I say we nuke Syria until the sand is glass. Why? Well why not, we have nukes right? I mean, let's just stop faffing about. Obliterate them. I mean, they are both "evil". The rebels torture and behead POW's. The government gases its people. Let's just wipe them both off the map, and take out any civilians so that they don't get any ideas about rebuilding and taking over, potentially becoming a US enemy.
Makes about as much sense as what the **** they want to do now. It's yet another civil war the US wants to stick its nose into.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Syria
SyriaFollow
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
Well, we are already intervening in Syria by proxy. The question here is air support worh a more visible US presence.
Just as Planned.
Pawkeshup, Averter of the Apocalypse wrote:
I say we nuke Syria until the sand is glass. Why? Well why not, we have nukes right? I mean, let's just stop faffing about. Obliterate them. I mean, they are both "evil". The rebels torture and behead POW's. The government gases its people. Let's just wipe them both off the map, and take out any civilians so that they don't get any ideas about rebuilding and taking over, potentially becoming a US enemy.
Makes about as much sense as what the @#%^ they want to do now. It's yet another civil war the US wants to stick its nose into.
Makes about as much sense as what the @#%^ they want to do now. It's yet another civil war the US wants to stick its nose into.
This post is laced with interwaves of peace and tranquility.
Right at this very moment I'm hoping the House and the Senate will both vote down the Presidents Syrian War bid. This is a stronger possibility in the house than the senate.
If Congress fully rejected the proposal do you think the pres would still go forward with military strikes against the Assad regime (or should it be called the Syrian Government)?
Edited, Sep 9th 2013 2:53pm by Elinda
Right at this very moment I'm hoping the House and the Senate will both vote down the Presidents Syrian War bid. This is a stronger possibility in the house than the senate.
If Congress fully rejected the proposal do you think the pres would still go forward with military strikes against the Assad regime (or should it be called the Syrian Government)?
Edited, Sep 9th 2013 2:53pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
If they vote it down? Cruise missile strikes, no, "Diplomatic aid" to House Harkonen Saud? Absolutely.
Just as Planned.
Elinda wrote:
If Congress fully rejected the proposal do you think the pres would still go forward with military strikes against the Assad regime (or should it be called the Syrian Government)?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
RED LINES ARE FUN!
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
...eh, I don't know if I'd say it was "fun"...
...eh, I don't know if I'd say it was "fun"...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
_____________________________
...eh, I don't know if I'd say it was "fun"...
...eh, I don't know if I'd say it was "fun"...
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Those little white gaps were what we call "technicalities".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
You can't be a badass if you have technicalities, liberal.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
A dashed red line could present a loophole.
Did Obama explicitly state that the line was solid?
Did Obama explicitly state that the line was solid?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
So now they want to give the bad things to the Russians or something? Offering people a ways to save face and weasel out of doing stuff.
In the meantime we seem to be denying that it's an alternative, while at the same time trying to see if it's a way out of the craziness.
Should'a nuked them while we had the chance...
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 wrote:
CNN thingy[/link]]"We have the possibility of two things: that Russia might actually act decisively to rein Assad in, and also support the only viable policy to accomplish what Obama wants -- protecting the world from these vile weapons," Sullivan wrote Monday. "I have no idea whether this is a serious move by Lavrov -- but it sure seems so, and it presents a fascinating non-binary option. It would manage to bring Russia in to solving this problem, without its having to acquiesce to what Putin regards as American grand-standing. And it would surely have some traction at the UN. Sometimes, it seems, Kerry's incompetence strikes gold. Here's hoping."
In the meantime we seem to be denying that it's an alternative, while at the same time trying to see if it's a way out of the craziness.
Should'a nuked them while we had the chance...
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
Should'a nuked them while we had the chance...
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Should'a nuked them while we had the chance...
Well, looks like we'll have another chance.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Should'a nuked them while we had the chance...
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
I think Obama really does want this, much like if it was up to Cheney we would have bombed Syria & North Korea (The World According to **** Cheney was enlightening. I thought he was still the brains of the Bush administration during the 2nd term but boy, was I wrong. Thanks Condi for not allowing him to start WWIII!).
Odd thing is, the British & even the French also seem to want this too. I don't think it's going to happen though. Ideally, let's take the money we would have spent on lobbing some missiles at inconsequential targets & use it to take care of the 4+ million refugees. While perhaps a bit heartless, 1400 deaths is a drop in the bucket compared to the 100K+ that have already died. Sure, chemical weapons are nasty, but so are bunker busters, cluster bombs, & napalm.
Odd thing is, the British & even the French also seem to want this too. I don't think it's going to happen though. Ideally, let's take the money we would have spent on lobbing some missiles at inconsequential targets & use it to take care of the 4+ million refugees. While perhaps a bit heartless, 1400 deaths is a drop in the bucket compared to the 100K+ that have already died. Sure, chemical weapons are nasty, but so are bunker busters, cluster bombs, & napalm.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Omegavegeta wrote:
I think Obama really does want this, much like if it was up to Cheney we would have bombed Syria & North Korea (The World According to **** Cheney was enlightening. I thought he was still the brains of the Bush administration during the 2nd term but boy, was I wrong. Thanks Condi for not allowing him to start WWIII!).
Odd thing is, the British & even the French also seem to want this too. I don't think it's going to happen though. Ideally, let's take the money we would have spent on lobbing some missiles at inconsequential targets & use it to take care of the 4+ million refugees. While perhaps a bit heartless, 1400 deaths is a drop in the bucket compared to the 100K+ that have already died. Sure, chemical weapons are nasty, but so are bunker busters, cluster bombs, & napalm.
Odd thing is, the British & even the French also seem to want this too. I don't think it's going to happen though. Ideally, let's take the money we would have spent on lobbing some missiles at inconsequential targets & use it to take care of the 4+ million refugees. While perhaps a bit heartless, 1400 deaths is a drop in the bucket compared to the 100K+ that have already died. Sure, chemical weapons are nasty, but so are bunker busters, cluster bombs, & napalm.
Is it surprising? A chance to weaken Russia's influence in the Middle East and gain increased trade rights with Syria?
What, did you think the Cold War was over or something?
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Well, the UN seems game to the idea.
Russia doesn't want a US strike on Syria so they're likely to work with the rest of the Security Council on a UN-endorsed plan. Russia has already requested that UN inspectors be returned to Syria (though that has the secondary effect of delaying a potential strike -- not everyone thinks it's totally bad *** to bomb nations with UN inspectors roaming about).
Reuters wrote:
UNITED STATES: In a bid to help the UN Security Council overcome its ‘embarrassing paralysis’, the UN chief said today he may ask the council to demand that Syria move its chemical arms stocks to Syrian sites where they can be safely stored and destroyed.
Later this week or next week, the UN team of chemical weapons experts, led by Ake Sellstrom of Sweden, is expected to submit a report to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about its investigation of an August 21 chemical attack that the United States says killed over 1,400 people, many of them children.
“I have already been considering certain proposals that I could make to the Security Council when I present the investigation team’s report,†Ban said, adding that the international community would be obligated to act if the use of poison gas in Syria’s two-and-a-half-year civil war was confirmed.
“I’m considering urging the Security Council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed,†he said.
Later this week or next week, the UN team of chemical weapons experts, led by Ake Sellstrom of Sweden, is expected to submit a report to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about its investigation of an August 21 chemical attack that the United States says killed over 1,400 people, many of them children.
“I have already been considering certain proposals that I could make to the Security Council when I present the investigation team’s report,†Ban said, adding that the international community would be obligated to act if the use of poison gas in Syria’s two-and-a-half-year civil war was confirmed.
“I’m considering urging the Security Council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed,†he said.
Russia doesn't want a US strike on Syria so they're likely to work with the rest of the Security Council on a UN-endorsed plan. Russia has already requested that UN inspectors be returned to Syria (though that has the secondary effect of delaying a potential strike -- not everyone thinks it's totally bad *** to bomb nations with UN inspectors roaming about).
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
not everyone thinks it's totally bad *** to bomb nations with UN inspectors roaming about).
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
Russia doesn't want a US strike on Syria so they're likely to work with the rest of the Security Council on a UN-endorsed plan. Russia has already requested that UN inspectors be returned to Syria (though that has the secondary effect of delaying a potential strike -- not everyone thinks it's totally bad *** to bomb nations with UN inspectors roaming about).
Because then they'd totally use chemical weapons on the New York Times' building!
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
The admittedly embryonic plans that I've heard would have it be a Russian-led UN effort to remove the weapons but not simply Russia removing and being solely responsible for the weapons.
Although the only real difference there is being sure that the weapons are removed and accounted for. Not as though Russia can't make all the sarin themselves that they'd ever personally want. Off the cuff, I'd assume that Russia would want to be fairly diligent about it since discovery of more weapons in Syria (or another gas attack) would be a major embarrassment for Russia.
Although the only real difference there is being sure that the weapons are removed and accounted for. Not as though Russia can't make all the sarin themselves that they'd ever personally want. Off the cuff, I'd assume that Russia would want to be fairly diligent about it since discovery of more weapons in Syria (or another gas attack) would be a major embarrassment for Russia.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
If nothing else it's nice to be discussing a plan that doesn't involve us killing more people.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Besides blowing them up?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
That sounds like the perfect solution, blow them up. We put them all in a big blimp and have giant fans blow them high in the sky. Hopefully when the thing runs out of helium they'll land in some far off country and be someone else's problem. 
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Recent Visitors: 376
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (376)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Syria
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC