Crackerjaxon
Senior Member
- Nov 12, 2012
- 2,375
- 274
- 48
I dont see the connection. Did you progressives not know Rand is a Paul? they are Famous for the sticking your head in the sand world view. So his standing against any strike in Syria is a given. He happens to be right on this one. There is nothing to be gained. Hell Even Obama knows this thus his backtracking and lying about about what he said. I very seldom EVER agree with a Paul on anything not economics but I do here. Obama has made us look weak and stupid and bombing for bombing sakes will make it worse.
<sigh> Another neocon heard from. Rattle the saber and grab the oil, all the while waxing self-righteous.
I'm glad their time is coming to an end.
Da--Duh--there is no Oil in Syria--And for that matter "What Oil have we grabbed in the last 60 years?" Albeit--we should have grabbed it.
![]()
And along with that--61% of the American public agree with Rand Paul--and no strike on Syria. In that 61% it is major bi-partisan group--the right--the left--and the middle of this country.
We are sick and tired of being the world police--while every other country sits back and lets us spill our blood and pay for it with our treasure.
You're the loner on this one--![]()
Duh, my post was in support of Rand Paul, you moron. I was merely pointing out your idiotic neocon sympathies -- " sticking your head in the sand." Are you actually simple enough to believe that Syria is the end game in the war for oil? As soon as this fiasco is over, the neocons will be right back saber rattling and sticking their collective nose in MIddle East business.
"I very seldom EVER agree with a Paul on anything..."
Obviously.
As for what oil we have grabbed, just take a look at who controls the flow of oil in the Middle East and why. Must everything be explained to you?
Last edited: