Why Americans are Saying 'No'

I am convinced the percentages of Americans opposed are even greater than US MSM are reporting. Looking at discussion boards showing 96% opposition to military strikes. I listen to Congressmen say only about 3 or 4 out of a thousand say they support strikes. MSM itself is a big part of American's problems. Our President cannot be trusted, nor can our MSM.

We are tired of wars and tired of being lied to.

 

Me too.

 

Is she as feminine as her avatar? This could be exciting indeed. Hell, I might become a 9/11 kook now.

 

No I am not but never mind

 

The linked article (how about an opinion or something in the OP?) Does not state the most important reason the American people do not support a strike. This war is a civil war within the borders of a sovereign country. It is not one country invading another. They have not attacked us. The American people know that the President has the authority to issue a military action against a country or group that posses a threat to the USA without Congress consent, but that Syria posses no direct threat to us.

 

I don't know . - I'm not one of their regulars .
The article wasn't written by Rupert Murdoch , was it ?

However , I like some of Peggy Noonan's observations + opinions ; for example this one about Obama's speech :
"

":He (Obama) should have canceled the speech. It was halfhearted, pro forma and strange. It added nothing, did not deepen or advance the story, was not equal to the atmosphere surrounding it, and gave no arguments John Kerry hasn’t made, often more forcefully, in the past 10 days.

It was a time filler: The White House had asked for the time and had to fill it. But at this point in the president’s Syria drama an indifferent piece of work only underscores the overall impression that things just aren’t working that well in the White House.

It is hard to believe a lot of people watched. It’s hard to believe hearts were changed.


I was afraid he was going to do “foaming at the mouth”, “blood and hair,” “gasping for breath” and “writhing in pain.” Presidents shouldn’t say words and phrases like that. He should have referred listeners and viewers to the easily available and highly graphic documentation of the attacks, and simply characterized them as the painful thing they are. You’re trying to influence and persuade, you’re not trying to make people lean away, or remind them that repeats of “Law & Order SVU” are on Channel 47.

Another problem, and there’s no nice way to say this: It is hard to believe such a chill man has such warm feelings about the sad end of strangers far away.

I think this has been one of his big unspoken problems in the selling of his Syria policy. It is based to some degree on his emotional indignation, and it is not fully credible because it’s hard to believe he’s so moved.

On the policy: A problem with the limited, targeted strike or strikes that he speaks of is that nobody knows—literally, nobody knows—exactly how strong Bashar Assad is. Nobody knows what position he is really in. A man who uses weapons of mass destruction may simply be a monster. On the other hand he may be a monster who has reason to fear he’s losing. He may be a vulnerable monster. And a targeted strike not meant to take him out, may take him out. Which will summon a new version of hell.

The president is looking into Russia’s recent proposal, which is among recent “encouraging signs” that have “potential.”

They ought to go back to giving major addresses in the Oval Office, because it has a mystique and stature that it lends to those who sit at the big desk. The president’s staffers apparently think the Oval is tired, or insufficiently groovy, or something. They have him stand at a podium and talk into an empty room under Bela Lugosi lighting. The groovelocity of this choice is lost on me.

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/

btw - Obama + Kerry has still not produced the evidence to prove Assad guilty of launching the gas attack.


....

 

You worked hard to minimize collateral damage / the slaughter of innocent civilians did you ?

Then please explain how come many more civilians are killed and maimed in every one of your wars ?,

Would'nt it have been better if you worked harder in not so enthusiastically send your military forces across oceans to invade other nations who pose no threat to your people. ?

You're right, I've no wish to understand the evil powers , motivated by greed for financial gains who manipulate events + lunatics to engage in warfare, .

You comments on collateral dame reminds me of a certain US General Tommy Frank
before before the Iraq War – at a news conference at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, U.S. said, "we don't do body counts."

see : Casualties of the Iraq War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

....“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each other's children.” (J.Carter)

.....

 

AQ has invaded Syria, just as they have invaded Mali, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Afghan, and Pakistan, probably others, as well have struck at Western countries around the world repeatedly. I disagree that no one has invaded Syria.

 

So after we defeated Japan in WWII, are you saying the US should have packed their bags and went home? We should have just left the Japanese military in ruins, or with no military? What do you think would have happened to Japan if we did that? We'll start with US intervention in Korea, right after WWII. North Korean communist leader Kim decided that he could just annex South Korea so quickly that the US would fail to act. He convinced Stalin and Mao this would happen. If the US did not intervene in South Korea, and simply packed up and left, then do you really think that North Korea, China, or USSR/Russia would not have already occupied Japan with zero military? Ofc they would have. The US was correct in its drawing a line in Korea. It has saved Taiwan and Japan from occupation.

Let's go one conflict at a time, do you agree with the reasons for US intervention in one of the first conflicts after WWII?

The point is, there are reasons for US interventions. Valid ones, moral ones. You seem to ignore these in every post you make about "US aggression".

 

The post you're responding to read " This war is a civil war within the borders of a sovereign country. It is not one country invading another."


AQ is an organization/a group - its NOT a country invading another country .

Elementary ....

 

Ahh, the ole AQ is not a country so we are wrong in responding to their actions. Would you prefer if we waited until AQ had a country? Because they are close to having a few....They got a flag; they've raised it over a few of our consulates I do believe.

 

OMG - please refrain from continuing making daft comparisons - AFAI can tell - No two historical events / international disputes /conflicts are identical.

I gave the Jimmy Carter quote , here's another :


No matter what political reasons are given for war, the underlying reason is always economic. A. J. P. Taylor

Here's a few more by US Major General Smedley Darlington Butler

""Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."

War is a racket. (1935)[1]

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."



"There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making. Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?"



"A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."
----

Read and see whether there's anything in his book to support your apparent naïve understanding of Wars. (I've read it some years ago before computers. hard copy. (wink)


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

......

 

OMG - are you deliberately being tiresome ? Please go back to post #155 and see if you can understand what has been AND WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID .


I'm off to the fridge .

tata....

 

That is a consequence of morality. If you are a moral person, you pick sides. Idealists will always pick sides for this reason.

But there is pragmatism as well. The proliferation of democracy contributes to our own security, so we have an incentive to pick sides from a practical view as well.

I agree. There is no way around that. The alternatives are worse.

The UN is inherently corrupt, and we should never have started it. It legitimizes oppression by recognizing non-democracies. The sooner the UN is dissolved, the better. If it were up to me, we would withdraw immediately.

At best, the UN is a tool we can exploit to manipulate other nations with (due to our unfair advantage because of our position as a permanent member of the security council...yet another example of how undemocratic it is). Thats its only use.

The french and german example is to endlessly debate instead of actually taking action. That too is something Osama can easily exploit.

 

Murdoch's people have to approve everything that makes it into print.

 

.

Profitable indeed..... but for who ?

Perhaps "The Wandering Who" ?

Certainly not the US in respect to ME war.






No matter what political reasons are given for war, the underlying reason is always economic. A. J. P. Taylor

Here's a few more by US Major General Smedley Darlington Butler

""Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."

War is a racket. (1935)[1]

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."



"There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making. Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?"



"A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."
----

Read and see whether there's anything in his book to support your apparent naïve understanding of Wars. (I've read it some years ago before computers. hard copy. (wink)


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

......[/QUOTE]

 

We have an Empire now? When did we enter Ghost in the Shell and can I meet the Major?

As I pointed out in another thread the facts are really rather clear. Obama wanted the Syrians to stop using Chemical Weapons, which the Syrians stockpiled and maintained they had every right to use within their own borders. The Syrians have not only stopped, they're going to get rid of them all (they say, we have to give them SOME time to do that, yes?) And all this was accomplished without firing one missile or losing one American life.

Our "political standing", is nothing more than an abstraction that you made up to beat Obama with. Obama got results, I'll take that over our rep as the big boy on the block any day.

 

Oh.

Come.

On.

Those three words should never be placed together.

 

What dream world are you(still) living in? Do you believe that the deal came about "because" of US military presence? That's the saving grace of the three stooges, and you're just slurping it up like reality . The reality is, the Russians were progressive on this manner, all Obama thought about until Putin beat him to the punch was bombing Assad.

 

Isn't it Jack, isn't it? It is very convoluted but wasn't Al Qaeda connected to the CIA and well who are they?

 

All these 'agencies' like the CIA need to be totally abolished.

The CIA have committed documented crimes against Americans, and still exist as a body.

These crimes include experiments like MK Ultra.

And rest assured they still do them today.

I think they make out like you MUST have them, and that if you did not, the sky would fall in.

But I consider them to be(or have at least now come to be), an agency that has placed itself above the law, has historical and recent record of acting against the American people and Gov's (at times), and on that basis, I think Americans would have every right to call time on them.

 

...............

 

Lol ....I didn't see you two boys talking behind my back .............tck tck.

 

Oh it makes ones head hurt just thinking about it Jack ........they are unaccountable and answerable to no one The US really is a Rogue State ( Blum again).

 

Imagine if the US no longer had the NSA and the CIA.

Imagine if everything that both had ever done to Americans(just them even), were ALL laid out?