Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Sep 18, 2013.
Why would someone waste their time presenting arguments and evidence to someone who wears blinders?
A nation of war hawks.
because their hero barack drew a line in the sand, liberals are now war hawks! classic.
the opposition did not have sny AQ when they began demonstrating. they were no more terrorists that george washigtin was. Assad turned it into a war when they started shooting the demonstrators. using gas on women and children is not fighting a war it is committing genocide.
and a civil war in Syria sparking major unrest in the ME s very different than a civil war in Peru.
why is that people refuse to acknowledge that not all of the opposition has AQ influence and those that did affiliate with AQ only did so out of sheer desperation after 0 left them to be slaughtered by hezbollah and iranian repjblican guard? the ignorance on thia issue is rampant but I guess if we discuss why AQ is there we have to point out another lead from behind failure
So just because I disagree with your position I am wearing blinders? I think the real reason is you have no argument so you continue to skirt the questions. In other words your position is untenable. You've already resorted to insults which is one of the first signs your argument is disintegrating and now this is the best you can come up with?
Still waiting for an answer from you proponents of this. Let's talk some more about how bombing Assad's chemical caches and in turn his troops is going to stabilize the region.
No, it's because you "disagree" with known facts. Noting that is not an insult, but stating another fact.
Your mistaken. Assumed facts. Even your on thread title says "almost." Guess if you almost win a game that is the same as winning one. Or if you almost get a job you get one.
I see you refuse to address the other points I have made for not taking action. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
The UN and French reports are not based on "assumed facts", but facts, that is for those of us who are not proponents of solipsism.
As to you second comment, I don't play with people who don't follow rules.
That just proves that these liberals are all about Obama and his agenda, and not about principle nor about our nation.
Well then take your ball and go home. Or sent a PM to one of the admins telling them "Hall doesn't play by the rules." Your rules I might add.
Oh, you are still avoiding the elephant in the living room. Just because you ignore the question does not make it go away.
So our mental midget thinks by stripping our military to bare-bones we're ready to fight an unpopular war, with no stated plan to win?
This looks more and more like a distraction to me. I wonder why he needs a distraction? What could be coming-up in the congress that would make our POTUS want to start a distraction? Budget... cough, cough... debt ceiling... cough.
The rules of reasonable discussion, which include acceptance by participants of verifiable facts, are practiced by some everywhere, even on occasion on TH. I recommend it.
This is the last time I will comment on what you call "facts." Fact is there are conflicting reports on this and although you refuse to admit they exist and want to take the UN as your sole authority it does not, in actuality, make them irrefutable.
Now with that in mind I still don't care it is none of our business and your first question of talking about military action is a serious mistake. I have asked you to tell us how taking military action will bring about anything more than more instability but it is blatantly obvious you don't have a clue.
Obama calls for it and you are lockstep behind it. That's the real bottom line to all of this. Sad that you can't think for yourself.
Were there WMD's in Iraq? Did Saddam use them on his own people?
What facts are you stating?
The only info you are reading is coming from people you do not know, in some cases the sources are not vetted, in other cases the sources are bias.
The last time we listened to a President who was chasing WMD we got bogged down in a very long war that still haunts us today. There was another time when the sources of the information of an incident at sea cooked the data and with in a year we had a half million GI's in South Vietnam. Have you ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? A product of the LBJ admin.
Many are, but a good number aren't. It seems to depend more on degree of devotion to Obama than anything else.
Good question. I am also wondering:
- What assurance exists, given the passage of time, that we even know where the caches are.
- How the proposed "unbelievably small" strike would accomplish a deterrent objective wrt to either Assad or other parties who might be tempted to use CW.
We are in bizarro world with a liberal Dem itching for war and the Pubs opposing.
All the commies in the world news are now trying to blame Reagan for Iraqis WMD? WTF? That's fresh.
We're broke otherwise I'd consider it... :roll: And the Dems would oppose it.