The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: BadCat on September 04, 2013, 05:30:12 PM
-
And so our unwashed commie fans at the DUmp know where we stand regarding obama's war on Syria....
I, a proud member of the hated Military Industrial Complex (MIC in DUmmy parlance) am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to ANY United States action in Syria.
-
We told these idiots that supporting the "Arab Spring" (when what they really need is Irish Spring) was to allow jihadists to gain the upper hand.
We told these idiots that supporting the rebels in Libya would give the jihadists the upper hand.
We're telling these idiots that supporting the rebels in Syria is giving the jihadists the upper hand.
How many times do they insist on proving us right?
-
As much as I hate to admit it I think that O might have had the right idea, at least until Assad overrode O's lightweight ass.
I saw a report today, It would have to have been on Fox news, that O 's original policy before Assad stonewalled him was to restore equilibrium to the civil war. If that is true it's probably the smartest thing that I've heard from this admin.
Now, as it had to be, O is going to screw it up but yea I say hurt Assad. Keep the fighting going as long as possible.
-
And so our unwashed commie fans at the DUmp know where we stand regarding obama's war on Syria....
I, a proud member of the hated Military Industrial Complex (MIC in DUmmy parlance) am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to ANY United States action in Syria.
Any attempt by President Barack Obama to bomb Syria amounts to him "saving political face," says former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in a blog post on Facebook, criticizing his intent to wage war without a strong rationale.
Titling her post "Let Allah Sort It Out," Palin, a Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, railed against U.S. military action proposed by the president.
"So we're bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I'm the idiot?" Palin wrote in a sharp message posted Friday. "Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his 'red line' promise regarding chemical weapons."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/palin-syria-allah/2013/09/01/id/523286
-
And so our unwashed commie fans at the DUmp know where we stand regarding obama's war on Syria....
I, a proud member of the hated Military Industrial Complex (MIC in DUmmy parlance) am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to ANY United States action in Syria.
That's where I'm at. I see no actual national security interest of ours that is furthered by screwing around for or against either side, the one thing our involvement on behalf of one side will do is act as a manpower and money magnet for the other side.
-
I'm opposed to anything Obama does. Everything he has done has been a disaster and has hurt this country, including his foreign policy decisions. I'm convinced it's safer to assume that the opposite of what he wants is the right path. He has messed up the ME worse than it was before he became the CIC. All of his decisions are going to come back and bite us in the ass with another 9/11 or worse.
He ignored the protests in Iran, when the moderate, Western friendly Iranians were protesting against their madman Pres. who won an election through fraud, then Obama turned around and congratulated the madman. Many peaceful protesters were brutalized, murdered, disappeared and felt isolated by the world.
He pulled all of our troops out of Iraq before their military could stand on their own, and now Iraq is being taken over by our enemies, al Qaeda and Iran. Talk about pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory, we've seen the picture before, so liberals have no sense of history.
He bombed the crap out of Libya, after Gadhafi came to his senses and gave up his nuclear ambitions. Now Libya is even a worse hellhole than it was and it's being taken over by our enemies, al Qaeda to train their fighters. He never went after the murderers in Benghazi and lied about what happened to our embassy.
He then called for our ally Mubarak to step down and Egypt was taken over by our enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood who hates America and Israel.
Now he wants to bomb Syria where there are hundreds of al Qaeda type groups involved in a civil war.
-
What Dori said.
-
That's where I'm at. I see no actual national security interest of ours that is furthered by screwing around for or against either side, the one thing our involvement on behalf of one side will do is act as a manpower and money magnet for the other side.
Tanker is spot on. There is NO national interest for the US in Syria. Period.
The first rule of combat is to never interrupt your enemies while they are killing each other. To risk calling Assads threat/bluff on creating a wider conflict in the region is sheer stupidity.
-
I'm against the intervention/war/kinetic action in Syria. The intervention/war/kinetic action in Libya only made the conditions worse.
Also everything that King Barky the Incompetent touches turns to shit. if 0bama told me to turn right I would have complete confidence that turning left would be correct 999999 out of1000000 times. The man only picks losers and losing policies.
Quite literally there is nothing that 0bama cannot screw up, nothing.
My take on it is let the muslim slime kill the muslim slime and that the Assad regime is bad but what would come after would be worse.
-
And so our unwashed commie fans at the DUmp know where we stand regarding obama's war on Syria....
I, a proud member of the hated Military Industrial Complex (MIC in DUmmy parlance) am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to ANY United States action in Syria.
Syria attacks Syria so, we must bomb Syria.
Hey..... what's not to support?
</sarc>
Hell no. Keep out.
I'm against the intervention/war/kinetic action in Syria. The intervention/war/kinetic action in Libya only made the conditions worse.
A fact instantly noticed by our fearless MarxistMedia®
I'm opposed to anything Obama does. Everything he has done has been a disaster and has hurt this country, including his foreign policy decisions. I'm convinced it's safer to assume that the opposite of what he wants is the right path. He has messed up the ME worse than it was before he became the CIC. All of his decisions are going to come back and bite us in the ass with another 9/11 or worse.
Agreed, absolutely. :hi5:
-
If I thought for an instant the rebel forces would turn the place into some semblance of a decent, civilized democracy, I might be for lending a hand through air power. But the Islamofascists have proven time and again they prefer to stay in the Stone Age with their own brand of barbarious murder and oppression every time they're given the chance. They always turn and bite the hand that helps them, so **** 'em.
-
I think it's an awful idea to fight FOR al Qaeda, and I see nothing wrong with muzzies killing muzzies in as great a number as possible, by any means.
But I think it's even more awful for a president to be so spineless, wishy-washy, indecisive, and incompetent that he states a foreign policy, then backs off it, then reclaims it, then backs off it, then reclaims it again, then passes the buck to Congress.
As terrible an idea as it is to fire off cruise missles in support of al Qaeda, that would be better than what he's done.
-
Syria is seriously scary in how it reveals 0bama as being dangerously psychotic.
Nothing about the situation makes sense. And then today, 0bama channels his inner Bart Simpson saying, "It's not me, dude! You can't prove nothing. It's not my red line, it's the UN's!"
I haven't heard him overtly blame Bush yet but I guess that is next.
-
This is one of those cases where "The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy."
-
I am opposed. The US has no national interest in Syria, and it is definitely not in our national interest to be Al Queda's bitch by bombing its enemy.
King Hussein has truly screwed the pooch. He should have eaten the damn thing instead.
I called the offices of both of my senators and my representative at lunchtime today. I think they are tired of hearing from me.
-
Against it. He claimed no boots on the ground but I see that happening. Then you are going to send in a military that is hamstrung financially because of his cutbacks. Here in Norfolk there are ships that are not getting badly needed yard time because of lack of money, deployed units not getting basic supplies they need. This will not end well.
You can't starve a cow and expect it to give you extra milk.
-
I'm against it because the president is black.
-
**** no.
-
Against it. He claimed no boots on the ground but I see that happening. Then you are going to send in a military that is hamstrung financially because of his cutbacks. Here in Norfolk there are ships that are not getting badly needed yard time because of lack of money, deployed units not getting basic supplies they need. This will not end well.
You can't starve a cow and expect it to give you extra milk.
Don't forget air wings that need a minimum of 6 months to be ready.
-
O is driving the car by just looking over the hood so every turn surprises him.
I don`t see where he has even a theoretical end game to this.
-
I see no value in any military intervention in Syria, nor do I see any imminent threat from Syria, so no.
-
I'm against it because the president is black.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
If it makes obama look bad, I'm for it.
-
Tanker is spot on. There is NO national interest for the US in Syria. Period.
The first rule of combat is to never interrupt your enemies while they are killing each other. To risk calling Assads threat/bluff on creating a wider conflict in the region is sheer stupidity.
I agree with you and Tanker. There is an old saying in sports that mirrors what you said. "When your opponent is screwing up, don't interrupt them." If they are intent on killing each other, don't interrupt them.
-
Unless the Regime is willing to start the ball rolling by using a Trident to pave the whole damned site with glass - and then work their way east - we have no business wasting another drop of American blood or treasure there.
-
If this administration can give to the American people a compelling reason why we should be involved with Syria, then I'll support it.
But I'm pretty sure that won't be happening anytime soon.
-
If this administration can give to the American people a compelling reason why we should be involved with Syria, then I'll support it.
But I'm pretty sure that won't be happening anytime soon.
Assad is a poopyhead ain't compelling enough for you either?
-
Opposed.
-
Against it.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the opposition groups didn't gas people hoping the gov't would be blamed.
.
-
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Dumbass Obama just did.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the opposition groups didn't gas people hoping the gov't would be blamed.
.
I don't trust any of them. Haven't the brass in charge figured that out by now?
If they haven't, they're a bunch of incompetent dumbasses who need to step down.
-
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Never mess with a Sicilian When Death is on the line....
Dumbass Obama just did.
Great movie my friend.....and I am opposed to ANYTHING this prezy does cause he is a poopyhead. Well i have a few other words for him but that's for later.
edit for sp
-
I am against open action in Syria, because I believe that the justifications for it are non-existent.
1. We don't even know who used chemical weapons. It could have plausibly been any group in the country.
2. Dead is dead. Why does it matter if they bought it via a conventional artillery barrage, conventional air strike, bullets, or a chemical attack?
3. If we try to figure out who would be the best people in charge, it might actually turn out to be Assad's people.
4. While not all the opposition groups are Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood affiliated, one is too many, there are more than one.
5. If any "good guys" exist, then we would be better off helping them as quietly as possible, that way they would be viewed as legitimate by the people.
6. We have no national security or strategic stake in the outcome of Syria.
-
4. While not all the opposition groups are Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood affiliated, one is too many, there are more than one.
Egypt showed us how a minority of MB/AQ can sway an election and get them in power. It was only Egypt's fairly independent military that may prove to be their savior.
-
I'm opposed to any action in Syria. They have done nothing to us. Also after watching John F'ng Kerry on TV and the little hissy fit he threw during the meeting with the Senators, I'd say someone should have reminded him of hid testimony before Congress back in the 70's where he lied through his teeth as the reason to not believe a Goddam word he says.
-
If the first 100,000 killed by Assad by means other than chemical weapons don't count, I don't see why we should put boots on the ground (which we will) to assail this atrocity.
-
I'd like to know what the big hurry is on O'Blamus's part. It's not like this just started. I want no part in arming Al Quaeda.
It makes me sick.
I don't understand the sudden rush and his willingness to go it alone. Is he such a narcissist that he can't admit he spoke out of turn? I just can't shake the feeling that he's hiding something over there. God help me, I sound like I'm about to bust out a kooky conspiracy theory complete with chicken wire models of the twin towers.
-
If it makes obama look bad, I'm for it.
Barry doesn't need Syria to make him look bad. It's the one thing he is quite capable of doing very well himself.
Again, what we have in Syria is muzzies killing muzzies.
I fail to see a downside to this. If he wants to do something, arm both sides to the teeth, and grab some popcorn.
Other than that, it ain't our fight, stay the hell out of it.
-
Opposed.
First, it's not our problem (I'm talking here about the U.K., but the same applies to the U.S.).
Second, neither side in this fight is good.
Third, attacking Assad empowers Islamists and leads to yet more Christians being martyred for their faith.
Fourth, there is neither entrance nor exit strategy.
-
We need to stay away from it. Though Assad is no poster child, there are actually worst situations.
-
I'd like to know what the big hurry is on O'Blamus's part. It's not like this just started. I want no part in arming Al Quaeda.
It makes me sick.
I don't understand the sudden rush and his willingness to go it alone. Is he such a narcissist that he can't admit he spoke out of turn? I just can't shake the feeling that he's hiding something over there. God help me, I sound like I'm about to bust out a kooky conspiracy theory complete with chicken wire models of the twin towers.
Or here. There seems to be something behind the curtain, and it ain't good.
-
It is a civil war, we have no business there. No national threat, and I agree with the statements about letting our enemies kill each other, leaves less for us to have to worry about later.
-
He couldn't send help when our own people were being killed (Benghazi) but he can send help to save some muzzies?
If Obama has just got to do something, then he should do a flyover, drop pictures of Helen Thomas with the message, "Here is a picture of one of the 72 virgins waiting for you in Allah's whorehouse in the sky....they all look like her".
-
Opposed, for all the reasons excellently articulated so far. What the hell is the point of it all, lobbing missiles here and there? That's retarded, sir.
-
Just like the opinions voiced here, no. I mean, really, what is the endgame, other than O'Bummer getting to play Army?
-
Syria is seriously scary in how it reveals 0bama as being dangerously psychotic.
This. He's either a ****ing psychopath, insane, or he's hellbent on destroying the West and aiding all the Jihadi assholes in their quest for a global caliphate. "Brown people" are being killed by the hundreds of thousands in Sudan and have been for years. Where's Obama? We went into Iraq because we saw a potential threat to OUR national security and the DUmbasses opposed it. There is NO danger to our national security here. Assad had all the Muzzies in check, just like Mubarak and, dare I say, Qaddafi. He seems to be setting the West up for a global confrontation. His ass needs to be impeached. This man is THE biggest threat to our national security we have.
This shows how hypocritical Democrats are. I'm actually surprised many of the DUmbasses oppose it, but I can guarantee you that'll change. They can't have their Kenyan Messiah trashed by the right.
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/burnsk73/Iraq-Syria_zps40453e59.jpg)
-
Just like the opinions voiced here, no. I mean, really, what is the endgame, other than O'Bummer getting to play Army?
...and he's even worse at that than baseball and bike riding.
-
TwilightGardener (39,840 posts)
10. If you read RW sites (and I do), the main reasons for opposing a strike on Syria
are to: defeat the President, and punish Democrats for undermining Bush during Iraq. Looking to Republicans for valid, helpful opinions on this matter is like asking a 3-year-old to help you with your taxes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3602050
-
Against it. He claimed no boots on the ground but I see that happening. Then you are going to send in a military that is hamstrung financially because of his cutbacks. Here in Norfolk there are ships that are not getting badly needed yard time because of lack of money, deployed units not getting basic supplies they need. This will not end well.
You can't starve a cow and expect it to give you extra milk.
Like everything else the dishonest bastard says, you have to read between the lines...when they explained that "No boots on the ground" they really only said that we would not put regular ground forces in direct combat, which means the place would be literally crawling with SEALS, Army SF, Air Force FACs, and all sorts of other SOCOM assets to 'Advise' and 'Train' our new pals, Al Q'aeda.
Just like the whole 'Violation of international norms' bullshit on the gas - which very carefully and artfully avoids saying Syria actually violated international LAW or TREATIES itself. The treaty he's talking about is one Syria didn't sign, and it only applies to international conflict. Even if the Syrians were a party and did violate the treaty, there's nothing in it that gives any one nation outside the conflict that has not been attacked a right to jump in and punish the offender. Some journalists even on Fox have already fallen into the trap, talking about Syria's 'Violation of international law,' which the very careful spokesmen for the Obozo Administration have taken great pains NOT to say, but in very misleading terms.
-
Or here. There seems to be something behind the curtain, and it ain't good.
Unfortunately, here too.
The whole story with Benghazi, weapons shipments, evidence of that in Syria, etc. Like I said earlier, I don't want to sound like a DUmmie 'creatively speculating' :-).
-
FDR, remember Obamas fellow democrat ?
How many years did he sit by and watch Germany gassing their citizens ?
Our stanch Allie, England was bombed almost out of existence and FDR sat back and watched.
The world was taken over by criminals and insane folks and nothing was done until Pearl Harbor, we declared war on them and the Germans declared war on us.
Would things have turned out differently had we jumped in without declaring war on Germany when we found out they were gassing their own people ? Who the Hell knows, and who knows what will happen in our future today.
Perhaps those born in the next 10 years will in 70 years look back at our time today-----As the Germans, Poles etc. do to the WW2 and question-----How did the people our leaders convince us to go along with their insanity ?
I see no reason to jump into another's fight at this time, perhaps when things settle down but to just try to punish another country for their civil war and run away is incomprehensible to me.
What, America has gone from the home of the free to the BULLY of the world ????
By the way, the Eastern Mediterranean must be a log jam of war ships and do not forget all the Subs protecting the surface fleet. Under sea the boats must be packed up like sardines in a can.
-
Opposed.
First, it's not our problem (I'm talking here about the U.K., but the same applies to the U.S.).
Second, neither side in this fight is good.
Third, attacking Assad empowers Islamists and leads to yet more Christians being martyred for their faith.
Fourth, there is neither entrance nor exit strategy.
Well stated - I am opposed for the same reasons...
-
Like everything else the dishonest bastard says, you have to read between the lines...when they explained that "No boots on the ground" they really only said that we would not put regular ground forces in direct combat, which means the place would be literally crawling with SEALS, Army SF, Air Force FACs, and all sorts of other SOCOM assets to 'Advise' and 'Train' our new pals, Al Q'aeda.
What about the SF support companies?
And the security elements to guard them?
And the logistical elements to support the guards?
And the engineering elements to build facilities for them.
And the infantry needed after that because all those people and facilities make such tempting targets.
And...
-
Highly opposed.
The Syrians are killing each other.. less of them....the safer we are.
Now, if they invade Israel... that would be a different story.
But as long as they stay within their own country.... let them have at it.
Cause sure as hell we go in with missles, boots on the ground, whatever, they will unite with each other and turn on us!
I am seriously concerned however, that Obama will go through with this - without the support of Congress - just to "save face".
His is own. Not the US's.
-
We have zero business getting messed up in this civil war. Period, end of story. The US government can't provide one thing pointing to how this would benefit the USA.
KC
-
What about the SF support companies?
And the security elements to guard them?
And the logistical elements to support the guards?
And the engineering elements to build facilities for them.
And the infantry needed after that because all those people and facilities make such tempting targets.
And...
All that doesn't count as 'Boots on the ground,' snugs, since they aren't there to engage regime forces directly. But SOCOM is actually pretty austere on the actual US forces supporting their operators, preferring to either put the static stuff in neighboring countries (Like Turkey and Jordan, I doubt if the Iraqis want a piece of this freak show though), or just spend huge wads of black budget cash to buy whatever they need including the 'Undying friendship' of local warlords.
-
We have zero business getting messed up in this civil war. Period, end of story. The US government can't provide one thing pointing to how this would benefit the USA.
KC
Agreed. And, because Obama is a poopyhead.
-
And one more thing. King Barky the Incompetent (which I stole from one of you, shamelessly), ****s up
everything he does.
-
Let's be PERFECTLY clear. Obama has only ONE mission in this debacle. It is the SAME mission for EVERYTHING Obama does.
What can he do to make the GOP look bad so that 2014 elections are affected?
That is is FIRST, his PRIMARY, and at this time, his ONLY mission.
-
All that doesn't count as 'Boots on the ground,' snugs, since they aren't there to engage regime forces directly. But SOCOM is actually pretty austere on the actual US forces supporting their operators, preferring to either put the static stuff in neighboring countries (Like Turkey and Jordan, I doubt if the Iraqis want a piece of this freak show though), or just spend huge wads of black budget cash to buy whatever they need including the 'Undying friendship' of local warlords.
Hmm, sounds like a certain area in Southeast Asia circa 1964.
-
Agreed. And, because Obama is a poopyhead.
LOL! Well, I didn't want to get banned for using banned words so I left that part out.
KC
-
I'll just repost what I wrote while discussing this with other Marine moms this morning:
But why would this internal war be more important than any of the others we haven't/aren't helping? Look at Darfur. It's turned into slaughter, starvation & refugees (even refugee camps are raided). Their government has provided aid for one side by dropping bombs and literally burning villages to the ground. There's been more death and suffering there than in Syria.
What about the eastern Congo? Death & torture is practically a way of life. Young boys are taken from their home and forced to become soldiers. Congo is the rape capital of the world. Rape is used as a weapon of war, women, girls, it doesn't matter. They use guns, sticks, whatever. Often these women are left with their insides ripped to shreds. Ironically, the same year 0bama got the peace prize a doctor who has devoted his life to repairing these women physically and mentally was also up for the prize. Where his clinic is, it's now become a village of raped women & girls.
So why Syria? And if it was so urgent and important why has our president waited? Seriously, the Constitution and precedent set by past administrations gives him license to take these kinds of actions. Why telegraph your actions? Were it me, I'd want to act soon enough to not give him time to launch another attack?
I'm not without compassion but we need to make sure we know all the facts. I've read things the past couple of days from people who are pretty much political polar opposites presenting evidence that Assad wasn't the one who did this, but it was the rebels trying to garner support. Assad was winning, profoundly. He had nothing to gain by gassing his own people and drawing the attention of the world.
And the brutality of the rebels bothers me. But what's most troubling is that we also know these "rebels" have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. The fact we would knowingly help any group of people who have killed or injured so many of my son's brothers and sisters is just appalling.
Cindie
-
Good points all, Cindie. You can throw Rwanda into that equation as well. 800,000 murdered in a tribal war, but Clinton didn't get involved. Why? 1--not in our national interest, 2--probably didn't want another Mogadishu on his hands.
Like the man or not, his NOT getting involved in Rwanda was probably one of the smarter moves he made.
-
Well, I am against Obama's war on Syria but Putin is open to it given that Obama's Regime provide "convincing evidence."
President Putin has tried to avert a diplomatic stalemate between Russia and America at today’s G20 summit by hinting of a compromise on Western military intervention in Syria.
The Russian leader also made conciliatory remarks about the Kremlin’s relationship with the White House.
“If there is evidence that chemical weapons were used, and by the regular army, then this evidence must be presented to the UN Security Council and it must be convincing,” President Putin said in an interview with Associated Press.
Asked whether Russia would support US-led airstrikes, he added: "I do not exclude that."...
Hat tip AoS
My question is how does the Obama Regime know this when it can't find out what happened in Benghazi after a year and out of the IRS in the far away land of Cincinnati? Also the whole YouTube non stop lying the Obama Regime trotted out for months kind of makes me thing it is all a lie. Obama like DUchebags, lies, he lies all the time.
-
Jukin--you have one GCE--you say that the Obama administration can't figure out what happened in Benghazi.
They know EXACTLY what went down in Benghazi. They're just not saying.
-
No to interfering with their civil war. For the same reasons everyone else stated.
Side question, when can we start calling members of the regime and the DUmmies chicken-hawks for pushing for war?
-
Just a point of clarification.
It's no longer a "civil war". it's a muslim war, sunnis vs shias.
-
Jukin--you have one GCE--you say that the Obama administration can't figure out what happened in Benghazi.
They know EXACTLY what went down in Benghazi. They're just not saying.
I know, a bit of snark. The Obama Regime also knows what happened with the IRS targeting Tea Party groups as they ordered it to happen.
-
TwilightGardener (39,840 posts)
10. If you read RW sites (and I do), the main reasons for opposing a strike on Syria
are to: defeat the President, and punish Democrats for undermining Bush during Iraq.
That, which you just describe has been the (D) tactic since Nixon, aka the Drunken Kennedy Gambit.
Looking to Republicans for valid, helpful opinions on this matter is like asking a 3-year-old to help you with your taxes
Oh, please.... Never in my lifetime.
-
O'Barky "mis-spoke".
Again.
Bush's fault. ...and the Jooooz.
(Carville actually did blame Bush. :mental:
-
Carville actually did blame Bush.
But what else would you really expect from that inbred-looking political whore?
-
Agreed. And, because Obama is a poopyhead.
:racist:
-
But what else would you really expect from that inbred-looking political whore?
You saw the Golum speak. I was astounded that he came up with that crap. :banghead:
BDS, lives.
-
obama henchman chuckie hegel testified that obama's war would cost "tens of million dollars"...that comes to 6 cruise missiles.
-
If Obama would take the time to look at the history of Syria, he would learn that Syrian-on-Syrian violence is practically their national pastime. It has been that way for at least a thousand years.
Sending a few missiles in isn't going to do anything but get them all wee-wee'd up -unless Obama's goal is to kill every last one of them by arming those few missiles with nuclear payloads.
-
Russia says it's compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack.
Obama has released....squat.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/russia-says-its-compiled-100-page-report-blaming-syrian-rebels-for-a-chemical-weapons-attack.html
-
Assad is not a stupid man. O'Barky draws a red line.
Assad waits until a UN team is in place, before launching a chemical attack?
Something just smells fishy.
Speaking of fishy, where is our resident trained hysterian?
gNads has been quiet lately.
-
Assad is not a stupid man. O'Barky draws a red line.
Assad waits until a UN team is in place, before launching a chemical attack?
Something just smells fishy.
Speaking of fishy, where is our resident trained hysterian?
gNads has been quiet lately.
At 2300 Zulu, gNads rappelled from an MH-60 onto the roof of Assad's summer palace. She is creeping wobbling down a hallway as we speak, 10" Bowie knife between her teeth, and the Good Rig at the ready.
-
At 2300 Zulu, gNads rappelled from an MH-60 onto the roof of Assad's summer palace. She is creeping wobbling down a hallway as we speak, 10" Bowie knife between her teeth, and the Good Rig at the ready.
Zulu is racist. Nasty hater.
-
Democrats lost the house because Obama the Incompetent had to illegally push through the cACA health care tax bill. Many loyal donks went down being loyal to King Barky. The Syrian war is going to decimate the democrats. I think that a lot of them want their job more than protecting the worst president in our history. The house votes this down overwhelmingly if the GOP plays it right by not committing too many votes prior to the actual vote. Of course the elites of the party will do all they can to assist 0 and **** themselves.
-
Oh my!!!!
Dump hero Alan Grayson is going against King barky!!!!
The world has truly turned upside down when i am on Grayson's and Putin's side of world affairs.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/09/05/alan-grayson-syria-intelligence-manipulated
-
Oh my!!!!
Dump hero Alan Grayson is going against King barky!!!!
The world has truly turned upside down when i am on Grayson's and Putin's side of world affairs.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/09/05/alan-grayson-syria-intelligence-manipulated
I saw that on a DUmp thread, earlier.
Give a few, and I'll see if I can find.
No toe tapping allowed.
Here we go.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023606437
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023606058
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023604566
I just keyed into grayson.
DUmp is going wild over there.
-
Zulu is racist. Nasty hater.
OMG! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Hi5!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: OMG! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Oh my!!!!
Dump hero Alan Grayson is going against King barky!!!!
The world has truly turned upside down when i am on Grayson's and Putin's side of world affairs.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/09/05/alan-grayson-syria-intelligence-manipulated
I'm pretty surprised to be on the side of Grayson and Putin, myself. :o :whistling: :thatsright: O-)
Blind squirrel moment. O-)
-
Just a point of clarification.
It's no longer a "civil war". it's a muslim war, sunnis vs shias.
Okay, so UNcivil war.
Cindie
-
Democrats lost the house because Obama the Incompetent had to illegally push through the cACA health care tax bill. Many loyal donks went down being loyal to King Barky. The Syrian war is going to decimate the democrats. I think that a lot of them want their job more than protecting the worst president in our history. The house votes this down overwhelmingly if the GOP plays it right by not committing too many votes prior to the actual vote. Of course the elites of the party will do all they can to assist 0 and **** themselves.
Except I don't think he'll really go through with it. He was trying to give himself an out at the summit with his "I didn't build that" red line remarks. He'll try to turn it into a political issue for the midterms. Granted, since that majority of Americans are against the strikes, I think it will have a negative impact on his party. Not him, he's like the tefelon don (of course everything finally caught up with him).
He's immune but his party is not. Syria, most of the ME on fire, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, people won't forget them, even if the media has. Few well placed ads during midterms and we may even take the senate. They've got more senators up for reelection than we do. They like to cite congress' low approval rating for why they think they'll win except congress is generic for Senate and the House. And the House of Representatives is more local than any other federal election we have. Congress as a whole may have a bad reputation but generally people think their own rep is doing okay. Probably why the cry baby keeps getting reelected.
Cindie
-
And so our unwashed commie fans at the DUmp know where we stand regarding obama's war on Syria....
I, a proud member of the hated Military Industrial Complex (MIC in DUmmy parlance) am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to ANY United States action in Syria.
That makes two of us.
-
Bombing Detroit and Dearborn would be more beneficial to US interest.
-
As much as I hate to admit it I think that O might have had the right idea, at least until Assad overrode O's lightweight ass.
I saw a report today, It would have to have been on Fox news, that O 's original policy before Assad stonewalled him was to restore equilibrium to the civil war. If that is true it's probably the smartest thing that I've heard from this admin.
Now, as it had to be, O is going to screw it up but yea I say hurt Assad. Keep the fighting going as long as possible.
Only prob with that thinkin' is the Bummer waited far to long. If he would have backed them when the actual people of Syria were rebelling, he'd have done some good. It's over a hundred thousand dead on the rebel side now and what's left is the worst Al-Qaeda has to offer streamin' across the border from our buddies in Iran. They're draggin' non tribe members outa trucks and cuttin' their ****in' heads off, right along with anyone of the Christian faith, for cripes sake! Death to the Sunnis, or whatever tribe they don't like.
-
Bombing Detroit and Dearborn would be more beneficial to US interest.
This.
(ETA: Do not take this as me saying that the two communities above should be bombed.)
-
Opposed, I have absolutely no faith in Obama, we see the mess that Egypt and Libya have become.
-
At 2300 Zulu, gNads rappelled from an MH-60 onto the roof of Assad's summer palace. She is creeping wobbling down a hallway as we speak, 10" Bowie knife between her teeth, and the Good Rig at the ready.
in a Bikini.
-
Except I don't think he'll really go through with it. He was trying to give himself an out at the summit with his "I didn't build that" red line remarks.
:rofl:
^that!
He threw the world, America and congress under the bus...in his mind anyway.
-
in a Bikini.
BSed for that image. So, I'll post a countervalent website in the BOTD thread in the Short Bus.
-
in a Bikini.
A crime against humanity more toxic and deadly than poison gas.
-
Barry doesn't need Syria to make him look bad. It's the one thing he is quite capable of doing very well himself.
Again, what we have in Syria is muzzies killing muzzies.
I fail to see a downside to this. If he wants to do something, arm both sides to the teeth, and grab some popcorn.
Other than that, it ain't our fight, stay the hell out of it.
What DD said. Muzzies killing muzzies is a darn good thing in my opinion. As long as they are killing each other they are leaving us alone.
-
What DD said. Muzzies killing muzzies is a darn good thing in my opinion. As long as they are killing each other they are leaving us alone.
Instead of arming Syrian rebels, we should be arming the Christians in west Africa. Let the Africans commit atrocities on the Muslims similar to what the Muslims have been doing to them. Let them push eastward until they reach the red sea. At the same time we arm the Christians up about Bosnia and encourage them to move south against Turkey and other Muslim nations. Then we arm the Hindu/Buddist in India and let them move north and westward against the Muslims. That's my plan and I'm sticking to it.
-
Instead of arming Syrian rebels, we should be arming the Christians in west Africa. Let the Africans commit atrocities on the Muslims similar to what the Muslims have been doing to them. Let them push eastward until they reach the red sea. At the same time we arm the Christians up about Bosnia and encourage them to move south against Turkey and other Muslim nations. Then we arm the Hindu/Buddist in India and let them move north and westward against the Muslims. That's my plan and I'm sticking to it.
Yep like your plan! It will be the 8th crusade (or ninth depending on who you talk to) The only thing I would add is we make sure in the end the temple mount ends up back in correct hands in Jerusalem. Oh and all this without France being involved...lol
edit: changed sentence layout
-
Opposed, I have absolutely no faith in Obama, we see the mess that Egypt and Libya have become.
Same here. Plus he lies about everything so who knows what the truth is.
-
Opposed. A useless police action we have no business being involved in.
-
To some democrats, war is still all about politics;
Appearing on radio's Bill Press Show, the non-voting delegate from the District of Columbia also said if the President actually gets the votes he needs, "it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/09/03/democratic-congresswoman-only-reason-i-d-vote-syrian-attack-loyalty-o
-
Instead of arming Syrian rebels, we should be arming the Christians in west Africa. Let the Africans commit atrocities on the Muslims similar to what the Muslims have been doing to them. Let them push eastward until they reach the red sea. At the same time we arm the Christians up about Bosnia and encourage them to move south against Turkey and other Muslim nations. Then we arm the Hindu/Buddist in India and let them move north and westward against the Muslims. That's my plan and I'm sticking to it.
Well JohnnyReb... the US can multitask. Why not do both? :cheersmate: :cheersmate:
-
First there is the Iassa poopyhead angle.
Then there is the "because he is black" angle.
Then there is the "Costanza" angle, aka the "Fecal Touch"
The red line has been crossed, along with the rubicon.
Without one more factor I would be opposed, because we have no threat from what is going on there, and there is no vital US interest.
The trump card would be I would seriously consider changing my mind to oppose whatever owebuma wanted to do, which is a remake of the "Costanza" angle.
And last but not least, I would support almost anything that would most weaken rodeowebuma and or lead to his impeachment.