Is there any way conceivable that the U.S, can morally defend a bombing of selected Syrian sites, especially now that the Russian deal is also on the table?
As well as that, http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-us/25... ' .. Chief of Staff Denis McDonough .... United States does not have "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that the regime carried out the attack. '
1.we are too weak 2.we have no plan after the strikes 3.sniffing weakness, terror will be on the rise 4. and still there will be no good plan to make us stronger
According to this story (http://www.nepaldispatch.com/2012/12/pol...) a bank clerk in Katmandu was actually an accomplice in a bank robbery. No telling who should be bombed there.
In a bizarre story, a Syrian businessman allegedly arranged for the kidnapping of three Romanian journalists in Iraq. Fortunately, justice seems to have been done without Romanian airstrikes. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/mid...
And trivial as those might be, the horrible truth is that nothing has changed in Darfur but President Obama apparently sees no red lines there.
President Obama only does what he is told. Just as George W. Bush had Dick Cheney, Barack Obama has Joseph Biden. Behind them and around them are many others all of them just delegates from different factions of the real decision makers. We call them the Bilderbergers, and the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Illuminati, and maybe those people really do play chess with world affairs and maybe they just think they do, but whatever else is going on, the statement that Barack Obama makes US foreign policy belongs in the "Humor" category.
Now, George H. W. Bush, having been US Ambassador to the UN and then head of the CIA and then vice president and his father having been a senator and all that, yes, a president like that could be a key decision-maker in US foreign policy.
John Kennedy was another. On the other hand, as powerful as Lyndon Johnson was, his basis was domestic. The same analysis applies to Ronald Reagan: he came to the White House with his own power base (which Pres. Obama lacked), but foreign affairs was NOT on his own desk: for that, he had advisors, apparently the same ones that Pres. Obama has...
Now he is stalling, praying for the paint to dry, before he has to make the most disastrous call of his presidency.
http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-us/25...
' .. Chief of Staff Denis McDonough ....
United States does not have "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that the regime carried out the attack. '
2.we have no plan after the strikes
3.sniffing weakness, terror will be on the rise
4. and still there will be no good plan to make us stronger
In a bizarre story, a Syrian businessman allegedly arranged for the kidnapping of three Romanian journalists in Iraq. Fortunately, justice seems to have been done without Romanian airstrikes.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/mid...
And trivial as those might be, the horrible truth is that nothing has changed in Darfur but President Obama apparently sees no red lines there.
Now, George H. W. Bush, having been US Ambassador to the UN and then head of the CIA and then vice president and his father having been a senator and all that, yes, a president like that could be a key decision-maker in US foreign policy.
John Kennedy was another. On the other hand, as powerful as Lyndon Johnson was, his basis was domestic. The same analysis applies to Ronald Reagan: he came to the White House with his own power base (which Pres. Obama lacked), but foreign affairs was NOT on his own desk: for that, he had advisors, apparently the same ones that Pres. Obama has...
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/wp-content...