect and credibility as a world leader.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by 69camfrk

I've said it a million times I think already, but Syria is nothing more than a distraction to direct the attention of Americans away from the problems here...

I don't believe that for a second, because I don't believe this blithering fool is smart enough to think that far ahead.

At this point there isn't a good option either way, again, because this moron can't think farther than an audio bite into the future. He has put the US in a no-win situation.

If we bomb the bad regime, we help the terrorist organization that brought us 9/11.

Idiot Kerry has said were going to do a tiny-bomb, awesome! The ruling regime will say, "America has attacked, and we're still here, they, ain't got nuthin'," isn't that great!? Our credibility is being noted by our friends, and our enemies.

Obama's ego strike has proven to be unpopular by, even his strongest supporters, yea, he can't even please them anymore. So he's decided to punt it to Congress. That way, no matter how the vote goes (to bomb, or not to bomb, either way, we look bad), he can blame Congress. Our friends and enemies see us as indecisive and weak. That's the leadership I would expect from this dipshit.

To all you Obama supporters, thanks a fugking pant-load for this. You voted for him once because you were naive, you voted for him the second time out of spite, because it was more important for a Republican to lose, than for America to win.

[snide]

Originally Posted by Superstreet

I agree!

The current administration does nothing when our own people are killed and injured in Benghazi,but when people of another country get killed the administration takes action.

He's gotta protect his fellow Muslims. Fu(ktard.

[Bill]

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Craig

I don't believe that for a second, because I don't believe this blithering fool is smart enough to think that far ahead.

At this point there isn't a good option either way, again, because this moron can't think farther than an audio bite into the future. He has put the US in a no-win situation.

If we bomb the bad regime, we help the terrorist organization that brought us 9/11.

Idiot Kerry has said were going to do a tiny-bomb, awesome! The ruling regime will say, "America has attacked, and we're still here, they, ain't got nuthin'," isn't that great!? Our credibility is being noted by our friends, and our enemies.

Obama's ego strike has proven to be unpopular by, even his strongest supporters, yea, he can't even please them anymore. So he's decided to punt it to Congress. That way, no matter how the vote goes (to bomb, or not to bomb, either way, we look bad), he can blame Congress. Our friends and enemies see us as indecisive and weak. That's the leadership I would expect from this dipshit.

To all you Obama supporters, thanks a fugking pant-load for this. You voted for him once because you were naive, you voted for him the second time out of spite, because it was more important for a Republican to lose, than for America to win.

There IS a good option. Sit on the sidelines, and watch people who all hate us fight each other. Had we not attacked Iraq, for example, Saddam and Iran would STILL be wasting resources defending their respective countries against each other.....which means fewer resources that could be used against US. Remember how we were laughing when the USSR was mired in Afghanistan? Yeah, kind of like that.

[C5SilverBullet]

**HINT**
https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/politics-religion-controversy/

[Craig]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

There IS a good option. Sit on the sidelines, and watch people who all hate us fight each other.

As far as Syria goes, that's probably the best option at this point, since we look like weak, indecisive, poorly lead idiots either way.

Your second statement probably reflects the best choice for Republican politicians, let the Democrats fight each other. It probably won't change the "minds" of Democrat voters though.