Posted on 09/03/2013 2:54:34 PM PDT by thewoodwardreport.com
That leaves the United States, as it often does, to be the ultimate arbiter, the one who decides whether and how intervention will occur in the region. The American people are quite weary of any further war in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan.. However, these people that are dying are human beings just like we all are. Can we as inhabitants of this earth stand by and allow these atrocities to continue? Can we stand by and watch the coverage of dead bodies, the pictures of corpses by the tens of thousands? We have many times before. When and why do we choose to intervene? Although the use of chemical weapons is unprecedented and against international law, it has not been the means causing the bulk of death and destruction. Conventional weapons eliminate targets and kill at a much greater rate than do the sorts of chemical attacks used in Syria. War is a terrible thing and yet for too many it is a way of life. Civil war and other mass atrocities have plagued the people of many Arab and African nations over the past centuries. It is difficult to find a dog in the fight for the United States in Syria. It is a mangled web of fighting between factions, none of which are certain to be friends of the United States or the greater will of the Syrian people. The case for war has been made in this urgent way due to this particular evidence of chemical weapons use. Then the President, rightly so, announces that he will ask Congress to debate the measure before moving forward with any action. However, Congress does not return until September 9th at 2 P.M. How about asking, or more forwardly, demanding that Congress go into special session.
(Excerpt) Read more at reddirtreport.com ...
Can we can we?
Yup
Nothing in the constitution says that the president is in charge of the “world police”. In fact, his only international prerogative is that, with the permission of the senate, he can make treaties.
He cannot declare war(s). Nor is he authorized to carry out wars “because it is the right thing to do”, when the US is not a direct party to the conflict.
Did 0bambi call for American intervention in The Congo when blacks were killing blacks?
If not, why not?
Freaking moron is gonna start WW III if he doesn’t knock if off.
Yep.
When they are busy killing each other, they have less time to focus on killing Americans. No amount of American blood will cure the murderous vitriol which is Islam.
They will always be killing innocents every chance they get - so for once, let’s stay out of it.
If not, why not?
Was there a muslim side?
If so was it the one doing the killing?
If the Repugnant sellout could be given truth serum, here’s what they would say, “the president has provided convincing evidence that he has pictures and irrefutable proof of that which we can be blackmailed. And therefore I give my full support to whatever the president wants to do. Not only in regards to Syria, but also Obamacare, the taking away of all American’s guns, the shutting down of the Internet and rounding up of all Christians. Thank you.
No, he doesn’t.
He isn’t God.
I hate it when a dictator uses armored vehicles and chemical weapons on his own civilian population and kills women and children....like Bill Clinton and the Democrats did at Waco.
True, but he thinks he is.
But who is committing these atrocities? Better than even money it is the rebels.
That’s not the world in his hands.
He can’t even get the blacks in Chicago to quit killing each other... What the heck is he going to do in Syria?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.