• #1
    People from all over the country and world are pleading with our leaders to not go to war. This would be a huge mistake. I just hope the right decision is made.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #25
    @miketost That didn't make much sense, but I will try to reply. I think we will not attack and I'm more sure that we won't put troops on the ground like bush did. But we will have to wait and see.
  • #29
    @Now_What A war involving no troops on the ground has never been won by the U.S. Anything less is nothing but a show.The stakes are way to high to watch an Ariel assault on targets that will mean nothing but to inflame the enemy.Sorry for your limited comprehension of the other post you could not make sense of.With over 80% against an attack on Syria meaning the American people have spoke it will be the fool obama to ignore that and chose his own action to take.
  • #31
    @miketost no, it was just dramatically incorrect English, but I follow now. I already have stated I hope he does nothing. This isn't our fight. But if the US does attack, the less the better.
  • #38
    @miketost "A war involving no troops on the ground has never been won by the U.S"
    Except Viet Nam, Korea, and Iraq 2.0 (the 1st one accomplished what the goal was).
  • R Load more replies

  • #26
    Alan Grayson is an as'h@le everybody knows that... but on this topic he's right, which should tell the Democrat Party of the trouble they are in under the "leadership" of Barack Obama. even an a****** like Grayson got it right.
  • #4
    Alan Grayson: Progressives love him, Liberals hate him, Libertarians tolerate him because he's honest, Conservatives hate him because he is honest. I hope he runs for President in opposition to Hillary. Hell, he could even be Hillary's pick for VP.
  • #63
    Explain to me the difference between a progressive and a liberal.
    I'd love to see Grayson as President, he wouldn't put up with the Republican BS or for that matter the Democrat BS in Congress. Bernie Sanders for VP or Labor Secretary.
  • #65
    @BSDetector Progressives believe in solutions that work, common sense laws, and social(ist) programs that benefit everyone. Liberals are snobbish, condescending, pot heads who don't want to do anything for themselves, while progressive are just a few social issues away from being Libertarians. More on that, here:
  • #67
    @Phreakwars Interesting.. I thought the two words were pretty much interchangeable, i.e. right-wing & conservative. Not sure if I agree with the definitions of liberal in the link from The Progressive Review, seems quite a bit snide and condescending. Libertarians seem to be me to be more akin to ultra-right-wing Republican plutocrats with perhaps with some left-leaning social views.
  • #37
    You realize he's a Democrat right? Despite opposing Obama on this one issue, I'm betting there isn't one other thing you'd agree with on his policies.
  • #42
    @Fishbone345 I might fool you. Yes I knew he was a Democrat. But of all the democrats I hear about. He seems to tell it like it is. See I favor the person, not the party. Thats why there is a difference between Democrats and democrats. One, with the capitol D is upstanding, honest, and trying to do right. The small letter d demotes the scum democrats.
  • #43
    @Aftermath Ok, I can accept you might "favor the person, not the party".
    What other policies of Alan Grayson, do you support?
    By the way,
    He supports public funding for Abortion
    He supports increasing federal funding for Stem Cell research
    He opposes defining traditional marriage.
    He voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes.
    He voted YES on $40B for green public schools.
    He wants to ban drilling for oil off Florida coasts.
    He voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.
    He voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program.
    He voted YES on Senate pay raise.
    He supports increasing tax rate.
    He voted NO on maintaining work requirement for welfare recipients.

    I'm very curious what of his stances you support enough that you'd want him to be POTUS.
  • #45
    @drpeeper I think he's right on as well, I'd never support him for a run at POTUS however. There is a difference between approving of his actions on an issue and "wanting him to be POTUS"
  • R Load more replies

  • #33
    Maybe some of you folks have short memories. Before the last presidential elections, there were no Democrats or Liberal news media outlets saying anything bad about Obama. Now that he is a lame duck, there are actually a few stories getting out of Democrat's anger over the worst President in our history. If you can't see that then what can I say. Obama can't be hurt by these scandals. Why do you think Hillary stepped down? She does not want to be connected to his & her failures in foreign policies & will distance herself from him & tell us all how she has completely different policies & agendas from his.
  • #46
    The worst president for not cleaning up the mess good enough that Bush junior made? There's your actual worst president in history/. In a single word / Iraq.
  • #58
    @Now_What Obviously our freedoms mean nothing to you. There can not be anything more horrendous than an arrogant activist president who thinks he can force us all to bow to his socialist healthcare even though very few people wanted it. That is a dictatorship where one party forces their will on the people. He lives & breaths Big Government control & for people like you to worry more about a war that was over in a few months & got rid of a dictator & tried to start the ball rolling for Democracies in the Arab world, versus losing our freedoms that we lose forever? WOW! The Democrat party are a bunch of idiologue control freaks. I would take George Bush over any of them any time.
  • #59
    @commonsense51 A little war that lasted a couple months? Tell that to the families of the 10,000 Americans that died over that little war. And for what? You can disguise it as a humanitarian aid mission, but where was he when it came to Congo, Sudan, Darfur or the countless other places where there is oppression? What made this cause so much bigger? There is no good answer, Bush killed far more Americans than bin laden did.

    There is no dictatorship when congress tries to block everything Obama does. What is it that makes you feel so much less free? I am very free and have done well for myself, despite Bush ruining our economy with his wars. The economy is improving. Are things great? No. But at least we have that animal Bush out of office so the real damage could stop.
  • #60
    @Now_What One last comment since I am wasting my time with someone who thinks so little of our freedoms. Maybe you are a little serf who needs daddy Government to tell you how to think, mandate that you MUST buy health insurance no matter if you can not afford it or are healthy, FORCE businesses to buy insurance, tell you you can not have guns to protect your family, how you must pay to kill other's unborn babies, tell you you can't spank your child, allow the IRS to go after groups that do not agree with Obama, allow our ambassador & three men to die without lifting a finger, smuggle guns into mexico to make guns look bad & get more control, bail out unions as pay back for election support. I could go on forever. Compared to Obama, Bush was a great President.
    Obviously people like you would have allowed Hitler to go on killing Jews as you had no problem with Saddam Hussein killing his people or neighboring nations. Obama is using the same argument of weapons of mass destruction as did Bush. But of course it is ok when Obama does it because he will give you or your family members charity from the tax payers.
  • R Load more replies

  • #27
    No aspect of Obama's cries for war are reasonable or sensible. We have no reason to get involved. Obama lies, and even members of his own party apparently believe that.
  • #21
    @twinertia agree, it's a game of monopoly! "Blow your dices, shake, and bake" whichever path we choose the consequences of action or inaction are real...
  • #34
    If we can get a few more like him with a little common sense and the back bone to go along with it, there just might be some hope for this country after all?
  • #70
    even if the Obama administration hasn't manipulated any intel, if Assad really ordered the attack, and his troops carried it out, there is no case for us to attack. Mr. Obama has not identified any vital national interests that are at stake. without that, there is no case at all for use of force, or at least that's what they taught us at War College and JFSC. outrage is not a strategy.
  • #68
    Everyone including Grayson has the right to disagree and question. I am normally hawkish but something is wrong and out of sync with our President.
  • #64
    I love Alan Grayson, but I would be in favor of a very surgical air strike on Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and manufacturing facilities, to keep them out of the future hands of anyone who happens to gain power in that region, especially those crazed "religious" Muslim nuts who are a danger to anyone not affiliated with them. The chemical genocide perpetuated at the hands of the current Assad regime is unacceptable. At the same time, why does the USA still keep the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world at their disposal? Seems kinda hypocritical to me.
  • #48
    For the most part, I agree with him. Before I write a little rant, I do believe that anyone who uses chemical weapons needs to be punished somehow but in the case of Syria things are not being thought out enough. Syria is a different situation.

    First, what kind of govt would come into power if Assad eventually gets put out? Why would we help in the least the rebels who now have factions that are islamist and even connected to terror groups? Assad may be no angel, but is the alternative any better?....if Assad loses power of Syria, rebel groups will probably fight for yrs, suicide bombings etc...Has the 'arab spring' brought freedom, peace and democracy anywhere else when you have islamists in the equation?

    Secondly, the holier than thou attitude of the EU, US, NATO and other nations is a bit much to take. Agent Orange anyone?....that ended up doing more damage than just killing the foilage of the jungle. Saddam's chemical attack back in the day?....where did Saddam get his chemical weapons from? Winston Churchill wanted to use chemical weapons on Russian Bolsheviks.

    Thirdly, the rebels themselves have comitted some awful atrocities in Syria the last 2 years. Many of these are contrary to what is normally "acceptable" in a war. Shooting 49 soldiers as they lay on their stomachs after being caught and pleading for their lives while some ali akbar recites the quran is not being talked about enough. Or the fact that these rebels have done some awful things to Christian towns in Syria.

    There has to be another way. The way I do NOT want to go is helping islamists rebels just because Obama wants to save face and do such idiocy in the name of helping to free people and punish a dictator.
  • #18
    It's hard to just stand by and watch children and babies be killed by Assad's chemical weapon attacks. AThe pictures of small children and babies on the ground, dead from chemical weapons attacks is just too hard to take. If a no fly zone is set in Syria that will stop the bombings by helicopters and planes. Putting them squarely back to a ground civil war. If we were to fly drones over, we could see where these attacks are being launched from and move to stop it with missiles from the boats we already have over there. It is unacceptable the world over to use chemical weapons. That have to be shown we meant it or other countries will then think this is an acceptable option. I hate war! But using targeted strikes to stop this bad behavior will make other countries realize that we will not let this happen without consequences. People who are against a short term arial attacks need to find out exactly what it is. But once Assad is taken down, we have no choice in the matter of who takes control. It could end up far worse that what has happened in Egypt.
  • #49
    You should look up some of the things the rebels have done. I can also assure you that the Christian population of Syria would prefer Assad anyday over the islamist factions of the rebels.

    It is horrible to see images of this chemical attack and it is wrong. But there is more to the picture of what is going on in Syria....and more to those who are pulling the strings of this conflict.
  • R Load more comments...