I don't think I'd call this more fun than smacking a democrat but it sure as hell comes close.

Though, I'm not really finding vindication as fulfilling as I thought I would. You dens support SUPPORT this guy. I do believe that brands you all as traitors... To yourselves if no one else and a man that's a traitor to himself might as well just become a Muslim. You'll fit right in.


http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/25-quotes-about-the-coming-war-with-syria-that-every-american-should-see




If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British. Now that the British Parliament has voted against a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take "unilateral action" against Syria. But what good would "a shot across Syria's bow" actually do? A "limited strike" is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging inside Syria. Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad. Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the time and the effort to massacre entire Christian villages. Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters? There is no good outcome in Syria. The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and the rebels are even worse. Why would we want the U.S. military to get involved in such a mess?

It isn't as if it is even possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on in that country. At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam. It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand years.

Assad is Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power in Syria. On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow that to happen.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their political goals. And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the "rebels" in Syria.

But there was a problem. The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels. So something had to be done.

If it could be made to look like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the U.S. government the "moral justification" that it needed to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels. In essence, it would be a great excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the Saudis for them.

So that is where we are today. The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama administration is giving us goes something like this...

-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.

-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.

-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.

-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it. In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.

The U.S. government spends $52,000,000,000 a year on "intelligence", but apparently our intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious. WND has been able to uncover compelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to strike Syria immediately.

Shouldn't we at least take a little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we start letting cruise missiles fly?

Because the potential downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive. As I wrote about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of starting World War 3 in the Middle East.

We could find ourselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was. It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.

If you are going to pick a fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch. They fight dirty and they are absolutely relentless. They will never forget and they will never, ever forgive.

A full-blown war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States. I don't think that most Americans have any conception of what that could possibly mean.

If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now. The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see...

1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: "The president has no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war ... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."

3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: "Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution."

4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: "I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America."

5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: "While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack."

6. The New York Times: "American officials said Wednesday there was no 'smoking gun' that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation."

7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: "The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States."

8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: "I definitely believe there needs to be a vote."

9. Donald Rumsfeld: "There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation."

10. Robert Fisk: "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida."

11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: "So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?"

12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: "We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."

13. A Syrian Army officer: "We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people."

14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba'ath Party official: "We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding."

15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: "A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel."

16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: "...the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war."

17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences"

18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) "means the immediate destruction of Israel."

19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: "Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force."

20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength."

21. The Jerusalem Post: "The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday."

22. Ron Paul: "The danger of escalation with Russia is very high"

23. Pat Buchanan: "The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war."

24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: "We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our children’s future because we think we just have to do something."

25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: "Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?"



Be Sociable, Share!

didn't you already post this, Ma Barker?

Obama has caught his dick in his zipper this time. If he bombs the bastards over there against the world and US opinion, and it causes a escalation in the killing, he will look like a warmongering moron.
If he backs down, he will look like a total pushover, and get pushed around by everyone from here on out.
He should resign. He has proven himself unworthy. Even crazy Uncle Joe can't be this bad.

Obama has one, and only one way out of this mess of his own making. He can follow in the steps of David Cameron of England. He can go to the Congress and lay out his case. He has to come to the American people and it lay it out for everyone. He can give a major speech about how he is so sure and so willing to go to war.....but his momma is calling him home! I mean he can say that he is willing but the Congress and people won't let him. That way, now and forever, he can blame everyone else for what happens in Syria.

That way, now and forever, he can blame everyone else for what happens in Syria. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What ever happens in Syria is not the fault of anybody in this country, including Obama.

He will have his missile strike and be done with it IMHO.

50% of the nation supports this option. I'm not one of them but I am just reporting the facts.

. I do believe that brands you all as traitors... To! Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Talk like that would get the piss slapped out of you in a real world situation.

Talk all the shit you want on here though. It is all good.

My guess is you have fucked more Muslims than Obama!

LK is trying to get JL to fuck her.

Biggen, now that is completely out of line! LOL

Even Kayla wouldn't fuck JL . . .

WTF, you are so fucking funny...50% right.....and Obama is not responsible.....you're killing me.

If we launch any weapons then Obama gave that order. He is responsible for that.
The last poll I heard (about two hours ago) said that only 25% of the American people support an attack but ONLY if a case can be made that American interests or lives are in danger. You can have your own opinion (or whatever passes for what you're told to do) but you can't have your own facts.

WTF, you are so fucking funny...50% right.....and Obama is not responsible.....you're killing me.

If we launch any weapons then Obama gave that order. He is responsible for that.
The last poll I heard (about two hours ago) said that only 25% of the American people support an attack but ONLY if a case can be made that American interests or lives are in danger. You can have your own opinion (or whatever passes for what you're told to do) but you can't have your own facts. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

For being a teacher, you sure don't do a very good job of research. You'd be slapped upside the head right after LK, no before. I'd bitch slap you both, just like Patton supposedly did to the soldier in WWII. You for lying and LK to try and knock some sense into her dingy lil head...




http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/polls...ry?id=20118605

Americans say they don't want the U.S. to strike Syria, but that they could support a limited action that did not risk the lives of American soldiers, according to recent polls.
In a new survey from NBC, 50 percent of 700 respondents said the U.S. should not take "military action" in Syria, while 42 percent said the U.S. should.
But opinions changed when participants were asked about airstrikes launched from U.S. ships, without involving ground troops or U.S. planes flying over Syria.
Asked their opinion about a mission "limited to airstrikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks," 50 percent said they would support such an action, while 40 percent said they would not.

Obama has one, and only one way out of this mess of his own making. He can follow in the steps of David Cameron of England. He can go to the Congress and lay out his case. He has to come to the American people and it lay it out for everyone. He can give a major speech about how he is so sure and so willing to go to war.....but his momma is calling him home! I mean he can say that he is willing but the Congress and people won't let him. That way, now and forever, he can blame everyone else for what happens in Syria. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I believe that is what he needs to do. Good suggestion, hopefully, he will do it.

Biggen, now that is completely out of line! LOL

Even Kayla wouldn't fuck JL . . . Originally Posted by MooneyFlyer

Actually, she would do it for free. See some of her other posts, dipshit.

Actually, she would do it for free. See some of her other posts, dipshit. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I'd pay her to fuck you for free!

Actually, she would do it for free. See some of her other posts, dipshit. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

so what's the holdup?

so what's the holdup? Originally Posted by JCM800

JL only fucks illegal Asian immigrants for free...