What did you hear McCain and graham say?

[Katzndogz]

In June the expected force was against the terrorists that had the sarin. Not against Assad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If this works right, Syria and Iran both get a bloody nose, one physically the other morally.

You far righties and libertarians have to stop supporting Assad, the Baathists, Putin, Russia, and Iran.

first they would
1. have to actually be far right
2. start supporting Assad etc

Reactionary fumbling about hides nothing about them.

By the end of the year, the far right will be in absolute shambles, thank heavens.

And the isolationist libertarians will be in the same hole with the reacs.

 

[Locke11_21]

Darkwind, that is why the cruise missiles.

Yes, you are able to learn. Good for you.

Cruise Missiles to bomb and kill Syrians to punish Assad for killing Syrians.

Only libs could come up with this. You're freaking whacked out.

I have to keep remembering how you and your President embrace drone assassinations on a regular basis.

You really a blood thirsty lot.

Syrian children, TinyDancer. I am not concerned at all about far right logic, for there is little of that on the board and most of it scrambled

If you support Syria or "neutrality", then you supporting killing kids.

TinyDancer has done a great job of kicking your ass Jake.


So, Jake "The Fake", how about this, if you are so concenrned with what's going on in Syria, how about backing the talk your big mouth is bloviating. Take a flight to Syria and join the Syrian rebels in their so-called plight. You can take your fellow war whores - McCain, Graham, Kerry and Obama with you.

You keep directing all these labels at people who don't want to take action in Syria. In a Rueters poll, 91% of Americans don't want to get involved in Syria. You can call everyone else from the left to the right all the names you want, exploit children all you want, but you are in the 9% which makes you an extremist.

 

[FA_Q2]

I heard "sustained attack to degrade" Assad...and major effort to upgrade opposition.

whoever votes to have war with syria should be arrested for treason.

the syrian enemy is aq, harming syria aides and comforts aq

that's treason

Nonsense.

There’ll be no vote to authorize ‘war,’ that’s not what the president is seeking.

If anyone’s advocating war, it’s republicans, conservatives, and others on the right consistent with neo-con warmongering foreign policy, the proof of that are the statements made by McCain, Graham, and other Congressional republicans.

And those on the right who do oppose attacking Syria do so in opposition to Obama, not the proposed policy.

And here we see the absolute depravity of Obama supporters. In order to evade the fact that they are not the ones supporting a war because of WMD and have spent the last decade bemoaning the last president to do so as the worst in all of Americas history he tries to REDEFINE the term.

It IS war you partisan hack. There is absolutely NO other way to cut it. When you bomb countries and kill people, you are in a WAR.

Of course, we have Jake right behind him trying to do the same thing as any good Obamabot would do:

Nonsense.

There’ll be no vote to authorize ‘war,’ that’s not what the president is seeking.

If anyone’s advocating war, it’s republicans, conservatives, and others on the right consistent with neo-con warmongering foreign policy, the proof of that are the statements made by McCain, Graham, and other Congressional republicans.

And those on the right who do oppose attacking Syria do so in opposition to Obama, not the proposed policy.

I will bet that more Democrats vote to go to "war" than Republicans in the House and the Senate.

I don't know what your definition of "war" is, but bombing a country with several hundred cruise missiles and blowing their stuff up fits my definition.

You have no idea what war is, then. Thank goodness for you.

This is a good approach to a bad situation.

Those who are backing Assad, the Baathists, the communists, are also backing Iran, I hope they understand.

Idiots, all around. How you square the doublethink that Iraq was such a horrible thing to do but now Syria, guilty of the same shit as Iraq but without real evidence, is beyond me.

Then you use children to justify yourself – sickening. You do realize that if we get into this war WE are going to kill children. That is what war is about – killing – and you ONLY get into it in the direst of circumstances. Those like you and clay though just want to bomb shit whenever you want. Why not?

You are lucky as hell that you have had the fortune to be born here where you will never have to worry about being on the receiving end of such attacks. The reality is horrific.

 

[Geaux4it]

Breaking News Reuters

Russia says ballistic 'objects' fired in Mediterranean

Russia says ballistic 'objects' fired in Mediterranean | Reuters

(Reuters) - Russian radar detected the launch of two ballistic "objects" towards the eastern Mediterranean from the central part of the sea on Tuesday, Russian news agencies quoted the Defence Ministry as saying.

Interfax news agency quoted a ministry spokesman as saying the launch was detected at 10:16 am Moscow time (2.16 a.m. ET) by an early warning radar station at Armavir, near the Black Sea, which is designed to detect missiles from Europe and Iran.

The agencies did not say who had carried out the launch and whether any impact had been detected. The ministry declined comment to Reuters.

Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu had informed President Vladimir Putin of the launch.

"The trajectory of these objects goes from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea toward the eastern part of the Mediterranean coast," Interfax quoted the spokesman as saying.

A ministry official had earlier criticized the United States for deploying warships in the Mediterranean close to Syria.

 

[The Rabbi]

In June the expected force was against the terrorists that had the sarin. Not against Assad.

Link?
Obama has been criticised for not supporting the rebels against Assad ever since this broke out.

 

[Redfish]

In June the expected force was against the terrorists that had the sarin. Not against Assad.

Link?
Obama has been criticised for not supporting the rebels against Assad ever since this broke out.

we supported the "rebels" in egypt and look what that got us. Syria's civil war is none of our damn business. It is not worth one american life or one american dollar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ballistic missiles were Israeli, hey.

Missile strikes are not invasion, such as Iraq.

The libertarian isolationists are wrong on their definitions.

 

[Redfish]

The ballistic missiles were Israeli, hey.

Missile strikes are not invasion, such as Iraq.

The libertarian isolationists are wrong on their definitions.

Was 9/11 an invasion of US territory? are planes not just missiles with people on board?

 

[The Rabbi]

In June the expected force was against the terrorists that had the sarin. Not against Assad.

Link?
Obama has been criticised for not supporting the rebels against Assad ever since this broke out.

we supported the "rebels" in egypt and look what that got us. Syria's civil war is none of our damn business. It is not worth one american life or one american dollar.

We supported the Muslim Brotherhood. More accurately we opposed the old regime and the MB was the best organized group among many. Had we had more involvement we could have swayed the course of events.
What happens in Syria will effect the rest of the ME, which is in our strategic interest. Isolationists are so parochial.

 

[The Rabbi]

The ballistic missiles were Israeli, hey.

Missile strikes are not invasion, such as Iraq.

The libertarian isolationists are wrong on their definitions.

Was 9/11 an invasion of US territory? are planes not just missiles with people on board?

So planes are missiles? What are you smoking?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can misdefines military terms all you want, Redfish; no one cares.

Congress is not listening to your worries about definitions.

 

[Redfish]

The ballistic missiles were Israeli, hey.

Missile strikes are not invasion, such as Iraq.

The libertarian isolationists are wrong on their definitions.

Was 9/11 an invasion of US territory? are planes not just missiles with people on board?

So planes are missiles? What are you smoking?

they have the same affect, the only difference is one is guided from the ground and the other is guided by a pilot on board.

but thats not the point. Was 9/11 not an invasion of US territory by a hostile force?

Would we be invading syria if we hit them with missiles and destroyed their territory and killed civilians?

If the Russians or Iranians shot missiles into Israel would not we and the israelis consider that an invasion?

an invasion does not require boots on the ground. If we attack Syria we will be an invasion army, just as the chinese would be an invasion army is the shot missiles onto Taiwan.

 

[Redfish]

Link?
Obama has been criticised for not supporting the rebels against Assad ever since this broke out.

we supported the "rebels" in egypt and look what that got us. Syria's civil war is none of our damn business. It is not worth one american life or one american dollar.

We supported the Muslim Brotherhood. More accurately we opposed the old regime and the MB was the best organized group among many. Had we had more involvement we could have swayed the course of events.
What happens in Syria will effect the rest of the ME, which is in our strategic interest. Isolationists are so parochial.

Why is it the role of the USA to decide who runs other countries? What gives us the right to interfere in a civil war?

If you think that is our role in the world, why did we do nothing when thousands were being killed in Sudan and Congo?

 

[Katzndogz]

People are putting too much emphasis on our ability to use force or declare war. An attack, of whatever kind, does not happen in a vacuum. We are not bombing dolphin pods. An attack, declared as war or not, can absolutely be declared an act of war by the country we attacked. Now we are at war with that country and its allies,

 

[The Rabbi]

we supported the "rebels" in egypt and look what that got us. Syria's civil war is none of our damn business. It is not worth one american life or one american dollar.

We supported the Muslim Brotherhood. More accurately we opposed the old regime and the MB was the best organized group among many. Had we had more involvement we could have swayed the course of events.
What happens in Syria will effect the rest of the ME, which is in our strategic interest. Isolationists are so parochial.

Why is it the role of the USA to decide who runs other countries? What gives us the right to interfere in a civil war?

If you think that is our role in the world, why did we do nothing when thousands were being killed in Sudan and Congo?

It is our role because we have strategic interests in assuring certain outcomes. Post-Soviet Afghanistan should have been a good lesson in that.

 

[bendog]

We supported the Muslim Brotherhood. More accurately we opposed the old regime and the MB was the best organized group among many. Had we had more involvement we could have swayed the course of events.
What happens in Syria will effect the rest of the ME, which is in our strategic interest. Isolationists are so parochial.

Why is it the role of the USA to decide who runs other countries? What gives us the right to interfere in a civil war?

If you think that is our role in the world, why did we do nothing when thousands were being killed in Sudan and Congo?

It is our role because we have strategic interests in assuring certain outcomes. Post-Soviet Afghanistan should have been a good lesson in that.

Absolutely, Reagan's policies were proven enormously successful.

 

[Vel]

The ballistic missiles were Israeli, hey.

Missile strikes are not invasion, such as Iraq.

The libertarian isolationists are wrong on their definitions.

So, because they didn't put boots on the ground then we can say, by YOUR logic, that Japan did NOT commit an act of war on the USA in bombing the naval base at Pearl Harbor? Is this what you're saying?

 

[JakeStarkey]

By logic, missiles are not invasions as you are suggesting, Vel.

PH was not an invasion.

A missile strike would be an act of war, of course, which the President can do by the Constitution. It is smart he has called in Congress, so they have to put their cards face up on the table.

 

[TooTall]

Nonsense.

There’ll be no vote to authorize ‘war,’ that’s not what the president is seeking.

If anyone’s advocating war, it’s republicans, conservatives, and others on the right consistent with neo-con warmongering foreign policy, the proof of that are the statements made by McCain, Graham, and other Congressional republicans.

And those on the right who do oppose attacking Syria do so in opposition to Obama, not the proposed policy.

I will bet that more Democrats vote to go to "war" than Republicans in the House and the Senate.

I don't know what your definition of "war" is, but bombing a country with several hundred cruise missiles and blowing their stuff up fits my definition.

You have no idea what war is, then. Thank goodness for you.

This is a good approach to a bad situation.

Those who are backing Assad, the Baathists, the communists, are also backing Iran, I hope they understand.

I know that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor it was an act of war. Is that good enough for you?