Great NYT story on the Syrian War

[Professor]

[Professor]

[eynon81]

[Indy]

See and these are never the questions that anybody in the media asks. Watch. They're all salivating right now because nothing's more of a cash cow to cable news than wars.

There were some really basic questions that nobody asked about Iraq back then, like:

-So Saddam has nukes or he's trying to and when he does he's going to... hand them over to AQ? Huh? Why would he do that?
-So Saddam has mustard gas (is it 1910 already!?) and he's going to fly a drone over NYC and spray us, which would without any doubt result in Baghdad being wiped off the face of the Earth. So he's gonna do that why again?
-Who forges documents about yellow cake, except those who would need us to believe somebody has yellow cake?
-Iraq had no connection to 9/11 and doesn't have a relationship with AQ--AQ despises Hussein. OK so what are we doing there again?

It was the check-ables that everybody just glossed over and ta-da! Look what happened.

[Spider]

[NAB]

[Indy]

Well what's interesting here is that I don't know of anyone who's for intervening in Syria.

The GOP was all for wars with the terror angle--Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dems were for Afghanistan; but when it was a solely humanitarian rationale (Bosnia) the GOP was against it.

The argument here is for humanitarian grounds because now they've "crossed the line."

Which of course didn't mean anything when it was... Rwanda.

Last I heard 60% of Americans want nothing to do with this. So why is it happening?

[Professor]

[Spider]

Because we don't have a direct democracy.

[spacemonkey]

They kill eachother everyday. Whats the big damm deal on how?