Guest Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 It's not that conservatives have become anti-war, we just see no reason to do anything that aids our enemies. Doublespeak much? Let's table Barry's name unless I want to use it. If Barry hadn't drawn a blurred red line in the sand like a junior high bully wannabe and then tried to push the responsibility of backing up the threat onto Congress and the world, then there wouldn't be the urgency to do something quickly to save face for Barry and the US. Yeah, for sure @LittleEarl and for many conservatives. I was just posing that hypothetical because of some common gripes I've heard from liberals regarding Conservatives. @SoylentGreen, I've yet to be convinced you are capable of understanding context and responding to what someone is actually trying to say. I'm not asking any of us to table Obama's name because I'm trying to protect him from criticism, and I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss what the President does at all...far from it. Obviously, when thinking about tangible action we should bring up the President. BUT--discussing Obama here is often counterproductive. Often, on this board folks aren't criticizing Obama--rather some bullshit idea of him that doesn't in reality exist. You can see it in your sarcasm laden use of the familiar "Barry." I have criticized Obama often on this board, even though I am personally liberal and supported his candidacy for President. But no one is going to respect your ideas about Syria if it is clear you have them only because you hate Obama. So my suggestion to table his name was to stop the partisan he said she said so that maybe some kind of interesting discussion on Syria would come about. I'm not surprised that this isn't possible--and if you don't want to be a part of it, more power to you. I'd be interested in seeing, however, if you could put aside whatever opinions you have of Obama for a few minutes and think about the actual issue at hand. Should we or shouldn't we wade into Syria? If not, no worries. Troll on buddy. More power to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 I have a few questions to the liberal warhawks on the board: - what targets do you expect to bomb? - what is the expected outcome would you expect from that? - how would you expect to prevent civilian casualties while bombing targets that you've mentioned in N1 above? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 proof is the summation of evidence proof pro͞of/ noun noun: proof; plural noun: proofs 1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. "you will be asked to give proof of your identity" If you don't like the amount of evidence, how much do you want? It seems convincing. Thank you for showing me the definition of proof...once again, evidence does not equate to proof. This is a very simple and straight forward statement. I understand that there are different levels of proof, especially in these situations with so many variables at play, and because 'proof' is often times subjective. However, from what I've seen, they have not shown enough evidence to constitute proof. If you feel different, then it is certainly your prerogative. I, on the other hand, have only seen circumstantial evidence and cannot see any motive in this situation. Why would Assad cross a red line when he just allowed UN inspectors to come into his country? It just doesn't make sense to me. So lack of motive (subjective) and circumstantial evidence doesn't equate to proof for me at this point, along with many in the UN, Russia, and in our own Congress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 I have a few questions to the liberal warhawks on the board: I'm not a "warhawk" since I haven't decided but I'll give it a crack anyway - what targets do you expect to bomb? No clue. I don't have access to military intelligence. - what is the expected outcome would you expect from that? Deter or stop them from using chemical weapons again and deter other countries from doing the same by showing that the US will follow through w/ our threat - how would you expect to prevent civilian casualties while bombing targets that you've mentioned in N1 above? No clue since I don't know what the targets would be or could be or where they'd be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 It's all Barry cares about. Once he realized Syria had crossed the line, he got in front of cameras as quickly as possible to let everybody know it wasn't his red line, it wasn't his credibility at stake -- it was the world's red line, the world's credibility, Congress' credibility. It was a stupid mistake on his part to make a threat. That doesn't sound like he's backing off of it. It sounds like he's trying to get people to realize it's not just about the US. Thank you for showing me the definition of proof...once again, evidence does not equate to proof. This is a very simple and straight forward statement. I understand that there are different levels of proof, especially in these situations with so many variables at play, and because 'proof' is often times subjective. However, from what I've seen, they have not shown enough evidence to constitute proof. If you feel different, then it is certainly your prerogative. I, on the other hand, have only seen circumstantial evidence and cannot see any motive in this situation. Why would Assad cross a red line when he just allowed UN inspectors to come into his country? It just doesn't make sense to me. So lack of motive (subjective) and circumstantial evidence doesn't equate to proof for me at this point, along with many in the UN, Russia, and in our own Congress. Point being, they can't "show" proof. They can show evidence and then you can decide if it proves the case or not. You've decided it does not. That's your prerogative. What would prove it for you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 Point being, they can't "show" proof. They can show evidence and then you can decide if it proves the case or not. You've decided it does not. That's your prerogative. What would prove it for you? Agreed. I'm not going out on a limb here, as there are many credible people that think it was the rebels who did this to bring in the U.S. Proof to me would be a thorough investigation from the U.N. which shows conclusively that the Assad regime was responsible for these attacks. Anything less, to me, is not good enough. The U.S. Government is renowned for their ability to spin and outright lie. I am unwilling to take these politicians word for it, especially since these same people were saying the same thing before the intelligence was analyzed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 I say do nothing, the rebels are Al-queda anyways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 I agree with Bink and that article in general. The U.S. needs to go through the U.N. here. striking Syria by ourselves is not something I'm on board with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFCman Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 To the rest of the world Obama is a rodeo clown running from a bull named "Leadership". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 yes, i'm posting this in this thread on purpose/for a reason. http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/showbiz/2013/09/05/fod-alyssa-milano-sex-tape.funny-or-die.html Kinda funny Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 90% of Americans support Congressional action in Syria http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFCman Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 90% of Americans support Congressional action in Syria http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/ Yeah me too. I'd send all of Congress and the Senate and the White House to Syria. Drop them by helicopter in the desert and say "tax your way out of this" and "if you get hurt use your Obamacare coverage." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 Uhhhh... yeah, that's the problem with Congress... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFCman Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 Uhhhh... yeah, that's the problem with Congress... LOL. See? We CAN agree on SOME things after all. It's nice to know that you're heading in the RIGHT direction. HA. There's hope for you yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 LOL. See? We CAN agree on SOME things after all. It's nice to know that you're heading in the RIGHT direction. HA. There's hope for you yet. No, just making fun of your dumbass post... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.