Nancy Pelosi...is now the "War Hawk" UFB.....Party first.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/nancy-pelosi-barack-obama-syria-96065.html

I have been waiting for some guesses. I only came up with two potential candidates but this dilemma probably deserve a poll thread of its own.

Boner is on board with attack.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/boeh...ria_752675.html

Favorite statement on the whole tragedy I've seen so far was

"Syria is killing Syrians in Syria, so to teach them a lesson, we're going to kill Syrians in Syria, and maybe help some other Syrians kill Syrians in Syria."

The GOP missed a huge opportunity to look a little less like war mongers.

the way i see it, someone needs to do something, or he is going to kill 100k more people... if you think that Assad is ok, and Ghadaffi was bad, well, thats kinda not right...

look throughout history at the other people that noone checked, and they went on to kill hundreds of thousands, and even millions of people...

because everyone was too chickensh!t to do something about it, fearing backlash from other countries, ect...

if you arent going to do it, shut up, we will, just like we always do... this world will never be a better place, with people like him around and in power....

so, they should probably duck when they see the BGM-109's swarming down... happy late 4th Assad...

However unlikely that actually is, some of them still might get their chance.

The "strange bedfellows" part of this story are indeed strange.

The GOP hawks are drooling to throw bombs at anyone, so Syria is next on their list...even if it means they have to support Obama. Boehner, Cantor, McCain, and many others are on this list.

There's the TeaBaggers who wouldn't care if Assad was killing and eating babies, they don't give twoshits about anyone who's not white and stupid...Rand Paul leading the charge on opposing intervention for this squad.

The last group for the GOP is the one who is waiting for Obama to act...or not act...so they can advocate afterwards for whichever one Obama didn't do. This is probably the majority of Congressional Republicans.

On the Democratic side we've got those who will support Obama no matter what he does. We've also got the peaceniks who will oppose intervention for any reason...and lastly we've got those who will wait and see what their constituents say after the case and go with that.

The actual question of whether we should do anything there or not will rarely be discussed in any real terms.

A few observations from the last few days...if you are someone who supported a war in Iraq and now is against this, shut the fuckup. Shutthefuck up loudly. You are the worst kind of hypocrite. There are a ton of you on facebook flapping your jaws...STFU.

If you compare tossing cruise missiles at Syria with Vietnam or Iraq, then also you should STFU, because those comparisons are ridiculous on their face.

My position is that I oppose any acts of war of choice, or at least any war actions that do not have widespread international support (moral and financial)...that's why going into Iraq was stupid, and why doing this would be stupid, too.

Fish on...

Todd

That being said, Obama is handling this very well politically speaking...so long as he goes along with whatever Congress advises. Let the representatives go back to their constituents and explain why they did, or did not want to intervene in Syria.

That's their job.

Now if Congress does not give authorization, and Obama decides to do it anyway...well, let's just say that won't be well received by many.

Fish on...

Todd

gotta agree with this.

Wait a sec, so what you're saying is people can't change their view on things? Just because you felt strongly about something 12 years ago, and due to how things turned out, you can't have a different opinion?. It's called having an open mind, something you know nothing about.

How about this...if you agree that you were 100% wrong on Iraq, and aren't now against going into Syria just because Obama wants to, then you can change your mind.

If you still think that Bushcorp(tm) was correct in going into Iraq, and that Obamacorp is not correct for wanting to go into Syria, then my comment stands...shutthefuckup.

Fish on...

Todd

Not sure why you're quoting me when it was a question for Todd?

So which is it, Sol Duc...were you wrong then, or are you a partisan hack now?

Both?

Fish on...

Todd

Wrong.

Why not just supply humanitarian aid ?

Kids are being gassed and that pulls at the heart strings.
We can't save all the kids of the world...others have to pitch in.

Just because we have all the cool bangsticks and goboom stuff doesn't mean that we have to let it loose at every opportunity.
Then boots are on the ground and American families begin the suffering process.

Hopefully American leadership will demonstrate that we have learned from our past adventures.
I won't be holding my breath.



Edit:
Rumor has it that "Free Syrian" troops have been training in Jordan and are ready to engage.
So we provide the noise and diversion while they are inserted.
Sounds like a Bay of Pigs operation.

I have a hard time with the notion of the U.S. trying to be the world police, regardless of the ethical draw. What's really stupid is that it apparently is OK for Assad to kill his countrymen by the tens of thousands with conventional weapons, blasting them to smithereens, but it's not OK to kill 1,429 with chemical weapons. The logic is appalling.

Then there is the old saying: All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. That's a great way to arouse feelings of conscience. However there is more evil in this world than even the U.S. can afford to deal with.

Glad to hear it...maybe there's hope for you yet

Fish on...

Todd

Oh the irony.

fix....... your meme can take a dive and so can you bwp

Did Syria bomb trayvon?