|
|
|
|
|||||||
| General Discussion (Everything Else) Discuss anything that doesn't belong in any other forums here. |
| View Poll Results: Should we go to war in syria | |||
| Stay out of it |
   
|
91 | 88.35% |
| Go to war |
  
|
12 | 11.65% |
| Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
08-28-2013, 09:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Waltrip's Saltwater Guide Service jeremy@geaux-outdoors.com https://m.facebook.com/waltrip.guideservice?id=148838538646862&_rdr 
|
|
#82
08-28-2013, 11:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
and then he goes and pulls out a meme... lol...
|
|
#83
08-28-2013, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
we should stay out of it all together. no way to verify which side actually did use the chems. Actually, assad would not benefit from using chems on civilians KNOWING that a potential smackdown would follow..not saying he didnt..Im sure it would never come to it but do not under estimate the Russian military, if they were so much of a pushover we would have hit Iran a LONG time ago..that is the ONLY reason we didnt hit Iran..imo. Bottom line is it's not our fight.
|
|
#84
08-29-2013, 06:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
“If Damascus is attacked, Tel Aviv will become a target and a full-scale war against Syria will essentially justify an attack against Israel,” a senior Syrian army official told Fars News Agency on Tuesday.
“If Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria’s neighbors,” the source added. The source also warned the US and other western states that if Syria “becomes weak,” certain “irresponsible” groups will be formed which will endanger Israel’s security. “Thus, a US attack on Syria will herald frequent strikes and attacks on Israel, not just by Damascus and its allies in retaliation, but by extremist groups who will find a ground for staging their aspirations,” he said.
|
|
#85
08-29-2013, 07:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Russia has also moved warships into the Mediterranean.
|
|
#86
08-29-2013, 07:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
--Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was among the first to voice his opposition to a possible missile strike in the region.
"The United States armed forces doesn't exist to be a policeman of the world," Cruz told Fox News Monday, "I certainly hope the reaction isn't simply lobbing some cruise missiles in to disagree with (Assad's murderous actions." The statement gives important insight into what kind of foreign policy approach the potential 2016 presidential candidate subscribes to and a clue into how the GOP may be evolving its approach on foreign policy. His libertarian, anti-interventionist viewpoint is yet another voice among the younger generation of Republicans in the U.S. Senate and in direct conflict with the older longer-serving defense hawks serving there such as John McCain, R-Ariz. And he's not alone. Another potential Republican candidate for the presidency in 2016 also strays from GOP party leadership on foreign policy. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has long been a thorn in the sides of old guard Republicans, crusading against foreign aid to Egypt and for cuts to the Defense Department. And up until now, he has carried many of his campaigns against the old-guard GOP foreign policy, alone. Paul has also been an outspoken advocate against military intervention in Syria, blasting President Barack Obama for his decision to arm Syrian rebels this summer without a vote of approval by Congress.-- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
|
|
#88
08-29-2013, 07:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Glad to see the Brits still have the Nard's to say no.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
|
|
#90
08-29-2013, 09:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#91
08-29-2013, 10:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
We DO NOT NEED THIS!!!!
__________________
Signature Here's to you and here's to me, and I hope we never disagree. But, if that should ever be, to HELL with you, here's to ME!
|
|
#92
08-30-2013, 10:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#93
08-30-2013, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It seems from the information being given to the public that it shouldn't be that hard to figure out. There are too many factions that will be forced to play their hand out of necessity if serious military action is taken against Syria by the U.S. The a limited air strike against infrastructure targets will not cripple the Syrian government completely, but will only validate future retaliation against U.S. assets and our allies. Anything short of a complete, full scale demolition of their forces will only serve as a provocation. In that case it will most likely cause the president to feel obligated to finish pi$$ ing on the ant pile and put boots on the ground. It's never in the best interest of our nation to put Private Joe Snuffy on the ground to kill bad guys when ultimately the conflict cannot by any conceivable means be put to a swift resolution and the U.S. will have nothing more to show for it than when they started.
Decisive strike and clear message, not some wimpy two day affair, or better yet just keep saying how dissapointed you are with them using those nasty chemical weapons and leave it at that!
|
|
#94
08-30-2013, 12:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
U.N. should be taking care of this not the US
|
|
#95
08-30-2013, 07:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There has been an attack on a school compound by a plane said to have belonged to the assad regime. The bomb was of a napalm / incendary type. It would be amazing to me if the Assad regime were actually stupid enough to attack a school with children having no military value less than 24 hours after america stated it would retaliate, knowing that there was enourmous support for america to not intervene.
I cannot decide if the assad regime has legit gone insane, if the rebels are inciting the violence to garner public support of a strike, if we are watching a real live dog being wagged, or if their is a third party attempting to escalate the situation. On a side note the UN has stated that it's experts have finished their collection of materiels from the chem weapon sites. And will present a full report on the subject within no more than 2 weeks. I think there may be a whole lot more to this whole ball of wax than we will ever know.
|
|
#96
08-30-2013, 08:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
|
|
#98
08-30-2013, 08:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I don't disagree Gooooh... It's particularly troubling that it's these same "cannibals" who have been identified as terrorists who we as a country are sending weapons to. I think this just heightens the need to let the dust settle before we or other countries jump in with guns blazing.
|
|
#99
08-31-2013, 04:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder why Libtards think its cool to kill folks with guns, bombs, and crappy policy, but if you use chemicals its bad? I also wonder when the Democrats are going to tell G.W. he was right about those weapons of mass destruction. And when they find those weapons you know who's finger prints are going to be all over them.....Saddam Hussein. I do think it is ironic that either side in this thing would happily execute any woman in the world who used birth control or wore a bikini to the beach. Lovely culture they have over there. If we really want the bad guys dead, just give Israel a green light and twenty four hours...........lots and lots of dead bad guys. Better yet we could just drill our own oil and let them all starve to death? Hmmmm.........?
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
