WG53 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Typical ignorant LittleEarl. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I think Norm and others OVER estimate Obama. Doing this all on purpose would take effort. What has he EVER exerted anywhere near this degree of effort on? The elections? Teleprompter speeches written by others, practiced and repeated over and over... anything independent has been a mistake needing to be "walked back" later. He´s put no time into budgets,domestic or foreign policy. His signature accomplishments - Obamacare, bailouts, stimulus have all been written by others and he´s shown no interest in even knowing what was in them, let alone well enough to explain it. He´s too lazy to have done much of anything on purpose, other than go on vacation and play golf. I couldnt agree more. Obama hasnt achieved shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Earl Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Good read from Peggy Noonan: http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/09/10/making-sense-of-syria/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I guess, Pearl Harbor with its 2,400 US casualties was not a war either Pearl Harbor was an attack that was officially part of a war. The US declared war on Japan following the attack. It is historically recorded as a battle in a war. Did Iraq declare war on the US in 1998? Did the US declare war on Iraq in 1998? Does any source of any historical significance refer to the bombing as a war? No. I have no idea what the number of casualties has to do with whether it was part of a war or not. People don't die except in wars? As for what is a war and what is not, it seems pretty simple based on the definition. A war requires at least 2 sides fighting. A single party can be engaged in warfare or can commit an act of war, but being in a war involves 2 sides. When we bombed Iraq in 1998, but they didn't fight back against us, we were not at war. Perhaps that's only because they were not capable, but that's the way it is. The same would be true with Syria today. Now, if we put troops on the ground like we did in Iraq in 2003 and Iraqi troops were shooting back, that's a war. But we aren't going to put troops on the ground. Regardless, this is nothing more than an argument over semantics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I couldnt agree more. Obama hasnt achieved shit. Well, that was the stated goal of the GOP when he got elected in 2008. So then I guess you guys won... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Well, that was the stated goal of the GOP when he got elected in 2008. So then I guess you guys won... Thank god. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Obviously if Romney had won we would have already bombed Syria and the right would be praising it. No doubt about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 We know Obama wants to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 We know Obama wants to. Well no shit. He stated such on many occasions. Wanting to and already have are two separate things. You know Romney would have already done it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Not sure about Romney, but obviously McCain... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 If McCain bombed like he flew a plane, Irael would be wiped off the map....lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshimitsu Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Putin is having a laugh right now. He stands up to the US's threats, ignores Obama at G20, and then takes something Kerry barely mentions and runs with it, thereby protecting Russia's place as Europe's gas supplier, but also making nice to the anti-war international community. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/07/politics/us-syria-chemical-attack-videos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Please, for your own credibility, don't ever quote Fenstein as a source of logic or truthfulness. It's like quoting McCain, Graham, Pelosi, or Reid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Oh c'mon... I'm sure Assad woke up yesterday and just decided that he didn't want them anymore. Clearly it was all out of the goodness of his dictatorial, mass-murdering heart... heh? You think they're giving up their chemical weapons out of the goodness of their hearts? Are you that politically motivated? It's hilarious seeing the lack of logic in this process. 100,000 people have been killed with conventional warfare. Russia just agreed to another arms contract to send them the best weaponry they have to sell. Still yet to be proven Assad was responsible for these attacks. Literally the only proof that has been declassified was something I linked to earlier and is still circumstantial. Giving up there unneeded chemical weapons is nothing when it comes to being handed top level weaponry from Russia. Acting like Syria giving up their chemical weapons does anything but allow the U.S. to save face, while another 100,000 die is laughable. If the point is broader in terms of international customs in terms of chemical warfare, then yes I agree, it's a good thing they are giving them up to international forces. It's also a great thing we won't go to war if everything works out. But, acting like this actually affects the situation for the good of stability is not reality. Al-Queda will continue to affront a secular dictator and persecute Christians and the dictator will continue to kill Syrians. Hell, one of the best things about them giving up chemical weapons is that if Al-Queda wins this war, they won't have open access to chemical stockpiles of Sarin and VX gas. People will continue to die by the thousands, but at least (hopefully) we won't have to take the side of Al-Queda (we already would have if there was any international support, which would have led to another Libya going from the only history we have with this admin). Did Obama take this to congress with Libya? No. Why did he take it to congress this time? Simple: He didn't have international backing. As much as I hope the ends are good, the means are not being relayed by the left with facts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 It's in Russia's interests to protect their ally as well as their only naval base in the region. But I'm all for them finally getting something positive done rather than vetoing everything. It's not a naval base. Stop spouting bullshit you don't know about. It's a port with four active Russians at any one time, with a maximum of 8 Russians at the port. Look it up, as I refuse to link something when someone is obviously spouting ignorance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.