Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention - 9/1/2013 5:11:05 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I could only *wish* we were so intelligent....

And Lucy, Obama isn't weak because of his policies. His policies suck because he's weak.

Take, for example, this glorious situation in Syria.

Obama could have intervened at the beginning. He could have sided with secular rebels and overthrown someone that supports Russia, Iran, hezbolla.

He could have kept his mouth shut about chemical weapons being a red line.
Really? What good is publishing a redline, except giving both parties a way of drawing us in.

Instead.. here we are...


Lmfao...... here we have it, another right winger chiding Obama for not siding with Al Qaida

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention - 9/1/2013 5:16:35 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Oh? And what would Cameron have "won?"
Some of the biggest anti-war advocates are those of us who've been in the military.
Seems many on the left are all for this kind of thing, going to war provided of course that (they) aren't the ones who have to go.
We really should ressurect "The Abraham Lincoln Brigade" in this country for those on the left who have the courage of their own convictions and will pick up a rifle and go marching off to things like this.
In Europe you guys could have "The Don Quixote Brigade."


FYI....... Both parties have had pro and anti war supporters here in the UK. Those who dont want anymore are the average man in the street, sick at ALL the deaths

Yep, the coastguard must have been a dangerous place to work back in the day.

Why dont you answer the point about Iraq, Bush and Blair.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention - 9/1/2013 5:21:13 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound
Takes a zombie to consistently seek blame instead of seeing what can be done today. You can't rewrite history.


Not heard of the saying "learn from your mistakes" then ?


Some of you arent interested in what can or cant be done, only for blaming Obama.

(in reply to DsBound)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention - 9/1/2013 7:47:07 PM   
DsBound


Posts: 268
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound
Takes a zombie to consistently seek blame instead of seeing what can be done today. You can't rewrite history.


Not heard of the saying "learn from your mistakes" then ?


Some of you arent interested in what can or cant be done, only for blaming Obama.


If Bo starts a war with Syria... that is on him and yes, at that point I believe all but the 9% that are in support of such action would blame him, not Bush or anyone else. And for the record, in my mind... it's not what can and can't be done but what should not be done.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention - 9/1/2013 10:46:14 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Maybe because the fucking topic is not about Iraq, Bush and Blair. Start a topic about that, or are you only posting in these topics to stir up shit? Not hard to start another topic, but that would be the proper thing to do wouldn't it? I have seen this posted in almost every topic about Syria, and it irks the shit out of me that some of these are getting derailed with the same" neener, neener, but "they" did it back then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Why dont you answer the point about Iraq, Bush and Blair.




_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention - 9/2/2013 2:55:56 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

US policy towards the region is so close to bi-partisan ("across the aisle") that it doesn't matter who is in the White House.

You need a more incisive analysis to identify the reason why the US is caught between a rock and a hard place.


Tweak, we're in this position because of that dope in the W.H.
You don't get involved in someone else's civil war.

Really?? What about the shambles that exist across every country that has enjoyed the benefit of US intervention? Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. The main reason US policy in the region is in tatters is because it's designed in Israel to benefit Israel and Israel alone. For this seriously stupid state of affairs you can thank AIPAC's bought and paid-for flunkeys in Congress and on the White House staff.

If the US has a policy that reflected its own interests, it wouldn't be the laughing stock of the region. Here's one analysis by the respected long time ME resident and correspondent Robert Fisk. Check it out.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robert-fisk-once-washington-made-the-middle-east-tremble--nowno-one-there-takes-it-seriously-8793321.html

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/2/2013 3:08:36 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention - 9/2/2013 3:43:57 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Maybe because the fucking topic is not about Iraq, Bush and Blair. Start a topic about that, or are you only posting in these topics to stir up shit? Not hard to start another topic, but that would be the proper thing to do wouldn't it? I have seen this posted in almost every topic about Syria, and it irks the shit out of me that some of these are getting derailed with the same" neener, neener, but "they" did it back then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Why dont you answer the point about Iraq, Bush and Blair.





Maybe you should read what I have written more carefully. I will do it in a nutshell so even you can get where I am coming from.

Much has been made of the "No" vote in the House of Commons last week, including in the threads on Syria. All I have done is point out the truth, MPs voted no because of a reluctance not to follow the same route as Bush and Blair, when invading Iraq.

If people are incapable of linking the two events, my pointing it out is hardly, as you suggest, "trying to stir up shit" I can understand war irking you, it irks me, but try and get your head around why Bush and Blair share the blame for current inaction.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention - 9/2/2013 4:34:33 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

FUCK Me Im a terrible person.

I'm just pointing out the bullshit you and your brethren are spouting SIMPLY because its Obamas turn to fuck with the ME on his own decision.



The second statement, a totally slimy accusation btw, does lend some credence to the first, Lucy... Planning to spend some time out from under the bridge with that shit?

And don't be so vain. You are but one in a whole body of posters I was referring to, and eagerly await the contributions of.



The fact is I have NOT backed Obama on Syria, please point out where I have
The fact I hoped that Obama would take it to congress was to prove he had the cohones to do it after the shit frothing from the right, NOT because I think its the only thing to do.
Ive merely pointed out the back pedaling you and yours have made, more than once. You have made it more than personal, so dont cry out foul when you get covered in your own poo.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 68
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A conversation on Syrian intervention Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.076