FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Yep ... when military action is being considered, one thing that we really should take into account is whether the President has had a chance yet to "put his stamp" on foreign policy ... because if he hasn't, that really does tip the balance in favor of the action.

 

Do we have any real evidence, beyond the Liar-in-Chief's word about reports that we can't verify as true, that Assad's regime really fired those missiles?

 

Then why, besides risking of pissing off the rest of the non-Israeli Mideast, didn't we go for a regime change in Iraq in '91 if he was such a bad guy?

 

Ask the fucking UN, asshole.

 

You forgot that Syria, unlike Iraq, did not put out an assassination order of a former US president. It was serious enough that Clinton launched missiles into Iraq in 1993.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

 

Let's see:

Poland and Czech Republic aren't exactly in danger of going to war with anyone.

You do also realize that we have enough nukes to destroy the whole world, multiple times over, don't you? Cutting back on them ain't exactly leaving us at that much risk. Besides, as much of an asshole Putin is, he's not threatening to bury us if we don't adopt Communism.

We knew going in that Afghanistan was going to be a mess. Even Bush, as much that I disagree with him on nearly everything, admitted it would be so when we started. The surge was designed to settle things down, then once it did, relatively speaking for Afghanistan, Obama listened to the public and announced the withdrawal. The public was tired of war, getting rid of OBL not withstanding. If there wasn't a withdrawal, the screechers would be complaning he was ignoring the will of the public. Make up your minds.

Mubarak dug his own grave and we supported the democratic movement. It's not Obama's fault that the Muslim Brotherhood was elected.

Israel has offered in the past to give up territory, including at one point, giving Arafat 95 percent of what he wanted. They were rejected. Maybe those countries should stop whining about the territory they lost when they attacked another country.

And what would you have wanted him to do in Iran, send in troops? Look at the fuss now over WMDs in Syria. You want to send in troops because you don't like the results of an election.

He didn't lie about Benghazi, they got the talking points wrong. Unlike Bush in Iraq, he only had a couple of days to find out what happened and got it wrong. This is the same argument the righties use about Bush and Iraq. Bush didn't lie, he just got his facts wrong, right? And by the way, whatever happened to Benghazi being an impeachable offense. Oh, I know, just like the IRS scandal, once the real facts came out, it made the Republicans look like a bunch of idiots.

That about sum it up for ya?

 

I ask this in all seriousness. Are you on any meds?

Because it sure seems like most of the board Cons, even though we disagree, can at least have some sort of discussion without the useless namecalling.

]

 

I just have a very low tolerance for liberal trash idiots.

 

Wasn't there some speculation that Iraq shipped its WMDs to Syria?

 

Absolutely.

 

Yes, it absolutely sums it up for me...and reinforces 100-percent my thoughts on the way you view the world. I bet you would vote for Obama again if given the chance, right?

 

Regardless, at least he is here discussing and defending his world view...regardless of how twisted it is ;D