1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Syria: they're using chemical weapons...

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by cashmcall, May 2, 2013.

  1. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around
    its also coming out just what a buch of loveable goofs these freedon fighters are. of course these guys are al qaida trained killers that gain favor with the indiginus folks with their well honed skills (brutality torture (real torture)) that are proving very effective. the place is a snake pit far worse than the fractious mess that filled the vacuum in Iraq.
     
  2. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,844
    Likes Received:
    164
    You are right Dogtower . Some of the Syrian rebels are trained Al qaida killers. just like Iraq.
     
  3. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    And guess where they are being trained. Since Obama pulled our troops out of Iraq, al Qaeda moved in and now they are all over Libya too.
     
  4. OldTrapper

    OldTrapper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Central Oregon South of Bend

    You mean since Obama followed the lead of Bush, and like most of Bush's decisions this one was all screwed up too. However, it is good for you to acknowledge that al Queda was not in Iraq before Bush invaded. In fact, al Queda has been able to recruit thousands thanks to America's interference in the ME. Just another reason we should never have been there in the first place.

    Of course, why face reality when fiction is so much easier for the likes of you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

    The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011
     
  5. OldTrapper

    OldTrapper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Central Oregon South of Bend

    NO ONE is demanding boots on the ground save for possibly the likes of McCain, and Graham. And Obama is leaving it up to Congress while reserving a "right" people like you have allowed for other Presidents in the past.

    Now tell me, is it "war mongering" to enforce international law? Is it "war mongering" to want to save the lives of innocent people? If so, then the greatest "war mongerer" in recent history has to be Bush.

    Do you people ever tire of seeing others die?

    And don't even try to say this is a "leftist" position. The International Law was established almost a hundred years ago, and so far the international community has ignored it.
     
  6. Texas_tea

    Texas_tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Great State of TEXAS
    I told you Bush did it .....

    typical-liberal-bury-their-heads-in-the-sand-political-poster-1283367377.jpg
     
  7. OldTrapper

    OldTrapper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Central Oregon South of Bend

    Instead of your usual childish cartoons, could you present some actual facts to prove anything I said wrong? Here is another one for fools like you:

    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...-s-consulate-u-s-outposts-drone-fired-missile

    The truth is that U.S. foreign policy helped to create the decentralized al-Qaeda, a branch of which is believed to be trying to launch some kind of strike.

    The most fateful choice, and the biggest strategic error, was the decision to invade Iraq. George W. Bush’s epic misadventure diverted resources and attention from the war in Afghanistan, giving a reprieve to the Taliban. The Iraq war also provided new focal points for jihadist grievance — Abu Ghraib, for example — and gave new oxygen to the simmering intra-Muslim conflict between Sunni and Shiite.

    Al-Qaeda put down roots in chaotic Iraq. It did the same in lawless Yemen — home to the al-Qaeda “branch” or “affiliate” responsible for the current alert. While the original al-Qaeda may be moribund, its surviving leaders hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan, terrorist groups bearing the name are trying their best to continue the fight.
     
  8. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    Wow! You are a master of misdirection...is this why you admire Big Ears so much? You know...like two peas in a pod.

    Obama is DEMANDING military action and you say WHO IS DEMANDING MILITARY ACTION???....TOO FUNNY. Now you twist it into no one is demanding boots on the ground. Are boots on the ground your definition of military action?

    Now to claim we here never tire of seeing others die...and yet, it is you who wants Syria bombed (which the last time I checked, IS military action), and that bombing WILL KILL PEOPLE....while you blame others of wanting to kill. TOO FUNNY.

    Those of us who do not want military action taken, do not want more people to die and do not want America involved in a crazy Islamic civil war. Keep in mind, if you can, that a pinprick bombing will DO NOTHING, but it will infuriate those who get bombed and may infuriate other nations to take actions against Americans. Such a bombing will NOT save lives. It could also lead to a wider war and consequently lead to BOOTS ON THE GROUND. So, bombing Syria merely to back up foolish statements by a foolish POTUS, is not only ineffective, it is also dangerous.

    I say it is none of America's business. Let those nations in the region deal with it. After all, America has sold huge amounts of advanced military hardware to many nations in the region.
     
  9. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    Officials in Iraq want U.S. to renew partnership

    "Hard as it may be to believe, the Iraqi government wants the United States to come back — and right away.

    Maliki was the one who refused to sign an acceptable agreement in 2011 that would have allowed a small contingent of American soldiers to remain in Iraq to help the government with security problems. Even then, Iraq was facing several terror attacks a month. More recently, the frequency has grown to almost daily.
    Faily blamed all the violence on al-Qaida and “Saddam Hussein remnants,” the same explanation Iraqi government officials used when I was based there 10 years ago.
    “Pragmatically,” Alhassan said, “you can hate the war or like the war, condemn or regret what happened 10 years ago,” when the U.S. invaded Iraq. “But now we have a lot of mutual interests.” Faily insisted that the country is not after foreign aid. After all, he noted, with all that oil, “we can pay.”
    But what Iraq can’t do, he acknowledged, is field a competent government."
     
  10. OldTrapper

    OldTrapper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Central Oregon South of Bend
    If that were true he would have already done so under the War Powers Act which people like you have consistently supported.

    Obviously you have not paid attention to what I have said, as usual. I support the support of International Law by the international community. However, no where have I called for the unilateral bombing of any country by the US.

    Most of this I would agree with, and have said the same when Bush was entering the ME with his lies, and *********.

    However, that is the point. When Bush was doing the same people like you supported it. Now it seems you tire of such actions. Of course you opposed similar actions by Clinton, yet supported Reagan when he did the same.

    People such as myself have opposed any "pre-emptive" action where the US is not directly threatened.
     
  11. OldTrapper

    OldTrapper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Central Oregon South of Bend
    And yet Iraq, especially the area of the Kurds, will not sell oil to the US. Remember those of us who warned that our invasion would change nothing? Remember the Bush claim that Iraqui oil would pay for the war?

    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/En...looms-as-Kurds-export-oil/UPI-81651357929387/
     
  12. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    Well your posts are really mixed up. You think military action is not bombing. You think many us on this board are warmongers who love killing, including myself, while you agree with bombing Syria and killing Syrians.

    You make many WRONG conclusions about me in your ridiculous posts. As all the regulars here at the HOP know, I am a libertarian (formerly a conservative). I do not think military action of any sort should be taken by the US, exceptions for being attacked. I firmly believe and have posted my opinions here numerous times...I am for a non-interventionist foreign policy. I did not support Bush in nearly everything he did domestic or foreign...he was a stinking progressive statist...just as BO is.

    You apparently think BO is somehow different than Bush. You condemn the right for siding with Bush and not BO. But, you fail to condemn the Left for siding with BO and not Bush. Do you fail to see the hypocrisy of your position?

    You have come to this board with many misconceptions. You think anyone who criticizes Big Ears, must love W. Nothing could be further from the truth.
     
  13. OldTrapper

    OldTrapper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Central Oregon South of Bend
    Most, and not all, who criticize Obama are the same ones who supported Bush when he did the same. Likewise, they are the same who now blame Obama for the pathetic condition of the economy when he is simply following the "strategy" set forth by Bush. All one has to do is look at the posts of ones like the teabagger, or Cruella, and it becomes readily apparent. Very few seem to be able to comprehend that Obama is simply an extension, or perhaps the culmination, of a plan that was set forth long ago, and no matter how often I ask them to read about the history Imperial Presidency then never seem to be able to accomplish that. And that is what I criticize the "right" for. I really can't think of anything I have supported Obama on, yet when I point out the truth of a mater it is always interpreted as support for Obama. Then begin the catcalls of me being a "leftie", or whatever. Kind of like labeling me a "war monger" when I asked the question of should international law be supported, or not.

    Now, many on this board do support killing, etc., when it came to Bush, and to deny that is to deny reality. It would appear they have had an "epiphany" since Obama was elected, however, like the teabagger did just a few posts back, they still defend Bush. Now, I have found over the years that those who most often support the actions of Bush are cowards just as Bush was, and Cheney, Gingrich, Romney, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Rumsfield, Rove, and the list goes on, were, and are. And if you were to watch the talk shows on Fox, C-Span, etc., it is these same chicken hawks that now support bombing Syria.

    As to defending the left, please read my posts with clarity. I have defended only one thing, and that is the truth. Being an independent since the second term of Reagan, for whom I voted the first time, and not the second (and have not voted for either party since), my responses may appear to be a defense of the left. However, that is not my intent. If those in here lie about Obama, I will point it out. That is my sole intent. If I go to a liberal forum, and they lie about the right, I point it out. I do not intend to support either point of view, just the truth.
     
  14. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,340
    Likes Received:
    103
    Location:
    Earth
    The rebels in syria are led by a guy who has posted a video of himself on u tube cutting out the heart of one of his enemies and eating it

    There is no proof that Assad has used chemical weapons

    The US has possibly the world's largest stock of the things and repeatedly lies about decommissioning them

    The US is not motivated by any moral desire to help syrians

    If it was you would hear a lot more about aid to the millions of of displaced Syrian refugees and a lot less from John Kerry trying to sell attacking Syria militarily to the rest of the world

    Thank Dawkins the UK and Russia told him to take his lies elsewhere
     
  15. Centrehalf

    Centrehalf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    56
    Be honest, are you really surprised by this? Please say yes. Oh my God, the US acts like other countries...alert the media! Oh my God the US lied! That's never happened before, ever...like...oh my God!
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice