You mean there's someone funnier than Desh?
What's Worse? Chemical Weapons or Al-Qaeda?
- Thread starter Taft2016
- Start date
- Status
You mean there's someone funnier than Desh?
Taft2016
Verified User
Not a problem Shithead.
Our military no longer sends out our armies onto battlefields in battle formations, to confront opposing armies lined up in battle formation. Our military no longer needs to worry about clouds of mustard gas sweeping across them. If anyone did try to use chemical weapons against one of our patrols, they know full well they would be vaporized by our air power from above. The only reason we have boots on the ground is to minimize collateral civilian damage. Once the chemical weapon genie came out of the bottle, our concern about collateral damage would lessen quickly. It would rain fire.
Our concern about chemical weapons now is terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda securing them and using them against our civilian population. I fail to see how entering the Syrian fray on the side of Al-Qaeda addresses that concern. If anything, it will make it more problematic.
The choice is between:
1. A guy who *MAY* have gassed his own people
or
2. Siding with a terrorist organization who would gas an American city in a heartbeat.
The jibber jabber about delivery systems is just that; jibber jabber. It's World War I technology and just about anyone has it.
And in conclusion, the obligatory ad hominem which you and Desh are incapable of having a civil conversation without: FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE!
evince
Truthmatters
there is NO ONE in this whole mess we want to watch take control of this delivery system folks.
that delivery system is the enemy here.
Its not made out of children its made out of metal and we should turn it into a pile of recycling metal.
then No evil dictator present or future can own it
that delivery system is the enemy here.
Its not made out of children its made out of metal and we should turn it into a pile of recycling metal.
then No evil dictator present or future can own it
Taft2016
Verified User
What are you babbling about?
How is not launching missiles at Assad going to give Al-Qaeda a delivery system and chemical weapons intact?
For that matter, how is launching missiles at Assad going to keep it out of Al-Qaeda's hands?
Your food stamps are not going to save you from chemical weapons, Desh.
Taft2016
Verified User
First of all....there's no way an air strike can take out this alleged "delivery system."
You know why? Because they're just big guns. They used them in the first World War. It's gas, it doesn't take pinpoint precision.
That's why it was banned in warfare, it blew all over the place hitting civilians and even the army that launched it.
You... really are... something special.
Give someone food stamps and an Obamaphone and they know everything.
evince
Truthmatters
and we know where they are along with all the planes.
we drop bombs on them and make them NOT WORK,
its really pretty simple.
We may not be able to find EVERYTHING but at least it will GREATLY reduce whomevers attempts to gas other countries and their own people
Just as I thought, all hat and no cattle. You fucking freak.Not a problem Shithead.
Our military no longer sends out our armies onto battlefields in battle formations, to confront opposing armies lined up in battle formation. Our military no longer needs to worry about clouds of mustard gas sweeping across them. If anyone did try to use chemical weapons against one of our patrols, they know full well they would be vaporized by our air power from above. The only reason we have boots on the ground is to minimize collateral civilian damage. Once the chemical weapon genie came out of the bottle, our concern about collateral damage would lessen quickly. It would rain fire.
Our concern about chemical weapons now is terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda securing them and using them against our civilian population. I fail to see how entering the Syrian fray on the side of Al-Qaeda addresses that concern. If anything, it will make it more problematic.
The choice is between:
1. A guy who *MAY* have gassed his own people
or
2. Siding with a terrorist organization who would gas an American city in a heartbeat.
The jibber jabber about delivery systems is just that; jibber jabber. It's World War I technology and just about anyone has it.
And in conclusion, the obligatory ad hominem which you and Desh are incapable of having a civil conversation without: FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE!
Taft2016
Verified User
Once again my perceptions ring true; all ad hominems, no substance.
Taft2016
Verified User
Oh yeah, flying over a country taking out every gun possessing World War I technology and up is a snap. Oughtta be done in what? Three hours?
Your Obamaphone is ringing.
Shithead! I agree with you. Doesn't change that you are a partisan hack though.
evince
Truthmatters
did I say every one?
Taft2016
Verified User
Seeing how it only takes one vintage 1915 gun to launch chemical weapons... you tell me.
If you truly are going to prevent a recurrence of the chemical weapons attack, you'd need to take out all of those guns, wouldn't you?
Can't be done, which is why even Obama isn't talking about it, and you're only talking about it because you're nuts. Furthermore, since the technology needed to deliver chemical weaponry is so primitive, that's why no one can say conclusively it wasn't the rebels who did it.
- Status