TexasCHLforum.com

I wish I could feel as hopeful as you Superman. Perhaps we were once a shining city on a hill. A beacon of light and freedom. Perhaps it was a mirage....something never really obtained just wished for. That shining city on a hill, if it ever existed, might be justified in condemning and taking steps with other nations to stop two warring parties from killing innocents (bullets, gas, starvation all = dead kids). That was the argument for the UN. Now the UN is a putrid mess of extortion, blackmail, and corruption. Our nation is not far behind them in the depravity that goes on in DC.

We are not a shining city on the hill when 4,000 of our citizens die everyday because they are too young to be protected. We are not a shining city on a hill when a grandmother who has never had so much as a speeding ticket in her life is digitally strip searched then hand raped for the privilege of flying on an aircraft, but a 20 year old Saudi man with no luggage and a one way ticket is waved through (I am not saying he should be harassed either, just pointing out the difference in risk). We are not a shining city on a hill when businesses do not have the freedom to choose whom they will do business with. We are not a shining city on a hill when those who come trying to escape religious persecution are denied asylum, but drug mules crossing the border are given amnesty (or soon will be). I could go on and on. If we ever were the shining city on the hill....someone has removed the lampstand and plunged us in ever deepening darkness.


As an aside I do not think we really know who or what is going on there. How can we be a force for good in this world when both sides are as evil as evil gets. Assad's regime is horrendous, those opposing him are even worse. One cannot pick up excrement by the clean end. We cannot save the world. If the arabs dislike what is happening there so much, they have armies, let them go and handle it. Why should we travel across the world to hold two bullies apart from one another. Why do we suddenly care about civilians when the first 100K were killed without so much as a peep from us? No there is something more here.....Obama thinks he is a wonderful magician that can dazzle the world.....watch the other hand.

Syrian rebel admits on camera to possessing AND USING chemical weapons:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=V5kda1KhqlU[/youtube]

We do NOT want to get sucked into that moshpit. As Ted Cruz said, we are NOT Al Qaeda's Air Force.

philip964 wrote:"LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT

Deus suos agnoscet.

Really? The Syrians wouldn't be expecting us to destroy their Air Force over Chemical Weapons?

I repeat, there are absolutely no attainable or quantifiable goals that our military can accomplish that is worthwhile that do not fall-short of the requirement for complete boots-on-the-ground intervention such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. So by default, anything we do short of that is a waste of time and resources.

My litmus test for the political world is very simple - if BO is for it, I'm against it. Apply that logic to the last 5 years and I think you come out with a pretty good track record.

jmra wrote:My litmus test for the political world is very simple - if BO is for it, I'm against it. Apply that logic to the last 5 years and I think you come out with a pretty good track record.

How could anyone in their right mind believe anything the bozo says?

AEA wrote:

jmra wrote:My litmus test for the political world is very simple - if BO is for it, I'm against it. Apply that logic to the last 5 years and I think you come out with a pretty good track record.

How could anyone in their right mind believe anything the bozo says?

If the congress vote no, better for the President to resign and call for early elections.

Posters should contact their representatives now to express their view of this issue, whatever that view is.

Purplehood wrote:Really? The Syrians wouldn't be expecting us to destroy their Air Force over Chemical Weapons?

I repeat, there are absolutely no attainable or quantifiable goals that our military can accomplish that is worthwhile that do not fall-short of the requirement for complete boots-on-the-ground intervention such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. So by default, anything we do short of that is a waste of time and resources.

Well we could respond with nuking the artillery position that launched the site, and suspected Assad heaquarters, with a notation that US policy is that WMDs begets WMDs.

Short of that though, you're correct.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Really? The Syrians wouldn't be expecting us to destroy their Air Force over Chemical Weapons?

I repeat, there are absolutely no attainable or quantifiable goals that our military can accomplish that is worthwhile that do not fall-short of the requirement for complete boots-on-the-ground intervention such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. So by default, anything we do short of that is a waste of time and resources.

Well we could respond with nuking the artillery position that launched the site, and suspected Assad heaquarters, with a notation that US policy is that WMDs begets WMDs.

Short of that though, you're correct.

We did that with Hussein and he never backed-down. Been there, done that.

IMHO, we should only intervene in Syria with the Israeli Army leading the assault elements.

BO is hoping his war will get a "NO GO" vote so he can say he tried, allowing him to wipe the "Red Line" egg off his face.

He never wanted to get involved with Syria, but wanted to seem like a tough American president without actually having to do anything but flap him gums.

Now his bluster is coming back to haunt him.

The only good thing for him is Syria overshadows the IRS, NSA, and BENGHAZI scandals.

Remember them?

Purplehood wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Really? The Syrians wouldn't be expecting us to destroy their Air Force over Chemical Weapons?

I repeat, there are absolutely no attainable or quantifiable goals that our military can accomplish that is worthwhile that do not fall-short of the requirement for complete boots-on-the-ground intervention such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. So by default, anything we do short of that is a waste of time and resources.

Well we could respond with nuking the artillery position that launched the site, and suspected Assad heaquarters, with a notation that US policy is that WMDs begets WMDs.

Short of that though, you're correct.

We did that with Hussein and he never backed-down. Been there, done that.

IMHO, we should only intervene in Syria with the Israeli Army leading the assault elements.

No we most assuredly did not nuke Bagdad. When I say nuke I mean ye olde fusion bomb. If WMD's are so bad, respond with WMDs as a warning to others. But otherwise, agreed we should not be there.

Beiruty wrote:

AEA wrote:

jmra wrote:My litmus test for the political world is very simple - if BO is for it, I'm against it. Apply that logic to the last 5 years and I think you come out with a pretty good track record.

How could anyone in their right mind believe anything the bozo says?

If the congress vote no, better for the President to resign and call for early elections.

We don't have a parliament. If he he resigns VP becomes POTUS.