walksalone Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 In what sense will it bite us in the ass? They might not respect American power and decide to do whatever they want?..........if that's the case, how is doing nothing a better alternative? If we look the wrong way at those batsh*t crazy fundamentalist a$$holes, they'll want the blood of the American infidel... Either we do nothing at all, or if we go in, we wipe them out, completely... this is why it's a job for the U.N. and not us... Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 In what sense will it bite us in the ass? They might not respect American power and decide to do whatever they want?..........if that's the case, how is doing nothing a better alternative? If we look the wrong way at those batsh*t crazy fundamentalist a$$holes, they'll want the blood of the American infidel... Either we do nothing at all, or if we go in, we wipe them out, completely... this is why it's a job for the U.N. and not us... Problem is, you can't kill all of them. Look how many have resurfaced in Iraq and Afgan. Way to many f'ing radicals out there. Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 In what sense will it bite us in the ass? They might not respect American power and decide to do whatever they want?..........if that's the case, how is doing nothing a better alternative? If we look the wrong way at those batsh*t crazy fundamentalist a$$holes, they'll want the blood of the American infidel... Either we do nothing at all, or if we go in, we wipe them out, completely... this is why it's a job for the U.N. and not us... Problem is, you can't kill all of them. Look how many have resurfaced in Iraq and Afgan. Way to many f'ing radicals out there. Hence the reason we do nothing, and let the U.N. do their job for once... Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 In what sense will it bite us in the ass? They might not respect American power and decide to do whatever they want?..........if that's the case, how is doing nothing a better alternative? If we look the wrong way at those batsh*t crazy fundamentalist a$$holes, they'll want the blood of the American infidel... Either we do nothing at all, or if we go in, we wipe them out, completely... this is why it's a job for the U.N. and not us... Problem is, you can't kill all of them. Look how many have resurfaced in Iraq and Afgan. Way to many f'ing radicals out there. Hence the reason we do nothing, and let the U.N. do their job for once... The bad thing about that, no other country seems to want to provide troops. The ones that are willing .Will only send the bare minimum. Evreybody wants us to put our people on the line without backup. The GBR is the only country willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I'd just soon stay out of it, but that won't happen. Tired of American Soliders dying for someone else's cause. Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 In what sense will it bite us in the ass? They might not respect American power and decide to do whatever they want?..........if that's the case, how is doing nothing a better alternative? If we look the wrong way at those batsh*t crazy fundamentalist a$$holes, they'll want the blood of the American infidel... Either we do nothing at all, or if we go in, we wipe them out, completely... this is why it's a job for the U.N. and not us... Problem is, you can't kill all of them. Look how many have resurfaced in Iraq and Afgan. Way to many f'ing radicals out there. Hence the reason we do nothing, and let the U.N. do their job for once... The bad thing about that, no other country seems to want to provide troops. The ones that are willing .Will only send the bare minimum. Evreybody wants us to put our people on the line without backup. The GBR is the only country willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I'd just soon stay out of it, but that won't happen. Tired of American Soliders dying for someone else's cause. But this is exactly what the U.N. is built for. Why haven't I heard anything about them passing security resolutions and mobilizing folks to handle this. Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Your guess is as good as mine bro. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Two amendments presented by John McCain to the Syrian war resolution have just passed the committee by voice vote, Dan Roberts reports.The changes would seem to expand – perhaps significantly – the scope of the prospective American military campaign. In particular the second amendment flatly states "It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/04/1236270/-McCain-Gets-Amendments-to-Senate-AUMF-Resolution Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 It would be pretty hard for the dems to continue playing the "not George Bush" card if Obama goes it alone without a coalition of countries and the American people backing his actions. Lying about WMDs vs. actual use of WMDs against citizens? Ground invasion vs. stand off strikes? Again . . . are you comparing this to Iraq? Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 If we look the wrong way at those batsh*t crazy fundamentalist a$$holes, they'll want the blood of the American infidel... People over there might start to hate us if we lob a few missiles. Link to comment
Junior Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 It would be pretty hard for the dems to continue playing the "not George Bush" card if Obama goes it alone without a coalition of countries and the American people backing his actions. Lying about WMDs vs. actual use of WMDs against citizens? Ground invasion vs. stand off strikes? Again . . . are you comparing this to Iraq? What else would you expect people to do? Look at Obama's actions with an open mind? Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Why haven't I heard anything about them passing security resolutions and mobilizing folks to handle this. Russia. Link to comment
Junior Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Two amendments presented by John McCain to the Syrian war resolution have just passed the committee by voice vote, Dan Roberts reports.The changes would seem to expand – perhaps significantly – the scope of the prospective American military campaign. In particular the second amendment flatly states "It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria." http://www.dailykos....AUMF-Resolution I'm amazed he managed to pull himself away from his poker game long enough to write that up. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 It would be pretty hard for the dems to continue playing the "not George Bush" card if Obama goes it alone without a coalition of countries and the American people backing his actions. Lying about WMDs vs. actual use of WMDs against citizens? Ground invasion vs. stand off strikes? Again . . . are you comparing this to Iraq? What else would you expect people to do? Look at Obama's actions with an open mind? I don't know . . . sometimes the ODS in otherwise rational individuals still manages to surprise me. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 5, 2013 Author Share Posted September 5, 2013 It would be pretty hard for the dems to continue playing the "not George Bush" card if Obama goes it alone without a coalition of countries and the American people backing his actions. Lying about WMDs vs. actual use of WMDs against citizens? Ground invasion vs. stand off strikes? Again . . . are you comparing this to Iraq? Are you talking about Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds? Link to comment
HuskerLuke Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Are you talking about Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds? Liberals have a difficult time with the fact that they've elected W.'s foreign policy to 3rd and 4th terms under Obama. Link to comment
Recommended Posts