WASHINGTON DC – After being hassled over “leading from behind” and trivial matters like having an ambassador murdered as an embassy burned to the ground, Democrats want President Obama to “step up” and command the respect that he deserves. In simple terms, when the (Democrat) US President says he’s going to be angry over a “red line” getting crossed, everyone in the world better understand “angry.”
Leading Democrats in Washington D.C. support taking military action using “really big explosions” that can be over and done in a week, even if it changes absolutely nothing. Secretary of State John Kerry explained how America would not attempt to change any balance of power in the region, but would seek to send a message to any government which uses chemical weapons in combat operations.
John Kerry (Sec of State): The message is simple – “Respect our President.” Right now, it appears that hitting Syria with 8 to 15 nuclear warheads will make it clear that we are serious about chemical weapons. However, our Nobel Peace Prize winning President has no intention of causing loss of life or destruction of property, and I believe that we can achieve this safely by telling everyone in the world where our nukes are targeted, when they will hit, and the expected radioactive contamination levels.
Although the Obama administration has talked and talked and talked about the possibility of military action in Syria, some believe there is an unspoken element in the decision to use atomic bombs. Specifically, the 11 year-old son of Bashar al-Assad has been taunting President Obama on FaceBook. Some of the boy’s Twitter comments include:
- Obama’s breath smells like dog-butt.
- Obama is so stupid – he think camel hump is prostitute act.
- Obama is so stupid – when he told to pay attention, he think government must print money.
Several Republicans have voiced strong opposition to military action without careful consideration of possible “unintended consequences” – one being that nuclear weapon use against another country may constitute an “act of war” and lead to escalation of regional violence. Democrats countered the argument by saying that when Obama goes around bombing other countries, it’s not war because he’s got a Nobel Peace Prize. Senator Harry Reid rejected GOP concerns with stronger language by adding “your stinkin War Powers Act don’t apply to Obama because we don’t care about your right-wing-capitalist-oppressor rules.”
Former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) addressed the national debt of $ 17 Trillion in his opposition to nuclear strikes on Syria. At a local morning TV show, he suggested “why not do something cheaper – like put Hillary and John Kerry on a bus to Damascus?” Known for a strong belief in non-intervention, the Congressman noted that Bashar al-Assad has only killed about 100,000 with ordinary bombs and bullets during the Obama presidency, and maybe the UN could pass a resolution to limit the Syrian president to a total of 300,000 dead civilians for the remainder of Obama’s second term in office, as long as Assad promised to only use bombs, bullets, and starvation to eliminate his political enemies.
The US President’s openness to launch nuclear strikes has unexpected support from environmental groups. It appears they believe that Obama’s refusal to allow construction the Keystone XL pipeline will do more to save the planet than the damage caused by turning large areas of land into blackened pits of radioactive death, littered with grotesque mutations and uninhabitable to mankind for centuries.