Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, Aug 30, 2013.
C'mon from a wheelchair? I can't believe that. It's hard enough being smart when you can walk.
Your writing style seems very familiar to me... I wonder why?
Every post with the word whine and LOTS OF ALL CAPS AND BOLD!
I know you've been here before.
LOL- He can do wheelies and out think 100% of the lefty libbie elites with half his brain tied behind his wheelchair just to make it fair.
Lol... now that's good humor.
So what exactly are you arguing for then: more or less US attacks in the ME?
So a failure in Iraq proves we ought to intervene in Syria?
That people who were all for running into Iraq willy nilly sound shrill trying to be the voice of reason regarding Syria.
So do you support the attacks or not?
ETA: exactly. Crickets.
I do not support the attacks because:
1, The intell about who used the chem weapons is already sketchy. We do not need another quizzing contest about intell like we did with Iraq.
2, it looks like we will be going it alone. Our diplomatic status is already tarnished enough.
3, I haven not heard what will be objective of the mission.
4, I am concerned about the economic damage Iran could inflict by closing the Strait of Hormuz.
5, I am concerned about the military damage AQ groups would inflict. I am more concerned about what the Iranian agents could do here in the US.
6, There is a big risk that our military action could set off a major war in the Middle East.
I guess it boils down to one point. That one point is the situation in Syria worth a military strike. We have way too much lose and very little to gain. When I say we I am referring to the world.
I believe that we would have more to gain by joking Russia and China on this issue. For one thing with the big three (Russia, China, USA) on the same side all of the factions in the Middle East would face unbearable economic and diplomatic pressure to end this blood feud. Perhaps we can end it without blood shed and putting our economy and diplomatic relations into the toilet.
Yeah but the attack on Iraq had a really cool video-game-like name -- Shock and Awe.
The attack on Iraq was the opening bombardment kicking off an invasion and removal of its government. You may not have liked the purpose of the mission, guys like me may have not liked the process of the mission, but there actually was an operational purpose to that. Obama basically wants to hold a Labor Day fireworks show, planned start and stop, pre-announced targets, and absolutely no chance of deterring anything Assad may consider doing precisely because he knows this is the very worst that might ever happen.
Meaning? So, because he supported the Iraq war he's not allowed to use the benefit to hindsight to change his mind?
What's your excuse? It's cool because your guy is starting the war?
Interesting too that Obama, the great statesman and uniter, is completely ignoring the requests of Russia and China on this.
He wants to see Obama score a touchdown.
See what I mean? His world begins and ends with (D) politics.
Kraut was the first to put the Obama admin on the spot and was one of the reasons why Obama hesitated. Once he brought up "so you remove Assad, now what?", it made Obama think about it. The thing is, this conflict is between two factions that hate us. I say let them fight it out.
...and Obamas is 'Hide and Seek.'
And Obama's attack on the middle class is called Hope and Change.
This is some funny, funny stuff. The letters D and R sure do change your point of view.