Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[Cheshire Cat]

First Lady Michelle Obama opposes military action in Syria, President Barack Obama told PBS and NBC News on Monday.

"My own family members... they're very wary and suspicious," President Obama told PBS.

Obama said the First Lady does not want the country to engage in another war:

In that case, I would like to ask Mrs. Obama to read Lysistrata! Lol

Ummmmm, I am thinking she already has.  lmao

[If_I_Loved_you]

I supported what President Obama wanted to do. 

[carpnter]

I supported what President Obama wanted to do. 

Fortunately 59% of the population disagrees with you and the President.

[Ajax]

John Kerry Costs U.S. Defense Industry $400 Billion
NEWS IN BRIEF • Syria • Politics • Politicians • ISSUE 49•37 • Sep 10, 2013

WASHINGTON—Responding to initial reports that Syria may relinquish its stockpile of chemical weapons following Secretary of State John Kerry's assertion that doing so would decrease the likelihood of American military strikes, representatives for the domestic defense industry complained to reporters Tuesday that the top-ranking diplomat may have cost them $400 billion in revenue. "We were ready to produce and sell tomahawk missiles, advanced combat systems, and more unmanned predator drones, but instead our Secretary of State had to run his big fat mouth about options for averting war, and now we're out hundreds of billions of dollars," said a visibly upset Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn A. Hewson, who along with her fellow executives at Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics complained that because the initial invasion would have more than likely led to a protracted, wide-ranging international conflict, Kerry might have even cost them trillions. "With thousands of new munitions and logistical support contracts, Syria would have been a goldmine for us. I swear to God, if this doesn't work out John Kerry owes us half a trillion dollars." Hewson added that it was some consolation that, with Kerry as the country's chief foreign affairs liaison, he would "probably say something idiotic" in the near future that would lead to another lucrative international conflict.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-costs-us-defense-industry-400-billion,33815/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default

[Cheshire Cat]

Stephen the 59% figure carpnter quoted is a figure from a CNN poll specifically about the strikes. 59% of those polled were against the strikes in Syria.  You can find the poll further up in the thread. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Now for all of the "Obama" want's to strike Syria supporters, this "lighthearted" look at funding WWIII.
I voted for Obama and still support him in most things, but in this case....nope!  I am personally hoping he is working some secret convoluted agenda that is about political standing and not about dropping missiles. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ&feature=share

[JeffreyS]

John Kerry Costs U.S. Defense Industry $400 Billion
NEWS IN BRIEF • Syria • Politics • Politicians • ISSUE 49•37 • Sep 10, 2013

WASHINGTON—Responding to initial reports that Syria may relinquish its stockpile of chemical weapons following Secretary of State John Kerry's assertion that doing so would decrease the likelihood of American military strikes, representatives for the domestic defense industry complained to reporters Tuesday that the top-ranking diplomat may have cost them $400 billion in revenue. "We were ready to produce and sell tomahawk missiles, advanced combat systems, and more unmanned predator drones, but instead our Secretary of State had to run his big fat mouth about options for averting war, and now we're out hundreds of billions of dollars," said a visibly upset Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn A. Hewson, who along with her fellow executives at Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics complained that because the initial invasion would have more than likely led to a protracted, wide-ranging international conflict, Kerry might have even cost them trillions. "With thousands of new munitions and logistical support contracts, Syria would have been a goldmine for us. I swear to God, if this doesn't work out John Kerry owes us half a trillion dollars." Hewson added that it was some consolation that, with Kerry as the country's chief foreign affairs liaison, he would "probably say something idiotic" in the near future that would lead to another lucrative international conflict.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-costs-us-defense-industry-400-billion,33815/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default

The Onion is so good.

[If_I_Loved_you]

I supported what President Obama wanted to do. 

Fortunately 59% of the population disagrees with you and the President.

Fine with me. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Tuesday, September 10, 2013
     

Watch President Obama at 9:00 ET tonight

Tonight at 9:00 PM ET, President Obama will address the nation from the East Room of the White House.

He will discuss our response to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons that killed more than 1,400 civilians -- including more than 400 children.

Watch the President's speech live on WhiteHouse.gov/Syria.

[civil42806]

I supported what President Obama wanted to do. 

give him a call, not sure that he knows

[civil42806]

Look why are  we all of a sudden concerned about Syria, as the side boob gazette (puffington host) said there have been 110,000 men women and children killed in this war and no one I mean no ONE blinked twice.  Dear leader didn't, our future president "Hillary" "what does it matter now" didn't . Assad (ask Pelosi she is a close friend) may or may not have used chemical weapons and we get our panties in wad over it?  Would it have made everyone feel better if he had just put a gun to there head and pulled the trigger.

[If_I_Loved_you]

President Obama has spoken about Syria and I support him even more.  

[ChriswUfGator]

Well as I predicted once russia got directly involved we backed down, everybody has too much to lose. Which is good, I'm sick of playing world-cop, and some tinpot dictator's civil war is not our problem.

[JeffreyS]

The whole time we have talked about the goal as degrading their chemical weapons capability. Removing their chemical weapons is not backing down. It is ok to settle some things without bombing brown people.

Even if it was not by perfect design Obama forced Russia and Syria's hand.

[ChriswUfGator]

The whole time we have talked about the goal as degrading their chemical weapons capability. Removing their chemical weapons is not backing down. It is ok to settle some things without bombing brown people.

Even if it was not by perfect design Obama forced Russia and Syria's hand.

Except that's not what was talked about at all, retaliatory strikes (most or all on facilities that were military command and control centers, and had nothing specifically to do with chemical weapons) and even "boots on the ground" if you listened to half of congress, were what was being discussed. The president continually spoke of the need for retaliatory strikes to 'send a message.'

At no time did any member of the us government say "we just want them to surrender their sarin gas and we'll call it a day,' until Russia said if you go in we'll intervene and started sending guided missile cruisers over there. Now all of a sudden, forget sending a message and all the other war hawk tripe we've heard for weeks, now we're really interested in peace, blah blah blah. Give me a break. And come on, it is what it is.