Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Who is this retard? Do I know this idiot? Can one of the OG's explain?
Shrubbie and Maineman
- Thread starter Beefy
- Start date
Who is this retard? Do I know this idiot? Can one of the OG's explain?
This is an amazing statement from a hypocrite brain dead Liberal who constantly bashes Bush for deposing a despot named Saddam who gassed his own people, gassed Iranians, invaded neighboring peaceful nations and murdered people for the fun of it.
You're a vulgar verbal gasbag with the intelligence of a field mouse.
How the hell can Obamafanatics make such amazing arguments about Syria while ranting that Bush should have left Saddam in power, a person 1,000 times worse than Assad; you people aren't merely pathetic, you're a pack of incredibly stupid morons filled with hyper partisan hypocrisy.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Yeah, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is a great way to free them.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
One of our many know-it-all boots.
A troll, and not worth your time.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
So just another village idiot. 10/4
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well there are good reasons to have prohibitions on chemical weapons. Yes, sure there's a certain amount of hypocricy as we know damned well that large scale destruction and loss of life can occur through the use of conventional weapons. Chemical and biological weapons though are more in a class like Nuclear weapons in that they are quite affective, heavily impact areas far away from the impact site of such weapons and cause massive loss of life. It is this potential for mass destruction/mass loss of human life that set these weapons apart from conventional weapons.
You may have noted that it took only a few rounds of sarin filled rounds to kill several thousand people in Syria. It would have taken a much greater effort to effect that leve of destruction with conventional weapons, not that it couldn't be done.
The conventions against weapons of mass destruction are in place to prevent it from becoming too easy to kill large numbers of people. These conventions have been suprizingly effective as WMD's have rarely been used in combat. These weapons can easily profliferate, particularly chemical and biological WMD's resulting in far more loss of life, both military and civilian, not to mention the destruction of human habitation than can be accomplished by conventional weapons and with far less resources.
The question we have to ask ourselves is does making a military strike unilaterly or as a allied response with other nations opposing the use of WMD's?
Another question we have to ask is "Would we be having this conversation if the attack had occured in the Republic of the Congo or in Paraquay, as opposed to, an oil rich ME nation?
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Welcome to the jungle. Haliburton thanks you.
evince
Truthmatters
There's a vast difference between the two; Bush had legal justification and overwhelming support.
Obama is merely trying to back up his stupid rhetoric because he got called on his "red line" statement and now can't fire enough synapsis to make a coherent argument for an attack while walking back his rhetoric claiming now that it was everyone else's "redline."
It insults even the must dullard persons intelligence to compare this pathetic buffoon of a President to Bush. Did you vote for Obama?
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
And there's the party hat. I don't hate anyone.