Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 10, 2013, 07:04:05 PM
-
Did he convince you? Not me.
-
where's the proof?
-
He laid out a flimsy case for why we need to bomb Syria right now and then spent the last five minutes of his speech explaining that he's going to wait. Derp!
What is his foreign policy at this point? Who knows?
-
He laid out a flimsy case for why we need to bomb Syria right now and then spent the last five minutes of his speech explaining that he's going to wait. Derp!
What is his foreign policy at this point? Who knows?
I agree.
If he wanted to bomb Syria he could have done it. No need to involve congress.
-
where's the proof?
Well he did say in his speech that we should go to the internet and watch video of the women and children dying.
The man is an absolute embarrassment.
-
Well he did say in his speech that we should go to the internet and watch video of the women and children dying.
The man is an absolute embarrassment.
Democrats love using children to push their agenda. Where were they when the 100k+ people who have already died in this war?
-
Democrats love using children to push their agenda. Where were they when the 100k+ people who have already died in this war?
Tell me about it. As if dying from bullet wounds, bleeding to death, dismemberment from bombs, etc. are any less gruesome than gas.
-
So we would need at least 75,000 boots on the ground to secure Syria's chemical weapons. Didn't hear that in the president's speech yesterday.
The Obama administration is skeptical about whether this approach might work. A senior administration official called securing chemical arms in a war zone “just the first nightmare of making this work.”
A Pentagon study concluded that doing so would take more than 75,000 troops. That rough estimate has been questioned, but the official said it gave “a sense of the magnitude of the task.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/Syria-Chemical-Disarmament.html?hp&_r=0
-
So we would need at least 75,000 boots on the ground to secure Syria's chemical weapons.
0
Having the UN remove them peacefully is a WAY better option.
-
Thr minute that worthless communist jihadi drug addicted terrorist mentioned "moderate" rebels I started laughing.
Only the absolutely dumbest most idiotic and worthless among us believe a word this scum bag says.
-
He has not convinced Democrats.
War is hell.
There are times when, as a nation, we must enter into war: It must be in our nation's security, diplomatic and moral interests, and there must be a tactical, achievable objective with an effective strategy to get there. But the proposed US-led strike against Syria doesn't make the case.
We must have the moral courage to take effective action to prevent another terrible chemical attack, and have the moral responsibility not to take action that would result in a far worse situation.
Sign our petition – tell Washington to pursue diplomacy in Syria, not military strikes. It is the right decision for our troops and for our country.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
http://www.nostrikeinsyria.com/
-
Maybe the president should give his Nobel Peace Prize to Putin?
-
Maybe the president should give his Nobel Peace Prize to Putin?
:D
Obama's clearly the follower here....and, IMO, he doesn't give a fuck.
This is just a convenient distraction from spying on people.
Thought he welcomed a national debate? Sure did disappear awfully fast, lol.
-
:D
Obama's clearly the follower here....and, IMO, he doesn't give a fuck.
This is just a convenient distraction from spying on people.
Thought he welcomed a national debate? Sure did disappear awfully fast, lol.
As one commentator said, he fumbled into the end zone.
-
How the fuck is Hilary so ahead of the other democratic candidates? aside from her multiple mistakes and atrocious history what are her positives? What are they looking at that makes them believe she's the president? I don't get it, to me she seems more like a liability to the party.
And the GOP needs to get their shit together to have a chance at the next election, conservativism is far too stagnant and refuses to adjust to the times. It's steadfast loyalty to Christianity is a huge reason why it can't move forward.
-
How the fuck is Hilary so ahead of the other democratic candidates? aside from her multiple mistakes and atrocious history what are her positives? What are they looking at that makes them believe she's the president? I don't get it, to me she seems more like a liability to the party.
And the GOP needs to get their shit together to have a chance at the next election, conservativism is far too stagnant and refuses to adjust to the times. It's steadfast loyalty to Christianity is a huge reason why it can't move forward.
I think dems believe she is ALL IN for this one. She lost by one state in 2008. A nice chunk of repubs already voted for her (thanks Rush!) She has tll the $, all the favors, she has Bill, she has a lifetime of connections in politics... and at nearly 70, people will be LINING UP to suck up to her for that VP slot, as she could be a one-term president, which would be one sexy promise to voters. "One last Clinton term!", then she retires with the perfect resume.
Find me one poll that does'nt have her leading all dems, and leading all repubs in 2016. Voters already know a TON of negatives about her... people like rubio and christie are at thier highest right now... yet to pummel one another and step in shit in primaries... and she's up by a mile against all of them in polls.
I'll be SHOCKED if anyone beats her in 2016. Biden stumping already lol... but who else will run... who SERIOUS will run? All the good repubs sat out in 2012, cause they knew how hard itd' be to defeat obama - and they were right. Which dems hold out for 2020?
-
I think dems believe she is ALL IN for this one. She lost by one state in 2008. A nice chunk of repubs already voted for her (thanks Rush!) She has tll the $, all the favors, she has Bill, she has a lifetime of connections in politics... and at nearly 70, people will be LINING UP to suck up to her for that VP slot, as she could be a one-term president, which would be one sexy promise to voters. "One last Clinton term!", then she retires with the perfect resume.
Find me one poll that does'nt have her leading all dems, and leading all repubs in 2016. Voters already know a TON of negatives about her... people like rubio and christie are at thier highest right now... yet to pummel one another and step in shit in primaries... and she's up by a mile against all of them in polls.
I'll be SHOCKED if anyone beats her in 2016. Biden stumping already lol... but who else will run... who SERIOUS will run? All the good repubs sat out in 2012, cause they knew how hard itd' be to defeat obama - and they were right. Which dems hold out for 2020?
Gay marriage supporters and minority votes are going to be impossible to overcome. You can bring Reagan back from the dead and he couldn't convince enough voters, times have changed and the GOP needs to seriously recollect themselves.
-
Gay marriage supporters and minority votes are going to be impossible to overcome. You can bring Reagan back from the dead and he couldn't convince enough voters, times have changed and the GOP needs to seriously recollect themselves.
I think that's overstated a bit by a lot of people. The GOP controls the House and is projected by some to take the Senate in 2014. They control the majority of governorships and I think a majority of state legislatures.
That said, they do have to adapt to changing times.
-
Former defense secretaries criticize Obama over Syria
Published September 18, 2013
FoxNews.com
Former defense secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta criticized President Obama's strategy regarding the Syrian civil war Tuesday, with both agreeing that Obama should not have sought the approval of Congress for a military strike against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Speaking at a forum in Dallas, Gates and Panetta, Obama's first two defense secretaries, disagreed on whether the United States should ultimately carry out a military strike in retaliation for a chemical attack that the U.S. says killed 1,400 people. However, both expressed skepticism (and occasionally sarcasm) about ongoing negotiations, led by Russia, for Assad to hand over his stockpile of chemical weapons to the international community.
Panetta said he supported a strike because Obama needed to enforce the "red line" he set over Syria's use of chemical weapons.
"When the president of the United States draws a red line, the credibility of this country is dependent on him backing up his word," Panetta said.
But Gates said a strike would be like "throwing gasoline on an extremely complex fire in the Middle East." He brought up past interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as examples of how American military action can lead to unintended consequences.
He also dismissed attacking Syria to enforce a red line.
"I believe to blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple of days to underscore or validate a point or principle is not a strategy," he said.
Obama had been pushing for a military strike on Syria in retaliation for a chemical attack the U.S. blames on Assad's forces, but that is on hold as a he pursues a diplomatic initiative.
U.S. and Russian officials reached an agreement over the weekend to inventory Syria's chemical weapons programs within a week and remove all of them by the middle of next year. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council were discussing a resolution. The U.S. and France want to include a military option if enforcement fails, which Russia opposes.
Both Gates and Panetta spoke freely -- and often critically -- about how they would handle Syria differently.
Gates, who was appointed secretary of defense by former President George W. Bush and retained by Obama, said he thought America's most recent presidents "have become too quick to reach for a gun to solve an international problem."
He said the U.S. should try to covertly arm "selected rebel groups" in Syria, but not with surface-to-air missiles. The U.S. should also push for Assad to be labeled a war criminal, for warrants to be issued for his arrest and for a seizure of his family's assets abroad, Gates said.
As for negotiations with Russia, Gates said the U.S. should push for more authority and strict demands on complying with any terms of an agreement.
Asked if he trusted Russian President Vladimir Putin, Gates said: "My answer would be, are you kidding me?"
Panetta, who replaced Gates and served until earlier this year, said he would have told Obama not to go to Congress once he decided military action was needed.
"Mr. President, this Congress has a hard time agreeing as to what the time of day is," he said.
For Obama to not back up his words with a strike would embolden Iran on nuclear weapons and other American enemies, Panetta said.
Once the president drew a red line, Panetta said, "Damn it, you've got to do it."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/18/former-defense-secretaries-criticize-obama-over-syria/?intcmp=latestnews#ixzz2fITxrjJ5
-
What case?
At this point I doubt Obama is even toilet trained. Yes, he is that stupid.
-
I still see no reason the U.S. to get involved in syria.
-
Islamist blitzkrieg in Syria: Jihadists wiping out moderate rebels
RT ^ | Sept 19, 2013 | RT Staff
Posted on September 22, 2013 1:05:33 AM EDT by Innovative
Al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in Syria have begun an offensive against former allies, wrestling moderate FSA rebels out of the controlled areas. With the US assault on Syria postponed, radical Islamists are seeking ultimate authority to fight Assad.
The latest news coming from the north of Syria suggests that a series of clashes between the former allies have already left a number of casualties and a change of the operational situation in the Syrian civil war.
The FSA leaders have recently acknowledged that clashes between their brigades and Islamist rivals have reached boiling point.
While the Pentagon continues to insist its plans include equipping and training only “moderate” Syrian rebel forces, the CIA reportedly has got an official blessing to monitor the arming of the Syrian rebels.
The mantra about arming only moderate rebels has been sounding for months now, but since Islamist fighters have now finally become the backbone of the rebel’s forces, it raises the question about the final beneficiary of the US’s reported $400 million aid to the Syrian rebels.
Al-Qaeda associates might really succeed in squeezing FSA moderates out of Syria which would automatically put Russia in an awkward position of conducting useless negotiations, with a Syrian opposition swiftly losing its remaining political clout. But that would also mean that the US could only supply weapons directly to Al-Qaeda jihadists as the only remaining force capable of opposing President Bashar Assad.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
-
Putin made the US look bad on the international stage. Syria has agreed to open up its chemical munitions depots to UN inspectors under a Russian-brokered deal. Russia is also continuing to supply the Assad government with state of the art military weaponry, including modern anti-aircraft battery capable of consistent takedown of US B2 stealth bombers. As it stands, neither side in the civil war has the ability or assets to defeat the opposition, and the losers in all this are the hundreds of thousands displaced refugees (also Europe as it is they via Sweden who are absorbing many of these refugees, thereby taking further demographic hits).
By the time the US and any of its allies get the votes, resources and backing to actually conduct military strikes against Assad, Syrian airspace would be near impregnable and the rebels likely pushed back due to Russian-bought armaments and financial support. US pilots and airmen could realistically face casualties and eventually draw the US into a ground invasion.
However, the Obama administration will not enter into any armed conflict outside of an outright attack on the US. Obama is a lame duck and badly wants to pave the way for the upcoming Hillary presidency, of which, outside of a current conflict in which any Republican presidential nominee could run on an anti-war platform, is all but inevitable.
-
Syria could easily be one of the axis of evil countries. It has been designated a rogue nation by the president's predecessor. Syria's state sponsored terrorism is well known. Syria has used banned chemical weapons on its people in what can be called a crime against humanity.
If you supported President Bush's war against Iraq, you have to support any military action by Obama against Syria. Same situation with more facts supporting a Syrian invasion and occupation than was the deal for the Iraq war.
-
Syria could easily be one of the axis of evil countries. It has been designated a rogue nation by the president's predecessor. Syria's state sponsored terrorism is well known. Syria has used banned chemical weapons on its people in what can be called a crime against humanity.
If you supported President Bush's war against Iraq, you have to support any military action by Obama against Syria. Same situation with more facts supporting a Syrian invasion and occupation than was the deal for the Iraq war.
Not the same situation at all. Syria hasn't attacked it's neighbor. There is no UN coalition. We're not enforcing UN resolutions. There is no Congressional authorization for the use of force.
-
Not the same situation at all. Syria hasn't attacked it's neighbor. There is no UN coalition. We're not enforcing UN resolutions. There is no Congressional authorization for the use of force.
Looks pretty similar to me. :-\
Iraq hadn't attacked anyone (in well over a decade) when USA invaded under GWB
There was no UN coalition. There was also no Congressional authorization. Congress did not declare war.
One of the multiple goals was regime change with the bonus of further facilitating the boxing in of Iran.
-
Did he convince you? Not me.
It looks like he phoned that one in. :-\
-
Looks pretty similar to me. :-\
Iraq hadn't attacked anyone (in well over a decade) when USA invaded under GWB
There was no UN coalition. There was also no Congressional authorization. Congress did not declare war.
One of the multiple goals was regime change with the bonus of further facilitating the boxing in of Iran.
The fact Iraq invaded its neighbor and was preparing to invade another separates that entire situation from Syria. We were enforcing a UN resolution that ended Desert Storm. There is nothing remotely comparable involving Syria, which did not invade or attack its neighbors.
We were enforcing a UN resolution, so yes, there was a UN coalition.
There was Congressional authorization for the use of force in 2002. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
The war started in 2003.
-
Not the same situation at all. Syria hasn't attacked it's neighbor. There is no UN coalition. We're not enforcing UN resolutions. There is no Congressional authorization for the use of force.
It's the same and worse. Iraq attacked no one in the run up to war. 1991? Hardly imminent. Bush violated UN requests to not attack Iraq. Blix was finding no weapons so naturally the president saw a threat requiring death from above. Congressional Authorization is quaint under the Bush Doctrine of Preemption."Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat
"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Bush's speech also outlines a vision for a strong American leadership in the world, a leadership that would project America's power and influence:
of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. ...
"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror....
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. ...
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.
"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
How do you read the president's words and totally miss the point that a state sponsor of terrorism, like Syria, is a threat to the US by its very existence and operation? No, there has to be another reason why you don't support military action.
Would you mind being a smidgen biit more truthful with your reasoning and values?
-
It's the same and worse. Iraq attacked no one in the run up to war. 1991? Hardly imminent. Bush violated UN requests to not attack Iraq. Blix was finding no weapons so naturally the president saw a threat requiring death from above. Congressional Authorization is quaint under the Bush Doctrine of Preemption."Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat
"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Bush's speech also outlines a vision for a strong American leadership in the world, a leadership that would project America's power and influence:
of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. ...
"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror....
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. ...
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.
"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
How do you read the president's words and totally miss the point that a state sponsor of terrorism, like Syria, is a threat to the US by its very existence and operation? No, there has to be another reason why you don't support military action.
Would you mind being a smidgen biit more truthful with your reasoning and values?
No one said Iraq was on the verge of attacking another neighbor in 2003. It’s the fact he had previously done it that made him more dangerous, and completely separates Iraq from Syria.
In fact, not only had Iraq invaded a sovereign country (Kuwait) and was massing troops on the Saudi Arabian border, he committed an act of war by bombing Israel. That’s all in addition to previously using chemical weapons on his own people.
So when Clinton and his administration, Gore, Kerry, and Democrats in the House and Senate deemed Sadaam a threat due to WMDs, and made statements in that regard from 1998 through 2002, the fact Iraq had previously attacked two countries and threatened a third made him a threat to the entire region. The prior invasion of another country, threatening of a second, and bombing of a third had to be part of the analysis.
That’s why Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, authorized the use of force in 2002.
What do we have in Syria? A civil war. Not a threat to the United States. Not a threat to neighbors. No invasion of neighbors. No bombing of neighbors. Not even remotely similar situations.
That’s why Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are not going to authorize the use of force in Syria in 2013.
-
No one said Iraq was on the verge of attacking another neighbor in 2003. It’s the fact he had previously done it that made him more dangerous, and completely separates Iraq from Syria.
In fact, not only had Iraq invaded a sovereign country (Kuwait) and was massing troops on the Saudi Arabian border, he committed an act of war by bombing Israel. That’s all in addition to previously using chemical weapons on his own people.
So when Clinton and his administration, Gore, Kerry, and Democrats in the House and Senate deemed Sadaam a threat due to WMDs, and made statements in that regard from 1998 through 2002, the fact Iraq had previously attacked two countries and threatened a third made him a threat to the entire region. The prior invasion of another country, threatening of a second, and bombing of a third had to be part of the analysis.
That’s why Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, authorized the use of force in 2002.
What do we have in Syria? A civil war. Not a threat to the United States. Not a threat to neighbors. No invasion of neighbors. No bombing of neighbors. Not even remotely similar situations.
That’s why Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are not going to authorize the use of force in Syria in 2013.
You are not addressing the matter at hand. The things you mention to differentiate the Iraq situation from Syria’s are irrelevant to the Bush Doctrine and frankly, you have your facts wrong as well.
The Bush Doctrine, as recounted by Col Powell:
".. that Washington has a "sovereign right to use force to defend ourselves" from nations that possess weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with terrorists,.."
Syria has WMDs and it is a well know sponsor of terrorism.
Why are you talking about Kerry or Clinton? The Bush Doctrine is the Bush doctrine. Not the 'check with Kerrey, Gore and Clinton before Bush orders the attack' doctrine.
“We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
If you supported the Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003, you would have to be a flaming hypocrite to not support an attack of Syria.
Now, under the purview of the Bush Doctrine, explain why you are not a hypocrite with your stance on not attacking Syria?
Just a little constistency with you guys on the right would make this go a whole lot easier.
-
Not after 13 years of war...based on budget and experience dealing with these people, its just not worth it.
-
Not after 13 years of war...based on budget and experience dealing with these people, its just not worth it.
Maybe, but that practical observation is not what decides military action against countries harboring WMDs and terrorists. The president decides. He's the decider.
President Bush articulates his discrete concept of the Bush Doctrine. According to the President, his doctrine consisted of four "prongs," three of them practical, and one idealistic. They are the following: (In his words)
1."Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account."
2."Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home."
3."Confront threats before they fully materialize."
4."Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy's ideology of repression and fear."
-
And what did it get us? Nothing. These animals should all gas each other into oblivion for all I care
Maybe, but that practical observation is not what decides military action against countries harboring WMDs and terrorists. The president decides. He's the decider.
President Bush articulates his discrete concept of the Bush Doctrine. According to the President, his doctrine consisted of four "prongs," three of them practical, and one idealistic. They are the following: (In his words)
1."Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account."
2."Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home."
3."Confront threats before they fully materialize."
4."Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy's ideology of repression and fear."
-
Sure thing ....First off nobody in America cares...nobody....again. ..nobody. Barry doesn't decide shit...he's a pansy..he leads from the back. Bush isn't the president, I see how you're confused as the current admin, in office almost 6 years, still blames him. The military is being drawn down. We're pulling out of Afghanistan. There is zero interest in getting invloved there.
-
And what did it get us? Nothing. These animals should all gas each other into oblivion for all I care
It's hard to believe you are not a leader of men and women.
-
It's hard to believe you are not a leader of men and women.
Who cares about these slime? I would not trade the lives of one more US Soldier for a million of these sand maggots.
-
Sure thing ....First off nobody in America cares...nobody....again. ..nobody. Barry doesn't decide shit...he's a pansy..he leads from the back. Bush isn't the president, I see how you're confused as the current admin, in office almost 6 years, still blames him. The military is being drawn down. We're pulling out of Afghanistan. There is zero interest in getting invloved there.
Mmmmhmmmm.
When you can't support yourself or your position...change the subject....nobody cares, Barry doesn't decide...he's only the president of the USA, Bush hatred is clouding the issue, why we're pulling out of AFG.
The Arthur Murray School of debate. And you have a Phd in the softshoe my adversary. Tap, atap, atapa atap. Bush Doctrine...never heard of it...tap, a tap, atap. Now for the big finish:
-
Who cares about these slime? I would not trade the lives of one more US Soldier for a million of these sand maggots.
Those maggots have WMDs, they've used WMDs and Syria is a state sponsor of terror. You could be next. We can't wait for the small threats to appear in the US in form of a mushroom cloud.
-
It's hard to believe you are not a leader of men and women.
hey dumbass....Bush isn't the president...Obama DOES NOT FOLLOW THE BUSH DOCTRINE. What part aren't you getting. If u feel so much love for our muslim brothers...go ahead and fly to Jordan and get an AK and join up.
We're not next....Assad wants to stay in power. The terror organizations are a problem but destroying Assad allows AQ and other jihadi organizations access to WMD's and other toys. Iran is the problme but you libs didn't want to support the protestors...again leading from the back etc.
-
hey dumbass....Bush isn't the president...Obama DOES NOT FOLLOW THE BUSH DOCTRINE. What part aren't you getting. If u feel so much love for our muslim brothers...go ahead and fly to Jordan and get an AK and join up.
We're not next....Assad wants to stay in power. The terror organizations are a problem but destroying Assad allows AQ and other jihadi organizations access to WMD's and other toys. Iran is the problme but you libs didn't want to support the protestors...again leading from the back etc.
Don't get your thong and panties in a bunch good lookin'.
Hussein wanted to stay in power too. I don't sympathize with dictators like you do. Destroying Hussein did not open the door to his good friends in Al Qaeda to step in and run Iraq...We'd install a democracy in Syria...just like we did in Iraq.
Why doesn't President Obama follow the Bush doctrine?
Why I bet you were a big fan of the Bush Doctrine back when it was cool to be part of the herd. Am I right?
-
I spent march and April of 2003 on Bagdad Airport.....I have zero sympathy for 99.9% of the population, let alone a raghead dictator. However, I'm done with these people. Let the arabs deal with him. Was I a big fan....I believed in killing these people before they killed us....and more to the point I commanded a M1A1 tank company and wanted to let my boys loose. I'm tired now, I don't care what happens to these people. They have proven that they don't care about each other so its time for the West to turn its back to them.
-
Exactly - these filthy worthless scum and animals should probably be provided WMD since most will be used on each other - and that is awesome for everyone.
-
We're rehashing Iraq...this ain't Iraq and its 2013. Our economy cannot sustain another war. Stop with the Bush doctrine, you sound like an idiot. Obama could have fought to stay in Iraq but fucked that up. He failed in Afghanistan...but that was ano win. I'm all for breaking things, but rebuilding the unbuildable is stupid.
-
I spent march and April of 2003 on Bagdad Airport.....I have zero sympathy for 99.9% of the population, let alone a raghead dictator. However, I'm done with these people. Let the arabs deal with him. Was I a big fan....I believed in killing these people before they killed us....and more to the point I commanded a M1A1 tank company and wanted to let my boys loose. I'm tired now, I don't care what happens to these people. They have proven that they don't care about each other so its time for the West to turn its back to them.
Yet you willingly went to slaughter these people b/c of the groundwork laid by Bush Doctrine.
You believed that they were to kill us?
Ideas matter. Youpay no heed to ideas. You don't even try to understand how things work. You did what you were told, lock, stock and barrel and that fed your self-righteous beliefs.
You followed the crowd into Iraq and killed people that you were told deserved it and that became your way.
You're obviously a tortured man so I won't belabor the point.
I will leave you with this: become who you are. If that's a part of the herd, then it is. IF not, then you do yourself a disservice.
-
We're rehashing Iraq...this ain't Iraq and its 2013. Our economy cannot sustain another war. Stop with the Bush doctrine, you sound like an idiot. Obama could have fought to stay in Iraq but fucked that up. He failed in Afghanistan...but that was ano win. I'm all for breaking things, but rebuilding the unbuildable is stupid.
The Bush Doctrine is still viable law. If not, then a whole lot of people are war criminals in this country, including yourself.
You want all the fun and carefree excitement of mindless killing / destruction (I don't get that either) without enduring the conquences of your acts. That's not responsible.
Our economy is fine. It can sustain multi-trillion dollar hits and keep rolling. That's no justification for not attacking Syria.
Syria has WMDs.
It is using WMDs currently.
It is a state sponsor of terrorism.
I think if Romney was making the call, you'd be saddling up your ICBM for a little ride into the Syrian night.
This is a slam dunk attack under the BUSH DOCTRINE. Yet you and your republican cohorts dither in the face of evil.
-
Then join...I can map it all out for you. Take a course at one of the local PMC schools. Hope a flight to Jordan or even pakistan. There you can find jihadists groups mounting up for action. If they don't kill you as a CIA spy, they'll give a bag of rice, an AK and ride to the front. Have at it....oh and the BUSH DOCTRINE ISN"T A FRIGGEN LAW!!!!!
Under the articles of the Geneva Convention that we did sign and by the multiple Congressional findings, acts and votes authorizing war against Iraq plus that of the UN resolutions passed on that point....I'm not a war criminal. Keep trying idiot....
-
So Obama is following the W doctrine despite the fact that this ghetto drug addicted street twink is still blaming W for all that ailes his failed presidency?>
The Bush Doctrine is still viable law. If not, then a whole lot of people are war criminals in this country, including yourself.
You want all the fun and carefree excitement of mindless killing / destruction (I don't get that either) without enduring the conquences of your acts. That's not responsible.
Our economy is fine. It can sustain multi-trillion dollar hits and keep rolling. That's no justification for not attacking Syria.
Syria has WMDs.
It is using WMDs currently.
It is a state sponsor of terrorism.
I think if Romney was making the call, you'd be saddling up your ICBM for a little ride into the Syrian night.
This is a slam dunk attack under the BUSH DOCTRINE. Yet you and your republican cohorts dither in the face of evil.
-
Then join...I can map it all out for you. Take a course at one of the local PMC schools. Hope a flight to Jordan or even pakistan. There you can find jihadists groups mounting up for action. If they don't kill you as a CIA spy, they'll give a bag of rice, an AK and ride to the front. Have at it....oh and the BUSH DOCTRINE ISN"T A FRIGGEN LAW!!!!!
Under the articles of the Geneva Convention that we did sign and by the multiple Congressional findings, acts and votes authorizing war against Iraq plus that of the UN resolutions passed on that point....I'm not a war criminal. Keep trying idiot....
The Bush Doctrine has to be legal and it isn't. You are a war criminal. That doesn't please me to say that.
The US violated the UN charter. Why you bring up the Geneva Convention, I don't know. Must make you sleep better at night. The UN resolutions were violated by Bush and company.
On the other hand, Iraq was a threat to destroy the US in 2003 and your killing of Iraqi women and children saved us all from being conquered.
Thank you for saving us all.
You're a hero.
-
Yet you voted for O-Twink who has a kill list on his desk of drones and who is also bombing other countries wo a formal delcartion of water.
Kill yourself
The Bush Doctrine has to be legal and it isn't. You are a war criminal. That doesn't please me to say that.
The US violated the UN charter. Why you bring up the Geneva Convention, I don't know. Must make you sleep better at night. The UN resolutions were violated by Bush and company.
On the other hand, Iraq was a threat to destroy the US in 2003 and your killing of Iraqi women and children saved us all from being conquered.
Thank you for saving us all.
You're a hero.
-
Yet you voted for O-Twink who has a kill list on his desk of drones and who is also bombing other countries wo a formal delcartion of water.
Kill yourself
Spot, heel!
Stay on target. Lose the demented ramblings from the vapors of your 'mind'.