Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
State of Denial

Charlotte, NC

#42268 Sep 4, 2013
Dang wrote:
<quoted text>Sen. Paul said it, "just a little war". What the hell is a "limited strike" anyway? Ask any military mind out there and see what they say. US polls say almost 70% are against this and Obama said just the opposite this AM in Sweden. Congress should throw this back in his lap and say you take the responsibility. Obama is calling for war plain and simple.
I'm with you on what is a "limited strike" or "just a little war".

Daily Obama looks like the commander-in-weak. One day he wants the approval of Congress, today he doesn't need it. No troops on the ground, just airstrikes.

Why waste our tax dollars on an airstrike that won't accomplish a darn thing? Turn those Navy ships around, get the heck out of dodge and let Syria deal with their problems.

Dang

Greer, SC

#42269 Sep 4, 2013
TSF wrote:
Obama was reluctant to attack Syria, so republikans started chanting attack, attack, attack. So Obama put the ball in republican court by asking that the decision be properly made by congress. But because they now think Obama favors the attack, the republikans now oppose it. Also, a decision of whether or not to go to war cannot take precedence over the congressional vacation which lasts until Sept 9. So now the republikans are in utter confusion and even Rush Limbaugh now thinks the muslim brotherhood are our friends because they oppose Obama. Obama has pulled off a great execution of double reverse play and republikans don't know whether to soil themselves or go blind..
Your full of crap, Congress wouldn't even be talking about this if it weren't for Obama. He's just a chicken because he wants to blame someone else when this, and it will, blow up in his face. Even some Democrats see disaster "Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., reflected a view shared by at least some of his colleagues: "I am vehemently opposed to a military strike that would clearly be an act of war against Syria, especially under such tragic yet confusing circumstances as to who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons." "In a conference call Monday with House Democrats, several members of Obama's own party challenged the administration's assertions." This isn't a game calling for a "double reverse" anything. This where people die and this President should have said something a long time age, before 100,000 people died if he cared so much.
waco 1909

Lenoir, NC

#42270 Sep 4, 2013
A forum full of morons debating politics. And your opinions matter to who?
Dang

Greer, SC

#42271 Sep 4, 2013
waco 1909 wrote:
A forum full of morons debating politics. And your opinions matter to who?
YOU!! Because you read it!! People like you crack me up, bitch about what you just went to all the effort to read. Now, who is the "moron"?

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#42272 Sep 4, 2013
waco 1909 wrote:
A forum full of morons debating politics. And your opinions matter to who?
Get a life, loser.Quit stealing my Topix name, lowlife.

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#42273 Sep 4, 2013
waco 1909 wrote:
A forum full of morons debating politics. And your opinions matter to who?
One more thing, name stealer.It's"to whom", not"to who", you brainless flake.
TSF

Middlesex, NC

#42274 Sep 4, 2013
The tomahawk missiles cost $1,450,000 each. The whole country of Syria isn't worth even one missile to me. To hell with Syria.
So to teach them not to kill their own citizens with nerve gas, we are going to kill their citizens with explosives? And that makes sense to ??? They seem to be doing a fine job killing each other already. Leave them alone.
I think that is what Obama really wants. The only way to actually accomplish that is to pretend otherwise, knowing that whatever he wants, republikans will vote against it.. Obama has got them two ways. Republikans love war, but their hate for Obama is stronger than their love of war. They don't get their war and Obama gets what he really wanted to start with. Here is an old term: Snookered. That's what Obama has done to the pubs.
State of Denial wrote:
<quoted text>
How long did it take for you to come up with this scenario?
I've read many of your lunatic posts before but this one is the kicker.
The only person confused about attacking Syria is Obama. I saw news clips yesterday where he had everybody and their dog giving advice.
The most pathetic sound bites were John Kerry, Hagel, I don't know the other goof balls names that couldn't explain exactly what a "limited strike" was and how this would accomplish anything.
Oh well if all else fails he can call Oprah. She knows everything, just ask to her (sarcasm).
Taxpayer

Camden, NC

#42275 Sep 4, 2013
The Obama Socialist state news, CNN was Caught Faking War Footage AGAIN, This Time in Syria.
#t=19
State of Denial

Charlotte, NC

#42276 Sep 4, 2013
TSF wrote:
The tomahawk missiles cost $1,450,000 each. The whole country of Syria isn't worth even one missile to me. To hell with Syria.
So to teach them not to kill their own citizens with nerve gas, we are going to kill their citizens with explosives? And that makes sense to ??? They seem to be doing a fine job killing each other already. Leave them alone.
I think that is what Obama really wants. The only way to actually accomplish that is to pretend otherwise, knowing that whatever he wants, republikans will vote against it.. Obama has got them two ways. Republikans love war, but their hate for Obama is stronger than their love of war. They don't get their war and Obama gets what he really wanted to start with. Here is an old term: Snookered. That's what Obama has done to the pubs.
<quoted text>
I agree the U.S. needs to stay out of Syria.

The rest of your reasoning is very convoluted. Let me get this straight. Obama is just pulling a big fake out about wanting to send missiles to Syria to get the Republicans to vote against and he comes out smelling like a rose?

How long did it take for you to come up with such insane reasoning? Not only does Obama appear weak now he appears to be a liar, per your theory.

Based off your theory, should the public ever believe a president that will play games with something as serious as starting a war. Yes, war. Go back and read the vote today that includes troops on the ground.

Is that a big fake out to get the Republicans to vote? Is sure as hell worked on Nancy Pukelosi and you don't get any more Democrat than her.



TSF

Middlesex, NC

#42277 Sep 4, 2013
The dems have to pretend they support war, otherwise the pubs will not vote against it. Pubs hate Pelosi more than they hate Obama. Obama. If she votes for it, you know the pubs will vote against. I really hope it doesn't happen. Borrowing money from China to attack one of China and Russia's trading partners? I will go against Obama on this one because I know he really doesn't want war. Otherwise, he would have just done it.
State of Denial wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree the U.S. needs to stay out of Syria.
The rest of your reasoning is very convoluted. Let me get this straight. Obama is just pulling a big fake out about wanting to send missiles to Syria to get the Republicans to vote against and he comes out smelling like a rose?
How long did it take for you to come up with such insane reasoning? Not only does Obama appear weak now he appears to be a liar, per your theory.
Based off your theory, should the public ever believe a president that will play games with something as serious as starting a war. Yes, war. Go back and read the vote today that includes troops on the ground.
Is that a big fake out to get the Republicans to vote? Is sure as hell worked on Nancy Pukelosi and you don't get any more Democrat than her.
TSF

Middlesex, NC

#42278 Sep 4, 2013
Obama doesn't give a flip about the Syrians, but he is president and cannot be saying that. I don't care a damn about the Syrians, but I can say that because everyone already knows that I am not PC. If Obama had made the strike, the pubs would have gone crazy with the blame game just like they had been going crazy about him doing nothing. NOTHING is exactly the right move . But pubs care nothing about right and wrong, all they care about is slamming anything Obama. They are afflicted with RODS (republican Obama dementia syndrome).Obama knows that and is using that fact.
This way, we do not have to buy the replacement Tomahawks , we avoid BORROWING another trillion dollars at least and republikans can now only blame themselves for whatever happens.
Heck, Obama could even get a Nobel Prize for this one also. He deserves it if it works.
Dang wrote:
<quoted text>Your full of crap, Congress wouldn't even be talking about this if it weren't for Obama. He's just a chicken because he wants to blame someone else when this, and it will, blow up in his face. Even some Democrats see disaster "Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., reflected a view shared by at least some of his colleagues: "I am vehemently opposed to a military strike that would clearly be an act of war against Syria, especially under such tragic yet confusing circumstances as to who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons." "In a conference call Monday with House Democrats, several members of Obama's own party challenged the administration's assertions." This isn't a game calling for a "double reverse" anything. This where people die and this President should have said something a long time age, before 100,000 people died if he cared so much.
TSF

Middlesex, NC

#42279 Sep 4, 2013
Monica Lewinski's boyfriend's wife for president in 2016
Dang

Greer, SC

#42280 Sep 5, 2013
TSF wrote:
The tomahawk missiles cost $1,450,000 each. The whole country of Syria isn't worth even one missile to me. To hell with Syria.
So to teach them not to kill their own citizens with nerve gas, we are going to kill their citizens with explosives? And that makes sense to ??? They seem to be doing a fine job killing each other already. Leave them alone.
I think that is what Obama really wants. The only way to actually accomplish that is to pretend otherwise, knowing that whatever he wants, republikans will vote against it.. Obama has got them two ways. Republikans love war, but their hate for Obama is stronger than their love of war. They don't get their war and Obama gets what he really wanted to start with. Here is an old term: Snookered. That's what Obama has done to the pubs.
<quoted text>
Are you really saying, that the President of the United States, is "PRETENDING" about going to war??? Are you insane? You really think he is doing this to get one up on Republicans? If that is the case, YOU need a rubber room to play in and he needs to be impeached. The cost of war is more than money and scoring "reelection" points. What do you think he will do if his "snookered" job doesn't work? Nuts, just nuts.
Dang

Greer, SC

#42281 Sep 5, 2013
TSF wrote:
Obama doesn't give a flip about the Syrians, but he is president and cannot be saying that. I don't care a damn about the Syrians, but I can say that because everyone already knows that I am not PC. If Obama had made the strike, the pubs would have gone crazy with the blame game just like they had been going crazy about him doing nothing. NOTHING is exactly the right move . But pubs care nothing about right and wrong, all they care about is slamming anything Obama. They are afflicted with RODS (republican Obama dementia syndrome).Obama knows that and is using that fact.
This way, we do not have to buy the replacement Tomahawks , we avoid BORROWING another trillion dollars at least and republikans can now only blame themselves for whatever happens.
Heck, Obama could even get a Nobel Prize for this one also. He deserves it if it works.
<quoted text>
Wasn't he asked yesterday, about giving back his "Peace Prize" in Sweden? He's calling for war so they want it back. What if it doesn't work? Typical Democrat. Anything to get reelected. Did you see Kerry dodge the questions, he looked as bad as Hillery.
Dang

Greer, SC

#42282 Sep 5, 2013
TSF wrote:
Monica Lewinski's boyfriend's wife for president in 2016
"out for a stroll or to kill Americans, at this point what does it matter?" I hope Republicans play it over loud speakers driving down the roads.
Allen

Robbins, NC

#42283 Sep 5, 2013
Everyone seems to think that Obama drew the red line on chemical weapons use, actually it was drawn a century ago by the UN. IMO, a vote and a decision should wait until a full report is given by the UN inspectors. As bad as I would like to see Bashar ASSad taken out, I too think that a strike at this time is a bad idea. We can't just continue playing sheriff around the world. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we strike without the support of the UN, this could mean world war three. If we do nothing, we look like cowards and may have to fight them on our own soil. These people have been fighting each other for one reason or the other since the beginning of time. No amount of US dollars, boots on the ground or air strikes is going to stop them. If we do strike them, then what? Do we say we are sorry by borrowing money to rebuild what we just tore all to hell?

“Vote”

Since: May 12

Houston

#42284 Sep 5, 2013
People may have gotten confused when Obama opened his mouth and said"The use of chemical weapons would be crossing a red line". They probably then thought, that those words meant"the use of chemical weapons would be crossing a red line." What idiots.
Dang

Greer, SC

#42285 Sep 5, 2013
HUMANITARIAN FUNDING TO SYRIA HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE IN FY2012 AND FY2013*

USAID/OFDA


$208,811,613

USAID/FFP


$312,783,482

State/PRM


$488,759,482

Total U.S. Government (USG) Assistance to the Syria Humanitarian Response


$1,010,354,195 Dang that's a lotta "assistance"!!
Dang

Greer, SC

#42286 Sep 5, 2013
*These figures are current as of August 23, 2013
http://www.usaid.gov/crisis/syria
Dang

Greer, SC

#42287 Sep 5, 2013
"In resolution 1540 (2004), the Security Council decided that all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, in particular for terrorist purposes. The resolution requires all States to adopt and enforce appropriate laws to this effect as well as other effective measures to prevent the proliferation of these weapons and their means of delivery to non-State actors.

The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs provides support for activities of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004), which is tasked to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the resolution. Currently, UNODA activities are focussing on the following key areas:

Facilitation of national implementation activities including through regionally coordinated approaches
Cooperation between international, regional and sub-regional organizations
Effective partnerships with civil society and the private sector" Now my question is should Syria be receiving ANY thing from the US. Seems the US picks and chooses the UN rules at will.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arlington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
cps pain management (Aug '15) 6 hr Keep Out 2
Chatham Woods Senior Apts: A Nightmare On Elm S... (Mar '15) Tue Just Sayin 56
Tony Gray Sloop (Jan '09) Aug 28 Moving on 4
News Yadkin County Roommate Charged With Murder 2hr (Jul '09) Aug 15 Steve Couch 3
Review: Revival Pain Management (May '13) Jul '16 Trelane 15
Jonesville Music Thread (Apr '14) Jun '16 Musikologist 7
News N.C. parenting columnist files lawsuit in Kentucky (Jul '13) Jul '13 SilverSwanBabies 1

Arlington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arlington Mortgages