We will be bombing by five p.m. Friday.Shahter wrote:
nah, you just got trolled.Extra Medium wrote:
Shit just got real
whatever. we won't be bombing anyone, that's my point.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I think its a three way split, it being equally likely Assad, AQ or Israel set off those chemical weapons.
Fuck Israel
Must be a slow week in tin foil sales.
I guess so, since only 9% of Americans think we should intervene in Syria.Jaekus wrote:
Must be a slow week in tin foil sales.
Worst president in history.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Would be bad for business. Thanks for letting us know what the Russia government says, keep us posted.Shahter wrote:
whatever. we won't be bombing anyone, that's my point.
Not saying i agree with all this crap, but public opinion is not the basis of military strategy.Jay wrote:
I guess so, since only 9% of Americans think we should intervene in Syria.Jaekus wrote:
Must be a slow week in tin foil sales.
Worst president in history.
how many americans in favor of entering ww1? or ww11 prior to Pearl Harbor?Jay wrote:
I guess so, since only 9% of Americans think we should intervene in Syria.Jaekus wrote:
Must be a slow week in tin foil sales.
Worst president in history.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
If it wasn't important, the government wouldn't spend so many millions of dollars getting public opinion on their side every time they decide to go to war. There's absolutely no reason for us to be involved in Syria at all. They aren't a threat to us.jsnipy wrote:
Would be bad for business. Thanks for letting us know what the Russia government says, keep us posted.Shahter wrote:
whatever. we won't be bombing anyone, that's my point.Not saying i agree with all this crap, but public opinion is not the basis of military strategy.Jay wrote:
I guess so, since only 9% of Americans think we should intervene in Syria.Jaekus wrote:
Must be a slow week in tin foil sales.
Worst president in history.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Are you gonna swallow this one down because the guy pushing it is on your own team? I bet you protested the Iraq war when Bush was in office.Stubbee wrote:
how many americans in favor of entering ww1? or ww11 prior to Pearl Harbor?Jay wrote:
I guess so, since only 9% of Americans think we should intervene in Syria.Jaekus wrote:
Must be a slow week in tin foil sales.
Worst president in history.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I didn't say important. I said its not the basis of military strategy. Just because I collect rocks for an omelet does not mean you should make an omelet out of rocks.Jay wrote:
If it wasn't important, the government wouldn't spend so many millions of dollars getting public opinion on their side every time they decide to go to war. There's absolutely no reason for us to be involved in Syria at all. They aren't a threat to us.jsnipy wrote:
Would be bad for business. Thanks for letting us know what the Russia government says, keep us posted.Shahter wrote:
whatever. we won't be bombing anyone, that's my point.Not saying i agree with all this crap, but public opinion is not the basis of military strategy.Jay wrote:
I guess so, since only 9% of Americans think we should intervene in Syria.
Worst president in history.
Aside from that my opinion is yours, I see no need mainly because I don't like to see us get into conflicts not because the news has empowered me to make me feel like an all-knowing expert on the matter.
Russia supports the government, we support the rebels and Al Qaeda supports the rebels.
So are we on the same team as Al Qaeda now?
Fast and Furious XTREME edition! Use a C-130 to airdrop some stinger missiles to the rebels, the rebels give them to Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda uses them to shoot down the next C-130 airdropping stingers.
Sounds legit.
So are we on the same team as Al Qaeda now?
Fast and Furious XTREME edition! Use a C-130 to airdrop some stinger missiles to the rebels, the rebels give them to Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda uses them to shoot down the next C-130 airdropping stingers.
Sounds legit.
Who is provoking who?
Obama has no international friends, not even the U.K.
Can't wait to see what he does now. I hope all the shit talking he did during the elections about Bush invading Iraq without the backing of the U.N. or any sizable alliance factors in to his decision making.
Can't wait to see what he does now. I hope all the shit talking he did during the elections about Bush invading Iraq without the backing of the U.N. or any sizable alliance factors in to his decision making.
It's not gonna because like Bush, he just said what he wanted during the election to win. And broke Matt Damon's heart.
No, where Bush was a dumbass and a warmonger, Obama will come off as a dumbass, warmongering, hypocritical liar.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's not gonna because like Bush, he just said what he wanted during the election to win. And broke Matt Damon's heart.
Bill Clinton 2016.
Fixed.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Bill Clinton Clint Eastwood 2016
Malloy must go
Does anyone realize how fucking retarded we look. A Republican President invades a middle eastern country because the tyrannical leader uses chemical warfare on his people without any support from the UN and American liberals hate him while republicans defend him. The next president is a democrat who is about to air strike the shit out of a country for using chemical warfare on its people without any support from the UN and now republicans hate hime and democrats are defending him.
Instead of little (D)'s or (R)'s next to their name they should all have little (C)'s standing for Cunt. For fucks sake lets just all just admit we are cunts.
Instead of little (D)'s or (R)'s next to their name they should all have little (C)'s standing for Cunt. For fucks sake lets just all just admit we are cunts.
Malloy must go
wow
i'd vote deeznuts 2016. the slogan could be "Deeznuts for all you Cunts."
i'd vote deeznuts 2016. the slogan could be "Deeznuts for all you Cunts."
I'm tempted to vote Jill Stein as a general fuck you to both D and R.
Give me a libertarian or we'll get death.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Does anyone realize how fucking retarded we look. A Republican President invades a middle eastern country because the tyrannical leader uses chemical warfare on his people without any support from the UN and American liberals hate him while republicans defend him. The next president is a democrat who is about to air strike the shit out of a country for using chemical warfare on its people without any support from the UN and now republicans hate hime and democrats are defending him.
Instead of little (D)'s or (R)'s next to their name they should all have little (C)'s standing for Cunt. For fucks sake lets just all just admit we are cunts.
really? and your evidence is..?deeznutz1245 wrote:
tyrannical leader uses chemical warfare on his people
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.