What's Worse? Chemical Weapons or Al-Qaeda?

Status
Not open for further replies.
evince said:
so you want them to have as many as possible?

gee kind stupid huh
Click to expand...

Putting words into others' mouths is pretty weak.

Even if Obama is allowed his wet dream to attack Syria, he's still going to leave them many guns capable of delivering chemical weapons.

What will you say then?
 
Taft2016 said:
Putting words into others' mouths is pretty weak. Even if Obama is allowed his wet dream to attack Syria, he's still going to leave them many guns capable of delivering chemical weapons. What will you say then?
Click to expand...

She'll likely parrot whatever O-BOMB-YA's excuse of the moment happens to be. Probably blame Bush.
 
Taft2016 said:
Putting words into others' mouths is pretty weak.

Even if Obama is allowed his wet dream to attack Syria, he's still going to leave them many guns capable of delivering chemical weapons.

What will you say then?
Click to expand...

On a positive note concerning your words: If it can be kept framed in terms of Obama then there's the slight possibility of preventing war. If it becomes something other than defeating Obama because of Obama hate then war is a sure thing. The political right will definitely not oppose any war that is being proposed by their side.

Their immediate task will become making it look like it's their cause and then the foot dragging will stop. Watch for this happening soon. Spearheaded by McCain most likely with a plan that appears to oppose Obama completely.
 
so to prevent the things you claim will happen and are happening you would leave in place to the victor ( who ever that is) a completely intact delivery system and a stock pile of chem weapons.


that will turn out really well
 
evince said:
so to prevent the things you claim will happen and are happening you would leave in place to the victor ( who ever that is) a completely intact delivery system and a stock pile of chem weapons. that will turn out really well
Click to expand...

None of our business. Leaving other countries internal squabbles alone will turn out really well.
 
evince said:
so to prevent the things you claim will happen and are happening you would leave in place to the victor ( who ever that is) a completely intact delivery system and a stock pile of chem weapons.


that will turn out really well
Click to expand...

It's quickly noticeable that you have changed your tact from humanitarian concerns to weapon delivery systems. Do you think that the UNSC is going to give their blessing for war based on eliminating a weapon delivery system or systems?

Poison gas needs to continue to be your thrust. It's the best chance you will get your planned slaughter of the Syrian people from 30,000' under US bombs. It's the only excuse for war that can ever be deserving now after the Iraq experience.
 
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?54926-Here-is-what-I-think-isgoing-on-guys/page28




Here is what I think isgoing on guys



This Syrian thing has a whole other level to it.


everyone that looks deeply at the intel is seeing something that makes them change their minds and get off the partisan train.


The world is a complicated place.


There is a duel reason to hit the target in Syria.


there is a confluence of good that will come from being able to take a certain target out.


Even Blustering PooTin is backing off by saying if the right evidence is there he will back it.


There is a duel purpose target.
 
there are more good things to come out of this delivery system not existing anymore than there are good things coming out of it floating on the winds of war
 
evince said:
there are more good things to come out of this delivery system not existing anymore than there are good things coming out of it floating on the winds of war
Click to expand...

What part of "we have no reason to attack another country that didn't attack us" is confusing you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top