[vector]

So I'm confused are you guys for the attack or against it .

if Obama is for it they are against it
if Obama is against it then they are for it hell read there posts

[TheRealThing]

So I'm confused are you guys for the attack or against it .

I have serious doubts that we should bomb Syria. I will say that we have ignored the fact that they have played the US for fools in the past, by sponsoring terror while claiming to be our ally.

All I was trying to do was to point out the hypocrisy of democrats who have mercilessly slammed the Bush administration for lo these last five long years, for the US invasion of Iraq. Now, they insist the US must jump up and do the very same thing again. For exactly the very same reasons and incredibly, those reasons are being voiced by the very same mouths that called for the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 in the first place.

I'm not trying to insult anybody here but, I would think the circular logic being employed by democrats would be obvious on it's face.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I dont care if a repub or democrat says it first but ill agree with whoever says stay the hell away from there and never go back.

[vundy33]

This is not even in the same universe as anything we did in Iraq, lol.

[TheRealThing]

This is not even in the same universe as anything we did in Iraq, lol.

Of course it isn't, nor is it in the same universe as anything we did in Nam. But, the arguments for going to war in Iraq and for the allegedly forthcoming bombing of Syria, were and are none the less, identical. And further, it is not much of a stretch to envision a much wider conflict erupting in the region for our having taken the suggested military action in Syria.

[vundy33]

We agree to disagree then. We felt threatened by Iraq's supposed WMD stores before we invaded. Completely different scenario compared to now.

[Wildcatk23]

Of course it isn't, nor is it in the same universe as anything we did in Nam. But, the arguments for going to war in Iraq and for the allegedly forthcoming bombing of Syria, were and are none the less, identical. And further, it is not much of a stretch to envision a much wider conflict erupting in the region for our having taken the suggested military action in Syria.

Iraq used it weapons on its own people 10+ years before we invaded them . We randomly found weapons and invaded them . Then found none .

[vundy33]

I think it's obvious that they got rid of their CW before the invasion. But it really has no bearing in this case other than scaring the crap out of people that think we could get into a wider conflict, which I don't think happens at all.

[MustangSally]

if Obama is for it they are against it
if Obama is against it then they are for it hell read there posts

Or that conservatives can learn from their mistakes while liberals just flip flop being for something until their against it

[vundy33]

This type of partisanship is why the military and intelligence services look at our civilian leadership as a joke.

[TheRealThing]

This type of partisanship is why the military and intelligence services look at our civilian leadership as a joke.

Well, at least something has remained consistent over the decades, LOL. Thank God for the sober minded military leaders that we have been so blessed with!

Never has been a time in the history of this nation's existence that partisanship did not play a major role in our destiny. Only of late, have we seen the level of contempt to which, I believe you make reference. And, as I have stated time after time, it is the democrats that have made a cesspool of the political arena. Yeah, it was the dynamic duo of Bill and Hill who first introduced Washington to world class dirt digging and smear tactics. When Bill's bent for strange finally caught up with him and he got himself impeached for his trouble, he showed the dems how to double down. To say nothing of the republicans, some of whom still haven't managed to recover. Sending legions of professional dirt diggers out to get anything they could dig up on republicans, they certainly didn't hold back, even for the sake of God and country;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...091798.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...091198.htm

None the less, hot debate founded us and continues to keep us sharp. Frankly, it's the only thing standing between truth and the irresistible pull of la-la land. Somewhere between slobbering teary eyed liberalism and Elmer Gantry, exists the norm. You should be thankful for the process of government set in motion by our founding fathers. Even if it does give one a headache. :HitWall:

[TheRealThing]

We agree to disagree then. We felt threatened by Iraq's supposed WMD stores before we invaded. Completely different scenario compared to now.

Fine, we amicably disagree.

[Hoot Gibson]

This type of partisanship is why the military and intelligence services look at our civilian leadership as a joke.

Except this is not a partisan issue. Obama may have more Republican support for this hare brained scheme than he has from Democrats.

As for McCain, who you referenced in another post, he long ago exhausted his benefit of doubt with me. He has been nothing but a political hack since the day that he was first elected to public office. This country would have been much better off if the Keating Five scandal had nipped his political career in the bud. Unfortunately, he got nothing but a slap on the wrist because of his war hero credentials. McCain was a very mediocre student who managed to get into Annapolis because his father and grandfather were admirals.

The photo of McCain playing online poker while other Senators were debating the merits of using military force against Syria captured his character in a nutshell. In typical hypocritical McCain fashion, the senior Senator from Arizona has been one of the most vocal opponents of online gambling in the Senate. The rules of ethical behavior do not apply to people like McCain, Graham, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. They are cut from the same cloth and there are far too many people who are equally challenged morally and ethically making laws to exploit the rest of us.

[Image: http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/...npoker.jpg]

[vundy33]

I just don't think people should still be so loyal to their party when we're talking about something as serious as war, and I've seen a lot of that on both sides

Have to agree completely on McCain...he visited a Bragg just before the last deployment and I got to attend. He talked to the combat troops and support separately. So many guys tore him apart...I was stunned that someone who was as high up in government as he was could be so uneducated about the problems we faced.

That photo is just a giant facepalm, lol.

[Hoot Gibson]

I just don't think people should still be so loyal to their party when we're talking about something as serious as war, and I've seen a lot of that on both sides

Have to agree completely on McCain...he visited a Bragg just before the last deployment and I got to attend. He talked to the combat troops and support separately. So many guys tore him apart...I was stunned that someone who was as high up in government as he was could be so uneducated about the problems we faced.

That photo is just a giant facepalm, lol.

I just don't see partisanship being an issue here, vundy. The Republican establishment seems eager to support Obama, so if Republicans and Democrats in Congress were acting out of loyalty to their respective parties, support for the strike on Syria would be overwhelming in both the Senate and the House.

I am excited about the prospect of a candidate outside of the Republican Party's mainstream actually having a good shot at getting the party's nomination in 2016 over the objections of the party's establishment, the way that Reagan did in 1980. I like both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, but I think that if Cruz decides to run, he will be extremely hard for the party's handpicked man (probably RINO Chris Cristie) to beat him.

If the debate formats allow for true debate (as opposed to town hall or internet Q & A sessions), then the nomination will be Cruz's to lose, but I look for the party to do all it can to hinder Cruz's campaign. If you have never heard Cruz or his father speak for an extended period, it is worth watching a few Youtube videos on them. Mainstream Republicans are scared to death of Cruz because they realize that his positions will resonate with the Republican base and nobody articulates those positions better than he does.

I am optimistic because I think conservatives and independents are finally getting fed up with efforts by the Republican Party to provide a string of loser candidates like Dole and McCain in the general elections. I will not vote for another RINO Republican for president - ever. Thanks to sleazy Republicans like McCain and Graham, I think a conservative like Cruz has a legitimate shot at the nomination in 2016.

[Hoot Gibson]

if Obama is for it they are against it
if Obama is against it then they are for it hell read there posts

Wrong again, Mr. Johnny One Note. If Obama was opposed to supporting the Syrian rebels because of Al Qaeda's participation in the Syrian civil war, conservatives like me would support him 100 percent. When Obama stops being wrong, then I will commend him for finally doing the right thing. Supporting radical Islamists in Libya, Egypt, and Syria is just plain stupid. The only thing more stupid is to hear McCain trying to make the case that the Syrian rebels are just a bunch of moderate Muslims longing to be free.

[vundy33]

I like Cruz, Hoot. Not a fan of Paul at all, big I wouldn't mind to see Cruz run for the nomination.

[TheRealThing]

I remember not so long ago the US dictated terms in the Middle East while Russia assumed a more subservient role. Speaking of the devil, Russia couldn't eek out a win in Afghanistan while we go in there and totally cake walk them in a dazzling display of military superiority. Same thing in Iraq. Saddam had just been dragged from the bowels of a spider hole after a 21 day rampage orchestrated by the US military and said; "I am Saddam Hussein president of Iraq and I am ready to negotiate" to which the American soldier said, "President George W Bush sends his greetings". You can say what you want to about W. He never diminished the office of the presidency, and walked out of there with his head up. The jewel like image of the US and it's military totally in tact, even after a 3 trillion dollar loss of US treasure at the hand of Bin Laden. Nobody was laughing a sitting US president to scorn then.

Americans don't have any concept of military defeat. All we know is glory and honor and global respect, having defeated every foe we have faced and always for honorable and justifiable causes. And yet, under this administration we find ourselves in the unenviable position of following the dictates of Vladimir Putin. Seizing the opportunity now Russian is the major player in the Middle East and we are the subservient one? And to rub salt in the wound, there are a number of Russian terms to which we Americans must capitulate if we expect Putin to bail us out over there. :please: All of this la-la liberal pandering to the various groups of thugs and terrorists of the Middle East has gotten the US nothing but disrespect. Heck, even Ethiopia told us to take a hike.

Don't get me wrong, if it were possible to 'talk' one's self to greatness Barack would be right there at the top. But, like I've always heard, talk is cheap and that's all he does. We have crawfished our way back from a dominate role on the world stage, almost all the way behind Valerie Jarrett's skirts, LOL. No matter what liberal sits the captain's chair, the results would have been the same. As I have pointed out on here before, from the namby-pamby weak willed attempt at foreign policy by the Carter administration, to the laughable Nancy Pelosi negotiated resolution of the long standing Middle East conflict between Israel and her Palestinian nemesis Yasser Arafat. Which, was (in her mind only) negotiated under her direction soon after her ascension to the speakership, to the nearly irretrievably broken US foreign policy and the trail of disaster that has beset our national image, it has been failure after failure.

Liberals cannot govern effectively because they live in denial to a fault. You're never going to tell them that they can't negotiate their way through any disaster. To them it's global WMCA psychology. In their mind one must go up to a Saddam, or a Mohammed Morsi, or a Assad and be sincere and nicey nicey, being especially careful not to insult them on a social level and things will be fine. When we do that we get insurgency tsunamis in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and now Syria. Backing up has never quelled the bully's zeal and it never will. There's a name for negotiating from a position of weakness and it's called pacifism and never ever has it worked in the history of this planet.

[Hoot Gibson]

This country lost the Vietnam war despite winning every major battle of the war because we were led by a liberal Democrat who micromanaged the war from Washington. John Kerry aided the liberals' effort to lose that war with his dishonest testimony to a Congressional committee. Now, he is our Secretary of State. Liberals never learn from their mistakes. They reward incompetence with promotions and blame everybody else when they employ the same strategies and get the same disastrous results as before.

[TheRealThing]

This country lost the Vietnam war despite winning every major battle of the war because we were led by a liberal Democrat who micromanaged the war from Washington. John Kerry aided the liberals' effort to lose that war with his dishonest testimony to a Congressional committee. Now, he is our Secretary of State. Liberals never learn from their mistakes. They reward incompetence with promotions and blame everybody else when they employ the same strategies and get the same disastrous results as before.

I stand corrected, in modern times the lunar schooner first masqueraded as US ship of state under noted liberal Lyndon Baines Johnson and reappeared during the Carter, Clinton and now the Obama era. When liberals govern, Americans suffer loss, the effects of which appear to be cumulative.

[Hoot Gibson]

I stand corrected, in modern times the lunar schooner first masqueraded as US ship of state under noted liberal Lyndon Baines Johnson and reappeared during the Carter, Clinton and now the Obama era. When liberals govern, Americans suffer loss, the effects of which appear to be cumulative.

If most historians were not liberals, I suspect that history would eventually conclude that Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a very strong probability, IMO, that we will eventually go to war with Iran and it is unlikely that we will be able to count on Iraq or Afghanistan to provide us with any support without throwing huge sums of money at their crooked politicians. I hope that I am wrong, but although we achieved our primary objectives in those two countries, Obama has squandered the victories and has lost the peace.

There are reports that both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Syrian rebels that the Obama regime, McCain, and Graham wants to portray as moderates are giving Coptic Christians three choices: 1) Convert to Islam, 2) pay a high "tax" for the continued right to live as Christians, or 3) die along with all of their family members. Of course, they cite a passage of the Koran to justify the shake down and murder of the Coptics. Obama never seems to have much to say about the frequent slaughter of Christians by the Muslims that he supports.

The latest news is that the 26-year old author of a Wall Street Journal op-ed, whose editorial was quoted by both Kerry and McCain in support of attacking Syria, has been fired for falsely claiming to have a doctorate from Georgetown University. It turns out that she earned her Masters degree earlier this year and belongs to a pro-rebel non-profit organization and has spent considerable time with the rebels in Syria.

[TheRealThing]

If most historians were not liberals, I suspect that history would eventually conclude that Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a very strong probability, IMO, that we will eventually go to war with Iran and it is unlikely that we will be able to count on Iraq or Afghanistan to provide us with any support without throwing huge sums of money at their crooked politicians. I hope that I am wrong, but although we achieved our primary objectives in those two countries, Obama has squandered the victories and has lost the peace.

There are reports that both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Syrian rebels that the Obama regime, McCain, and Graham wants to portray as moderates are giving Coptic Christians three choices: 1) Convert to Islam, 2) pay a high "tax" for the continued right to live as Christians, or 3) die along with all of their family members. Of course, they cite a passage of the Koran to justify the shake down and murder of the Coptics. Obama never seems to have much to say about the frequent slaughter of Christians by the Muslims that he supports.

The latest news is that the 26-year old author of a Wall Street Journal op-ed, whose editorial was quoted by both Kerry and McCain in support of attacking Syria, has been fired for falsely claiming to have a doctorate from Georgetown University. It turns out that she earned her Masters degree earlier this year and belongs to a pro-rebel non-profit organization and has spent considerable time with the rebels in Syria.

I saw some of that report and I don't doubt it a bit. So, America the Beautiful is about to go off half cocked and ram a bunch of one and a half million dollar cruise missiles down a rat hole, based on the word of an uber left ivy league brat with a chip on her shoulder. That sound about right? Now that's some irresistibly strong proof that it was Assad that gassed those kids right there!

Heck, given the state of affairs in DC these days, she's probably one of the rising stars, LOL.