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.
Did Obama come up with the solution to surrender the weapons or did he just threaten to bomb them? What would you say is the better of the two proposals?
He made the "red line" comment over a year ago. It wasn't until a couple weeks ago, after the latest and biggest attack, that the threats came. So far, no one has been bombed. What exactly is the problem here?
He made the "red line" comment over a year ago. It wasn't until a couple weeks ago, after the latest and biggest attack, that the threats came. So far, no one has been bombed. What exactly is the problem here?
The red line was stepped over in March.
But Obama ignored it.
Did Obama come up with the solution to surrender the weapons or did he just threaten to bomb them? What would you say is the better of the two proposals?
I just replied to your transparent attempt at a blame game.
RWNJ: "Obama should prove his commitment to bombing Syria by asking them for their weapons, instead of bombing Syria."
Like I said, I don't want to bomb Syria b/c I don't think we belong there, but this silly game of fake gotcha that's only possible by either being disingenuous or playing stupid is transparent.
I think it would be better than doing airstrikes. The only problem would be accounting for everything Syria has and making sure it is all rounded up. I'm betting the Syrians would rather give up their chemical weapons to avoid being bombed because if they can avoid being bombed, it would still give them an air advantage over the rebels.
We've seen amateur hour. It cost us 4500 lives in Iraq. How many American lives have we lost to Syria?
Why would this thread, which has absolutely nothing to do with George W. Bush, be any exception to this never ending standard from the Obomots?
Liberal/Obama Supporter Auto Response Protocol™
1. The source isn't valid
2. That's racist
3. GOP obstruction
4. But...but...but George W. Bush
5. Haters gonna hate
6. Repeat 1,2,3,4 and/or 5 as needed then insult the opposition for failing to support this great man, declare victory, and move on
God forbid we be against the use of WMD's especially on women and children, oh wait you are a rightie and support the right of Dictators to do whatever they want. Oh wait, don't you think Obama is a Dictator, oh my that could be a problem for you.
It's not a matter of being against the use of WMDs, it's about what can be realistically accomplished to stop their use. Punitive strikes againsts Syria would not stop them; chemical weapons can't be blown up without spreading them. The only realistic way to make it happen is to swoop in with a full military invasion and take direct control of the CW stockpiles. Of course, 1 thing leads to another and you can bet that's exactly where this is heading.
Meanwhile, MUCH bigger players like Russia and China clearly realize what is going on here. The Middle East is the last large source of easily accessable, high quality crude and he who controls it will effectively control the world for the next 50 years. The USA has nearly taken over already and is poised to take control of the last bastions of local opposition... Syria and Iran.
Either Russia and China will have to accept 2nd class world status or they will have to make a desperate bid to bring the top dog down at a time when the "Big Dog" is much weaker than she's been in the past 50 years. If they choose option #2 we will experience WW3 and it will be more horrible than any previous war in human history.
...And now Russia has the moral high ground. Of course the US was NEVER in this game for the innocent women and children; after all, the Syrian government and rebels have already killed over a hundred thousand (probably mostly innocent) people with conventional weapons while we stood by and did nothing (besides semi-covertly inciting the "Arab Spring" and accompanying civil wars in the first place, BTW).
America was simply waiting for the Sarin to fly before they fired up the war bandwagon because they knew it would scare people into jumping on. That bandwagon is going straight to hell, however.
On the other hand, if Russia were to lead a coalition to take the chemical weapons peacefully, we'd get a few more years of peace and maybe even some prosperity... and if you still want the rebels to win instead of Assad, make sure you look up videos of their atrocities too... not just the sickening "leaked" propaganda videos of gassed children. I especially "like" the one where the leader of the rebels cuts a heart out of one of Assad's soldiers and takes a bite out it. They are sick folks, both sides.
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.
