Very Political

[akaTrex]

Because they knew that O was a pussy. Another line would have been drawn in the sand and nothing would have been done. Especially with the rules of engagement that his administration put forth on any military action.

hc-obama-red-line-syria-chemical-warfare-20130-001.jpg

[akaTrex]

One of the negatives of the missile attack is that it will encourage radicals to join the terrorist groups.

When I was in Israel I got a valuable education from a Palestinian taxi driver.
He said you Americans do not understand the Arab psychology.

If you negotiate your a Pussy. But if you Kick their Ass they will respect you.

[not2big]

When I was in Israel I got a valuable education from a Palestinian taxi driver.
He said you Americans do not understand the Arab psychology.

If you negotiate your a Pussy. But if you Kick their Ass they will respect you.

I agree. However, Like it or not, the quote I made about encouraging radicals joining terrorists groups was simply a statement of fact. Not my position on the situation.

[closed224]

And if you kill them no more worries.

[akaTrex]

I agree. However, Like it or not, the quote I made about encouraging radicals joining terrorists groups was simply a statement of fact. Not my position on the situation.

Radicals are F-ing Nut Jobs and will/would Join a Radical Nut Job Organization weather it be the IRA, the SLA or ISIS.

Nothing that a U.S. Hero with a 50 Cal or An ID10T ISIS . . . will not solve!

<Video Removed>

[Clockwork0]

Because they knew that O was a pussy. Another line would have been drawn in the sand and nothing would have been done. Especially with the rules of engagement that his administration put forth on any military action.

Consider a few things when you call Obama a pussy. Both parties Democrats and Republicans wanted and put immense pressure on Obama to strike Assad in 2013. All the warmongers in DC wanted military action against Syria too. Consider at his fingertips he has the world most powerful military, really it takes no strength to use them any weakling with the authority can order a strike. Despite all that Obama stood firm with great conviction and took a diplomatic way to solve the issue. That took great courage and imo that is arguably Obama best moment as a president.

All the praise you guys and the media are giving Trump, all he did was "something" just for the sake of doing so. What is the long term goal? What is the intended action supposed to accomplish? Despite 60 Tomahawks missiles that same Airfield is operational and even if it did destroy that base Assad still has the capability to use chemical weapons.

Hillary Clinton said before Trump bombed the airfield, that she would destroy all of Assad airfields. So there you using some of your logics Clinton>>>>>>Trump.

[WalkThePlank]

Hillary Clinton said before Trump bombed the airfield, that she would destroy all of Assad airfields. So there you using some of your logics Clinton>>>>>>Trump.

This is exactly what's so wrong about Trump's strike. Hilary was the one who ran on the John McCain "bomb everything that moves" platform. Trump said he was going to keep us out of these messes. And yet, here we are. Trump is now starting wars in the middle east over things that do not affect the US.

I voted for Obama, and while I didn't like some of the things he did; on measure, I approved more than I disapproved. I gave him a lot of slack, because I felt that he earned it early on. Trump is burning through my goodwill a whole lot faster. I didn't vote for him to be Hilary Clinton without the restraint.

I'd say the reason Obama never struck back at Assad is because Assad never used chemical weapons. I think Obama was smart enough not to trust the same CIA that lied us into a war in Iraq. Trump is apparently not as street smart as Obama. He's being led around by the nose by neocons.

[akaTrex]

I agree. However, Like it or not, the quote I made about encouraging radicals joining terrorists groups was simply a statement of fact. Not my position on the situation.

Prove It!

[WIItard]

I have a different point of view.

I would do nothing in Syria. You can't tell who is the "Good Guys". In fact most of the middle east I would stay out of. I like BO's stand on that.

First reason is let them kill each other until they become weak war lord types or a strongman takes over. Once you have a strongman in charge deal with him, if friendly leave him alone, if hostile take him out and his forces. Biggest problem in the middle east is someone needs to be in charge or chaos takes over. Complete third world chaos.

Basic Roman stuff there.

Second is some of these places need to fight it out until they redraw their national lines. Iraq should be three countries, the Kurds should be given back their land and Turkey should be force to give back the Kurds their useless land. That would stabilize that area. Keep unfolding the post WW2 borders until you get stable ethnic countries then deal with them.

Do I think that will bring US friendly people into power? No not really but it will bring in stable governments that the populations care about. Iran is pretty well run they just don't do what the west wants them to do. Reform will come in that country since they have a young average age and the normal Iranian isn't a radical. Sure they want to build a nuclear bomb, why wouldn't you if you had to worry about the US and it's allies attacking you?

Etc. etc.

[BigRooster]

17799120_1790340031281063_6887351197054326449_n.jpg