We can all agree on 1 thing!

[maineman]

So do you care about children being gassed, or don't you?

Saddam gassed children, Assad gassed children (according to you).

Why do you only pretend to care when a Democrat infests the Oval Office?

Why, Desh?

there is a little thing about timing, though, isn't there. Saddam gassed the kurds DECADES before we invaded.

Sort of like when your son spills the milk, and you wait until he's graduated from college and has kids of his own and THEN you spank him.

[Damocles]

Damo this is the same fucking thing you guys did when Clinton tried to kill OBL.


Your side puts your failed ideas over this countries best interest

Utter nonsense, Clinton bombed a aspirin company to distract from his perjury. It isn't even close to the same thing. 91% of America is against action, but Desh can't stop herself from loving on killing her some brown people because Obama is a democrat. Your hypocrisy is showing, maybe you should zip up his pants and think with your brain.

[Damocles]

I actually don't think the evidence is that shaky.

I'd support doing something if I thought that the "something" would make a difference or stop/stem what is happening. But that's where they're losing me - I just don't see what they are hoping to accomplish. The best explanation I've heard is that they want to "send a message."

It's not good enough. If you're going to involve our military, the definition has to be clear, the goals & objectives have to be specific.

Where the evidence is shaky is in the "who", Onceler.

There is also the problem of actual compelling interest. What would our goal be in "limited targeted attacks" and who is our "enemy"? What exactly will victory look like in Syria? How much will you still support it when Iran enters the fray and the "limited targeted attacks" become a war?

[Bonestorm]

Utter nonsense, Clinton bombed a aspirin company to distract from his perjury. It isn't even close to the same thing. 91% of America is against action, but Desh can't stop herself from loving on killing her some brown people because Obama is a democrat. Your hypocrisy is showing, maybe you should zip up his pants and think with your brain.

Source for the bold? Haven't seen that particular poll.

[Big Money]

The reality is the "evidence" is as shaky as it was with Iraq, but Desh supports action this time because the President wears the same political jersey and she is nothing if not a team player. The last poll shows that even most Democrats are against this action, but Desh just can't deny Lord Obama anything.

You will address the Mighty One as The Warlord Obama, prole.

[Big Money]

Even Obama has only "high probability" that it was Assad's government. In the US we don't convict on "high probability". What will you do if you find out that the gas was disbursed by the rebels?

Desh thirsts for Arab blood, any Arab blood will do. The Warlord Obamas Red Line has been crossed, so Arabs must die.

[Cancel 2016.11]

Beefy, I can't believe you were naive enough to make this claim!

Obviously, we can't all agree on 1 thing!

[Damocles]

Source for the bold? Haven't seen that particular poll.

Woops, sorry 81%...

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/22270061.cms

Some 56 percent of those surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria, while only 19 percent supported action, the online poll found.

The only reason Obama even brought this before Congress is because he knows it is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people and he hopes that the stink will be spread around as Congress gives the go ahead to bomb in a place where the bombing will have no relative effect to any US interest.

There is zero chance we're going to stop this from happening, and all because he couldn't keep on script and had to mention his "red line" where we'd "do something"...

[Big Money]

why did ronny sell him the gas and then turn a blind eye when he gassed people with what ronny sold him?
why did it only make you mad decades later when you wanted his oil?

I'm not mad, Desh.

Should America only bomb Arabs who gas children when a Democrat is giving the order to attack?

[Cancel 2016.11]

Honestly, everything on this board is now about the imminent Syrian military action, screwing drunk women, and men bragging about all the women they've screwed, drunk or otherwise, and why those women will never be the same (hahahha).

Now, I admit that the Syrian situation is surely topical, and also very important, but every single thread on it is filled with the same people saying the exact same things.

I know, I know, nothing is stopping me from putting up other threads. I'm too busy though.

[Bonestorm]

Woops, sorry 81%...

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/22270061.cms

So 56% are against action, then.

The only reason Obama even brought this before Congress is because he knows it is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people and he hopes that the stink will be spread around as Congress gives the go ahead to bomb in a place where the bombing will have no relative affect to any US interest.

There is zero chance we're going to stop this from happening, and all because he couldn't keep on script and had to mention his "red line" where we'd "do something"...

Seems to me he brought it to Congress because Congress asked him to. You have a problem with that?

[cawacko]

Honestly, everything on this board is now about the imminent Syrian military action, screwing drunk women, and men bragging about all the women they've screwed, drunk or otherwise, and why those women will never be the same (hahahha).

Now, I admit that the Syrian situation is surely topical, and also very important, but every single thread on it is filled with the same people saying the exact same things.

I know, I know, nothing is stopping me from putting up other threads. I'm too busy though.

Kind of the way the board works thought right? After Newton almost every thread for two weeks was about guns. Zimmerman-Martin trial same thing. Now Syria.

Don't get me wrong because I agree with you. I mean how many different ways can we say the same thing once we've stated where we stand?

[Cancel 2016.2]

NOPE just the ones who kill their own people with illegal weapons

so as long as they kill them with legal weapons you are ok with it?

[cawacko]

So 56% are against action, then.




Seems to me he brought it to Congress because Congress asked him to. You have a problem with that?

Dung, do you believe he would have brought it to Congress if Britain had said yes?

[Cancel 2016.2]

WHAT?

sarcasm dude... sarcasm