Home | About | Donate

When It Comes to ISIS War, Congress Would Rather Not Weigh In At All


#1

When It Comes to ISIS War, Congress Would Rather Not Weigh In At All

Sarah Lazare, staff writer

U.S. lawmakers sent the message on Thursday that they do not want to touch the war on ISIS, let alone engage in real debate.

In a 196-231 vote, the House defeated an amendment attached to the defense spending bill that would have forced lawmakers to vote on authorization of the war on ISIS, which has already been waged for ten months.


#2

"However, Schiff made it clear that he backs the war the war on ISIS: 'If this is worth fighting ISIS, and I believe it is,...'"
* Why, of course it is worth it! Any of the Reich's wars are worth it. Worth billions to the arms manufacturers and suppliers, worth bribes to Congressmen and Senators to widen and approve them. Worth it for the natural resources that can be stolen. Worth it for the distorted propaganda value to drag the people along.
* It is not worth another death, another massacre, another bereaved family.
* I sure wish we still lived in a Constitutional Republic, where the government actually represented and listened to the people and did what they were told to do.
;-})


#3

And how about this push for war with both Russia and China. Our Congress is silent and the MSM gives a distorted view of the situation. Why is Congress even collecting a pay check if they're worthless. Now Obama would like to place cruise missile nukes back in Europe. Please listen to the audio of Helen Caldicott.

"The Human Race Is Sleep Walking Towards Extinction"
http://rt.com/op-edge/266299-us-russia-nuclear-missiles/


#4

Madness! It's all madness!
* Thanks for the link.
;-})


#6

I'll link you to this full report.
"Nuclear war has no winner. Beginning in 2006, several of the world’s leading climatologists (at Rutgers, UCLA, John Hopkins University, and the University of Colorado-Boulder) published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war, including baseline scenarios fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate[i] and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer[ii]. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death".

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/30/lethality-nuclear-weapons/


#7

There was an article in Counterpunch yesterday. It looks like Iran is starting to fill the void. It already has a defense agreement with Assad; and boots on the ground may be arriving in Syria. Iran has been helping Shiite militias in Iraq as well as the Iraqi army. Will the Saudis, Israel and Turkey escalate beyond their covert support of murderous ISIS?


#8

“Representative government is artifice, a political myth, designed to conceal from the masses the dominance of a self-selected, self-perpetuating, and self-serving traditional ruling class.”
― Giuseppe Prezzolini


#10

Neocon Bush/Obama has set the stage for 2016-17 Armageddon. Billions of deaths are just capitalist creative destruction and collateral damage. I'd bet they already have profit projection slides for the rebuild. Frankenstein was a vessel of love compared to these monsters.


#11

Except that those wusses lack the courage to even do that.

They never pay attention to the Constitution except when they want to hide behind some fragment of it they get Bill Clinton to interpret for them.