Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Geezil

So, we are going to war with Syria?

Recommended Posts

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.
Edited by Andy Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

You know we don't count Lieberman as one of ours. And let's be careful with that broad brush on the liberal thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (DI-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know it's okay since you're a radical liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

You know we don't count Lieberman as one of ours. And let's be careful with that broad brush on the liberal thing.

Okay, fair enough. Take out Lieberman and insert the word "radical" in front of liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

Possibly. Why do you think Assad has them? Probably because Israel has nukes.

Yes, Israle has nukes, but when did they acquire them?

In the seventies I guess. Think they don't work anymore? I hope they won't be used

Anyway, Assad is sure to be willing to use his chemical arsenal on any invading force, or possibly Israel, so there'd better be a big store of ABC suits stockpiled and ready for use.

Wonder what Irael's response will be if Tel Aviv is bombarded with Sarin from Syria...

No country has done anything to Israel since they've had nukes. They aren't about to either. The extent of Israel's 'wars' since then have been against the PLO and Palestinian uprisings.

Israel shouldn't have nukes. Because of us the supposedly nuclear free zone of the mid-east was done away with. And since we make no demands on Israel to get in compliance with international law for those who do possess nukes we come off looking like hypocrites when we go after Iran.

I agree we're hypocrites over nukes, but I also believe they make the world safer. How much war has been prevented because Israel has had nukes? Not to mention its own survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

Possibly. Why do you think Assad has them? Probably because Israel has nukes.

Yes, Israle has nukes, but when did they acquire them?

In the seventies I guess. Think they don't work anymore? I hope they won't be used

Anyway, Assad is sure to be willing to use his chemical arsenal on any invading force, or possibly Israel, so there'd better be a big store of ABC suits stockpiled and ready for use.

Wonder what Irael's response will be if Tel Aviv is bombarded with Sarin from Syria...

No country has done anything to Israel since they've had nukes. They aren't about to either. The extent of Israel's 'wars' since then have been against the PLO and Palestinian uprisings.

Israel shouldn't have nukes. Because of us the supposedly nuclear free zone of the mid-east was done away with. And since we make no demands on Israel to get in compliance with international law for those who do possess nukes we come off looking like hypocrites when we go after Iran.

I agree we're hypocrites over nukes, but I also believe they make the world safer. How much war has been prevented because Israel has had nukes? Not to mention its own survival.

They are under our nuclear umbrella just like Japan. I don't think their nukes have stopped much of anything. I think the beating the ended up giving the Egyptians and our aircraft carriers in the Straits have more to do with why they haven't been attacked by a state military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

japan being under our "nuclear umbrella". thats rich. have we told them that yet? and yes i understand it was atomic. but still...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be much like Clinton after the embassy bombings. Throw a few missles, take out a few targets and let them carry on. Both sides will probably beef up their behind-the-scenes support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

japan being under our "nuclear umbrella". thats rich. have we told them that yet? and yes i understand it was atomic. but still...

Where'd this guy come from? I need to update a notebook here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

japan being under our "nuclear umbrella". thats rich. have we told them that yet? and yes i understand it was atomic. but still...

Yeah they know that we have treaties that say if anyone attacks them we will respond with everything at our disposal. Including nuclear weapons. It's a pretty well known part of American military policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly, did you see what Miley did the other night? Crazy.!!! 1!1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

Funny - current VP, SOS1 & SOS2 on that list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

Possibly. Why do you think Assad has them? Probably because Israel has nukes.

Yes, Israle has nukes, but when did they acquire them?

In the seventies I guess. Think they don't work anymore? I hope they won't be used

Anyway, Assad is sure to be willing to use his chemical arsenal on any invading force, or possibly Israel, so there'd better be a big store of ABC suits stockpiled and ready for use.

Wonder what Irael's response will be if Tel Aviv is bombarded with Sarin from Syria...

No country has done anything to Israel since they've had nukes. They aren't about to either. The extent of Israel's 'wars' since then have been against the PLO and Palestinian uprisings.

Israel shouldn't have nukes. Because of us the supposedly nuclear free zone of the mid-east was done away with. And since we make no demands on Israel to get in compliance with international law for those who do possess nukes we come off looking like hypocrites when we go after Iran.

I agree we're hypocrites over nukes, but I also believe they make the world safer. How much war has been prevented because Israel has had nukes? Not to mention its own survival.

They are under our nuclear umbrella just like Japan. I don't think their nukes have stopped much of anything. I think the beating the ended up giving the Egyptians and our aircraft carriers in the Straits have more to do with why they haven't been attacked by a state military.

I don't think it's simply coincidence that no one has attacked them since 1973 when the U.S. determined in 1974 they had nuclear weapons. Israel has also admitted they considered using them in the Yom Kippur war and would have had they needed them to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.

Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

Pretty sure the stereotyping and cheap shots were started by you in this thread:

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Then when you got called on it, you suggested that you weren't guilty of this mentality b/c your support for war is "based on evidence". We're supposed to believe It's coincidental that you supported Bush's wars but are against Obama's foreign policy excursions.

The fact that you suggest "evidence" drives your support is high comedy, knowing what we know about Iraq's WMDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

Funny - current VP, SOS1 & SOS2 on that list.

Yep. And they were all DEAD WRONG initially on Iraq. And it's the reason that at least one of them isn't sitting in the oval office right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Not getting enough pub to bother with.

If the reason for the uproar is because of the strategic implications of that region, then fine. But let's say that up front. Hiding the agenda behind "because it is a moral obscenity to mankind" is just so hypocritical.

IMO it's not about atrocities in a civil war, it's about chemical weapons.

The death of a child is more obscene in a chemical weapons attack than a bomb going off in a school? Or are you saying the US has to respond to the weapon of choice in the situation?

If the latter, that's fine, but are we selling the response to the American people by showing how obscene the deaths were by sarin gas as opposed to mass bombing? I'd rather them call it for what it is. Chemical weapons are banned and they need to be shown the world won't tolerate their use.

fair enough, but the definition of "the world" shouldnt be the USA. let these other guys figure it out for once. enough already. we have wasted enough money fighting these clowns. i say we leave them alone. protect what needs to be protected strategically. and for once come on tv and say "guess what america, we need oil. thats a fact. guess what else america? alot of it is in the middle east. one last point america, under my watch this economy is not going into the toilet because god decided to place oil under the feet of the craziest ppl on the planet. so, THATS why we are going to fight. unless you all want 6 dollar a gallon gasoline."

i think most of us can find the logic in that honesty. but this other nonsense isnt working for me anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

Funny - current VP, SOS1 & SOS2 on that list.

Yep. And they were all DEAD WRONG initially on Iraq. And it's the reason that at least one of them isn't sitting in the oval office right now.

So, yes, who better to name as the top 2 advisors on foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

Funny - current VP, SOS1 & SOS2 on that list.

Yep. And they were all DEAD WRONG initially on Iraq. And it's the reason that at least one of them isn't sitting in the oval office right now.

So, yes, who better to name as the top 2 advisors on foreign policy.

You could have had Susan Rice, but nooooooooooooooooo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.
Funny - current VP, SOS1 & SOS2 on that list.

Yep. And they were all DEAD WRONG initially on Iraq. And it's the reason that at least one of them isn't sitting in the oval office right now.

So, yes, who better to name as the top 2 advisors on foreign policy.

You could have had Susan Rice, but nooooooooooooooooo.

How did Rice stand on the Iraq war?

Pres. Obama called Iraq a "dumb war" in 2006, but then brings in three major proponents who gave cover to Bush - or just plain agreed with him - to lead his foreign policy. The appointment of Kerry means that Hillary was no mistake or political move in that regard. I doubt he would bring on people he really considered "dumb" to lead his FP. So maybe he agreed with what they did after all, who knows Obama did not have to make that difficult vote.

Now, Obama also said in the debates he would defend Israel if they were attacked, and he also said he was a proponent of using military force (in conjunction with allies) in a humanitarian, genocidal/moral situation, and I'd say that's what we're looking at here (the latter). I agreed with him in both those stances.

I'd say that convinced or reassured a lot of Americans to vote for him.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.

Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

Pretty sure the stereotyping and cheap shots were started by you in this thread:

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Then when you got called on it, you suggested that you weren't guilty of this mentality b/c your support for war is "based on evidence". We're supposed to believe It's coincidental that you supported Bush's wars but are against Obama's foreign policy excursions.

The fact that you suggest "evidence" drives your support is high comedy, knowing what we know about Iraq's WMDs.

That's not stereotyping. You're really, really bad at this. It's pointing out that some people will be on "their guy's" side no matter what. I'd say that's an axiom.

It would be stereotypical if I said that ALL liberals had said bumpers tickers and marched lockstep to whatever Obama says and does. But I clearly didn't say that.

And I'd be interested in you to showing me where I've said...well ANYTHING about Obama's foreign policy decisions vis. the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Edited by Andy Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

Funny - current VP, SOS1 & SOS2 on that list.

Yep. And they were all DEAD WRONG initially on Iraq. And it's the reason that at least one of them isn't sitting in the oval office right now.

Good thing we dodged the bullet of putting these guys in as a key foreign policy makers :rolleyes:

Just more clear evidence that support for the military/secuirty complex is bipartisan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys please stop with the "my team vs your team" BS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys please stop with the "my team vs your team" BS?

I think the point is everybody's been on the same team all along.

Yes. The wrong one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.
Funny - current VP, SOS1 & SOS2 on that list.

Yep. And they were all DEAD WRONG initially on Iraq. And it's the reason that at least one of them isn't sitting in the oval office right now.

So, yes, who better to name as the top 2 advisors on foreign policy.

You could have had Susan Rice, but nooooooooooooooooo.

How did Rice stand on the Iraq war?

Pres. Obama called Iraq a "dumb war" in 2006, but then brings in three major proponents who gave cover to Bush - or just plain agreed with him - to lead his foreign policy. The appointment of Kerry means that Hillary was no mistake or political move in that regard. I doubt he would bring on people he really considered "dumb" to lead his FP. So maybe he agreed with what they did after all, who knows Obama did not have to make that difficult vote.

Now, Obama also said in the debates he would defend Israel if they were attacked, and he also said he was a proponent of using military force (in conjunction with allies) in a humanitarian, genocidal/moral situation, and I'd say that's what we're looking at here (the latter). I agreed with him in both those stances.

I'd say that convinced or reassured a lot of Americans to vote for him.

What? Terrible logic. Hillary and Kerry made the wrong call on Iraq. They've both admitted as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys please stop with the "my team vs your team" BS?

I think the point is everybody's been on the same team all along.

It is like when Red Sox fans used to ##### about the Yankees buying titles...before they were able to buy their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No country has done anything to Israel since they've had nukes. They aren't about to either. The extent of Israel's 'wars' since then have been against the PLO and Palestinian uprisings.

Wasn't Iraq lobbing SCUD missiles into Israel?

Yes they did. And Israel showed remarkable restraint then. Got Patriot missiles too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.

Funny - current VP, SOS1 & SOS2 on that list.

Yep. And they were all DEAD WRONG initially on Iraq. And it's the reason that at least one of them isn't sitting in the oval office right now.

Good thing we dodged the bullet of putting these guys in as a key foreign policy makers :rolleyes:

Just more clear evidence that support for the military/secuirty complex is bipartisan.

I hate when quotes get really long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys please stop with the "my team vs your team" BS?

I think the point is everybody's been on the same team all along.

It is like when Red Sox fans used to ##### about the Yankees buying titles...before they were able to buy their own.

Ha, true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know who else supported it "based on evidence"? These people:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me.
Again you proceed with the stereotyping. I know...it's okay since you're a liberal and all.
But once again you prove you're more interested in cheap shotting than you are in following what the actual argument is.
Funny - current VP, SOS1 & SOS2 on that list.

Yep. And they were all DEAD WRONG initially on Iraq. And it's the reason that at least one of them isn't sitting in the oval office right now.

So, yes, who better to name as the top 2 advisors on foreign policy.

You could have had Susan Rice, but nooooooooooooooooo.

How did Rice stand on the Iraq war?

Pres. Obama called Iraq a "dumb war" in 2006, but then brings in three major proponents who gave cover to Bush - or just plain agreed with him - to lead his foreign policy. The appointment of Kerry means that Hillary was no mistake or political move in that regard. I doubt he would bring on people he really considered "dumb" to lead his FP. So maybe he agreed with what they did after all, who knows Obama did not have to make that difficult vote.

Now, Obama also said in the debates he would defend Israel if they were attacked, and he also said he was a proponent of using military force (in conjunction with allies) in a humanitarian, genocidal/moral situation, and I'd say that's what we're looking at here (the latter). I agreed with him in both those stances.

I'd say that convinced or reassured a lot of Americans to vote for him.

What? Terrible logic. Hillary and Kerry made the wrong call on Iraq. They've both admitted as much.

Yes, they will just get it "right" next time because we have a guy who never had to make the choice himself making the call. So out of this group we have absolutely nobody who took a stand by actually voting against the Iraq war.

Much better.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys please stop with the "my team vs your team" BS?

I think this is ####ty trainwreck Syrian thread. The other chemical weapons in Syria thread seems to be a bit more civilized, less political, and contains a lot of more useful information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy pretending he isn't a partisan hack is adorable.

You guys are patently absurd with this.

Edited by Andy Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy pretending he isn't a partisan hack is adorable.

I, for one, am glad he's here to point out how partisan everyone else is (especially liberals).

Yeah, see, I corrected that statement after a gentle reminder from NCC.

I'll admit to being partisan. But the hack part is simply not true.

But then you guys with limited vocabulary skills should be expected to struggle with such distinctions.

:stirspot:

Edited by Andy Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of your immediate reactions to an event is to defend your party and bash the other rather than just discuss the issue, you're a hack. You might be well-read and intelligent, but you're a hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of your immediate reactions to an event is to defend your party and bash the other rather than just discuss the issue, you're a hack. You might be well-read and intelligent, but you're a hack.

One of my immediate reactions is usually to bash whichever party is a good target. Conveniently, many situations allow me to bash both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of your immediate reactions to an event is to defend your party and bash the other rather than just discuss the issue, you're a hack. You might be well-read and intelligent, but you're a hack.

So then I'm not. Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish we'd go to war already. I'm bored at work and want something to do.

I took today off and am waiting on Madden to arrive. I'd really like to see some action in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of your immediate reactions to an event is to defend your party and bash the other rather than just discuss the issue, you're a hack. You might be well-read and intelligent, but you're a hack.

So then I'm not. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm just saying I know your political posts are coming from a partisan worldview but you get undeserved credit for being balanced. You're not. But you owned it already and typing this much is exhausting. I'll withdraw "hack."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of your immediate reactions to an event is to defend your party and bash the other rather than just discuss the issue, you're a hack. You might be well-read and intelligent, but you're a hack.

So then I'm not. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm just saying I know your political posts are coming from a partisan worldview but you get undeserved credit for being balanced. You're not. But you owned it already and typing this much is exhausting. I'll withdraw "hack."

:hifive:

And I'm not proclaiming to be balanced but I do try to be fair - if a bit snarky from time to time.

Edited by Andy Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

I'm getting visions of many, many civilian casualties that would be a PR nightmare for the U.S. I wonder if Assad is storing those weapons in or around populated areas to make such a strike very, very difficult without many civilian casualties. This isn't WWII anymore where we'd just firebomb the whole city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

No we will not strike chemical targets. There is too much risk involved with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

No we will not strike chemical targets. There is too much risk involved with that.

Well maybe not the chemicals themselves but I'm sure they'll look to severely limit the ability to use them again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

No we will not strike chemical targets. There is too much risk involved with that.

Well maybe not the chemicals themselves but I'm sure they'll look to severely limit the ability to use them again.

They will likely hit standard military targets. They have already said they won't try to target Assad or the government. This will be pretty limited IMO and will be more along the lines of a message delivery. Now if we decided to to go No Fly Zone then you might see something more intense. But with Syria's very formidable air defenses I think we'll hold off on that or we will have casualties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.