Posted on 09/04/2013 9:52:20 AM PDT by nuconvert
Since our jihadist allies are slaughtering Christians, the Vatican is right. And we are wrong.
One thing that occurs to me. If we are offering to provide the "rebels" with a navy, an air force, intel, and tons of weapons, you'd think we'd be in a position to demand one condition in return: that they defend the lives of non-combatant civilians including Christian non-combatant civilians.
Somehow we haven't been able to bring ourselves to make this kind of demand. It is telling that we are all in an uproar about the civilians Assad's forces have killed but silent about the ones our jihadists are killing.
Enough to fill the pews of every Catholic church in the world 10x over??? :^)
America has never been isolationist, except for a couple of years during the Jefferson administration.
“Half-assed” is a big part of the issue here. Obama has already said there will be no American troops on the ground, so what exactly will a missile strike do? Force Assad to the bargaining table with al-Qaeda? And how do we want THOSE negotiations to turn out? Or perhaps our missile strike destroys the government buildings and kills Assad? Then what? Does al-Qaeda take over? Are we then committed to troops on the ground and another round of nation-building? What’s the end-game of a missile strike? Can we even know?
On which side will we find the good guys? Al Qaeda now our allies? Our national interest must be to put Obama’s good friends the Muslim Brotherhood in power?
The Wall Street types are all for sending our kids to war, but not their own. Smedley Butler once said, “War is a racket.” I think he was on to something there.
Obama’s butt boy McCain has rejected any resolution that bars boots on the ground or limits operations to 90 days.
They do want troop on the ground and for a long time.
If 2 radical Islamic nations decided to use nuclear weapons on each other, would we pick a side and send a military response?
This is little different. It’s all WMDs. Biological is another story as that can go into the wild and take out the world.
Why would Obama care enough to make those demands?
Bingo.
I think there was a great case for the US not getting involved in a British imperialist war in WWI.
And even Jefferson went to war against the Barbary pirates.
Isolationism nearly elected a President and blew up the two-party system. If the guy had not turned out to be a complete raving loon.
Don’t underestimate this country’s thirst for isolationism.
Even Jonah Goldberg is sick of this talk:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357455/stop-isolationism-stuff-already-jonah-goldberg
I’d still like to hear what the objective is in attacking Syria, and how it can be achieved. Otherwise, they’re just engaging in verbal twerking.
Yep, hand him a rifle and a one way ticket.
Our troops are tired and would like to get back to a real life.
Oh no, there are over a billion Roman Catholics! Damn Spell check!
$$$ is why they are gung-ho for war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.