Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Per the NY Times--no vote would be tough love for Obama, good for America [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)26. Possession and use are two different things nt
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Per the NY Times--no vote would be tough love for Obama, good for America [View all]
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
OP
Of course not. half the numbnutz in the House still think Iraq was a swell idea.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#7
We should be thankful to have a president that understood that unilateral decisions
Baitball Blogger
Sep 2013
#10
That's ridiculous. This belongs in an international court, not in the court of the US deciders
dkf
Sep 2013
#13
International courts are a joke and not an effective argument against military strikes.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#18
The US cannot be expected to be the sole enforcer of international treaties. That is ridiculous.
dkf
Sep 2013
#21
That's right. We have got to come to terms with the fact that sometimes a bad thing happens in this
totodeinhere
Sep 2013
#42
Or bad things in the rest of the world we can do something about (with positive results)...
deurbano
Sep 2013
#48
If the Geneva Conventions depend on the US illegally bombing other countries
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#16
Oh, please. You're describing Superman, not the US government. No heroes here, pal. n/t
ocpagu
Sep 2013
#58
Yeah, they are desperate asking Obama to save them by striking them with missiles... n/t
ocpagu
Sep 2013
#60
I actually see this as a way out for Obama, he did not jump when the report went out Assad had used
Thinkingabout
Sep 2013
#17
I have been arguing that our official position on Syria's use of chemical weapons should be
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#29
Maybe "so what" is not the best answer. But spending 200 million on bombing Syria is
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#35
There is a continuum between bombing someone and callous indifference/nt
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2013
#37
Humanitarian aid to the refugees is a good thing. I hope that we can all agree that the world
totodeinhere
Sep 2013
#43
My brother says this is all due to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mellow Drama
Sep 2013
#38