Comments

  1. Chris K says

    Well that was obvious, because Republicans are warmongers. The real disappointment here is Obama. Having seen him veer so far into the wrong direction after such a promising start as president has been almost painful.

  2. johnny says

    Wow, a complete turn-around from 2 weeks ago when he said he would not support a strike.

    Did someone get a happy ending as incentive?

    This is such B.S… and yet another military engagement this country can’t afford financially, mentally, psychically or physically. National interest my ass.

  3. D.R.H. says

    It’s unfortunate that the previous administration made such a mockery of legitimized military action. Had Iraq II never happened, and a staggering trillion dollars and change not been added to the debt, I’m sure a majority of Americans would see this differently.

  4. PAUL B. says

    I can’t remember any other time that these 4 bone-heads supported Obama. I don’t think even one of them has ever come out and agreed with an Obama suggestion or decision. Doesn’t this concern us?

  5. Gregory In Seattle says

    Of course they do: Republicans have never met a war (and the very fat profit margins to arms manufacturers and military contractors) they didn’t like.

  6. simon says

    If they are to dump some cruise missiles which cost millions of dollars, at least they should order them from China. They may also get the support of China in the Security Council as bonus. The reason they won’t do it is because GOP don’t want to alienate their supporters i.e. the military industry.

  7. Tom says

    I cannot see how anything positive is gained by any kind of response. Unless Assad is killed. Its time for the U.S. to stop being the worlds policeman. Lord knows the Arab states are drowning in dollars. Let them or somebody else step up to the plate for a change.

  8. Caliban says

    Uh, I believe that certain weapons are off bounds. You think chemical weapons are just something that happens there? Well let’s see how you feel about it in the NYC subway or the middle of Ohio.

    By NOT punishing Syria for using chemical weapons aren’t we implicitly approving their use? You don’t think the US should have that responsibility? Isn’t it a bit late to abdicate the role we’ve played for so long?

    What would it take before intervention is needed? Putting poison in the food? Well breathing air is even more basic than that. I am the furthest thing from a warhawk, but the use of chemical weapons can’t be left unchecked.

  9. lessthan says

    Look guys, the Syrian military dropped an incendiary bomb on school over the weekend. Last week, they dropped lethal gas on a suburb in Damascus. This is a civil war that has already killed around 100,000 Syrians. We have been staying out of it, it is their civil war. However, don’t you think that a departure from conventional arms should be discouraged? At least for the sake of the innocent? Warfare is awful, chemical warfare is worse.

  10. Joseph Singer says

    So, all McCain cares about is our “credibility.” Lives don’t matter. It doesn’t matter that already hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died. It only matters when it involves gas. I get it (no, I don’t.)

  11. SoLeftImRight says

    War! The Republicans finally found one thing they can agree on with the Kenyan Socialist, Nobel Peach Prize-winner in the White House. This will not end well, other than for arms contractors and the politicians who serve them.

  12. RonCharles says

    Here we go again! If Americans do not want to set forth on another ill-conceived, poorly-thought-out and foolish adventure in the Middle East, they need to contact their Senators and Congressmen and tell them to vote “No” on military action in Syria. Tell them to, “Just Say No!”

Leave A Reply