Bush is a hero

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 7,988)

Showing posts 159,741 - 159,760 of168,954
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167287
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see an up side to the Syrians for "drawing us in".
Not to the Syrians but I can see Assad thinking there is an upside. Iran is an ally. If he can unite his own country and Iran against the US and possibly Israel he could be the leader of the "mother of all wars." Iran conceivably could have a nuclear weapon. Makes ME nervous. And before you say they are no match (or anyone says it) for the US military, when's the last time we won a war.?

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167288
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Not to the Syrians but I can see Assad thinking there is an upside. Iran is an ally. If he can unite his own country and Iran against the US and possibly Israel he could be the leader of the "mother of all wars." Iran conceivably could have a nuclear weapon. Makes ME nervous. And before you say they are no match (or anyone says it) for the US military, when's the last time we won a war.?
That's a very interesting theory.

Whenever military action is undertaken there's reason to be nervous, particularly if attacks are made by aircraft instead of missiles. There's also a possibility of an indirect response against Israel a la Saddam's Scud attacks in '91.

Since Assad is likely to win the civil war even if we take out his command and control systems, and since the Iranians are lots of things but not suicidal ... I don't see much chance of the 'mother of all wars' or the use of nuclear weapons.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167290
Aug 28, 2013
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
For what it's worth, if it is determined that WMD were used and it was Assad's forces who used them, I think the U.S. HAS to launch military strikes to damage his military infrastructure and command & control capabilities.
Under the law, the President can initiate this action, and is required to brief Congress. He is required to obtain Congressional approval if U.S. forces are going to be engaged for longer than 60 days (+ 30 for withdrawal). I can't foresee any circumstances where he would have to go to Congress for such approval.
I don't know that this will have a significant impact on the Syrian civil war - but that's not the point. The use of WMDs is the point, and how we proceed from here is something being watched very carefully in Damascus - and Terran.
I think I'm going to agree. Assad, or someone in Syria, pulled a Saddam Hussein and used chemical weapons on the citizens that opposed them. As we can't be sure who the bad guy(s) were,(the UN inspectors haven't even started their investigation, I think we should take actions to ensure we get the culprit. obama is trying to reduce our stockpile of nukes, why not dispose of a bunch of them in Syria... problem solved. Whomever used the chemical weapons would be vaporized.

That would send a message to the world that barry does have the cojones that nobody believed he had.

While we're at it, Iran doesn't like us either, and are quickly developing WMD's. Why not reduce some more of our pesky nuclear arsenal in Iran? Which reminds me, didn't we also have a problem in Eastern Libya, Benghazi? Time for a little payback.

And what about those Taliban folks in Afghanistan... hmmmm? The only problem is they keep hauling freight back into Western Pakistan when threatened. A minor problem just hitting Western Pakistan, because Pakistan has nukes. We'd have to do a lightning strike, but it would have to be on both East and West Pakistan to ensure no nuclear retaliations.

We have a lot of nukes to get rid of, did I miss anyone?

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167291
Aug 28, 2013
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see an up side to the Syrians for "drawing us in".
That depends on which "Syrians" you're talking about. "Drawing us in" might be bad for the Assad government,(which is no direct threat to the USA), but it would be a bonanza for al-qaida and the rebels, who might be.

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/...

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167292
Aug 28, 2013
 
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Not to the Syrians but I can see Assad thinking there is an upside. Iran is an ally. If he can unite his own country and Iran against the US and possibly Israel he could be the leader of the "mother of all wars." Iran conceivably could have a nuclear weapon. Makes ME nervous. And before you say they are no match (or anyone says it) for the US military, when's the last time we won a war.?
Unilaterally... the Civil War.

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167293
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I'm going to agree. Assad, or someone in Syria, pulled a Saddam Hussein and used chemical weapons on the citizens that opposed them. As we can't be sure who the bad guy(s) were,(the UN inspectors haven't even started their investigation, I think we should take actions to ensure we get the culprit. obama is trying to reduce our stockpile of nukes, why not dispose of a bunch of them in Syria... problem solved. Whomever used the chemical weapons would be vaporized.
That would send a message to the world that barry does have the cojones that nobody believed he had.
While we're at it, Iran doesn't like us either, and are quickly developing WMD's. Why not reduce some more of our pesky nuclear arsenal in Iran? Which reminds me, didn't we also have a problem in Eastern Libya, Benghazi? Time for a little payback.
And what about those Taliban folks in Afghanistan... hmmmm? The only problem is they keep hauling freight back into Western Pakistan when threatened. A minor problem just hitting Western Pakistan, because Pakistan has nukes. We'd have to do a lightning strike, but it would have to be on both East and West Pakistan to ensure no nuclear retaliations.
We have a lot of nukes to get rid of, did I miss anyone?
Are you really this stupid, or is this just an act you perform on message boards?

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167294
Aug 28, 2013
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Are you really this stupid, or is this just an act you perform on message boards?
What, did I miss someone obvious? Did you think obama should nuke Texas too, or simply all of the southern states?

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167295
Aug 28, 2013
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Are you really this stupid, or is this just an act you perform on message boards?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167296
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I'm going to agree. Assad, or someone in Syria, pulled a Saddam Hussein and used chemical weapons on the citizens that opposed them. As we can't be sure who the bad guy(s) were,(the UN inspectors haven't even started their investigation, I think we should take actions to ensure we get the culprit. obama is trying to reduce our stockpile of nukes, why not dispose of a bunch of them in Syria... problem solved. Whomever used the chemical weapons would be vaporized.
That would send a message to the world that barry does have the cojones that nobody believed he had.
While we're at it, Iran doesn't like us either, and are quickly developing WMD's. Why not reduce some more of our pesky nuclear arsenal in Iran? Which reminds me, didn't we also have a problem in Eastern Libya, Benghazi? Time for a little payback.
And what about those Taliban folks in Afghanistan... hmmmm? The only problem is they keep hauling freight back into Western Pakistan when threatened. A minor problem just hitting Western Pakistan, because Pakistan has nukes. We'd have to do a lightning strike, but it would have to be on both East and West Pakistan to ensure no nuclear retaliations.
We have a lot of nukes to get rid of, did I miss anyone?
BobinTex The President's name is Barack H Obama not berry some paranoid luntics are spreading that B.S
Also you don't understand the consequences if we used Nuclear Weapons!!!!!! Do you want to start WW3 and killed Billions????

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167297
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
What, did I miss someone obvious? Did you think obama should nuke Texas too, or simply all of the southern states?
A surgical strike on Syrian military sites.

It's imperative.

There are limits.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167298
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nebka wrote:
<quoted text>
BobinTex The President's name is Barack H Obama not berry some paranoid luntics are spreading that B.S
Also you don't understand the consequences if we used Nuclear Weapons!!!!!! Do you want to start WW3 and killed Billions????
I'd like to talk with the luntics.
UIDOTRACEMAKEWOR LDPEACE

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167300
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to talk with the luntics.
They what we called Brainwashed warring grunts... lacking/without human empathy and morals, unethical and ignorant... and it's most dumb /cannon fodder Soldiers are pawns on geo-political chessboard ; are required to don't Ask and Don't tell
UIDOTRACEMAKEWOR LDPEACE

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167301
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

David Ben-Gurion, May 1948 Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as the State's main founder.

“We should prepare to go on the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.”
UIDOTRACEMAKEWOR LDPEACE

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167302
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Shadow Masters
How Governments and Their Intelligence Agencies are Working with Drug Dealers and Terrorists for Mutual Benefit and Profit
by Daniel Estulin
Trine Day LLC, 2010, paperback
p126

The secret Sykes-Picot Treaty was drafted in 1916 by the soon-to-be "victors" of World War I, France and the British Empire, in which they divided up the Ottoman Empire between them as the spoils of war, with Britain controlling Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine, and France ruling Syria and Lebanon. Their aim has been to prevent at all costs the economic development of a region that is at both the crossroads of Europe and Asia and of Eurasia and Africa. Their intent is to maintain it as trigger for global war by manipulating ethnic, religious, and tribal groups against one another, and against central governments, to create perpetual war.

... Perpetual conflict destroys progress and severely limits the rights of the individual. Stability is bad for business, drug business that is. The drug trade thrives on weak central governments and strong sectarian leadership.
UIDOTRACEMAKEWOR LDPEACE

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167303
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

David Ben-Gurion, 1948, in a letter to Moshe Sharett the Jewish state's foreign minister designate

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
by Ilan Pappe, 2006, p46

If we will receive in time the arms we have already purchased, and maybe even receive some of that promised to us by the UN, we will be able not only to defend [ourselves] but also to inflict death blows on the Syrians in their own country - and take over Palestine as a whole.
UIDOTRACEMAKEWOR LDPEACE

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167304
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Governments Exist to Further the Interests of "Favored Groups"
"We the People" are Never the Favored Group
by Prof. John Kozy

Governments have never existed to solve problems domestic or international. Governments and their institutions exist merely to further and secure the interests of favored groups.

... The favored group of European governments is international investors, not the common people of a single European nation. The Greeks can be damned so long as the investors get repaid even though the common people of Greece did not borrow one euro from international investors, the Greek government ... did, and the investors were not only willing but anxious to lend. The favored group of the Mubarak government in Egypt was the Egyptian military... The favored group in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen is a royal family. In Iraq and Iran, a religious sect is favored...

The United States of America is an extreme case. The Democrats in Congress have their favored groups; so do the Republicans. But the common people is not the favored group of either party, although the politicians pay homage to it. America is comprised of a mass of groups, some favored, some not... Where Americans once believed united we stand, divided we fall, today they believe division secures our group's special interests. And the moneyed groups have made this work by using raw power and bribery.
UIDOTRACEMAKEWOR LDPEACE

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167305
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1


General Wesley Clark

Towards a World War III Scenario
The Dangers of Nuclear War
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, 2012, paperback

[The Pentagon's] five-year campaign plan includes a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, L Somalia and Sudan.

====

Not included are many US covert wars and smaller wars worldwide , as most us Americans are kept in dark for very good reason! U all better wakeup, it's morally and financially bankrupting American , those are US ill money hegemonic agendas the kinectic and macroeconomic wars on American economic/financial wellbeing and world masses livelihoods! PAradoxically Ironic! Laugh or Cry? i==u know me! BHAHAHAHHHAHAaa

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167306
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

nebka wrote:
<quoted text>
BobinTex The President's name is Barack H Obama not berry some paranoid luntics are spreading that B.S
Berry... does barry remind you of a fruit?
nebka wrote:
Also you don't understand the consequences if we used Nuclear Weapons!!!!!!
It's worked well for us before. It almost instantly ended a war against fanatics, and turned bitter foes into allies.
nebka wrote:
Do you want to start WW3 and killed Billions????
Wow, that would go a long way towards reducing "man-made global warming"! Less men, less warming. Great idea nebka!!!

And once again, I wonder just how stupid one has to be to be a liberal. Thanks for playing.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167307
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A surgical strike on Syrian military sites.
Syria is no threat to the USA.
Catcher1 wrote:
It's imperative.
Rather than launching a strike on a country that holds no threat to us, why not strike Iran instead. A country that is providing support to the Assad regime, a country that is developing nuclear weapons, a country that will destabilize the region and the world's oil supply, AND a country that is definitely a threat to us?
Catcher1 wrote:
<There are limits.
I know. The war powers act was supposed to give the president the ability to use the military against countries or groups that are an imminent danger to the USA... not to attack a country that doesn't like us, and we don't care for. We'd be improperly using our military to aid in replacing a regime that isn't a threat with one that very well might be.

The obama administration attacked Libya, which was no threat to the USA, and left a void that al-qaida was quick to fill. It cost us an ambassador, as well as other Americans... and lost us our presence, and our consulate in Eastern Libya.

And now obama wants to duplicate the same error in Syria. It makes no sense, unless barry's actually trying to assist the Muslim Brotherhood and al-qaida in coming to power in Middle East countries.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167308
Aug 29, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to talk with the luntics.
You live in the right state for those conversations.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 159,741 - 159,760 of168,954
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

510 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 10 min ocxz 109,542
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi 10 min Rajib 34
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 13 min thewordofme 680,081
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 17 min truth 512,087
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 39 min Catcher1 596,516
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 45 min andet1987 216,878
How can i make love with my mother or just sext... 58 min Dave 4
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 1 hr Titus18 244
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr Some1 Else 89,563
•••
•••
•••