A Case for Not Bombing Syria

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by jms62

He was for Not bombing Syria when it looked like we were going to Bomb Syria. Now that cooler heads prevail he is for bombing Syria. Really easy to follow as he is the Yang to Obama's Ying.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

He was for Not bombing Syria when it looked like we were going to Bomb Syria. Now that cooler heads prevail he is for bombing Syria. Really easy to follow as he is the Yang to Obama's Ying.

It's a textbook example of modern-day conservatism, which is the opposite of what liberals want, updated daily.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

DHS which never even existed 12 years ago, is the 2nd largest funded cabinet dept after DoD, costing us 60 billion dollars a year.

Sixty Thousand Million dollars.

A year.

For "Homeland Security".

Anyone else feel like they're getting their money's worth?

No.
it's ridiculous...and booming business for contractors. what gets me is when you read about millions of $ worth of equipment that is in storage, ordered but never installed for buildings, airports, etc.
then you have defense contractors who keep lucrative contracts because the senators in the states that have those contractors don't want to cut jobs. huge money involved in keeping us 'safe'. from terrorists....
more people die in a month from car accidents than have died in all the years from 9-11 to now, from terrorists.
then you have nsa et al spying on us....who are we staying safe from again?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Dell, I'm confused.... shouldnt you be happy that we are not bombing Syria at the moment?

it's not confusing.
whatever obama does is wrong. even if he decided to do the opposite of what was originally planned.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It's a textbook example of modern-day conservatism, which is the opposite of what liberals want, updated daily.

it's the same mindset as our foreign policy for decades. the ussr/russia is for it? then we're against it. oh, now they're against it. well, then we're for it. just like domestically, where obamacare was once a republican idea.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's the same mindset as our foreign policy for decades. the ussr/russia is for it? then we're against it. oh, now they're against it. well, then we're for it. just like domestically, where obamacare was once a republican idea.

"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."

Oh, Georgie O., you crazy Socialist, you.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Dell, I'm confused.... shouldnt you be happy that we are not bombing Syria at the moment?

I'm happy whether it be Putin or Congress or popular opinion that changed Obama-Cheney, I mean Obama-Kerry from bombing Syria. Also let the boots on the ground if needed to affirm all chem weapons are accounted for and destroyed be other than American troops.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not confusing.
whatever obama does is wrong. even if he decided to do the opposite of what was originally planned.
.

Except Obama, almost alone, was for bombing Syria before he was against it. (consistent)

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Except Obama, almost alone, was for bombing Syria before he was against it. (consistent)

Misdirection ploy...brilliant....now if Russia-Syria back out of the agreed upon disposal of chem weapons then we go back to bombing..

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Misdirection ploy...brilliant....now if Russia-Syria back out of the agreed upon disposal of chem weapons then we go back to bombing..

You realize the rebels include and may be controlled by al Qaida?

Yes or no w/o a cartoon, do you support bombing Assad?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You realize the rebels include and may be controlled by al Qaida?

Yes or no w/o a cartoon, do you support bombing Assad?

My understanding is he is not taking sides, just halt the use of chem weapons...why do we care?...not sure but inaction could embolden Assad and others...had a cartoon that would fit here but can't find the sucker..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."

Oh, Georgie O., you crazy Socialist, you.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

My understanding is he is not taking sides, just halt the use of chem weapons...why do we care?...not sure but inaction could embolden Assad and others...had a cartoon that would fit here but can't find the sucker..

I care if the chemical weapons were taken over by the rebels, especially if they are al-Qaida, the basis of this thread.

The President drew a line in the sand w/Assad not the rebels. The President wanted to bomb Syria, not me (don't know where 'I wanted to bomb' started) and luckily neither did the public and to a lessor extent, congress. Never thought I'd be in support of Putin, but think Obama should consider handing off the Nobel Peace Prize to him for now.

IMO It has served the President well distracting from the continuous rising costs of funding a plan that was promised to save money. Kind of like rust-proofing a rust-proof car saves money preventing rust.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It's a textbook example of modern-day conservatism, which is the opposite of what liberals want, updated daily.

I wouldnt say modern conservatism... But VOCAL conservatism. There are plently of us conservatives out there that want to see correct action and policy take place, not just benefiting a certain party.

Though I do consider myself a libertarian and not a republican. the libertarian party is the only actual conservative party out there.