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.
It's really about Benghazi. Those responsible are hiding in Syria.
We hired those responsible to guard our people. How stupid is that ?
al-Nusra is the faction we hired. On the terrorist list and the State Dept hired them anyway.
They are AQ.
There's a hellofa lot more going on then we can even imagine here.
No wonder Hillary ran when she could.
And it it's really all about Iran, then why hasn't Obama said it is? Why is he talking about dead civilians if there are really other reasons?
And exactly what is our beef with Iran? Their government isn't killing it's civilians. The Iranians have the government they want, they overthrew their Shah to get it.
These are tactical moves to gain a strategic advantage in a crucial regional conflict where American interests and our allies interests are at stake.
By the time congress comes back in 6 days they will know what's at stake here and vote accordingly.
That's all I have to say about it.
We hired those responsible to guard our people. How stupid is that ?
al-Nusra is the faction we hired. On the terrorist list and the State Dept hired them anyway.
They are AQ.
There's a hellofa lot more going on then we can even imagine here. No wonder Hillary ran when she could.
You're probably right about that. Keep from getting any blood on her pantsuit, running for president and all that.
There's no way 300 Marines are going to storm any beach. We will not let Iran get the upper hand in this conflict. Period.
Well that 300 was what I read yesterday..could be more by now and that was just one ship that has the 300 Marines.
Yesterday it was 200+ missiles and now it's over 900+ missiles.
Article said the Marines were there just to provide rescue support per the WH.
Why are liberals *for* going to war with Syria? Is it because the boy king wants it?
Go ahead a provide proof of "most liberals being for war with Syria"! YOU CAN'T! It's a feel good statement at best, flat out lie at worst... The American people including liberals are against another war in the ME. Politicians are the only ones pushing for intervention.
Go ahead a provide proof of "most liberals being for war with Syria"! YOU CAN'T! It's a feel good statement at best, flat out lie at worst... The American people including liberals are against another war in the ME. Politicians are the only ones pushing for intervention.
You see it doesn't matter what you think because you don't get a vote.
Pelosi is all for bombing and didn't even request that Congress vote on it.
Those are the liberals that matter..the ones in Congress.
You see it doesn't matter what you think because you don't get a vote.
Pelosi is all for bombing and didn't even request that Congress vote on it.
Those are the liberals that matter..the ones in Congress.
Well he should have specified congress instead of saying liberals in general... I don't think military action will pass congress. We will see very soon...
Good, bad, or indifferent it's time people on either side of the issue learn the difference between targeted strikes and a full scale boots on the ground invasion/occupation.
What is the purpose of "targeted strikes" that are announced in advance and obviously will do absolutely nothing to prevent future chemical attacks?
The only purpose of this proposed action is to make Obama look slightly less like a punk after he talked all that **** about crossing lines.
US credibility wouldn't be on the line if Obama knew how to shut the **** up!
I am not being sarcastic here. So-called Obamacare, for example, is almost a carbon copy of the health care reform plan Republican Richard Nixon floated in the early 1970s, before he was brought down in the Watergate scandal. In other words, Obamacare is basically a conservative Republican plan. Yet, today's conservatives denounce it as "socialist."
that may be, but you have to understand that nixon, ford, bush41, bush43 were NOT conservatives, they were in fact liberals. and in point of fact, obamas ideals are close to nixons ideals, the only real difference between the two is that obama has the mainstream media in his pocket and nixon didnt. so obamacare is NOT a conservative republican plan, it is a LIBERAL republican plan., and actually it has its roots much further back, closer to the 1900s with teddy roosevelt, FDR, and woodrow wilson, which means that in reality obamacare is a BIPARTISAN PROGRESSIVE plan. nice try but you FAIL.
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.
