- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,169
- Reaction score
- 22,317
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
"I assure you nobody ends up being more war-weary than me," Obama said, adding that he was not considering any option that would entail "boots on the ground" or a long-term campaign. Instead, Obama said, he and his top military and security aides were looking at a "limited, narrow act" to ensure that Syria and others know the United States and its allies won't tolerate future similar future violations.
'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com
Thoughts? Questions? Invitations to dinner?[/FONT][/COLOR]
I think that anybody who uses the term "boots on the ground" needs to be sent to Syria to be gassed. That is an incredibly dehumanizing term. Our military troops are people, human beings.
I voted for Obama twice. Thank God he can't run for a third term. :moody
When will you just accept that some things need to be done. How many repubs and dems will need to do the same thing before you think "hey, maybe I'm wrong".
Drawing more lines in the sand. LOL. 5th grade stuff and he's the President.
He's turned us into the laughing stock of the world.
I agree with your assessment on being the world's policeman but I see nothing wrong with an air strike to remove chemical weapons. :shrug:Excuse me?? Hmm, maybe you missed the half dozen times I've said this PLUS the hello post I made in the come say hi section:
WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICEMAN!!
It is NOT our job to go fix everyone elses woes through the use of military force. People need to deal with their own issues, that's the only way it will be resolved with any possibility of stable success. In case you missed it again...we are not the world's policeman.
The only thing I support is humanitarian aid, refugee sanctuary, and diplomatic options that do not involve military intervention. Period!
'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com
Thoughts? Questions? Invitations to dinner?[/FONT][/COLOR]
I agree with your assessment on being the world's policeman but I see nothing wrong with an air strike to remove chemical weapons. :shrug:
I agree with your assessment on being the world's policeman but I see nothing wrong with an air strike to remove chemical weapons. :shrug:
Drawing more lines in the sand. LOL. 5th grade stuff and he's the President.
He's turned us into the laughing stock of the world.
I voted for Obama twice. Thank God he can't run for a third term. :moody
I agree with your assessment on being the world's policeman but I see nothing wrong with an air strike to remove chemical weapons. :shrug:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....
He didn't fool me the first time. He was the best candidate and had the most promise. His own party screwed him dithering that first year when he controlled both houses of Congress. The second term? Mitt Romney was an idiot.
He didn't fool me the first time. He was the best candidate and had the most promise. His own party screwed him dithering that first year when he controlled both houses of Congress. The second term? Mitt Romney was an idiot.
Well mac: first and foremost I personally believe that it can't get any worse than what the civilians are putting up with now regardless.Other than explosions tend to disperse the chemicals?
That’s why Pentagon officials suggest that any U.S. and allied military strike against Syria will tilt toward military, and command and control, targets —including artillery and missile units that could be used to launch chemical weapons — instead of the bunkers believed to contain them.
Excuse me?? Hmm, maybe you missed the half dozen times I've said this PLUS the hello post I made in the come say hi section:
WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICEMAN!!
It is NOT our job to go fix everyone elses woes through the use of military force. People need to deal with their own issues, that's the only way it will be resolved with any possibility of stable success. In case you missed it again...we are not the world's policeman.
The only thing I support is humanitarian aid, refugee sanctuary, and diplomatic options that do not involve military intervention. Period!
It's a commonly used phrase in the military itself. Get a ****ing grip. Why don't you take up your quibble with Martin Dempsey while you're at it?I think that anybody who uses the term "boots on the ground" needs to be sent to Syria to be gassed. That is an incredibly dehumanizing term. Our military troops are people, human beings.
During a House Armed Services hearing, Dempsey was asked whether the United States could send troops to Syria for a possible peacekeeping mission.
"At this point in time, congressman, a decision is that we will not have any boots on the ground and that that we will not act unilaterally in that part of the world," Dempsey said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?