Congressional Authorization

OCA said:
Congress gave the retarded cowboy from Crawford approval to go after the guy who tried to kill his daddy so now they balk when kids are being gassed? Personally I think its none of our business and there are no American interests at stake in Syria but neither was there in Iraq so they need to go ahead and give Barack the green light in all fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...seek-congressional-approval-on-syria-strikes/
Click to expand...

How can they balk at giving approval when they haven't had a chance to give approval?

If giving approval to go into Iraq was a mistake why should Congress make another mistake in the name of fairness?
 
cawacko said:
How can they balk at giving approval when they haven't had a chance to give approval?

If giving approval to go into Iraq was a mistake why should Congress make another mistake in the name of fairness?
Click to expand...

Because all is fair in love and war.

They didn't balk when the Crawford retard wanted to go into Iraq and this time around Repubs should return the favor and go with the flow. Repubs are already setting up to stage a fight over this.

Tell me you aren't one of these who believes that the Rebel forces staged a false flag chemical attack and that the rebel forces are actually Al Qaeda?

Although I don't believe in intervening there is certainly no argument that based on atrocities alone there is more justification here than there was in Iraq.
 
OCA said:
Because all is fair in love and war.

They didn't balk when the Crawford retard wanted to go into Iraq and this time around Repubs should return the favor and go with the flow. Repubs are already setting up to stage a fight over this.

Tell me you aren't one of these who believes that the Rebel forces staged a false flag chemical attack and that the rebel forces are actually Al Qaeda?

Although I don't believe in intervening there is certainly no argument that based on atrocities alone there is more justification here than there was in Iraq.
Click to expand...

That's a hell of a reason to go to war "i'm just going with the flow"
 
OCA said:
Congress gave the retarded cowboy from Crawford approval to go after the guy who tried to kill his daddy so now they balk when kids are being gassed? Personally I think its none of our business and there are no American interests at stake in Syria but neither was there in Iraq so they need to go ahead and give Barack the green light in all fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...seek-congressional-approval-on-syria-strikes/
Click to expand...

"in all fairness"...

Warhawking Democrats who think we should do something they hated back in the day just because it would be "fair" to this President ignore the reality.

Can you answer this simple question: What would victory in this military action in Syria look like?
How about this one: What would the objective of any military action be if we attacked Syria?

If you can't answer both of those simply and directly, then we shouldn't be going. "In all fairness" this President should be dragged through seven months of begging Congress and the UN for approval before he makes even one move, sending his newly minted SOS before the UN with images of the Intel... only that way he'll be treated "fairly". This idea that we should rubber stamp it because the Bush-child got his war is idiotic. We should never rubber stamp anything. Especially for "fairness" so petulant child-men can kill brown people without regard to our constitution because we "let" some other child-king do the same.
 
cawacko said:
That's a hell of a reason to go to war "i'm just going with the flow"
Click to expand...

Well thats the reason for the authorization for Iraq pretty much......................now that its fact that the intelligence was twisted and downright faked.

Thats what I would say to Repubs if I was Barack, "fuck off, I don't need nor want your authorization..............bombs away"
 
Damocles said:
"in all fairness"...

Warhawking Democrats who think we should do something they hated back in the day just because it would be "fair" to this President ignore the reality.

Can you answer this simple question: What would victory in this military action in Syria look like?
How about this one: What would the objective of any military action be if we attacked Syria?

If you can't answer both of those simply and directly, then we shouldn't be going. "In all fairness" this President should be dragged through seven months of begging Congress and the UN for approval before he makes even one move, that way he'll be treated "fairly". This idea that we should rubber stamp it because the Bush-child got his war is idiotic.
Click to expand...

I'm a tit for tat guy.

No, I don't know what victory in Syria would look like that, hell i'm not even sure we can achieve victory seeing as how we get crushed wherever we go lately but, nobody knew what victory would look like in Iraq(we still don't seeing as how we didn't win) and that didn't stop us from going in and changing the mission goal from week to week if not from day to day.
 
OCA said:
Congress gave the retarded cowboy from Crawford approval to go after the guy who tried to kill his daddy so now they balk when kids are being gassed? Personally I think its none of our business and there are no American interests at stake in Syria but neither was there in Iraq so they need to go ahead and give Barack the green light in all fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...seek-congressional-approval-on-syria-strikes/
Click to expand...

Hasn't McCain and other neo-hawks been wanting to go fight in Syria for months? I'd imagine they'd give Obama the ok.
 
OCA said:
I'm a tit for tat guy.

No, I don't know what victory in Syria would look like that, hell i'm not even sure we can achieve victory seeing as how we get crushed wherever we go lately but, nobody knew what victory would look like in Iraq(we still don't seeing as how we didn't win) and that didn't stop us from going in and changing the mission goal from week to week if not from day to day.
Click to expand...

So instead of learning from the past we must kill as many people as possible and put our allies at risk just to make it so OCA thinks it's "fair" like some playground argument over a soccer ball?

This childlike "feeling" of fairness you have is patently ridiculous. "Fair" would be dragging him and his SOS through the ringer. If he can convince us there is an American interest there, and only then, it would be "fair" to let the child-king kill yet more Syrians in the name of his stupid "red line".
 
cockburn--124274234987654500.jpg
 
Damocles said:
So instead of learning from the past we must kill as many people as possible and put our allies at risk just to make it so OCA thinks it's "fair" like some playground argument over a soccer ball?

This childlike "feeling" of fairness you have is patently ridiculous. "Fair" would be dragging him and his SOS through the ringer. If he can convince us there is an American interest there, and only then, it would be "fair" to let the child-king kill yet more Syrians in the name of his stupid "red line".
Click to expand...
the spin is "in our national security" to not allow the chems..

a pretty far out there argument, but attach "nat'l Security" to ANYTHING, and it flies in the US
 
OCA said:
Congress gave the retarded cowboy from Crawford approval to go after the guy who tried to kill his daddy so now they balk when kids are being gassed? Personally I think its none of our business and there are no American interests at stake in Syria but neither was there in Iraq so they need to go ahead and give Barack the green light in all fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...seek-congressional-approval-on-syria-strikes/
Click to expand...

So...we need to bomb innocent people, because it'd be FAIR to the president?

OR, and stay with me here, because it's pretty fucking complicated....NO. We can just sit at home.
 
OCA said:
Congress gave the retarded cowboy from Crawford approval to go after the guy who tried to kill his daddy so now they balk when kids are being gassed? Personally I think its none of our business and there are no American interests at stake in Syria but neither was there in Iraq so they need to go ahead and give Barack the green light in all fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...seek-congressional-approval-on-syria-strikes/
Click to expand...

I'm curious;

Do you mean "retarded" as in someone with a mentally handicap?
or
Do you mean "retarded" as in someone that doesn't know the term is derogatory when used in the wrong context?..............
 
I love watching you pawns trying to figure the Syria thing out. Most of you don't even know how much money Military Gun Manufacturers have pumped into the person you are talking about. It is said that Obama surpassed Republicans for the first time ever last election, which explains the "I decided to not stop the war so fast" I'm curious if this will buy him into more war.
 
/k/ said:
So...we need to bomb innocent people, because it'd be FAIR to the president?

OR, and stay with me here, because it's pretty fucking complicated....NO. We can just sit at home.
Click to expand...

I'm for staying out of it all together but if he is hell bent on going ahead then Repubs have zero leg to stand on if they do decide, which it looks like they will, to fight him.
 
Damocles said:
So instead of learning from the past we must kill as many people as possible and put our allies at risk just to make it so OCA thinks it's "fair" like some playground argument over a soccer ball?

This childlike "feeling" of fairness you have is patently ridiculous. "Fair" would be dragging him and his SOS through the ringer. If he can convince us there is an American interest there, and only then, it would be "fair" to let the child-king kill yet more Syrians in the name of his stupid "red line".
Click to expand...

Were you for or against Iraq Damo? I can't remember almost 10 yrs ago.

I was against getting involved in the M.E. because I knew it was only about oil and revenge, absolutely zero to do with terrorism and WMD but once we went I thought we should at least kick ass since we are there and really fight an actual war and learn something from our mistakes in Vietnam.............we didn't learn a damn thing and I have zero confidence we will do so in the future.

Ok so thats my reasoning for not wanting to get involved in Syria but if B.O. is hell bent on going then congressional Repubs have zero credibility and no leg to stand on if they wish to obstruct him, they rubberstamped W but all of a sudden they will become doves on Syria?
 
70% of the usa was for going after sadam because they believed the bush team lies.

Obama has not lied so they wont allow him to act
 
OCA said:
Were you for or against Iraq Damo? I can't remember almost 10 yrs ago.

I was against getting involved in the M.E. because I knew it was only about oil and revenge, absolutely zero to do with terrorism and WMD but once we went I thought we should at least kick ass since we are there and really fight an actual war and learn something from our mistakes in Vietnam.............we didn't learn a damn thing and I have zero confidence we will do so in the future.

Ok so thats my reasoning for not wanting to get involved in Syria but if B.O. is hell bent on going then congressional Repubs have zero credibility and no leg to stand on if they wish to obstruct him, they rubberstamped W but all of a sudden they will become doves on Syria?
Click to expand...

Oh, this will be good. What 'lessons' should we have taken from Vietnam?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top