not electing this man president may very well have been the last hope we had to enjoy peace and prosperity, shame on us for continuing to "play the game"!

Now looking back, it seems Obama made a mistake of drawing a red line of using chemical weapons for US military interference in Syria. Now he has to act on it, whether he wants to or not, otherwise America's red line for other countries, including Iran, North Korea and the rest of axis of evil! means nothing anymore. It's never about innocent civilians dying with chemical weapons. US kept quiet and content when Saddam used it against his own people, the cities that were invaded by Iran during the 8 year war between Iraq and Iran. And here Cameron says Syria's use of chemical weapons are the event of the century. Dude, the chemical weapons are the event of the century. It's not like Hitler had chemical weapons. They've been used before, and the international community seemed pleased with it then. It's hard to believe these guys.

Here's another American soldier killed in Afghanistan this past week:

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130830/NEWS/308300026/Drum-soldier-killed-Afghanistan


Where are all the anti-war protesters who were always following President Bush around? It's obvious that Obama is being treated differently by them, and by media. He is not getting much grief for not folowing up on his promise to get our troops out of The Middle East if elected. 2 killed this week, and no major coverage about it on news.

He is drawing down the troops in the Middle East. He was talked into the Surge in Afghanistan ( a mistake) but he is pulling out. We are effectively out of Iraq. Now with this Syria thing I have a question: Are we going to have to call the toast used with eggs benedict "freedom muffins?"

I read that Labour leader Ed Miliband had promised Cameron his support but then voted against. Cam the Spam is furious and a Downing Street "source" claims he called Red Ed a "copper bottomed chicken s**t c**t"......

Well of course he is....he's a politician!!!

if it wasn't such a serious issue, it would be a bit funnier, but what the hell is wrong with john mccain? i seriously can't remember when his answers to seemingly all foreign problems hasn't been military intervention. it's a bit puzzling to me given his P.O.W. status. you would think, or in his case hope, that someone who has gone through such an ordeal as a direct result of a misguided war would try their best to make sure others can avoid the same fate. the guy is a toxic person, and the sooner he's gone, the better!

it's nice to see that public pressure has thrown a monkey wrench into the grand designs of certain authoritarians. looks like our dear leader will seek congressional approval before taking any military action.

So true!

I heard different though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23879744

It is without modern precedent for a prime minister to lose control of his foreign policy, let alone decisions about peace and war.

That, though, is what has happened in the past 24 hours.

David Cameron summoned MPs to return early from their summer break in order to vote for British involvement in military strikes against Syria within days.

The timetable was not his. It was President Obama's.

Having declared that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be the crossing of a red line, the White House was under pressure to act and to act fast.

No guarantee
In addition, Obama is said to have wanted to act before leaving the US for a foreign trip next Tuesday.

If he still wants to stick to that timetable, Britain will no longer be with him.

The government simply could not guarantee that its own MPs would give it a majority in the vote tonight. They needed Labour's support.

Ed Miliband showed every sign of offering it in a series of face-to-face meetings with David Cameron until last night, when he insisted that MPs be given a second vote after the UN weapons inspectors in Syria had reported.

“
Start Quote

David Cameron has consistently talked tough on Syria and consistently proved unable to act tough. Today he will try to present that as a search for consensus after the painful wounds of Iraq.”

It is impossible to know whether he was acting out of principle or in response to pressure from his own MPs. The answer is probably both.

In response the prime minister felt he had no choice but to buckle. So, now MPs are being asked to vote on the "principle" of military action but with the promise that they will get another say before any missiles are fired.

Labour are still not happy. They are tabling an amendment which sets out what they call a "road map" to a decision - in effect a series of hurdles that have to be crossed before action can be taken.

The one that could prove trickiest is the one that may seem the easiest. It is the call for "compelling evidence" that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime.

The UN weapons inspectors in Damascus will not produce that evidence.

I think I read that story in the Daily Star...not known for its hunt for truth

^^^^^^

that dumbass should've realized which country he lives in

join the US military and it ain't no telling where the fuck you're getting sent

when people use "ain't" in almost all of their responses, i tend not to take them too serious, not like it would make any difference in your case though. the fact that you would even refer to him as a dumbass only further shows what a misguided person you are. the point of the image, much like everything else, has sailed right over your head. people join the military for any # of reasons, but the desire to protect and serve our country is generally at the root of it. if someone doesn't feel like the current action that we are planning to take coincides with those reasons, than its a big problem. morale is probably the most important thing for our military, and if its low or in question, then the reasons are worth exploring, particularly if impending military action is the cause.

I agree Semper Fi!!

He has a point though..

Living in close proximity to Ft Bragg I still know guys going to Iraq and A'Stan. Remember when Saddam Hussein's bomb maker "Chemical Allie. defected to USA and told us that they did in fact have weapons of mass destruction but that they were moved into Syria fore the US found them?? Well now they are coming to the surface again

Bigboy I forgot about that. Interesting.

About the word "ain't", well it is commonly used here in the South so I can't hate a guy for saying it.

And on the picture I can agree with him. We can't win in Syria except for getting rid of the dirty bombs. If we back Syria we are supporting a pig that used Sarin on his own people. If we back the rebels we are supporting Al Qaeda like we did when we supplied Bin Laden when they fought the Russians and we thought it was funny to help them against the Russsians. That sure bit us on our ass.

Well since we're on the brink of WWIII...
How about a little bit of lame humor?

Leaked conversation between world leaders about Syria

Nice prediction.

Now John Boehner and Eric Cantor are on board with Obama going to war against Syria. Dumbest move they could make. They had the perfect opportunity to stand on principle and find something that the majority of American people agree on. The fact that John McCain is for it is reason enough to be against it. Some people never learn. I wish the House had a Rand Paul to run against those two buffoons.

Being that I was a Navy wife for 20 years I agree with that Sailor. Our military go where they are told to but that that don't mean they have to like it. My hub didn't like that he had to go to the first gulf war but the ship went anyways.

ain't is in the dictionary

you have way too many grammatical errors to call in question others intelligence

"Don't take them too serious" That would be "seriosly."

Also after a sentence ends and you put a period there, the following word is capitalized.

People who live in glass houses....

You missed the point completely you tool. You insulted one of the men who fights for this country because of your own ignorance and stupidity

People join the service because other people are ignorant and stupid? I never knew that was the motive.

You mean "seriously"?

well guess what? he's fighting for his country

he just disagrees with the reason he might have to go to war

I don't see you running to take his place in the armed forces

Source: CBS NEWS.com

Syria attack resolution passed by U.S. senate panel

Resolution passes by 10 to 7 vote, aided by support of three Republicans
Sep 4, 2013 1:47 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 4, 2013 4:44 PM ET

A Senate panel has voted to give U.S. President Barack Obama the authority to use military force against Syria in response to what the White House claims was a deadly chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian regime.

The resolution passed by a 10 to 7 vote, aided by support of three Republicans, including Senator John McCain.

Earlier, McCain, an outspoken advocate of intervention in Syria, had said he did not support the resolution, saying he wanted more than cruise missile strikes and other limited action. He had also sought a stronger response aimed at "reversing the momentum on the battlefield" and hastening the departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Some minor changes to the resolution were made.

The resolution would permit Obama to order a limited military mission against Syria, as long as it doesn't exceed 90 days and involves no American troops on the ground for combat operations.

The Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Menendez, and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, crafted the resolution.

The vote marked the first time lawmakers have voted to authorize military action since the October 2002 votes giving President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

The committee's vote is the first in a series as the president's request makes its way through Senate and House committees before coming before the two chambers for a final vote.

The administration also needs to persuade a Republican-dominated House of Representatives that has opposed almost everything on Obama's agenda since the party seized the majority more than three years ago. The top opposition Republican in Congress, House Speaker John Boehner, has signalled key support, saying the U.S. has "enemies around the world that need to understand that we're on the other side of the debate, Republican Senator Jim Inhofe said he was not persuaded to support military action, saying the military has been "decimated" by budget cuts and "we're just not in a position to take on any major confrontation."

@cook county

of course he disagrees, this Syria thing is a bundle of controversy.

But I'm not made for the military. Some people are but I'm not one of them, however I have infinite respect for people who serve for this country.

In any case I don't see you rushing to join up either so don't give me that crap

LOL alot of people on this board dont know shit about world affairs.

If this was 5 years ago and we decided to attack any nation britian would of been the first to join and be our bitch.The world power is shifting the biggest threat is china who has has taken all the local jobs of all western countries and whos millions of citizens overpopulate these western countries and the Chinese government stays out of world affairs and then comes in takes more of the econimies

ASAD IS BACKED BY RUSSIA its not like Libya or iraq or egypt wre some rebel group is going to take over.Israel isnt this great army the media has potrayed they have been fighting with rock armed Palestinians for the past 50 years and still haven't wiped them out.Stop watching NBC or Fox news and start getting your info from the internet

The idea of attacking Syria doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't see where there is a key US interest at stake, nor have we been attacked. Chemical weapons have been used before. There have been civil wars in other nations before. There is a fair question as to who used chemical weapons which needs to be answered.

It's interesting how people's opinions sometimes vary on war powers depending on who sits in the big seat. Congress has only declared war five times in US history. On at least 100 occasions the President has ordered war/attacks without authorization from Congress. I think that was all wrong but let's not pretend this President is the first to do so or say he can. This "unitary executive" idea has defenders in all parties and across the political spectrum. Many people who would usually be pro-war are against it because they do not like this President. Some who are usually against war are for it because they like this President. I think war is too important to be a partisan issue.

I've been inundating my representative with emails/phone calls to not support the President on this. I think that's all anyone can do. Let your representative and Seantors know how you feel, organize, agitate and vote.

Several of the rebel groups include some pretty nasty people and I just don't see how the US makes things better by bombing. The rebels are not, from what I can see, reluctant warriors who yearn to put down their guns and return to moisture farms on Tattooine.