Listening to Kerry lobby Congress now, and he keeps saying how Syria is secular and that Syrians don’t want an islamist state. *Is he fucking kidding? * How often have we heard that type of nonsense-- that countries much less ethnically and secularly divided than Syria would unite to build a secular, inclusive society once they strongman who kept it all together was gone.
Act 3 will be the same for the Christians.
Given the chance, when did the US political class ever decide not to blow the fuck out of anything? And then blow the fuck out of it some more.
We didn’t realize we were electing Barack O-bomb-a.
Rwanda. You happy about that?
The US knew exactly what it was doing, and which dog it was backing in that fight.
That was the French. Not us.
Obama for dummies. that’s us.
ya know my spell check doesn’t like obama spelling.
what’sup?
I’m stunned. I wonder if this is a political calculation or did the Speaker took a look at the intelligence.
Same thing with the genocide in Darfur? You’re happy with the US non-intervention there, too?
How about the Second Congo War? The US chose not to bomb anyone and a few million people died. Good news, right?
We’ve had a heck of a lot of opportunities to bomb North Korea. Yet we haven’t. Is it because the US government is secretly backing the powerful American corporate interests that prop up Kim Jong Un?
Are you suggesting that now, Americans will be delighted that Washington can work in bi-partisan fashion even if it ONLY means bombing another piss-poor country?
Oh, man… :rolleyes:
Given AIPAC is in favor it is pretty clear that it will be authorized.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/09/ny-times-scraps-aipac-from-syria-story-171669.html
Dear AIPAC:
If you could just…go ahead, and shut the fuck up about how happy you are to see the US attack one of Israel’s staunchest enemies that would be great. Trouble we got, trouble we are making, more trouble we don’t need.
Your friend,
US of A
Again, reports of anonymous “administration officials” who are clearly interested in spreading this [mis]information are quite suspect. Israel is quite content to be sitting on the sidelines, and quite willing to let the factions inside Syria fight out out.
True, Israel is widely known for its unanimity of opinion. Jews hate to argue, everybody knows that.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Listening to Kerry lobby Congress now, and he keeps saying how Syria is secular and that Syrians don’t want an islamist state. *Is he fucking kidding? * How often have we heard that type of nonsense-- that countries much less ethnically and secularly divided than Syria would unite to build a secular, inclusive society once they strongman who kept it all together was gone.
[/quote]
Did you miss that part when he said: "…that people who have served, like himself and Hagel and McCain, know that what Obama is requesting is “nothing like going to war.”
Yup, nothing like lobbing a few missiles to make new friends. :rolleyes:
Orwell must so proud of him.
I doubt Mccain would argue that it’s nothing like going to war. Or Hagel. That’s a Kerryism right there.
If Kerry had actually learned something from the sale of the Iraq war that he spent a whole campaign criticizing, then he’d learn that you don’t ‘sell’ a war, and you certainly don’t talk about how easy and not like a real war it will be.
Sure, it’s possible that we’ll just hit Syria and nothing else will happen. It’s also possible that Syria will set their Hezbollah operatives in the US into action. Then it’s our move, and it’s pretty obvious what our response to homeland attacks would be: war.
:dubious:
But your interpretation of the article is totally wrong at worst and misleading at least. I mean… seriously :rolleyes:
Netanyahu already criticized one minster and told others to be quiet - that only means what Israel thinks is probably not good so better to be quiet than speak up. In no way this article can be interpreted as “sitting on the sidelines”.
Yes, “quiet” is “sitting on the sidelines”. Israel has never been reluctant to express its interests.
The thing that Israel is seeing right now is how well (or badly) US is at keeping its promises. US has been promising Israel forever to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons “or else”. That promise seems to be extremely nebulous now.
Other than that, Israel is not interested in Assad winning or the opposition winning in Syria. The best outcome is that the two exhaust each other. It’s the best outcome for US as well.
AIPAC lobby’s on behalf of Israel’s interests? If AIPAC supports intervention then presumably that must represent the Israel position on some level, even if it isn’t explicitly stated.