Pullag poll: Should the US intervene in Syria?

TotalSnafu said:
Yes, i think we should destroy or at least severly diminish Assad's capacity to conduct chemical attacks. Let the rebels sort it out from there....buuuut who the fuck are these rebels? There are so many different groups. And the most effective amomgst them are those barbarian jihadists! I could probably make a strong case for limited intervention just to stamp put and burn out the islamists. They are the threat that threatens us and Syria's neighbors, not Assad. We can (and for a long time have) wheeled and dealed with dictators. There is no negotiation with Islamists. Ideology that rigid doesnt bend to the norms of self-preservation or show any respect for our common humanity. It can only break. Which is the case I make. Stomp out the al-nusra and al-quaeda groups before they get a foothold like they have in Iraq. Even if Assad does eventually kill enpugh of his owm people to win, better him then another rogue state.
Click to expand...

You're just a fucking puppy. hush now, go back to playing Call of Duty
 
Teh Fux?

are you dimwits really arguing about whether our ALREADY OVERSTRETCHED military should be pushed into another endless engagement in Sandland?

shit, this time they didnt even take a poke at the US, they are just beating the living shit out of their fellow Sandlandians.

we have not been attacked by syria (lately), we have no treaty obligations at stake, assad has spent most of his time fucking over his own people, and thus, i say, carry on assad, do your thing.

Non-Intervention:
Worst Case Scenario: assad gasses a whole shitload of his own durkha durkhas, and nothing much changes.

Best Case Scenario: assad gasses a shitload of durkha durkhas, they rise up and overthrow his ass, he is hung with piano wire, and they select a new asshole to start the oppression all over again and we get 10 years of quiet from those turds while they clean house for the new regime

Intervention:
Worst Case Scenario: we wind up footing the bill in blood and treasure for YET ANOTHER nationbuilding circle jerk, and we are committed to 20 fucking years in ANOTHER country thats little more than a kitty litter box, but this one has operational chemical weapons, and the ability to use them against our troops.

Best Case Scenario: obama displays a heretofore unsuspected streak of pragmatism, and charges the Joint Chiefs with the following mission: "Do it Roman Style, go in, stomp them flat with overwhelming force, level their cities and towns, and then ride away with a warning, "Do Not Make Us Come Back", ignore the bleeding hearts, and the whining cries of the press, just spank those assholes and bug out."

all in all, i dont trust obama to lead a fishing trip,, much less a military adventure, so i say Non Intervention, It's WIN-WIN!!
 
Dr Kynes said:
Teh Fux?

are you dimwits really arguing about whether our ALREADY OVERSTRETCHED military should be pushed into another endless engagement in Sandland?

shit, this time they didnt even take a poke at the US, they are just beating the living shit out of their fellow Sandlandians.

we have not been attacked by syria (lately), we have no treaty obligations at stake, assad has spent most of his time fucking over his own people, and thus, i say, carry on assad, do your thing.

Non-Intervention:
Worst Case Scenario: assad gasses a whole shitload of his own durkha durkhas, and nothing much changes.

Best Case Scenario: assad gasses a shitload of durkha durkhas, they rise up and overthrow his ass, he is hung with piano wire, and they select a new asshole to start the oppression all over again and we get 10 years of quiet from those turds while they clean house for the new regime

Intervention:
Worst Case Scenario: we wind up footing the bill in blood and treasure for YET ANOTHER nationbuilding circle jerk, and we are committed to 20 fucking years in ANOTHER country thats little more than a kitty litter box, but this one has operational chemical weapons, and the ability to use them against our troops.

Best Case Scenario: obama displays a heretofore unsuspected streak of pragmatism, and charges the Joint Chiefs with the following mission: "Do it Roman Style, go in, stomp them flat with overwhelming force, level their cities and towns, and then ride away with a warning, "Do Not Make Us Come Back", ignore the bleeding hearts, and the whining cries of the press, just spank those assholes and bug out."

all in all, i dont trust obama to lead a fishing trip,, much less a military adventure, so i say Non Intervention, It's WIN-WIN!!
Click to expand...
I agree with all except the part about Assad.

Assad is the one who keeps the crazy Sunni Musselmen in line, most of the people he's killed arnt even Syrians, they're Al Queda (and umbrella groups) not even from Syria.

Plus, Egypt should be the prime example of what happens when these dictators are overthrown.
 
Harrekin said:
I agree with all except the part about Assad.

Assad is the one who keeps the crazy Sunni Musselmen in line, most of the people he's killed arnt even Syrians, they're Al Queda (and umbrella groups) not even from Syria.

Plus, Egypt should be the prime example of what happens when these dictators are overthrown.
Click to expand...

Hussein kept them in line. Now look at the country.
As to Egypt. The brotherhood is going to have to go back underground, as the Egpytian military like that of Turkey doesnt placate religous Nut jobs.
 
Always start with the Thread Title. Sniff for Sophistry....hmmm. Why yes. Yes there is.

Intervention: (I had to grab this one for the example sentence)

So, it is the last meaning we are debating in the USA. Mass killing is an addiction. We know this. It will spread in area and toll. We will intervene, like Tony Soprano Intervened Christorpher....by kicking the shit out him....only. And then tossed him into Re-Hab, with inspectors and an executioner. Keep Assad close to the kill, like we did Sadam.

We all remember it was two gulf wars, right?


in·ter·ven·tion
ˌintərˈvenCHən/
noun
noun: intervention; plural noun: interventions

  • 1.
    the action or process of intervening.
    "they are plants that grow naturally without human intervention"
    • interference by a country in another's affairs.
      "the administration was reported to be considering military intervention"
    • action taken to improve a situation, esp. a medical disorder.
      "two patients were referred for surgical intervention"
    • a meeting in which people confront an addicted, or otherwise troubled, individual in order to persuade the individual to seek help.



 
this country was started by people who didnt want to be told what to do, now we go into other countries n tell them what to do. fucking hypocrites!!!
 
Doer said:
Always start with the Thread Title. Sniff for Sophistry....hmmm. Why yes. Yes there is.

Intervention: (I had to grab this one for the example sentence)

So, it is the last meaning we are debating in the USA. Mass killing is an addiction. We know this. It will spread in area and toll. We will intervene, like Tony Soprano Intervened Christorpher....by kicking the shit out him....only. And then tossed him into Re-Hab, with inspectors and an executioner. Keep Assad close to the kill, like we did Sadam.

We all remember it was two gulf wars, right?


in·ter·ven·tion
ˌintərˈvenCHən/
noun
noun: intervention; plural noun: interventions

  • 1.
    the action or process of intervening.
    "they are plants that grow naturally without human intervention"
    • interference by a country in another's affairs.
      "the administration was reported to be considering military intervention"
    • action taken to improve a situation, esp. a medical disorder.
      "two patients were referred for surgical intervention"
    • a meeting in which people confront an addicted, or otherwise troubled, individual in order to persuade the individual to seek help.



Click to expand...

Teh Fux?

i got no idea what youre saying at all.
 
brimck325 said:
this country was started by people who didnt want to be told what to do, now we go into other countries n tell them what to do. fucking hypocrites!!!
Click to expand...

you cannot be this dumb.

the founding fathers were not Occupy Protestors or "Libertarian Socialists" or "Anarcho-___________ist" teenager angst machines.

your assertion "they didnt want to be told what to do" has NOTHING in common with reality. they were not taking a principled stand for Noam Chomsky's version of "Liberty" but rather for the definition of liberty used by people with BRAINS.

they did set out policies to avoid international entanglements, but when attacked they DID strike back (America's first foreign war was against the moslem caliph of libya under Thomas Jefferson in response to piracy and murder), and when determined to be essential they DID assist or oppose various foreign powers in their struggles, both internally and externally throughout the 18th century.

you pretend to understand the nature of the founding of the US, but in fact clearly have NO CLUE

Fucking Hypocrite.
 
Intervene in Syria. Destroy Assad. By all means, it would be so easy for us...

That was the purpose of Iraq, whatever anyone wants to tell you. The goal was to disrupt regimes such as those in Syria, even if Dubya and Condoleeza Rice refuse to admit it now. The Arab Spring is their inheritance, the realization of all they sought to achieve, even if now--understandably, with an unfriendly government in power--they refuse to admit it.
 
tokeprep said:
Intervene in Syria. Destroy Assad. By all means, it would be so easy for us...

That was the purpose of Iraq, whatever anyone wants to tell you. The goal was to disrupt regimes such as those in Syria, even if Dubya and Condoleeza Rice refuse to admit it now. The Arab Spring is their inheritance, the realization of all they sought to achieve, even if now--understandably, with an unfriendly government in power--they refuse to admit it.
Click to expand...

LOL are you now trying to say Gaddafi, Mubarak & Al-Assad were not our friends?
 
brimck325 said:
this country was started by people who didnt want to be told what to do, now we go into other countries n tell them what to do. fucking hypocrites!!!
Click to expand...

No we are not. We are contravening the use of Proscribed weapon. It is punishment. We don't tell them not to. We tell them what we will do. And the punting to me says Obama will get an authorization to GET the WMDs, by all means necessary.

That will mean the same as Iraq.
 
Harrekin said:
I agree with all except the part about Assad.

Assad is the one who keeps the crazy Sunni Musselmen in line, most of the people he's killed arnt even Syrians, they're Al Queda (and umbrella groups) not even from Syria.

Plus, Egypt should be the prime example of what happens when these dictators are overthrown.
Click to expand...

Well, there are assholes and there are our Assholes. And the job of these assholes is to be hard to figure out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jimdamick
  • Poll Poll
Should the US shed blood for Ukraine
81 82 83
Replies
2K
Views
118K
Budzbuddha
Budzbuddha
squarepush3r
6 simple reasons why Trump is going to war in Syria
Replies
10
Views
1K
Justin-case
Justin-case
squarepush3r
Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
hanimmal
hanimmal
Winter Woman
And your Czars are...
Replies
12
Views
909
Winter Woman
Winter Woman
canndo
A small list of FOX lies and methods of distortions - for BeenThere.
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
9K
UncleBuck
UncleBuck
Back
Top