this isnt a religious war genius; its a civil war. and then why did we get involved in Libya?

The protesters need to claim they have struck oil in Syria, then see how fast we come to their "rescue".

Civilians dying and russia and china clearly show that they could care less. We really couldn't expect any less from countries which practice human rights abuses. Chechnya, Tibet, etc. All for the sake of military bases, weapons sales, and or natural resources. Wait a minute, didn't we do that in Iraq.....

I suspect the Arab League efforts will, in time, work out against the Syrian government. They might be able to do it without the war threatened in the defeated U.N. Resolution.

The word for today is HEGEMONY. Look it up.

All for the sake of military bases, weapons sales, and or natural resources. Wait a minute, didn't we do that in Iraq.....

Since you keep posting the same thing over and over I'll simply answer your shallow question - NO

I was going to say the same thing.......leave em alone. every where we go to bring the locals around to our way of thinking, it blows up in our face. U.S. leave everybody alone!

Maybe it's just an Arab Spring cleaning...

HEGEMONY: authority or control: control or dominating influence by one person or group, especially by one political group over society or one nation over others. OK, I looked it up-now what?

It is not the place of the US to try to conquer the world. When was the last time our government didn't have troops invading two other countries?

Tdemex:

I believe he said "focus on our homeland." That includes securing our own borders. It does not include attempting to conquer the world.

Talk about oddly funny. Liberals in 2003 were arguing Bush should heed the words of the UN (forget that those words called for all necessary force in Iraq) and not go it alone. Which we didn't go alone in any event. Today, some of those same liberals are arguing to ignore the words of the UN and to do what we must, alone if we must, to right a wrong.

Sorry, but you have no credibility we me.

So, Russia, China what do you want from us to go along with fixing Syria's human rights problems? What can we give you for your vote?

So we should let an enemy come right up to our borders and lob sarin gas and ricin bombs on us..

That is foolishness beyond words. Ron Paul is deluded as is his minions. I don't want an enemy at arms length. I want them at an oceans length away at minimum.

Sorry, I will not trade a few dollars saved for an illusion the world will suddenly like us and start baking us cookies. Wars fought on other soil are better than in my front yard.

BTW, we don't need to conquer Syria, and I doubt that is our goal in any event. But Syria, as the story relates, is a Russian friend in the ME. Worse is that Syria is certainly an ally of Iran, and so a conduit for illegal trade with Iran in order to undermine any sanctions placed upon Iran. So there are two good national security reasons to want regime change in Syria. How we pursue that idea matters though.

We don't need to invade. We don't need to bomb. We do need to clearly signal to regime opponents that they will get our assistance, whether intel or perhaps even arms, so long as those regime opponents are western friendly. In Libya we made a major strategic mistake, same as in Egypt, by supporting regime opponents that are not western friendly themselves. Kind of an "out of the pan and into the fire" strategy. Obama was and is dumb for having pursued it. Our nation will be less safe for it.

I'm very pleased to see our government standing at the side of the will of the masses of the population of Syria (as leaders come and go and I believe we certainly fare better by standing by the people and not the leaders). China and Russia will eventually have to deal with their own internal issues of suppression and the ultimate ramifications upon them for turning against the Syrian people.

Tdemex, did you sleep through American History in school? We didn't ignore the Japanese. We embargoed them after WWI. Are you insinuating Syria would attack us like Japan? If you are, your notion is ridiculous as their situation is totally different. As to Syria's problem, civil war or religious war, we need to stay out of it. It's this sort of "nation building" that gets us labeled as Imperialists. Obama has become an absolute war monger and so has Clinton. They've gotten pretty comfortable with using our troops to stick their noses into other countries business. I never realized Liberals are so fond of killing.

LiFe&LiBertY.defender I respectfully disagree with your comment a departure for me as I am not pro-American world policeman. The UN's failure now becomes a huge problem for us and others. Keep in mind Syria in the past has turned over several terrorists including Bin Laden's half brother for starters. We know Iran uses Syria for it's own purposes a major concern for us. Iran has long been a global thorn. Syria's problems have the potential to peg nation against nation including world powers. Add to this mix that Israel will not nor would not hesitate to act against Syria or Iran. Israel has shown they are not shy in doing so in the past. If Israel feels threatened and acts there will be no turning back. Russia and China's alliance on this issue is even more problematic and dangerous. Russia and China were the two major communist nations decades ago whose priority was never human rights. We are facing more then just a strategic concern a nightmare. This nightmare would involve much of the Middle East add China and then Russia. Unfortunately we have a huge stake in this one not good.



Hey justathought,

If we come down on the side of the people that is okay with me, so long as it is a consequence to acting in our own national interest. Like I wrote before, Egypt and Libya are two good examples of the US following a bad policy for perhaps a good reason. So let's, this time if we do anything, identify who among the Syrians will be an ally to us after the dust settles, and help them so that when Syria emerges from the civil war our friends might be the ones in power. In Egypt and Libya, the best we can hope for today is that our enemies won't solidify their grip on power.

So, no, we should not intervene in Syria just because we want to be on the side of the people. We should intervene in Syria, if at all, because our national interests will be advanced.

This entire article goes on and on, in great detail, about Russia blocking U.N. Security Council action on Syria, yet says not a word about China doing the same thing, other than they did it.

Both Russia and China are commie countries and the elite groups that run these countries are scared totally sh*tless that the voice of the Syrian people succeeding in their cries to get the elite group's collective foot off of their collective throat might spread successfully into their commie sh*tbag countries.

The Wall Street/banking 'J'elite group that runs the USA has way too much going on with China to allow its personally owned US media to speak ill of its financial buddy.

As far as what is happening in Syria, I am all for it. Muslims killing Muslims, I see nothing but good coming from that. Works for me.

Lets topple another country like Egypt, or kill another dictator like gahdaffi.

We can see how wonderful things have turned out in those countries.

If you want to change a country, don't seek to tear apart and leave it to fend for itself.

Rich, true however we went over there to find non-existent WMDs. That war was based on a lie. This situation is completely different and more akin to Libya. The Syrian government is actively killing those protesting against it's dictatorship, it has no comparison to the Iraq war. Nice try though.

John what we want does not matter one flipping bit. It is what the peoples of those countries wanted. They wanted to, for once in their history, be in real control of their destiny instead of having the ex-dictators authority pushed down their throats. Let them take their country in the direct that they want to, for good or bad.

What we have no right to do is install our own dictators like we did with Mubarak. I really do not care what the peoples of those countries decide to vote into power as long as it is not Al-Qaeda or some other proven terrorist organization like Hamas. Otherwise they can become an Islamist state or anything else because that was their own decision and I will respect that decision as any decent human being should.

We take much of what we, as Americans, have for granted. Elections have been come some what of an annoyance because they always draw out the stupid attack ads and brinksmanship between parties. Many people in the ME, the moderates, would, pardon the use of the phrase, kill to have a system like we have, where they could decide the future of their country every few years. The only reason it has not happened yet is these decades old dictatorships refuse to relinquish their power and when forced to they put on displays like Ghaddafi did and like what Syria is now doing.

These dictators that refuse to change with modern times and modern ways of thinking need to be removed before the Mid East countries can be brought up to the 21st century, before religion can be taken out of the way their Governments work, before they can begin to weed out social practices that many of the Muslim haters find so abhorrent.

The first step is always to remove those in power that are fighting against change, else change cannot happen.

Hi Geowil,

Of course if I was implying that the Iraq war is the same as all other wars you would have a point. But I wasn't, and so you don't. The point is that liberals use a decision making process that appears to be based more upon who is sitting in the oval office than on whether US national interests are at stake. On that level, Iraq was easily a more important policy for the USA than Egypt, Libya, or even Syria.

Iraq was not based upon a lie, and even democrats at the time agreed, repeatedly, that Iraq was violating its cease fire promises and had not disarmed. But what many of these same liberals did at that time was argue the USA should heed the determination of the UNSC, which, as it turns out in this case, is what people like you are saying we should NOT heed. What is different? The party of the president most simply. Which policy had more importance for US national security? Unless Syria develops into a serious strategy to neuter Iran, then Iraq was more serious.

And who is less serious? Judging by your reply I would suggest you are. Which is why you have no credibility with me. I would love it if our liberal friends in the USA were more serious and less political about FP matters, but the facts don't bear this out.

There was 200 bodies, President Obama, do you know how many people was killed in this country at one time, and it is still happening today. The USA, can't even supply this country with jobs, and yet this country leaders is always in another countries business. Hillary Clinton, for the things that you and your husband has gotten by with you should never open your mouth

I really wouldn't mind if I never heard another word like sharia law.muslim brotherhood,islamist,stoning,beheading etc etc

....Then turn off FOXNews

tdemex

AH! You mean like we ignored Japan once?

You didn't ignore Japan that was the entire problem.

The West in general shouldn't be getting involved in these disputes,

Russia hasn't been socialist for a couple of decades, if they ever were (considering the workers never really had any control, I'd argue they were about as socialist as Iran is a democracy for holding "elections" every 4 years).

Hey Capt. Tripps,

I agree they were never the socialist utopia envisioned by Marx and Engel and Lenin, but I also think that began and ended as a fantasy. Socialism will always end up making people less free, less wealthy, less powerful. Maybe it can work in a family, or even in a small tribe, though I doubt it there too. And, yet, millions of Americans want to go down that path. Funny how those who came before us, and warned us of these things, are excised from the national conversation so that we can instead listen to people who will promise us everything, for nothing.

Hi Another Fine Mess,

I want to make sure I understand you. Japan, which began it's modern militaristic culture in the later 1800s, and then turned that into an imperialistic culture in the early 1900s, should have been ignored by the USA when, in the 1930s, it invaded Manchuria and began to systematically kill millions of Chinese? We should have continued to trade with Japan as if nothing was occurring in China? We should have paid no attention to Japan's strategic moves towards SE Asia?

I suppose if you answer that we should have continued on as if nothing mattered then Japan would never have been upset with the USA for refusing to supply it with the raw materials it needed to kill millions of people. But is that the kind of world in which you want to live? One that is, at best, nihilistic.

Rich, what national interests do we have in Iraq, besides oil? I see no legitimate reason for the war in Iraq other then that Saddam was one of those brutal dictators. I have no qualms about what happened to him, I actually think he got what he deserved.

But both reasons given as the deciding factors in starting Iraq were either untrue or were greatly overplayed. Saddam was not harboring Taliban or Al-Qaeda units, he did not have nukes or any other WMD's. The premise of that war was based on lies and over exaggeration.

If it had a more solid grounding in why we needed to head over there, like what we had with the Afghanistan war, the fact of it being an illegitimate war would be nonexistent.

Unlike you I think that we have a responsibility, as one of the freest nations and we still are even with recent bills stripping some of those freedoms, to urge other nations who suppress their populations to adopt our ways of freedom of expression. We have a responsibility to suggest that other nations treat their citizens with the same level of respect that our country does. We do not have the right to force other nations to grow up, to put it plainly, but we should actively be encouraging our policies regarding civilian involvement in government and freedoms in countries where they do not have such privileges.

I also think we have a duty to call out other governments when they start killing their own citizens. That is reason enough to ask the UN for sanctions or intervention, possibly even start a war if circumstances are very bad. We should not, as you say, back any one side as winners but instead urge repressive and murderous regimes to step down and urge democratic election practices.

One of the few reasons the ME is so screwed up is because religious dictators, once appointed, are generally there for quite a long time and are usually never pressured. The populous is forced to follow their laws with no say in the matter and they have become very complacent and do not fight back against their government, or did not until last year.

Also Rich, how were the policies used in Libya wrong? We did not need to send any troops in, we spent much less on it per day then either Iraq or Afghanistan. The desired result was achieved and Gaddafi was killed. True things are still rocky over there, but that was true for America as well. It will take time for both Libya and Egypt to stabilize, it is not going to happen overnight, relatively speaking.

What i do not understand though is why you seemingly do not want us involved with any part of the sanctions against Syria. You are not bothered that the Syrian government is killing thousands of people for just voicing their opinions? Do you think that the problem is going to sort itself out?

While that may be true eventually, if our involvement in pushing out Assad saves lives then we should be involved in the actions against his regime. Why let the matter fix itself at the risk of thousands becoming hundreds of thousands when we have a chance to keep that from happening?

Are you kidding? Yes, I also believe that America should look to solve problems within our own borders first, but if America ignores the Islamic Extremist problem, than the Muslims will soon overtake America (b/c believe it or not, the takeover has already begun....if you don't believe me, watch the documentary called "The Third Jihad"...scary stuff).

With regards to Syria, the only reason China and Russia "veto'd" the decision is b/c they both have a history of "Dictatorship-style" governments that severly abuse thier own people....and if they approve this, then they feel that they could be next. It's also bad for business to put your biggest customers out on the street. In the Solviets eyes, money talks, they could care less if innocent people get killed, as long as the Syrian government is using up Russian weapons and bullets...the more they kill, the more weapons used, the more the Syrians will have to buy!

Awwwwwww poor Billery cant handle it when world political powers Backa form of government that she doesnt agree with. Guess its time to take your ball(yes iys ball singular, Bill only has one left) and go home Billery, your time is over

Hey Geowil,

Three reasons were given for invading Iraq. Harboring Taliban or AQ wasn't one of them. WMD non-compliance was one. The humanitarian threat to his people that Saddam posed was one of them (kinda like the Libya and Syria situations, you know?). And the ongoing threat to peace and stability in the region was one of them.

All three were true when given, and remained true. Iraq had failed to comply with its 1991 cease fire disarmament obligations despite every chance for them to comply being given to them. The original 90 day timeline was extended year after year, and frankly by the 12th year of violating the cease fire Saddam logically concluded we would never force him to abide by his promises. It cannot be wise policy for the victor over an aggressor nation in war to then let that nation, Iraq in this case, sue for cease fire but never abide by the cease fire. Some way had to be found to cause Saddam to comply, and sanctions, which leftists railed against for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, weren't working. Mostly, btw, for the same reasons sanctions against Syria will likely fail--too many countries routinely violated the sanctions and helped Iraq. Same as it will be in Syria. Same too as it will be with Iran.

Saddam had easily killed far more people than Quaddafi or Assad. Some of you are prepared to act on those two now, but dismiss the actual fact that Saddam was a far worse killer of his own people. So either your support for national policy is based on party ID, or you think dead Iraqis aren't nearly as important as dead Libyans, or dead Syrians, or you simply dispute the objective fact that Saddam easily killed more of his people. I think the reason is the former.

As it turns out the instability reason was the most accurate, and the one that carried the greatest national interest to the USA. It wasn't until after Saddam's deposition that we knew there was little in the way of WMDs there, though there were plenty of programs with which to produce more if needed, but it was always clear that Saddam was inciting violence in the region, whether against Iran or Israel or Kuwait. In some cases I think Saddam had actual greivances (like Kuwaiti oil drilling into Iraq) but aggressive war was not the way to handle that problem. Further, he was using the belief he had large stockpiles of WMDs to intimidate other nations which both caused them to want to militarize even more, and caused the USA to divert large amounts of resources to the area of many decades.

So those were the reasons the administration gave--you can look them up to see you are wrong about your claims--and my cursory explanation of how they mattered to the USA.

I don't oppose helping the Syrian people. What I wrote was that before we help the Syrians we should first figure out, unlike what we did in Egypt and Libya, who our friends are and who are non-friends are. The case of both Egypt and Libya should cause everyone to rethink the idea of causing regime change just 'cause we wanna. In both countries those who are assuming power seem to dislike the USA far more than the previous regime (which is not an argument to keep the previous regime), and yet in both cases there are friendly political factions that we could have empowered more simply by how we helped them depose their despotic rulers.

A thoroughly mistaken argument by you is about religious rulers. Assad, Mubarak, Quaddafi, Hussein, these were all secular muslims. Because of our actions we are likely to see religious despots take power at least in Egypt and Libya, which is the very outcome you claim is the problem. I don't know about Syria, and I don't think our government knows about Syria as well, but given Mr. Obama's policies in Egypt and Libya I think he is perfectly happy with a despotic fundamentalist outcome in Syria. Happy might be too strong for some, but give me any indication he wants some other outcome, not words but actions, and I would back off a bit.

Rich I am well aware that the more recently disposed dictators were all secular, however not all of them were completely secular. Sharia law is based upon text from the Quaran, it is basically a set of religions laws that can supersede secular ones. As well as all of the religious dogma and traditions that have been forced onto the Arabs for the past few centuries.

I also take some offense to this comment:

So either your support for national policy is based on party ID, or you think dead Iraqis aren't nearly as important as dead Libyans, or dead Syrians, or you simply dispute the objective fact that Saddam easily killed more of his people. I think the reason is the former.

I never said, in my posts above that I did not agree that Saddam had to be removed, I even stated exactly that in my posts. However the reasons given are what I said I did not believe.

The ability to produce WMD's and actually having possession of them are two different things. Like with Iran. They do not have a nuclear weapon nor do we have any 100% solid proof that they are making one yet because they are working on a nuclear energy program Israel and others assume the worst.

That said I have no doubt that, at some point, they will want to obtain a nuke, but I do not think that they are making one right now; it is just more saber rattling from the Iranian Government. I may be proven wrong or right if Israel decides to pull the trigger on that issue.

However no WMD's were found to be within Saddam's possession and there was no evidence that he had been making any or had been planning to make any; factories not in production prove nothing. However I do agree that he had to be removed from power one way or another. I would have accepted the Iraq war if Bush had claimed it was for humanitarian reasons, as that would not have been a lie.

Even if it was thought to be true at the time it was later proven to be a lie or false information. To me that is not defensible by saying that we thought it was true, that is like saying we though that hydrochloric acid was safe until we dumped a bucket of it onto someone and hurt them. If a truth is later found out to be a lie then the original truth was also a lie.

And about Libya and Egypt, at the moment it does not matter if despots are elected. If their new found electoral process continues then those despots will not be around long enough to solidify power and if they try to repeal the people's voice in such elections they will find themselves in the same position as their predecessors. I am much more comfortable with a despot that the people have elected then with a secular government put into place by us or some other foreign country.

The people of those countries have the right to decide their own fates. If they want a religious despot who are we to argue against that? While I am not happy with their choice if they do so I respect it as their choice. Democracy is never clean when it first starts, it is always messy and many people end up dying in the name of freedom, but those lives empower and influence others to take up the flag of freedom and democracy and continue the fight until it is won.

We saw this in Tunisia where the Arab Spring began because one man killed himself with fire in protest of the Government's corruption. We say it back in the 1700's when the Pilgrims fled from Britain and came here and then fought off the British army and won their independence. Blood is always going to be shed in the pursuit of freedom, however as a country that has obtain and held onto it's freedom for better then 200 years we have an obligation to help those that seek a more democratic system obtain it.

After that democratic process has been enacted it is up to the people to continue the support for it. Enough people in Egypt want fair and clean elections. If a politician is elected through subversive means they will force him out of office.

I could go on but I think that is enough pages xD

Point is if it is the will of the people, and so long as they are still able to practice democratic elections, why should we stop them from electing religious despots? They might even learn from that experience that theocracy is not the direction that they originally wanted to go in and while those actions may result in another revolution it may be necessary to allow the ME to grow because you learn best from the mistakes that you make. The people of the ME have had to make very few political decisions in their history, all they had to do was follow what the regime said and they would not be hurt or killed. They need to flounder a bit and make mistakes in order to learn what they truly need from a Government before the underlying reason why the Middle East is such a cut-throat place can be resolved.

Hi Geowil,

Sorry you are offended, but I think it is true. Bush gave those three reasons for war and you ignored two of them entirely, and then attributed to him one he never argued. Saddam killed many more people, hundreds of thousands more, than either Quaddafi or Assad, and you are willing to say to Mr. Obama to go get those guys. Well, Bush made the same mistake, yet you call him a liar for speaking truthfully about what he knew.

You are wrong in every respect as well in the remainder of your post. Illegal weapons and weapons components, along with precursor agents, and the infrastructure to make more illegal weapons, were discovered in Iraq. That you think we should not care that Iraq had failed to properly disarm, as it promised to end the 1991 war, simply because the level of their stockpiles was not large enough for you to care misses the point entirely. Maybe it was (I think it was) always a bad idea to ask Saddam to prove a negative--that he did not possess those items on that list--in order for him to comply with the cease fire, particularly since no one trusted him to be honest, but that was the paradigm Mr. Bush inherited.

And you can't argue both positions, that the dictators were secularists and those taking power are not, AND that you prefer less religious leadership and more secular, while saying you support the policy under Mr. Obama to remove the former but allow for the latter to prevail.

But your worst error, easily, is in saying that while you believe Iran WANTS a nuclear weapons arsenal you don't think they will have one anytime soon, and so therefore we should do nothing. This despite you inferring Iran should not be allowed to have nukes. If Iran gets nukes then it will be too late to prevent them, and too much damage would be created to destroy their created capability. So, assuming you agree with Mr. Obama that Iran cannot have nukes, then there is no other option short of an attack to defeat their program in order to deny them those weapons.

I think the better policy would be to target for assassination not just the scientists working on these weapons (and actually we do know they are pursuing this program since they are enriching uranium to levels far beyond what is needed to run a civil energy reactor--see the IAEA report) but also to begin killing the political and military leaders which are pushing the weapons. I doubt it would be easy, but without regime change, and to a new regime which disavows nukes, then the only other possible outcome will be a major attack, if not war.

I would hope that you might read the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports regarding Iraq's illegal weapons programs. But you have to look at them as if you are seeing them in real time, before we invaded. There is no way to conclude that Iraq had complied and disarmed, and so there was no reason to assume Iraq had dismantled their programs and destroyed the weapons. Had we not invaded then every nation on earth would rightly conclude that Iraq got the better of us even though it had lost a war it started. What an awful foreign policy situation. But not to our leftist friends, apparently. They seemingly viewed a triumphant Iraq over the USA as a good outcome. Weird, to say the least.

Sorry but I wrote something that is unclear. By "same mistake" I mean that Bush argued to go after Saddam on humanitarian reasons. It was his second of three justifications. And I think Bush expected those with a "D" after their name to hear what he said, and to give weight to it. They didn't, and instead began to call Bush a liar. It's a shame he didn't call people like you out then, but he seemed to have felt that getting in a political fight of that kind shouldn't be done by a president. This president doesn't view that chore the same way.

I believe insinuating that anyone who disagreed with him was unamerican is proof that Bush wasn't "above it all".

how did they "get bit"? what was their stake in seeing a brutal dictator remain in power?

The worm turns. The US has blocked every UN resolution against Israel, which has created a bellicose monster. That monster is now threatening to create havoc on the world's economies and possibly start WW3. Israel cares nothing about anyone, but Israel.

They will happily watch as America, their chief sponsor, is thrust into another depression. Zionist forces were behind the war in Iraq and now they are war mongering again.

This is Russia and China taking care of their own interests.

Rufus3, what happened in Libya isn't glorious!! If you read alternative sources of information to your beloved MSNBC outlets , like the BBC-UK for example, you will find out that the torture is still going on and the so called rebels are now controlling different parts of the country killing anybody standing in their way. The new Libyan government is a farce and its better (only slightly) members are starting to resign.

Why is US continuously getting involved in these civil wars? Don't we have enough problems to fix in our own backyard?

Oh I don't know, how about that time when "O" pressured them into not blocking a UN resolution authorizing a "no fly zone" that "WE" promptly turned into a "Regime Change Mandate", and commenced bombing pro Gadaffi Forces and targets...so NATO could seize Lybian oil for Europe

If Mitt is elected, he has said he will make the military strong - the US could be over there again in a year.

Ralph; everything from Moroco to Pakistan and then some is Muslim except for that little spit of dirt known as Isreal. Do you really think they are the problem? When the tinder box known as the Middle East erupts into flames,I guarantee Russia and China will not side with the West.Not frightened????...you should be.

Elect ron paul! Get rid of the united nations. All these politicians can't wait to go to Iran. Thier all worried that something might be uncovered from what we did 40 years ago. What we did was get rid of a democracy and install a dictator. Iran is our fault people!!@!@ We need to stay the hell out of other peoples business. If we did we wouldn't be having terrorist attacks. 911 is a direct result of us sticking our nose in the middle easts business!! Hilary clinton is always trying to start another war. All these politicians with stocks in weapon manufacturers and haliburton and other like companies are always trying to make money off a war. They don't care what happens to our kids as long as they see thier stocks rising!!@ That's why we never win a war anymore, the presidents that don't know anything about war and the lobbyists paying them off to keep the wars going. Don't forget our boys can't punch a terrorist in the head, but they can behead our soldiers!!!!

ya think Bush/Cheney invaded Irag for Israel? No, they did that to make Halliburton and Texas oil rich and later cash-in on their stock options with all these corporations.

You can bet Cheney did invade Iraq for Israel and for his own pocketbook. The Iraq war was planned and sold by Zionist, neoconservatives, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who Cheney put into high ranking jobs in the Pentagon. Those Zionists, in turn stacked other high positions with their Zionmists friends. Together, they twsted the intelligence and sold the war though leaks to the Zionist dominated media.

The prime motivation for regime change, was to install a leader who would be friendly to Israel and permit a new oil pipeline to be built from Iraq, through Jordan, to the Israeli Port of Haifa. It would make Israel a big player in the ME, rich beyond their dreams. They would have control of oil to all of Europe.

"The pipeline would be a dream," Yosef Paritzky, Israel's minister of infrastructures, said as reported by Salon.com. "We'd have an additional source of supply, and could even export some of the crude through Haifa. But we'd need a treaty with Iraq . . . to build the pipeline."

Once Chalabi assumed a position of influence in the new Iraqi government, Israel would get its treaty, the neoconservatives were assured. The pipeline was by no means the only reason for going to war, but it could well have been one reason.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/19725/iraq-to-haifa-oil-pipeline-could-spur-economic-rebirth/

From Kissinger thru to present times the state dept has been staffed with person in tight alignment with ZAionism in Israel. Along with the influenced media we always get the spin and state dept support of anything Israel wants. I have no issue supporting their soverginity and existence--just that they have to step up and do something for peace also. The one Israel primier who was for peace got assiginated by the Israels right wing fanatics. They are almost as bad as Hamas.

Hey Ralph H,

Man, you gotta get a new act. This anti-Israel rant of some people is neither fact-based, nor persuasive. Iraq was defeated. Saddam was replaced. No pipeline deal was consumated. Your earlier post was just as wrong--the USA has not vetoed every resolution against Israel. We do support Israel though, as we support our other allies as well. 242 and 338, for instance, place burdens on Israel, but ALSO on the arabs, and the USA didn't block those.

Why do you seemingly ignore the context in which many of the UN resolutions against Israel are brought? They aren't brought forward by people with no dog in the fight, just the opposite is true, they are often brought to try to gain a political edge. And it seems with you and people like you, it works. Arab despots desperate to keep their people distracted have often complained about their failures being Israel's fault, or our fault, or both, and have used the UNSC as little more than a disinformation/propaganda outlet. Which doesn't make Israel pure, but it sure casts your ideas in a different light.

Hey Rich - You read it yourself, if you can read, right from the JWeekly. The pipeline deal failed only because the Iraqi people didn't accept Chalabi, or another Israeli puppet to be installed as leader. Jordan had already agreed to let the pipeline pass through Jordan, in return for royalties. Look up Iraq to Israel oil pipeline. There are many sources for this information. I don't make this stuff up. I provide lots of proof. Want more links, there are many?

Bush and Cheney wanted a permanent presence of American troops in Iraq. Those troops were to be stationed along the route of the pipeline. The Iraq war, was a war for Israel. The war did not go exactly as Wolfowitz and other Zionist neocons predicted.

Zionist warmongers like Ken Adelman and the Zionist Washington Post pushed the war in an editorial titled, “Cakewalk in Iraq.” Jewish supremacists Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz told you that Iraq would “Welcome us as liberators.” Iraq became the longest war in American history. Here is a report from USA Today:“Pentagon officials estimated for the first time Wednesday that up to 360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may have suffered traumatic brain injuries.” Now that’s not counting tens of thousands who have suffered maiming, amputations, or death in this war based on lies.

The above is a cost of our friendship with Israel. Not one Israeli lost his life or suffered one wound. What an ally!

Here is a good video about 9/11, which predicts the Iraq war and attacks on Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He_4IGDNZU4&feature=related

George Galloway on exposes Syrian rebels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBHlTB1igxM

Hi Ralph H,

The problem with jew haters like you is that you pick and choose individual words, or sentences, or even whole arguments, that support your hate. I read your JWeekly piece and it doens't add up to anything other than Israelis would like to participate in trade with Iraq and Jordan. OMG! A country in the middle of other countries with resources would actually want to trade with them? Shocking. I mean wow, you have really unearthed the story of the century there.

Claims that the USA attacked Iraq in order to help Israel, as you have so ludicrously made, falter because of the most simple of reasons. All the things you assert were going to happen failed to happen. We were the victor in the war. Don't you think it was possible to re-open a pipeline? Well, you might have me on one point...advocates get giddy about future prospects. But like I said, this is a shocking story. Not.

The pipeline they were going to build, was along the same route as an old 8" British oil pipeline. The fact that the war didn't quite work out the Wolfowitz and his cabal of Jewish lawyers planned does not invalidate the premise that the war was for the oil of Iraq. They certainly were not going to get a deal done with Saddam in charge. He hated Israel for good reasons.

The war was for regime change, not a friendly trade agreement. I am going to provide you and our fellow forum members with some more links, some from Israel.

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli intelligence overplayed the threat posed by Iraq and reinforced the U.S. and British assessment that Saddam Hussein had large amounts of weapons of mass destruction, a retired Israeli general said Thursday.

The Israeli assessment may have been colored by politics, including a desire to see the Iraqi leader toppled, said Shlomo Brom, who was a senior Israeli military intelligence officer and is now a researcher with Israel's top strategic think tank.

Brom stopped short of accusing Israeli intelligence officials of intentionally misleading Britain and the United States.

His assertions could, however, undermine the reputation of the Israeli intelligence service, one of the most respected in the world.

The Israeli military declined comment, while other experts said Brom was exaggerating.

Goodness gracious Rich, look what I just found.

By Amiram Cohen (Haartez) & Editorial comment
Apr 14, 2008, 23:44

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
By Amiram Cohen

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.

National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan's consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that "due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel."

Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&contrassID=...'

This oil pipeline for Israel was the reason the US is on the hook for over 3 trillion dollars and has lost over 4500 soldiers, with over 365,000 seriously injured.

Rich - I went up on the Haaretz link and the story above, was printed in Haaretz Feb 6 2012. Apparently it must be Monday in Israel, while it is Sunday the 5th, here. I guess I am keeping up to date, quite well. The story as written, looks familiar to me, as if I had read it before. I don't understand the date of the link, which I found on a search engine, being 2008.

I will plug along, just keeping up with the news around the world, so I can be informed and inform others, such as you.

Last one Rich - Look at this link regarding the oil pipeline. It tell the whole story and then some. No more wars for Israel.

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

Hey Ralph H,

Thanks, but I guess you didn't read what I wrote. No one is arguing, or going to argue, that Israel doesn't want to conduct trade with her regional neighbors. You had claimed that we fought the war FOR Israel, in part to help insure the pipeline deal. I'll cede the point that our government operates slowly, but no less than 5 years AFTER Saddam is deposed before the first memo to see if it's feasible? If that is the best you have for connecting the dots then I think your argument is flat out dumb. We are now 9 years into this, and still no plan for a pipeline, no construction, nothing.

What I don't get is why you'd ignore all of the US national security reasons to have finished the war with Iraq to our own national benefit and simply chalk up the other stuff as one of your posts written by someone else said as just a bonus, in order to forward your hate for Israel. I'm not suggesting you love, or even like, let alone support, Israel, just that your hate for it is irrational.

Rich, I can give you links to many memos from 2003 saying Israel is going to get thatv pipeline. her is the first one I posted. Didn't you read it?

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/19725/iraq-to-haifa-oil-pipeline-could-spur-economic-rebirth/

Are you dim? The other reasons given to conduct the war were concocted by the Jews in the Pentagon, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Feith and Wurmser, all Zionists with close ties to the Likud government and Sharon. Imagine, staffing the Pentagon wioth Jewish lawyers, who planned the war, and sold the war.

There were no WMD. The Niger documents were foreged. Did you ever wonder who would want to forge those documents to make it appear Iraq was building nukes? The mobile biological weapons labs were for filling weather balloons.

Iraq was allowing international inspectors, who found nothing, no WMD, no factories building WMD nothing. David Kay went to Iraq and found nothing. You don't invade a country at the cost of trillions for a few violations of some sanctions. Bush and Cheney were 2 bozos. Wolfowitz and his cabal of lawyers should be tried and found guilty of treason, for pushing false intelligence to our politicians and the Zionist media. They regularly fed stories to Judy Miller and Charles Krauthammer to feed to the American people. It was all lies. Nothing they said ever came true. It appears they might get their pipeline.

Here is part of their sales pitch.

Zionist warmongers like Ken Adelman and the Zionist Washington Post pushed the war in an editorial titled, “Cakewalk in Iraq.” Jewish supremacists Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz told you that Iraq would “Welcome us as liberators.” Iraq became the longest war in American history. Here is a report from USA Today: “Pentagon officials estimated for the first time Wednesday that up to 360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may have suffered traumatic brain injuries.” Now that’s not counting tens of thousands who have suffered maiming, amputations, or death in this war based on lies.

Of course Bush believed their bs. Hell, who wouldn't be for a quick war, which would pay for itself and make you a hero. They said it would be a "cakewalk." Was it a cakewalk, Rich? The moral: Do not listen to Zionist Jews selling wars. They lie!

Nor Bigots either, it appears.

The lack of comprehension on this subject, denotes an infantile mental aberration. Makes one wonder if teaching some people how to express their views, is an impossibility, beyond the capability of the American School System.

Ralph H. Have you always been an Anti Semite? Christ, the vile dribble you put on this post is disgusting.

Get away from the computer, turn off Jerry, iron your sheet and hood and go to the Klan meeting already.

America no longer has the vertibrae that would be required to stand up for anything

JOE

SYRIA is the first place for us to draw the line in the sand. Russia and China have taken a wait and see position on this . It would be best if we ( the U.S. ) did the same. Let the Arab League step up to the plate for once. The problems in the middle east are all caused by Arabs, so let them clean up their own back yard. If anyone of the three countrys ( U.S.- Russia - China ) step in to help or clean up that mess. Than the Arab world will turn against them, thus causing more and wider spread trouble in the world.

This is one mess where I have to go along with Russia & China . Let cooler heads prevail as this plays out . We have wasted to many of our finest soldiers for nothing . All we got for the effort was more hatred and double crossed for our efforts.

bob

russia is in it to poke thier finger in the West's eye; china is in it for iran's oil and doesnt want to piss off iran. geez get a clue bob. if they are going to hate us theyazre going to hate us anyway

JoeNY,

"It's most likely that Russia and China have trade agreements with Syria"

They do have trade agreements with Syria, at least Russia does! Syria is a major buyer of Russian made military equipment. That means the weapons they are using to kill their own people have been or are being supplied by Russia. I don't know about China's interest in the matter, but I suspect they also have some kind of trade agreements with Syria. It's all about money.

Unfortunately, Russia and China can point back at US: we supported Bahrain, last year, when people were killed by their own government and by the troops brought from Saudi Arabia! Both of these countries are not democracies by any means!! We cannot continue to choose winners and losers. IF WE WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY ONE MORE TIME, WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT

Nico75,

"Unfortunately, Russia and China can point back at US: we supported Bahrain, last year, when people were killed by their own government and by the troops brought from Saudi Arabia!"

Yes, that's true, but we have also been pressuring Bahrain through our diplomats to make reforms, and they have been making some changes. Syria has not.

What change, nothing change in this country. People still go to prison because they criticize the government, no freedom of the press and so on.... Women have no rights specialy when they are killed by their families (crime of honnor)... In fact, these countries (SA, Quatar...) don't care about our pressuring it's the other way around we obey to their demands because they have oil and money. Since when the US support islamists armed groups..... and what about christians in syria who have to move from Homs to Damascus for safety because they are targeted for what they are. Get in touch with them and you will hear another story.

Hayatte Abid,

"What change, nothing change in this country. People still go to prison because they criticize the government, no freedom of the press and so on...."

I can't argue with you about that, especially if you live there. You would know better than I would. I was just going by what I heard the king of Bahrain say, that they are making reforms. I guess from what you say they are not. The king must just have been talking out the side of his mouth.

The U.S. is guilty of genocide against the indigeounos population, that numbered around 50 million, much larger than any holocaust. The U.S., mandatory, education system teaches Thanksgiving holiday to all its immagrant children, to mislead the population.

Let's not forget the many european countries that settled in this area before it became the US, the indigenous genocide perpetrated by the spanish in Mexico, central and south america around that time. The many genocides before that and since.

The Iranian *mandatory* education system does not teach about the Jewish holocaust, jewish-iranians with any ties to Israel whatsoever are executed. Thanksgiving is not a mandatory holiday, its primary purpose is to commemorate the religious freedom of the settlers at Plymouth Rock who were escaping persecution. That's why they left europe and came here.

Let's not forget the many european countries that settled in this area before it became the US, the indigenous genocide perpetrated by the spanish in Mexico, central and south america around that time. The many genocides before that and since.

Oh well I guess that justifies the murder and extermination of 50million+ <sarcasm>

Reality, Syria has no strategic value whatsoever. Sad about the human rights abuses, the killings and the oppression, but still no strategic value.

Keep our boys/girls home on this one. Let the region sort it out on its own, until such time that it appears in our national interests to meddle.

Oh well I guess that justifies the murder and extermination of 50million+ <sarcasm>

No, it means that other nations share the responsibility because the USA wasn't established until 1776. That's a span of almost 400 years there between first contact with white settlers and establishment of the USA.

The iranian educational system does not even teach children about the jewish holocaust. At least we (USA) teach our children about the decimation of the indian population in the americas. I would say we accept our responsibility while the Iranians do not accept the premise of the holocaust.

Never fear, Golodrobbers Sachs, will come to their 'rescue' which should just about leave Syria and Libya...in the same financial position as the USA, and every other country, such as Greece, where they 'do business.
http://www.qfinance.com/blogs/-/2012/02/07/how-goldman-sachs-became-the-most-hated-bank-on-earth

The Russians and Chinese hear the footsteps. Western Hegemony knows no bounds, it is like the Borg of Star Trek fame.

Yep, we're the Borg, but China seems to be the ferengi. LOL

The USA can't let Syria spoil the upcomming party in Iran.

my god how can you be so clueless??? we dont want a war with Iran or Syria; the world community wants to stop the slaughter of Syrian people. and what kind of moron thinks Russia and china have our best interests in mind?

Time to give up the sugar cubes... You are obviously high if you think Russia and China have *our* best interests in mind when they do something.

"Undergo another campaign?" Where does it says the US would undergo another campaign? What it actually said was:

All 13 other members of the Security Council voted to back the resolution, which would have "fully supported" an Arab League plan under which Assad should cede powers to a deputy, withdraw troops from towns and begin a transition to democracy.

We didn't get involved in Egypt's uprising and we only lent air support and the Brits sent advisors to the rebels in Libya. While both have had difficulty with their transitions, they are far from "epic disasters". The US supported Mubarak for the most part anyway - up until it was obvious that he could no longer stay in power.

Geez another Rice at the UN to instigate war and death.

International adventurism hasn't helped our economy, but it has made munitions suppliers rich. Our endeavors have made men, women and children suffer and have not made any allies in the middle east.

Russia and China cannot afford a failed economy in the USA. They need us now, so they prevent us from spending unwisely. Listen up USA. We are not the World Police.

We won't be buying much then. Unfortunately, most of what is available is made, at least in part, by China.

AMY says -

"We should boycott all Chinese made stuff (crap) because of this. Buy American made, not Russia- or Chinese-made. We should applaud the Arab League for promoting the resolution in the first place! Regime change to democracy? Bring it!"

Amy you are 100% correct! Why don't all the posters and politicians recognize that the most powerful force in the world right now is still the US Consumer, even stronger than the US military. As citizens we could dictate to Russia and China TODAY by boycotting every single item made there. Their economies would crash and oil and gas would drop by 70% . American and multi-national corps would instantly start drawing up plans to relocate factories back to America since the only products we'd buy would be Made in America. WE the people have the power but not the brains or the backbone. Do you really believe the polititians are going to fix our problems? I want to educate Americans about this topic. I can't stand this any longer. I am going to DO something about it. I am starting a non-profit org. to make this a reality. It is our ONLY hope to keep a strong and prosperous middle class and if we don't act SOON we will no longer have the consumer power any longer. I have 5 children and I'm afraid for them and remorseful for all of the dead and maimed Americans who helped build and defend this once great nation. Please email me with your thoughts and suggestions at buyamericanandsaveamerica@gmail.com I'm going to need help. If nothing else please thumbs up so I know that there are like-minded Americans out there.

Go with out, it is war make the Sacrifice and boycot china? They own so much of our trade we can't even whipe our hinders without paying the chinese.

China owns at least 1/2 of our deficit, what would you use to buy that back with? Subprime lending? Well not so much anymore ,just go to work and buy American then we can fix our own troubles and Screw China and Russia. As long as Syria sees fit to murder thier tax payers I guess they got all the money they need.Russia and China suppling arms a Russin Navy right they in Syria? WEll go get them Rambo, they should just be left to exterminate each other just arm both sides. Let Alla sort it out.

First of all we buy the Chinese products because they're cheap.If there were American products of the same quality and price available,Americans would buy them.

Second of all the Arab League is make up of mostly dictator ridden countries.The only reason they united to force change on Syria is because the Syrian government is made up of a Shia sect,and all the Arab League countries are Sunni.In our context it would be as if a group of Catholic countries wanted to force out a Protestant government.Unless you think the Saudis are trying to bring democracy to Syria.

Boycott China and Russia because they disagree. Are you guys still not eating French Fries?

The simple fact of the matter is that it would take an invasion to remove Assad from office. US invasions have been catastrophic for the countries it has invaded. Iraq, Afghanistan and the killing of thousands of Libyans and destroying their country while stealing the oil.

Americans, ever reactionary, don't really have a clue for the most part. Invading Syria would kill many many more people and that is wrong. Russia has some clout with Syria so let Russia do what it can. The USA, with all its bluster, has no influence with Syria.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most foolish people I've ever seen in high office. She is an embarrassment! From giggling over the murders by the Navy Seals illegally in Pakistan to the pure joy of killing in Libya she really is a walking caricature of an idiot.

Since 1966 the USA has blown away other countries with their amount of vetoes in the United Nations and heaven help anyone else if they use the veto. China has used the veto very conservatively and Russia now comes in second place. You should check this out before screaming up a storm people.

Hillary also yells about supporting democracy. The USA has not created democracy anywhere that has worked. In 1953 the CIA destroyed democracy in Iran. The CIA recruited Saddam Hussein and, eventually got him into power in Iraq. The phoney democracy in Libya is torturing people over and over according to Doctors Without Borders, The CIA crushed the Allende democracy in Chile and backed the cruel dictator Pinochet. The CIA attempted to destroy the Chavez democracy in Venezuela but, thankfully failed. And the list of horrors continues.

Please, Yankees -- Stay Home!

we could stop buying stuff made in china. they don't need our money at all. keep our money in America, where it belongs.

Wrong Amy. If we stopped buying stuff from China their country would collapse just like ours would if they stopped buying our debt.

Amy -

You couldn't shop at WalMart anymore.

Bruno is correct, as to who would suffers more, is that really what you want?

Amy if you where one of the"ungullible" like some of the other posters maybe you wouldn't get slammed with the Wal mart comments by the "ungullible" Is "ungullible" even a word?

Mike C and Bruno you are wrong. You haven't thought this through. We don't need China to buy our debt. The 1%ers would lap it up like a thirsty dog if we paid the right interest rate and/or made it tax free profit on the interest. After all, they have to do something with their trillions to earn more - and outsourcing Americans jobs would no longer be profitable. The solutions are much easier than the politicians and economists and "foundations/think tanks" want us to believe. Stop believing the propaganda.

Hoops, unfortunately we live in a more complex world than you or Amy imagine.

Respect the principle of unintended consequences.

Hey Krazy D,

Sounds to a T like another super power country we all know and love

Yeah people love him so much they will believe a lie!!haha.. I laugh when Russia and China Veto..They do this just to piss the US off..

It's not Obama that makes people think the US is weak, rather it's people like you! You can't even answer a simple question or deal with a simple issue. You are so blinded by your racist attitude toward Obama, so misinformed about what's happening in the country and in the world, that if someone told you your house burnt down because of a faulty furnace, you would start ranting about Obama not doing this or that!

What could Obama do about the way Russia and China voted? Are you just that ignorant? The world never went along with Bush either, specifically Russia and China, and many more! And what was the Republican legacy concerning foreign policy? Two wars, unrest everywhere? Brilliant, real brilliant! DUH!

You and those like you are just such ignorant racists that you can't even spell properly, or properly use the grammar skills in a country you claim to love so much!

Technicalli I do agree with them, let Syria deal with Syria. The world's policeman and big brother thing never works and only in years to come will backfire on us. It's been tried before. Politicians know that every couple of generations forgets what happened previously, so they feel compelled to try failed programs and policies again. It's like getting another chance. And because ignorant people like you foolishly believes that our military is made up of heroes, they don't mind putting and keeping threse heroes in constant combat feeling that they will always win.

Here's a newsflash simpleton - WE HAVEN'T WON A WAR SINCE WWII, and these last two wars are no exception! I would just tell you to smarten up and smell the poop you throw around but obviously that "can't' happen (need a brain and stop watching Fox News) and apparently you like standing in your own poop!

Oh, God. Not you again BC! The least you could do is get another speechwriter. The one you've got is stuck in a real writer's cramp.

BCOHIO,

Just read what you wrote. Do you think anyone would take that nonsense seriously? You should be embarrassed to blatantly demonstrate what a clown you are.

KFT:

Not to be the grammar police or anything but since you use this as a basis for your argument I thought I might point out the obvious mistakes with your post.

KFT writes:

"You and those like you are just such ignorant racists that you can't even spell properly, or properly use the grammar skills in a country you claim to love so much!"

Try this instead:

"You and those like you are just such ignorant racists that you can't even spell properly, or properly use grammar skills in a country you claim to love so much!"

Last I checked kft this is not a word: "Technicalli"

"Politicians know that every couple of generations forgets what happened previously, so they feel compelled to try failed programs and policies again."

How about this:

Politicians know that every couple of generations tend to forget what happened previously, so they feel compelled to try failed programs and policies again.

And finally:

"And because ignorant people like you foolishly believes that our military is made up of heroes, they don't mind putting and keeping threse heroes in constant combat feeling that they will always win."

Maybe this would work better:

Because ignorant people like you foolishly believe that our military is made up of heroes, they don't mind putting and keeping these heroes in constant combat feeling that they will always win.

Keep in mind the old adage about throwing stones and living in a glass house when attempting to sway others to your side of the argument. Furthermore, for the record, I watch FOX news. However, additionally, I watch MSNBC and BBC and PBS among many others. Does this make me somehow uninformed?

Most of these conservatives comments are just plain bigotted. There are some things about Obama that I don't like but disrespecting OUR President shows YOUR ignorance not his. It tells everyone that reads your post "I'm an ignorant redneck" so don't even read what I wrote. Obama has nothing to do with Russia and China vetoing this resolution. There is no way he can influence those two countries. These vetoes are about oil and money. Period.

It also tells people that you have to lie because you don't have any legitmate argument to use against the President. That's typical of republicans. Lie until you believe your own lies.

acl - oh brother. "Not to be the grammar police"....yet you are anyway. And sadly, a verbose one at that.

BC;

If you're not a total fool, you do an awfully good impression of one. It is obvious that you know very little about the reality of the world except your own little half acre and the fear and hatred that obviously have found fertile soil there.

Good post AngelPointe - "My concerned question is this: what WOULD it take for China and Russia to get on the right side of the fence with us about protecting the innocents of Syria??"

Please see post 9.2 for the answer to your question.

Trade war with Russia and China is not the way to get them to play along. Again, be careful about unintended consequences.

I wouldn't be surprised the US voted for it because they knew China or Russia would veto. Lets be honest, we need to good press but Syria doesn't have anything we could use... ie. Oil.

Oil, strategic geographical position, rare earths, nuclear technology, economic resources...Nope. Nothing here to get us involved. There are many more reasons to invade Africa than Syria. Just as many, even more human rights violations, piracy, despotism in Africa than there are in the Middle East. Europe isn't going to want to lift this load like they did Lybia. Don't spend our money (we're broke) on international adventurism.

Yes Tom we are supporting them. And that's the insanity of us not only supporting a brutal Communist dictatorship but turning them into the most powerful economy in the world that is about to replace the US as the world's only superpower. That makes us traitors to our own American ideals. To save a few bucks and to help our traitor corporations become incredibly rich. However, let them nationalize foreign business assets. We stop buying from them and we will have an economic boom unprecendented since WWII.

Maria I assume your a religious person considering your first sentence. yet you would advocate the destruction of the Russian and Chinese embassies, which for all intended purposes would the contrary too what most religions teach, mainly tolerance. The world doesn't need more religious fervor to muddy the waters when attempting to find solutions to real problems. The fact that these countries are only interested in natural resources as you state proves only one thing, they are less hypocritical about whats important to them as representatives of their own countries.

Why do you suppose the US, Europe, Russia and China are interested in the region? Religion? Saving innocent lives? or for Geo Political advantages? Mankind's hypocrosy has no limit and becomes compounded by religious fervor.

Religion poisons everything.

maria-1222596 now don't hold back your feelings,how do you really feel about the chinese? It;s okay let it out lol.

the same way I feel about you...

maria-1222596 wow your just full of LoVe it is oozing out of you!

With a good old fashion Christian name you sure sound like a heathen Maria. Are you certain Jesus would approve of your last comments? I have to assume no since I actually read the scriptures quit a few times and I'm almost 150% certain he never said "hate the Chinese or any other peoples that you feel like"

maria - just another xtian.

I'm a heathen and I'm offended. We are not like Maria. We just want to live and let live.

Lybia had many chinese working for Khadafi, they were in dire straights when the hammer came down.

Russia, China, can look after their own.

My prostitute/housekeeper's name is Maria. She can do wonders for you and make your toilet shine like gold, all for under $50.00.

They hold most of our debt. They call the shots. You need to think!!!

Screw the debt. If we ban Chinese imports the cost goes up and quality remains the same. The American people are laziest, greediest people on Earth. We want everything for free, and we want it right NOW!...and that is how we define freedom.

The people in Syria are also free...they are free to leave. But instead, they would rather die trying to overthrow a government. I guarantee you if a couple thousand people got together and tried to kill Obama, the U.S. military would obliterate them under the guise of domestic terrorism...but somehow, when it happens in Syria, the U.S. needs to intervene? Hell NO! Screw them. When was the last time Syria helped the U.S.? That's what I thought...let the bastages die. American taxpayers shouldn't be burdened with the cost of a Syrian democracy that will only fail, just as it has in America.

And if you think democracy works so well in the good ol' US of A, go talk to the bums at OWS.

THIS COUNTRY NEEDS AN ENEMA!!!

Amy, hypothetically speaking, that would be the last nail in the US economies coffin. The retail industries that feeds the US's consumer base would be decimated. That means MASSIVE layoffs at retail and distribution levels. Every large box store, would go bankrupt because there would be a massive exodus of investors including the Chinese. Retailers big and small would go bankrupt and the cost of everything you purchase would be so inflated that the poor and working middle class could no longer afford even toilet paper. Manufacturing process's in the US would come to a screeching halt and again layoffs, because of the shortsightedness and reliance on foreign made parts or lack of natural resources that the Chinese have acquired through strategic alliances and massive investment projects. it would take at least 100+ years to undo the last 40 years of stupidity, greed and ignorance that brought the US to this point in time. And BTW China needs only to look at their own population to make up the shortfall and theirs a lot more business in the world than just the US,.

hypothetically of course.

Complexity. Principle of unintended consequences.

Really, isn't it better that we all depend on one another, not act as if we can do without China or Russia?

Syria now, we can do without. Sad for the people living in oppression but then maybe they can be an example of what happens when religion runs government.

German - You should run for President! And I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. Your point of view makes perfect sense here.

"we live in the 21^st century."

Time, sadly has nothing to do with human nature. Liberty and freedom are nothing but a state of mind. What one sees as freedom another sees as just being obedient to the law. Being obedient to law regardless of right or wrong is the decision we all make. The laws of the majority or minority, make criminals and cause unrest for others. It's always going to be a battle. I think the human race has digressed over time. The more we have the more we want, we try, but it just ain't working out in the grand scale of life. Human nature, fights against the laws of nature, coexisting with one an other on an even plain. People will always have an ideal of how others should live their life. Happy Super Bowl day.

Revolutionary change only lasts when it results from revolution from within. Intervention from outside a country is only a temporary solution and always leaves a void, legal, moral, and functional--witness Iraq. So the Russian concerns over the proposed U.N. resolution's effectiveness is not totally unfounded. Revolutions are messy business, lives are lost in the process. If the Syrians truly want Assad gone, they will find a way to make it happen. The U.S. and the rest of the world needs to stay out of sovereign nations internal affairs. It's interesting that there is not the same outcry for intervention in Somalia or any other African nations experiencing internal turmoil. Some in the U.S. try to claim this high moral ground, yet they've proven again and again to turn a blind eye to the carnage that has been occuring in Africa the last 20 years. The U.N. is dysfunctional, unfocused, and without clout in most all situations. It stopped being the means to address international causes a long time ago (if it ever truly was an effective tool...but that's an argument for another day).

We are human. The oppressors have rights, the oppressed have rights. It is when we confuse ourselves that we have a right to tell others how they should live that causes problems.

Russia, China made a decision. They have a right to their decision and the UN has a right to keep its nose out of this region.

We don't need another barracks bombed. My heart goes out to the oppressed, but we don't have the resources to help.

Why would China & Russia care anyway? They are used to mass genocide. The US is losing more than we know by going to bed with China & Russia!

German 304469

You say:

"In general, the combination of authoritarian rule, high unemployment, poor opportunities for social advancement, demographic youth bulges, low public investment in education and health and other public services, and anger at high levels of corruption, and outright thievery, in the Middle East and North Africa, and in Latin America, will prompt public uprisings that will topple their leaders. Chavez, Assad are definitely in this list after their close friend Gadhafi has moved on to better pastures, in hell! Needless to say, the Cuban government also needs to be overthrown!"

Have you not been out and about lately?

Imposed Government in Greece and Italy, UK is a virtual desert of unemployment, opportunity and freedoms; also a Dictatorship, imposing theft taxes and Benefit cuts, giving less for more, breaking up our National Health Service, our Schools, any service which can be gifted over to failed Private Management....constant surveillance and intimidation of those who protest against being exploited. And, it is even worse in USA.

UN Resolutions are now quite suspect. They were manipulated in Iraq and Libya, to allow the US to virtually pillage the country, which they did. Libya is aware but, still is allowing the US to give 'Financial advice'...can't think why, they messed up their own, in terms of this 'advice' Libya will pay dearly. Some will benefit but not the people. These are usually offers in the vane off..take it or else.

Syria is tragic of course, before we can aid Syria we need to regain our own freedoms. I suggest that we leave the Arabs to worry about their own, it won't happen as the vultures want the Oil, it is not a concern we can cope with at this time. We are trying to clean up our own Stables.

Spoken like a true socialist.

The West is nothing like China and Syria. You equate the two because you are the "sick, twisted, immoral" person yourself.

In the West, we don't murder thousands of innocent people who criticize the govt.

Only an evil socialist seeking to overthrow free societies would lump us in with Syria and China.

@ChestyPuller Spoken like a true idiot who lives in LA LA land!!!!!!!!!!!!