This should be good for US, Russian and Chinese weapons suppliers. Can't really blame Bush and Republicans for 9-11 when it's clear the puppet Obama would have used the WMD excuse too. We're probably gonna need to borrow more money from international banksters now. So who wants to volunteer for the slaughter house? It's the patriotic thing to do. Serve your federal corporation, your state corporation and your local corporation. It's not Mussolini-style corporate fascism because the authorities say so! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FprRiinb-JI

True. You might need to do a bit of research on the US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war before posting such final statements. The French were also a major arms dealer to Iraq before and during that conflict.
And we all know that news footage is wholly reliable and can never be misleading right...?

Slightly true. The US was one of many countries that acted to prevent a decisive Iranian victory in that war. When there seemed to be a real risk of a decisive Iranian victory, they armed Iraq. But at the beginning, when in was just Iraqi aggression, the US did not back Hussein and at other times during the war when a decisive Iraqi victory seemed likely, the US and many others helping Iraq cut their assistance (while Israel armed Iran to prevent a decisive Iraqi victory).

Eventually, the impossibility of a decisive victory for either side (that was quietly but effectively enforced by outside aid to the losing side) forced the negotiated settlement that the outside world had pushed for from the beginning.

Both sides had insane expansionist leaders who would have pushed immediately past any decisive victory into the next war of conquest. The outside world did nothing to contain the harm those leaders did to their own people, but did significantly contain the harm that would have been done to the rest of the region.

That claim is the same liberal fiction pushed every time Obama has taken some action so stupid the press worries they might not be able to hide the consequences. It was heavily used during the short period when the bombing of Libya was killing far more civilians than advertised but still failing to give victory to the rebels.

But then the media rediscovers they do have the unity and the clout to ignore any consequences from Obama's blunders, so retroactively Obama's great initiatives switch back from "the Neocons forced him to do it" to "Obama is always correct."

Obama has never compromised with Republicans on any issue. He has never listened to them on any policy. He does what he wants or what he thinks his backers in the media want.

No liberal fiction. My own personal opinion and presented as such.

I missed the liberal planning meeting this week.

Looks like the Republicans want Obama to do more than just limited strikes.
If this is the case this is not Obama's blunder but the American people's blunder for voting in people who clearly, by your posts, do not represent their beliefs or values because it seems pretty clear that both Democrats and Republicans want to go in the only sticking point is for how long and how hard. If McCain is representative of the Republicans (he was their presidential candidate so he must be pretty influential) then you'd have a bigger war with the Republicans that you would with Obama.

Voting only works in free countries with free markets and a free press. Voting doesn't work in fascist police states where you can blow up three skyscrapers full of almost 3000 people and nobody talks about it. Even if you're crazy enough to believe everything Obama is saying, nothing the Syrian government has done is as bad as Sept. 11th 2001. The USA has no moral authority. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWgHEo7RSDo

Rebels admit responsibility for chemical attack:

Of course, I doubt this will stop Obama to continue with his plans of attacking Syria... Though he seems to be considering the situation further, or looking for a decent way to abandon his plans, given the fact that his friends in Europe don't seem willing to get involved now, and judging from the recent call to the US Congress for authorization to intervene in Syria.

When did the act of trying to establish the legitimacy of a web site, solely by saying it is, cease to be completely laughable I wonder?..

Perspective is important. in making Judgment calls I guess.

Some folks can't win. The president wants congress to OK a strike. Some congressmen, guess which party, are calling him a coward and that the president should lead. I wish these yahoos could make up their minds and quit these high school games.

If he goes ahead he is wrong. If he asks for a referendum he is wrong. Politics sux.

You could try looking at their web site:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/about-us/
An organisation that has journalists from Associated Press, the BBC, the Guardian, and the New Statesman must have some credibility, although it will hardly appeal to devotees of Fox News (or even of the New York Times).

Though I find this off topic. I also find it Hilarious as all get out.

You know I often wondered, if stupidity had the ability to cause actual physical pain most of these people would probably keep their mouth shut.

I agree.

Also, a web search for last week's news along the lines of "Carla del Ponte Syria" would be revealing. Of course, I guess some mainstream media are busier talking about John Kerry's CIA report on Syria.

edit: For reference:
http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/syrian...ebels-says-un/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3059250/posts
http://www.policymic.com/articles/61...at-the-un-says