#61
...or we back none of the aboveOriginally Posted by PaulD
#62
But But But... We need to drop those bombs to stimulate the economy......
I am so fucking rad I shit rainbows
#63
seems like this time, we know the outcome. We've been to this particular party and we'll go home with the same hangover, if we take Assad out and wait to see if we can repel the "bad muslims" for the good ones.
what was Assad exactly doing that prompted us taking the rebels' side to begin with?
was it worse than the rebels, who are comprised of terror networks that grow their ranks in relation to how much they hate us, and the west?
Saddam was a ruthless bastard but he was known to have a bunch of yellow cake and we had to go in to get that out of his hands, Assad is just a ruthless bastard.
And, Assad isn't sitting on a big oil honey pot, either so we can't use that excuse, and the rebels themselves are all muslim-based, which is either fronts for a radical core or just the radical core, I don't want to give muslims ANY aid or armament, based on their doctrine of infidel treatments.
So we either go big, and squash all the competition while taking Assad's reins and have a serious to-do with Russia, or we let the rebels continue their bloody insurgency, and Assad use his arsenal of WMD on their ranks until they lose their will to fight or get dead.
I'm making the distinction that Islam is operating against us no matter what we do, and that radical elements of Islam will be put in power if they are the last man standing. Egypt is a curious case, as their population and Syria's population to me, have some similar elements. Both unstable, both looking for hand-outs and both subject to a decade's long conflict if we get involved, with the Syrian contingency being all the more unsettled by having Russia say "that's our doorstop, we paid for it, you can't just come in here and use our doorstop"
so, I am against Assad's use of chemical warfare but I am more against the tinderbox proposition, even if they wave their hands in laughter at our dear leader's "red line" gallantry.
and I don't care how much the rebels tug on heart-sleeves, with their coverage of Assad's campaign of atrocities. They can't come up with a rebel force that's for democracy instead of muslim rule, fuck 'em.
#64
The media is really showing their corporate owned colors on this shit show. It's so pathetic. Pick your poison... They are all badly exposed on this.
I am so fucking rad I shit rainbows
#65
That was my point
#66
Senators draft resolution to limit Syria action to 90 days, no boots on the ground
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...he-ground?lite
Here we go again
This will be something to see over the next decade or two !Leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Tuesday they reached an agreement on a draft resolution to use military force in Syria, setting a 60-day deadline, with one 30-day extension possible for the intervention -- while also barring the involvement of ground forces in the conflict.
Viewing Smilies , you trying to access privileged system?¤Somewhere 0ut There¤}]
#67
Are you not entertained?!?!
#68
See! For all of our bickering... We agree. I think.... Right? LOL.
I am so fucking rad I shit rainbows
#69
That is just committee. That just says they will vote on it. Still has to pass house, too. At this point, don't really think it matters. This is like a chess game that's over in 3 moves, no matter what you do.
#70
I think a 63 day war with a possible 38 day extension would have far better success. Let's tell the adversary what the extent of our will is, what a fabulous idea! Who is going to be counting the bullets, next?
war with a deadline, what a crock
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
