American troops on syria border
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
You're repudiating Dueteronomy 7:1-3?
"When the LORD your God shall bring you into the land where you go to possess it, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites, and the Girga****es, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you; 2And when the LORD your God shall deliver them before you; you shall smite them, and utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy to them: 3Neither shall you make marriages with them; your daughter you shall not give to his son, nor his daughter shall you take to your son."
And anybody who isn't critical of US foreign policy, supports imperialism in its worst form. Using a county's youth to exploit and kill those of another country is sick and demented. War is the greatest anti-evolutionary tool we have. Anybody who thinks humans have evolved since the caves has not been paying attention.
Nope- Saudis are paying.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...sion-on-arming-syrian-rebels/article12586938/
I recall the Syrian Govt admitting to their existence. Then denying they exist.
What do you think?
From "your" article:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he was “baffled” by Obama’s decision to become more deeply involved. “What exactly is our objective?” he asked. “It’s not clear to me that every nondemocratic government in the world has to be removed by force.”
Arming rebels will make Syria's weapons more secure? That is head-shaking logic.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he was “baffled” by Obama’s decision to become more deeply involved. “What exactly is our objective?” he asked. “It’s not clear to me that every nondemocratic government in the world has to be removed by force.”
Arming rebels will make Syria's weapons more secure? That is head-shaking logic.
Doing the least he can get away with. Politics.
And the Saudi`s have state of the art arms.
HOLD THE PRESS!!!!
It's all Bush's fault.. blame Bush for the Syrian war.. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quadruple US debt in 4 years ( not 8 )
Fast and Furious
AP
Rosen
Benghazi
IRS
NSA
...oh and just a small war in Syria.
It's all Bush's fault.. blame Bush for the Syrian war.. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quadruple US debt in 4 years ( not 8 )
Fast and Furious
AP
Rosen
Benghazi
IRS
NSA
...oh and just a small war in Syria.
You do realize who is in the White House right? Expect very little.
Don't forget Libya!
I generally agree, but AT does carry articles by Spengler. He's pro-US and very learned.
God retired to Florida like a lot of Canadians.
So is Canada going to send her sons and daughters to fight in Syria with Obama?
Nope.
And the Rebels lost a village. Note the troops- terrorists in the fight with Assad. Some stated this was a turning point - rebels losing hope.
This is a fight to a bloody end. Or Assad is given a way out without his own turning on him.
Is Doing Something in Syria Better than Nothing? - By James Traub | Foreign Policy
Secretary of State John Kerry has long spoken of the need to "change Assad's calculus," but this is not the announced goal of the new policy. Rather, Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor, explained that once intelligence analysts concluded that Syria had crossed the "red line" against the use of chemical weapons, the president felt bound to act. That's almost certainly not the actual rationale for the decision: administration officials have been holding urgent discussions on Syria policy since last week, when Assad's forces, along with perhaps 2,000 troops from Hezbollah, ousted the rebels from the strategic crossroads town of Al Qusayr. The regime is now organizing a much larger, and potentially far more devastating assault on Aleppo, Syria's largest city. The "now or never" moment for the administration had suddenly and unexpectedly arrived -- the Syrian equivalent of the moment in Libya when only foreign intervention could prevent a murderous government attack on civilians in Benghazi. But the public explanation matters: If the professed goal is to preserve the president's credibility, rather than to change the balance of power, then Obama has succeeded simply by doing something rather than nothing.
I don't think Obama is that kind of cynic, but I do think he has persuaded himself that, whatever may be good for Syria, getting involved with the rebels is bad for the United States, and bad for him politically. Bill Clinton, who knows a thing or two about ignoring atrocities for fear of the political consequences of action, put the matter bluntly earlier this week when he said, "If you refuse to act and you cause a calamity," you can't excuse yourself later by saying, "Oh my god, two years ago there was a poll that said 80 percent of you were against it."
The American Peso...
1000 Amero for that milk.
LOL it's the Illuminati running the USA and Canada... I knew it.. Darn can't do purple on my iPhone