• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Nobel Peace Laureate Bombs 7 Countries

Mike

Well-known member
The U.S. today began bombing targets inside Syria, in concert with its lovely and inspiring group of five allied regimes: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan.

That means that Syria becomes the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama—after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Iraq.

The utter lack of interest in what possible legal authority Obama has to bomb Syria is telling indeed: Empires bomb who they want, when they want, for whatever reason (indeed, recall that Obama bombed Libya even after Congress explicitly voted against authorization to use force, and very few people seemed to mind that abject act of lawlessness; constitutional constraints are not for warriors and emperors).

It was just over a year ago that Obama officials were insisting that bombing and attacking Assad was a moral and strategic imperative. Instead, Obama is now bombing Assad’s enemies while politely informing his regime of its targets in advance. It seems irrelevant on whom the U.S. wages war; what matters it that it will be at war, always and forever.

Six weeks of bombing hasn’t budged ISIS in Iraq, but it has caused ISIS recruitment to soar. That’s all predictable: the U.S. has known for years that what fuels and strengthens anti-American sentiment (and thus anti-American extremism) is exactly what they keep doing: aggression in that region. If you know that, then they know that. At this point, it’s more rational to say they do all of this not despite triggering those outcomes, but because of it. Continuously creating and strengthening enemies is a feature, not a bug. It is what justifies the ongoing greasing of the profitable and power-vesting machine of Endless War.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
OldLiar said:
I'm voting for John McCain because I believe it's good foreign policy to use military might to keep order in the world, preserving my God-given right to unfettered access to natural resources from foreign lands, whether the locals agree or not.


I'm voting for John McCain because fabricating evidence and picking a fight with a country that neither attacked us, nor was an 'imminent' threat has increased terrorist attacks worldwide, while also allowing the safe havens and training facilities to flourish. This keeps Americans "focused" on the bad guys and justifies spending billions of dollars each year on "defense".
 

Traveler

Well-known member
So that would actually make six allied, Muslim Regimes.

If everything else goes south, can the Obama's just set up some type of school lunch program for the new ISIS state? Maybe something to keep future suicide bombers from having a protruding and nuisance gut, and just call it a day? Something a little more realistic to the regimes fortitude.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Andy Borowitz

George W. Bush says Americans need more patience with Iraq. He is so right -- it's only been a measly eleven years and two trillion dollars.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Andy Borowitz

George W. Bush says Americans need more patience with Iraq. He is so right -- it's only been a measly eleven years and two trillion dollars.

So.....................Buckwheat going in and spending Billions more is the answer? :roll: :lol: Maybe, maybe not. One thing for sure. Kicking the can down the road for the last two years has made it cost us more!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Andy Borowitz

George W. Bush says Americans need more patience with Iraq. He is so right -- it's only been a measly eleven years and two trillion dollars.


George Bush July 12, 2007
I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront a enemy that is even more dangerous:
 

Latest posts

Top