What is the risk of doing nothing? - Page 5

USA IS BROKE.....................................Where is the money gonna . come from for war,. Our troops are docked, many on furlough ,  many sent home and put into reserve so the payroll could be cut and the forces are at the mercy of Small groups doing an Infantry job

What is Russia gonna do..We have been baited on this experience World Mockery. All the leaders have one word about Obama "Weak"

The risk for doing nothing now is that  " Watch our borders.".,..How many chemicals can be snuck into our country and released in our water , and our environment while Obamas' cabinet's eyes are elsewhere wondering what to do,.indecisiveness  may kill us here in our own country...DO not under estimate Putin..  Stalin said many years ago....go in the BACK DOOR when they are not watching...  Kind of like the Ten VIrgins who are not prepared and that is a parable of prophecy..

YR

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/03/egyptian-newspapers-explosive-allegation-president-obama-is-a-secret-muslim-brotherhood-member/


  That would sure explain a lot if it is true.

The blaze huh.........
 
What's better, an image or getting it right?
Been there done that.......many times.

Obama claims he is a christian and was baptised in the church he attended for 20yrs...He cannot be both

or I guess , does it matter what he says when he says it. Maybe the teleprompter was wrong

YR

Whatever Mr Obama does in the near future will be the wrong thing? If he does go into Syria that will be wrong, if he stays out that too will be wrong now. so he is in between the devil and the deep blue sea so to speak. The French will as i said only follow so no problems for them. However if they had the Guts to lead the way and then the USA follow that may be different, but the chances of the French ever doing that is NIL. Gr B had the chance and decided not to, i hope D.C stays that way this time and does not have another vote on this matter. So whatever Mr Obama does he is on a loser. and it really is time to realise that no one person or country can mend the world as much as we would like to, it simply is not possible. As distastful as it is the best way is to try and help these people with Aid etc but stay right out of it confict wise
Steve1

No support.


 

Obama is putting on the pressure.  I admit, I had to go look up "cloture". 

The cloture rule–Rule 22–is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate. http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm

 

"I'm sure Connecticut is just like every other place. You can't find many people in favor of this," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

The White House must come up with 60 votes in the Senate to cut off an anticipated filibuster and allow the resolution to get an up or down vote, a parliamentary procedure known as cloture.

In a move that doesn't put him completely on the outs with the Obama administration, Murphy said he will vote for cloture.

"I'm not going to engage in a filibuster with Republicans to stop a debate from happening," said Murphy, who served three terms in the U.S. House before he was elected to the Senate last November.

U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., characterized the lobbying by the Obama administration, which has arranged multiple policy briefings for members of Congress, as aggressive.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Murphy-s-Syria-vote-leaves-him-caught-in-the-4791176.php

As President, shouldn't Obama's first priority here be to keep the United States out of an unnecessary conflict, and a quickly escalating "cold war" ?  We're not talking about some obscure social policy or ideological difference.  If the filibuster is even in the conversation, we really need to stop and ask whether we should participate once more as an international interventionist force with questionable motive and results.  Again, the default position in such matters ought to be one of restraint.  Just the fact that such contention exists within the Senate speaks to a decided lack of unanimity.  Things are getting heated, with Russia taking a hard line stance and Putin outright calling John Kerry a liar at the current G20 summit. 


 

If Russia holds to this position, China will undoubtedly back them. Now, let's ask the question, why do we once again have the US, Russia, China, and members of the EU up in arms over a Middle Eastern State? I think we have already proven what it is not about. 

The sooner we get this idiot out of office the better.

Out of control...

"The Obama administration maintains it intercepted communications from a senior Syrian official on the use of chemical weapons, but requests to see that transcript have been denied. So has a request by the AP to see a transcript of communications allegedly ordering Syrian military personnel to prepare for a chemical weapons attack by readying gas masks.

The U.S. administration says its evidence is classified and is only sharing details in closed-door briefings with members of Congress and key allies.

Yet the assessment, also based on accounts by Syrian activists and hundreds of YouTube videos of the attack's aftermath, has confounded many experts who cannot fathom what might have motivated Assad to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his own people — especially while U.N. experts were nearby and at a time when his troops had the upper hand on the ground."

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -Miami Herald
 

So the reason no one has access to the alleged Syrian communication is a matter of national security?  Whose? Are we that concerned with compromising Syria's intelligence?  Read the last statement of the article; it defies logic.  We can't take anything at face value, so we lack the evidence we need to make an informed decision I suppose.  Many of the headlines read that Obama is aware that the people of the United States oppose military action but is planning on trying to sell it Tuesday on national television primetime.

A Wall Street Journal article begins:

"An aggressive White House campaign to win congressional approval for military action against Syria intensified Sunday as Chief of Staff Denis McDonough vigorously reasserted the administration's arguments in a blitz of television appearances."  

The public knows where it stands, and because its not a convenient position, we need to ratchet up the rhetoric.  Talk about wagging the dog.

According to this article, EU (with the exception of France) has spoken out against military action, with Obama losing support at G20.
http://world.time.com/2013/09/05/at-the-g20-obamas-syria-efforts-take-a-hit-as-putin-gains-support/

Oh-by-the-way, don't look now, but Iran just popped up in the conversation, imagine that.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/