What's new
By:

Will there be American invasion in Syria?

Stoked said:
McCain and Graham in the Senate are on board. Boehner in the House is on board. That is some heavy hitters on the republican side. They will sway some votes. So much for that theory.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

How often have you seen Boehner want one thing only to see his house buddies do exactly the opposite? It's because of this that many have advocated a new speaker for a while now.

I think the senate is a lost cause. They will go with it. The House is a completely different matter. So many Tea Party repubs that don't give a damn about Boehner and are pinned 100 % against anything Obama wants. Why would they suddenly break step especially since this war is so overwhelmingly unpopular by the majority of Americans? If anything, this is an opportunity to give the finger to Obama while trying to salvage their pathetic tea party reputation among mainstream America. It's a 2 for 1. Get a dig at Obama while scoring points with Americans.
 
The only thing I can see changing the republicans minds is when the realize that syrians aren't as dark as they thought they were.

Standard Gop house response
"I 'as fer it befer cause I thought they as all brownies, some of them syriers are perty dern white."
 
I don't have a problem invading or attacking another country as long as we have good intel, and are clear about why we are going in.

Basically everything Iraq wasn't.
 
Stoked said:
Names that have been listed as supporting a strike on SYria:

Reid
Pelosi
Beohner
McCain
Feinstein
Cantor
Graham

Looks like leadership on both sides are gettign behind the President. What are thinking?!?!
Click to expand...

Seeing that list makes me side against it, and frankly almost anything they would all side with

Sent from my SGH-T679 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Revolution 9 said:
I don't have a problem invading or attacking another country as long as we have good intel, and are clear about why we are going in.

Basically everything Iraq wasn't.
Click to expand...

For me I would all depend on the why. Beyond the good intel and objectives of course.
 
Revolution 9 said:
I don't have a problem invading or attacking another country as long as we have good intel, and are clear about why we are going in.

Basically everything Iraq wasn't.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with it. We need a President who can think of ways to take out criminal heads of state other than bombing their country, killing a whole bunch of civilians and leaving their military apparatus in shambles.

I think if we can figure out a way to cut the head off the chicken then we may very well find their successors to be surprisingly more compliant.
 
heyhey said:
Yep and we sent the CIA back in time to write the Koran. After that we sent them back in time again to divide the Islamic people into different sects and get them at each others throats. Then Aliens showed us how
Yep and we sent the CIA back in time to write the Koran. After that we sent them back in time again to divide the Islamic people into different sects and get them at each others throats. Then Aliens showed us how to turn their land into desert so we went back in time again to do that. Then we made a giant gummi bear that we used to try and catch us a magic whale so that he would grant us a wish and we could become the most powerful nation in the world.

Then the Jews sent their secret service back in time to start the Holocaust and when John Lennon found a memo proving all of this to be true they shot him.
Click to expand...

Some Mormons might make the connection to "Babylon" as the symbol of Satan's dominions. Certainly the medieval Christians thought their glorious crusades to take back the Holy Land were in the Service of God, somehow. It's pretty much a Biblical saga about how the Israelites were taken into captivity, and probably as far back as Abraham there was some kind of issue about Esau and Jacob.

But I'm not really getting into all that. My "Regional War" comment is still just the thinking of some important movers and shakers. I could put it into a Machiavellian scheme perhaps, but at this point it's more of "Bowery War", with people like George Bush sitting in some swank five star hotel drinking with the Princes of the Arab kingdoms who all just know there are too many little people for them to manage unless they can thin the herd a little.

So what if they gave a war, and just nobody came?
 
Stoked said:
Names that have been listed as supporting a strike on SYria:

Reid
Pelosi
Beohner
McCain
Feinstein
Cantor
Graham

Looks like leadership on both sides are gettign behind the President. What are thinking?!?!
Click to expand...

Eww!

This war has stink all over it, and gets me thinking that grand old conspiracy has some merit.

Nobody wants this war.

How can we justify spending millions on war machines when there's so much suffering at home?

War Powers Resolution Act forbids it, which is why Obama was selling that b.s. "future threat" that somebody somewhere in space-time might also gas Americans nonsense... Obama lied, people died.

The only redeeming feature here is Americans are slowly going back toward that pre-WWII isolationism.
 
franklin said:
Eww!

This war has stink all over it, and gets me thinking that grand old conspiracy has some merit.

Nobody wants this war.

How can we justify spending millions on war machines when there's so much suffering at home?

War Powers Resolution Act forbids it, which is why Obama was selling that b.s. "future threat" that somebody somewhere in space-time might also gas Americans nonsense... Obama lied, people died.

The only redeeming feature here is Americans are slowly going back toward that pre-WWII isolationism.
Click to expand...

For a second I thought the overwhelming opposition to involvement on the part of the American people would help to prevent military action. Now there is bi-partisan support for military action amongst all the biggest players in Washington. WTF? If they get involved I hope the political repercussions are enormous. WE DON'T WANT THIS!
 
Gameface said:
For a second I thought the overwhelming opposition to involvement on the part of the American people would help to prevent military action. Now there is bi-partisan support for military action amongst all the biggest players in Washington. WTF? If they get involved I hope the political repercussions are enormous. WE DON'T WANT THIS!
Click to expand...

91% of the american people are against action in Syria right now. That falls to a measly 74% if congress approves it.

Of course they will act.

Insane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top