I thought the current POTUS was going to correct the U.S.'s standing in the world so when it came to intervening in events we would have a larger international coalition? Now we can't even get the U.K. to stand with us.
......with the lies about WMD in Iraq.
Does it?
and if it was Assad, Syria is fighting a civil war, every one fighting against the government is labeled a terrorist. I was under the impression terrorist who oppose governments, no longer have rights.
The International Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of chemical weapons. An national leaders that violate this ban needs to be captured and tried for war crimes!
Where is the proof Assad's regime was the responsible for the use of chemical weapons?
I thought the goal of military intervention was not regime change?
CW were used, along with a weak link to Syria's stock pile.. per CNN
I clearly remember BO promising he would fix things
Perhaps the POTUS is influenced by Forbes #4?
This is for Big Papasan FUTW
they used wmd on their own people. thats how we knew they had them.
ask yourself this did you oppose that war for any reason other than it was started by a republican?
if it was al gore doing it would you so vehemently attack him?
sheep!
obama cant put together a coalition to side with al qadia in syria
so its bushes fault?
how long do we blame bush
was it LIES? or bad INTEL..... Hillary Clinton voted for the war based on the Intel we had at the time.
And everyone remembers the mistakes that led us into war with Iraq.
The British are smart enough to know that this isn't exactly about the use of chemical weapons. It's about the US making sure that we control the Middle East for years to come, thus giving us a monopoly over the world's energy supplies, and thus denying those supplies to Russia and China.
Smarter people are saying we shouldn't bother, and we should instead focus on moving beyond the use of fossil fuels.