U.S. to go it alone in Syria?

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
KUDOS to the Great Britain, UK vote rejects military action!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

131497_600.jpg


r6813mccain.jpg
 
Last edited:
Because Bush is certainly behind this masterwork of a decision.

Im actually more prone to believe we aren't going anywhere alone, and that Britain is more likely to go before us. They seem quite antsy.
 
/k/ said:
You must be pretty upset Ken, voting for the bloodiest peace prize winner ever and all.
Click to expand...

Look, I don't agree with going in to Syria unless we keep it very minimal.....but seriously, what was the option? voting for McCain in 2008 who would have had us in Syria months ago with boots on the ground and a tremendous involvement? Or Romney, who would probably have done the same?

Pres Obama has kept us out of it this long; I hope his response is measured and minimal.
 
tekkychick said:
Look, I don't agree with going in to Syria unless we keep it very minimal.....but seriously, what was the option? voting for McCain in 2008 who would have had us in Syria months ago with boots on the ground and a tremendous involvement? Or Romney, who would probably have done the same?

Pres Obama has kept us out of it this long; I hope his response is measured and minimal.
Click to expand...

I want to agree with you and disagree.

Yes, McCain and Ryan wanted us into Syria bad. Along with Iran who we haven't heard much about lately IRONICALLY. McCain was all about war. Because if you are CONSERVATIVE war is necessary (R)ight? http://costofwar.com/

Corporate McCain and Ryan didn't pass their agenda and most Americans forgot about a separate and different Country that had nothing to do with our problems. Then, SOMEONE used chemical weapons. According to the Right Wing media Obama is a puss because he stated once the Syrian Government used chemical weapons on their people, he would get involved. Sadly, like the outcome of this probably, there is absolutely no proof that the Syrian government used these Chemical weapons. You can't even prove Gaddafi killed his people or Assad killed his people, much less, Assad used chemical weapons.

If I was a greedy corporation that the government might turn to, I might try to use some chemicals in an attempt to get the government to buy my product.

So we have Limbo.

The Right Wing loves war and wants WWIII. The smart don't.

"but seriously, what was the option?" is what I don't agree with. We are not the world police. We do not have to protect everyone in the world when our times are so hard.
 
tekkychick said:
Look, I don't agree with going in to Syria unless we keep it very minimal.....but seriously, what was the option? voting for McCain in 2008 who would have had us in Syria months ago with boots on the ground and a tremendous involvement? Or Romney, who would probably have done the same?

Pres Obama has kept us out of it this long; I hope his response is measured and minimal.
Click to expand...

Or Gary Johnson, who wouldn't have given any response,because its not our concern. But no, you and every other Obama voter chose the path of war, from now until eternity.
 
/k/ said:
Or Gary Johnson, who wouldn't have given any response,because its not our concern. But no, you and every other Obama voter chose the path of war, from now until eternity.
Click to expand...

So Obama is a weak President but Gary Johnson would be a strong President?

Libertarian Gary would coward to money all day over security.

(to be honest, I think Gary would coward to anyone who opposed him).........I was a Ron Paul voter.........you know I'm right.
 
Show me a topic Gary has been strong on. He's a weak speaker and you know it. Ron Paul had power and wasn't an idiot like the confused Libertarians today.
 
Sure reminds me of the ole wag the dog crap people said after Clinton tried to get OBL before 911.
 
the right and the dem base just hate it when a dem president shows what they call guts in military action.


I remember fighting dems who thought we needed to go into Iraq.
 
evince said:
the right and the dem base just hate it when a dem president shows what they call guts in military action.


I remember fighting dems who thought we needed to go into Iraq.
Click to expand...

There is no guts in a president taking us to war. No bullets will be flying at his ass.

A better demonstration of 'guts' would be a president who says no, Hell NO to the for-profit wars of the MIC.

Obama does not possess that kind of guts.
 
Anti-Party said:
I want to agree with you and disagree.


"but seriously, what was the option?" is what I don't agree with. We are not the world police. We do not have to protect everyone in the world when our times are so hard.
Click to expand...

By "what was the option" I meant - we had no one else to vote for.

I didn't vote in the Repub primaries, so never had a chance to vote for Johnson; he was flushed out pretty quickly anyway.

My options in general elections were Obama/McCain and then Obama/Romney - that's when I say "what option did I have"? the repubs were MUCH more likely to get us into war - including Iran - than Obama.

But yes, I agree we are not the world police.
 
Seriously you guys think we are getting into a WAR with Syria?


They are going to lob some cruise missiles and run. Just like Reagan did with Libya and Clinton did in Kosovo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top