Arab countries offer to pay for US war on Syria!

Not clear to me why the burden falls to us to be the world's policeman. If chemical weapons are the threat Obama claims (greater than drones, for example), all the world's powers should be eager to squelch them. Have we fallen so low that the great military we built must be rented out as a mercenary force? What about Russia, China, India, other Islamic regimes? Offers of financial help are an insult to Americans, who like to believe they fight only for idealistic reasons. Why not let some other country fight and have the US pay and provide weapons?

 

This guy pretends that killing a million Syrians will "destabilize the sarin gas attacks". If we bomb Syria it will destablize the Syrian successes in stopping the terrorist gas attacks, and may bring about the conquest of Syria for Talmu-"Islam" once again.

 

Multi-National Corporations Whore, to be more specific.
Guarantees those markets and resources.

Just look at Iraq 2
A new source of crude oil development for China. Do a search and witness ! "Iraq China Oil"

Multi-National Corporations with No National Loyalty. Only to their personal profit.

And DEAR Alexa, this is a bipartisan result. What I call "RepubloCrats".
They are bought by and work for the interests of "them", not "We The People" of America.
The result of people voting decades for lesser evils. Like the Syrian Civil War, there is no Lesser of Evils among RepubloCrats. They are the same.
Or you tell me exactly what is the difference in Economic Policy between the Democratic and Republican wings?

And these are the Congress people lining up to vote for intervention in Syria.
Senior, Old, Rich, Bought, RepubloCrats !
The younger Congressional crowd seems to be more negative on Syrian intervention.

Yes America is indeed the Global Military Whore for the Multi National Corporatons.
Thank You for that clarification, Alexa


Moi

 

Like Obama, the Arab nations would be happy to help the United States oust the conservative Assad and replace his government with the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical, terrorist Islamic regime.

 

Democrats: high taxes, high spending, high borrowing, high regulation.
Republicans: lower taxes, lower spending, lower borrowing, lower regulation.

There is a clear difference.

Opposition to an intervention in Syria crosses party lines, and is strong among Democrats as among Republicans. This should be no surprise, since Democrats have been the anti-war, anti-military party. Democrats not so long ago led the opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (until a Democrat became President). Members of Congress are more aware than the public of this Administration's drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen, our Libyan intervention, and the President's "kill list" of enemies to be assassinated. There has been increasing resistance among Democrats, and Syria may have brought the issue to a boil. Congressmen resent Obama's unconstitutional preemption of the war power. So this looks like a true "Republocrat" issue that crosses party lines. Those backing Obama are those who think the President is a king, owed unquestioning obedience, or who think that the prestige of the President is the same as the prestige of the country. Where there is true unanimity of public opinion, as there seems to be now, Republocrats are welcome. It would be awful for either party to betray the public interest for purely political reasons.

 

"Democrats: high taxes, high spending, high borrowing, high regulation.
Republicans: lower taxes, lower spending, lower borrowing, lower regulation.

There is a clear difference."

What era do you refer? Not the 21st Century.
The Republican Wing of the RepubloCratic Party is just as willing to create their deficits and taxation for
their military programs ?
Consider the Osprey and F-35 Raptor. Nice toys. Lots of budget over runs and deaths due to these machines.
Do we really need them?
Does the security of America really require the Osprey and the F - 35 ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Meet the Press was comforting for the variety of "No" reasons presented by Congress persons.
Even the French have backed out, calling for the diplomatic approach.
Americans seem to agree this is just such a bad situation. But, not another military action, thank you.
When America gets involved in Middle East politics, America leaves it worse then upon entry.
Their is no prediction that policy makers have accurately forecast when making their incursions, militarily or politically.
Any diminution of Assad is an enhancement of Al Qaida. What a way to celebrate 9/11

As for the Oil States and the Royals, they never liked Assad or the Baathist nor the Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood.
Be aware of "history". They are being opportunists to pick up decades if no centuries old disputes.


Moi

Just Say NO to Syrian military involvement. What credibility. America has none, no how, anyways.​

A copy of this upload is on file with the NSA

 

Talk about bribes to commit murder and terrorism.