Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So let's get this straight. WMD in the hands of Assad was bad enough, but as long as he didn't use them, ok. But once he used them it was intolerable, he had crossed the red line. But the mere possession of weapons by the rebels would be so intolerable, we would have to send troops. So the rebels must be even worse than Assad.
But we must help the rebels.
And the rebels are helping the rebels. They are leaving Iraq and flocking BACK into Syria. Maybe the death toll on a day to day basis in Iraq will drop? In the last three days 150 Iraqis have died.
Lol. I have no clue what you said in your run-on sentence rant. But yeah, ok, whatever.
ok I can't be arguing everything so heres what, I like John Bolton and R Paul approach in the whole idea, tossing my hat in with their impressions. Thats it and will say in opinion bring all ships back.
Last edited by macpherson; 09-04-2013 at 02:01 AM..
Hopefully none, but if any do at least they'd be dying for a good cause.
SMH. Are you or any of your family members planning on joining that good cause or are you going to leave it to members of other families? How generous of you to offer up the lives of Americans for what YOU believe to be a good cause. Haven't enough Americans died already? Should the person who becomes disabled or loses a limb or die take comfort in the fact that it was OK because it was for a "good cause"?
Is there a beach somewhere behind the Lincoln Memorial?
That's where the Marines need to land.
Post of the century- and I think the Marines are getting to the point where they will revolt in some fashion. They get sick of seeing their friends mangled and killed.
I knew you guys were going to spin this. No scruples whatsoever. What a bunch of pure bovine........
You know what he really means when he said troops might be used. It's very clear what he means and under what circumstances. You get 10 pages of butt slapping agreement about an imminent land invasion with boots on the ground and by tomorrow you'll be linking today's fantasy thread as tomorrows facts.
Absolutely no integrity whatsoever.
If you are speaking of Kerry and this administration, you are correct.
As you have such a deep understanding of the mind of Kerry (psychic or a spinmeister) please explain how you know that what he said is not really what he means?
They'll bomb military installations, but the more important point is they'll take out the airports and the airforce, so there's no delivery system for the WMD's. From what I understand so far, we're not going to go in and secure the WMDs themselves with boots on the ground--just make sure that neither Assad (or the rebels, if they win the civil war) have a way of using them on a mass scale.
Assad uses artillery and rockets to fire chemical weapons. These are small and maneuverable. The Syrian Air Force was used for conventional bombing so far.
Boots on the ground do not necessarily mean staying 20 years, unless you want to. It can be done in 3-6 months at most.
But I think it's preferable to stay out of it. We really don't need all this and regardless of the outcome, we'll not gain much.
If you are speaking of Kerry and this administration, you are correct.
As you have such a deep understanding of the mind of Kerry (psychic or a spinmeister) please explain how you know that what he said is not really what he means?
This should be good.....
Here's his exact quote:
“In the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies — and all of us, the British, the French and others to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements,” Kerry told lawmakers, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States to secure our country.”
Does this in any way support the premise of this partisan/Obama Hate thread, that Kerry is endorsing an invasion of Syria by US troops????? Also, Kerry will not back the president's options into a corner by some wet behind the ears congressman.
From your post, I gather you and your faction of Obama haters would be fine with military grade chemical weapons in the hands of AQ extremists?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
