Republicans would rather Syria and Russia be stronger.

monty1 said:
Surprised! That's about as intelligent as I've heard you get so far. Too bad you're not honest enough to state your preference in my poll.

Just another phony with a over active cakehole I guess.
Click to expand...

Sit down, I have some news. People's honesty and "guts" are not judged by whether they post on your threads. Could you be any more full of yourself? Have you met Superfreak btw?
 
Darla said:
Sit down, I have some news. People's honesty and "guts" are not judged by whether they post on your threads. Could you be any more full of yourself? Have you met Superfreak btw?
Click to expand...

lol... I was just about to say something similar. I mean... WTF... does this little pissant think he can just stroll in and be more arrogant than me? Stupid cannuck.
 
Darla said:
Sit down, I have some news. People's honesty and "guts" are not judged by whether they post on your threads. Could you be any more full of yourself? Have you met Superfreak btw?
Click to expand...

Superfreak said:
lol... I was just about to say something similar. I mean... WTF... does this little pissant think he can just stroll in and be more arrogant than me? Stupid cannuck.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking the same for two days, but I'm trying to be 'nice.' LOL! Thanks, Darla!
 
Jarod said:
Let me start by saying, I am okay with a limited strike on Syria for having used chemical weapons.

But here is the deal, Republicans, who have in the past supported a full blown invasion with ground troops are fighting the limited air strike on Syria that the President has proposed because it is clear they would prefer to defeat the President than promote America and the worlds best interests. They would allow Syria and Russia get the best of us in order to try to make the president appear weak.

Pitiful and disgusting!
Click to expand...

Nothing here is a valid American interest. I can't wait to hear President Peace Prize sound like Desh and try to get us to bomb anyway... He'll be like Bush, "I'll only use it if all else fails." then right after it passes send more warships and videographers to create "Shock and Awe 33 1/3 - I Said Red Line Beeyotch!"

The first and foremost reason that I would not support even limited strikes in Syria, and certainly not helping the "rebels" is I don't think our troops should ever be used to assist the people who killed so many in NYC on 09/11/2001.
 
Last edited:
monty1 said:
Surprised! That's about as intelligent as I've heard you get so far. Too bad you're not honest enough to state your preference in my poll.

Just another phony with a over active cakehole I guess.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed my post where I said I am willing to put the rancor behind us.

I am also willing to continue this battle if you choose that course .. but given your last attempt at this, that is not a course I would recommend that you take.
 
pisskop said:
I would support the war, and Obama's call if I thought for a minute he (or even America) had the gumption, ability, or dedication to do the job properly. I'd even go pay a visit to my recruiter (again)

Who thought it was a good idea to leave these countries halfway through our objective list? And what's this 'no boots on the ground' nonsense? What is that going to accomplish?
Click to expand...
holy shit dude. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if thet were no oil in the ME.
 
pisskop said:
I would support the war, and Obama's call if I thought for a minute he (or even America) had the gumption, ability, or dedication to do the job properly. I'd even go pay a visit to my recruiter (again)

Who thought it was a good idea to leave these countries halfway through our objective list? And what's this 'no boots on the ground' nonsense? What is that going to accomplish?
Click to expand...
I am against a military response too but your niave not to think Republicans have been hypocritically been playing politics with the situation.
 
I love how so many people are all for 'precision airstrikes' without even the slightest reading of strategic or tactical air theory, our history in the use of air power, etc. Hell, I doubt a single person here knows who Curtis Lemay is. But they know how 'accurate' and 'effective' our bombs are.
 
Damocles said:
Nothing here is a valid American interest. I can't wait to hear President Peace Prize sound like Desh and try to get us to bomb anyway... He'll be like Bush, "I'll only use it if all else fails." then right after it passes send more warships and videographers to create "Shock and Awe 33 1/3 - I Said Red Line Beeyotch!"

The first and foremost reason that I would not support even limited strikes in Syria, and certainly not helping the "rebels" is I don't think our troops should ever be used to assist the people who killed so many in NYC on 09/11/2001.
Click to expand...

The rebels are a mixed lot, they all aren't Isamist radicals, they are there, but I found this article of interest.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/09/220638228/who-are-the-syrian-rebels
 
Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
I love how so many people are all for 'precision airstrikes' without even the slightest reading of strategic or tactical air theory, our history in the use of air power, etc. Hell, I doubt a single person here knows who Curtis Lemay is. But they know how 'accurate' and 'effective' our bombs are.
Click to expand...
I know who the father of strategic bombing is. You are right about the difficulty and the consequences.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I know who the father of strategic bombing is. You are right about the difficulty and the consequences.
Click to expand...

Then you know it's not Lemay (Giulio Douhet is the founder of said theories). You'd also know that our current bombing concepts and doctrines haven't changed since WW2, when we fire bombed Dresden, and Hamburg, and Tokyo. And how even though those policies and tactics proved to be utter failures in achieving their stated goal (which, by the way, is to purposely kill civilians to force a surrender of an enemy), we still continued to use such tactics and develop all our weapon systems around such concepts and doctrines.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I am against a military response too but your niave not to think Republicans have been hypocritically been playing politics with the situation.
Click to expand...

Of course they have. And look at our reputation now. What other country could get away with the slipshod crap we pull?
 
Jarod said:
2. I don't care who it helps if it punishes the use of Chemical Weapons
Click to expand...

which provides a better lesson, the US, acting alone, dropping a bomb on a Syrian chemical weapon factory......or the entire world, acting together, taking over control of Syria's chemical weapons?......
 
Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
I love how so many people are all for 'precision airstrikes' without even the slightest reading of strategic or tactical air theory, our history in the use of air power, etc. Hell, I doubt a single person here knows who Curtis Lemay is. But they know how 'accurate' and 'effective' our bombs are.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the same guy who thought the carriers we used at Midway were built after Pearl Harbor?

Not sure you're the best person to be lecturing the rest of us on what we do or do not know of military history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top