Syria, why and what for?

PostmodernProphet said:
do we have the necessary missiles following sequestration?..........
Click to expand...

Did that matter when Bush sent the troops to Iraq without the proper armor?

I'll trust the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff when he says they are ready anytime. I'm pretty sure he's more knowledgeable than you.
 
evince said:
we are NOT partaking in a war.

we are bombing the delivery system of a country that has proven it will gas its own people to retain control of a dictatorship.


listen to your self
Click to expand...

What about N. Korea, and most muslim nations?

I guess you're ready to bomb them too. They're tyrannts.
 
evince said:
we are NOT partaking in a war.

we are bombing the delivery system of a country that has proven it will gas its own people to retain control of a dictatorship.


listen to your self
Click to expand...

You and I both know it won't end there.

My official position is that its not beneficial to us and I don't want us playing the world cop. With that said if Barack is hell bent on doing this he should tell the Repubs to fuck off, after Iraq he doesn't want nor need their advice or opinions, they are bankrupt.
 
Jarod said:
It does not appear to me that we are taking sides, in this instance, other than to back up a threat we have made for decades.
Click to expand...

The fallacy of your argument brother.

The US is indeed and of course taking sides in this.

If you don't have the ability to recognize that obvious truth, you don't have the ability to recognize truth at all on this issue.

Obama did the same thing in Libya .. and ooops, regime change happened.
 
blackascoal said:
The fallacy of your argument brother. The US is indeed and of course taking sides in this.
If you don't have the ability to recognize that obvious truth, you don't have the ability to recognize truth at all on this issue.
Obama did the same thing in Libya .. and ooops, regime change happened.
Click to expand...

Truth.
 
Big money said:
LOL.

Are you denying that if Romney were president and pursuing these actions, the libs would be screaming about innocent lives that will be lost due to bombing?
Click to expand...

Yep, i'm denying that, we are mostly team players especially when children are being gassed. You guys should try it.
 
tekkychick said:
Guess SF is against freedom of speech.

There are a lot of dud threads being created but not by you.
Click to expand...

Jarod is so retarded he creates 10-25 threads on teh same topic, posting the same retarded statements over and over and over again. Life is so much better with him on ignore.
 
Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
Jarod is so retarded he creates 10-25 threads on teh same topic, posting the same retarded statements over and over and over again. Life is so much better with him on ignore.
Click to expand...

If you are the type of person who "cant handle the truth", your life would be better if I was on Ignore. I consider myself a fly in the ointment of people who live in a pretend world.
 
Syria has a sensitive strategic location, they have many alliances as you do and they have strong military power. They will hit back, they can destroy US bases in the middle east. They can hit Israel and/or open border for Jihadest to hit Israel, etc. Syria has the keys for many hell gates, and I expect if Syria is hit they will open these gates, which the US and many countries want to keep them closed, I personally expect a regional or world war if Syria is hit.
 
Jarod said:
The United States has been blessed with AWSOME military power and with it the ability to affect the outcome of battles and wars worldwide. In most cases we generally choose not to do so, but we have said in the past that there are certain things we choose not to allow.

The question currently before Congress is IF the United States will back up the Red Line about the use of chemical weapons we have blustered about for decades. We have the ability to make the use of chemical weapons a net loss for any group planning on using them in the future. If we hit the Syrian regime for using the chemical weapons any group in the future that considers using chemical weapons will have to weigh in the risk that the United States will cause more harm than benefit the Chemical Weapons will have provided. It does not appear to me that we are taking sides, in this instance, other than to back up a threat we have made for decades. If the rebels had used Chemical Weapons I would hope we would be considering hitting them.

So will the Congress allow politics to weaken a stance taken by both parties for decades or will they stand with the Current President in such a time?
Click to expand...



When Clinton and several other dems bitched about Saddam and wmd for years and Billy bombed Iraqis for years, you cheered....
Saddam used gas on Iranians and Kurds and Bush put a FINAL stop to it,....no if, ands, or buts.....THAT use of WMD weapons and Saddam is OVER and you
bitch about that....
Now you want to bomb another ME country for the same crimes because a Dem is office....first you bitch, then you cheer ....
Why can't you pinheads show some consistency in your values .....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top