The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children.. is a moral OBSCENITY

[Catherina]

[mike_c]

1. the leadership of this country is seriously fucked up....

War criminals walk freely among us, while those who expose their crimes rot in prison.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. But making lots of money off this.

[Catherina]

9. The same Kerry who makes a lot of money off of defense contracts

I had to bookmark this one

The same Kerry who makes a lot of money off of defense contracts

and voted for a war in which chemical weapons were used.

US lawmakers have as much as $196 million invested in defense companies
From AP via The International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON: Members of the U.S.Congress have as much as $196 million (€126.2 million) collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the start of the Iraq war, according to a new study by a nonpartisan research group.

The review of lawmakers' 2006 financial disclosure statements, by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, suggests that members' holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members who earned the most from defense contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million (€2.3 million) in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500 (€372,000).

Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million (€50.6 million) to $195.5 million (€125.9 million) in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million (€3.2 million). These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million (€10.1 million) and $62 million (€39.9 million) between 2004 and 2006, the center concludes.

More Here: http://www.countercurrents.org/ap040408.htm


Fallujah the Hidden Massacre
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3591426

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. I'm willing to bet that he split his investments. Some MIC stock. Some health insurance co stock.

[Catherina]

7. I am waiting for the world to tell us where its red line is n/t

[polichick]

2. Yeah, but we're exceptional! k&r

[msongs]

3. there he goes again, criticizing Obama's drone wars nt

[DJ13]

5. Ouch, thats gonna leave a mark

[Catherina]

6. The hypcrisy is astounding n/t

[indepat]

8. Why then, Mr. Secretary, are you advocating a moral obscenity

fitting your on words? Bucking for the Nobel prize in peace?

[Catherina]

11. The Depravity of the "hope" slogan. n/t

[Hydra]

12. *LMAO*

Good find, made me smile darkly.

[Martin Eden]

13. Very clever, but it cuts both ways

Kerry & Manning are depicted as being in agreement the slaughter of innocents is a moral obsenity.

Manning took what action he could in the hopes it would deter further atrocities.

The Obama administration wants to take action it deems necessary to deter further atrocities of chemical attacks on innocent civilians.

Obama may very well be mistaken that punitive strikes against Assad's military assets will accomplish that goal, but then again it might.

Personally, I oppose military action in Syria. For one thing, there appears to be more to this than a red line drawn against chemical weapons. We have taken other measures to aid the rebels, getting involved in a civil war. There's also been rationalizations that we need to protect Israel and send a message to Iran -- neither of which justify attacking the Assad regime in Syria. Most of all, I oppose this action because I think it will do very little if any good, and the downside of unintended consequences is potentially high.

All of that, plus it may very well be a violation of international law without UN authorization. I realize there is no chance of a UN resolution with Russia having a veto in the Security Council, so let's launch a major diplomatic initiative to turn this against Russia's obstructionism and support of a dictator who gasses his own people.

A military action for humanitarian purposes must be within the scope of international law, or a clear-cut case of justifiable self-defense. Obama's proposed action in Syria meets neither of those criteria.