Gas Attack In Syria

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2018, 12:09 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL the "rational folks" who aren't bothered by Trump's flip-flopping.

or compare raping children to changing one's view of Military action against a country as the situation changes. Those are the "rational folks" I was referring to. You sure are rational  

[Dill]

(04-14-2018, 12:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I should have said a joint attack from US, France, and Britain instead of UN forces.... because hairs must be split. But regardless the response was exactly what I hoped for.

Yow, the difference between a UN coalition and three countries who happen to be UN members is hardly "splitting hairs." The former would have had much more weight and open more possibilities for both punishment and diplomacy.

Could have called it a NATO strike with as much right, though of course it was not.

[Dill]

(04-14-2018, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: or compare raping children to changing one's view of Military action against a country as the situation changes. Those are the "rational folks" I was referring to. You sure are rational  

No idea what you are referring to here. Perhaps I missed a post.

[BmorePat87]

(04-13-2018, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suggested a coalition attack from members of the UN and that's what happened unless France and Britain are no longer members of the UN. I really didn't expect the Ivory Coast  to join in. Perhaps bfine's comments have merit. Obviously a misunderstanding, just pointing pout what was mentioned in this thread. 

"Personally, if Chemical Weapons were used I think there should be a coalition of UN forces that take Military action against Syria."

That's not the same as saying "members of the UN" because that's basically just saying "Anyone but Kosovo and the Vatican". Hell, I don't even understand this. It's not like your opinion that the UN should get involved is a bad opinion or that anyone contested it days later when you randomly threw it into the response to my post.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2018, 12:15 AM)Dill Wrote: No idea what you are referring to here. Perhaps I missed a post.

Not sure how you missed it. It was referenced in the post you quoted. But we'll wait for Dino to clear it up for you. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2018, 12:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "Personally, if Chemical Weapons were used I think there should be a coalition of UN forces that take Military action against Syria."

That's not the same as saying "members of the UN" because that's basically just saying "Anyone but Kosovo and the Vatican". Hell, I don't even understand this. It's not like your opinion that the UN should get involved is a bad opinion or that anyone contested it days later when you randomly threw it into the response to my post.

Got it. Although what I wished for happened, I apparently worded it poorly, by suggesting France, Brittian, and the US is a coalition of UN forces. .............squirrel!

[BmorePat87]

(04-14-2018, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: Yow, the difference between a UN coalition and three countries who happen to be UN members is hardly "splitting hairs." The former would have had much more weight and open more possibilities for both punishment and diplomacy.

Could have called it a NATO strike with as much right, though of course it was not.

This might be the first time a coalition of UN forces has fought a coalition of UN forces, because if we're not splitting hairs, Russia and Syria are a coalition of UN forces.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2018, 12:20 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This might be the first time a coalition of UN forces has fought a coalition of UN forces, because if we're not splitting hairs, Russia and Syria are a coalition of UN forces.

co·a·li·tion

ˌkōəˈliSH(ə)n/
noun

1. an alliance for combined action
   

I doubt it's the first time one coalition has fought another, but I understand your guys deflection.

[BmorePat87]

(04-14-2018, 12:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: co·a·li·tion

ˌkōəˈliSH(ə)n/
noun

1. an alliance for combined action
   

I doubt it's the first time one coalition has fought another, but I understand your guys deflection.

We're not deflecting, we're making fun of you getting caught in a lie.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2018, 12:31 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We're not deflecting, we're making fun of you getting caught in a lie.

Please point out the lie that I have been caught in by "we"? Just simply quote it; that's all that is required. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-14-2018, 12:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Please point out the lie that I have been caught in by "we"? Just simply quote it; that's all that is required. 

The first one was you, unprompted, telling me that someone said any unified attack on Syria by the US and an ally requires a UN vote. The second was you saying that you meant any US alliance with of the 192 other member states of the UN you said "a coalition of UN forces". 

But you know this. 

[BmorePat87]

Silliness aside, anyone think Turkey gets on board and this becomes an official NATO action?

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-13-2018, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suggested a coalition attack from members of the UN and that's what happened unless France and Britain are no longer members of the UN. I really didn't expect the Ivory Coast  to join in. Perhaps bfine's comments have merit. Obviously a misunderstanding, just pointing pout what was mentioned in this thread. 

Wow. Awesome super job. You are the best. Smart. I see why you like Trump so much. Smart. winning. Real humble and weary of praise.

Once again. Just super. Top notch. Golden stuff. Err wait maybe not golden. 

But anyway. Good job. Your prediction was great. 

Moving along now...

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-14-2018, 12:47 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Silliness aside, anyone think Turkey gets on board and this becomes an official NATO action?

Cant say ive been paying much attention to Turkey. They seem to have been trending toward aligning against us.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2018, 12:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The first one was you, unprompted, telling me that someone said any unified attack on Syria by the US and an ally requires a UN vote. The second was you saying that you meant any US alliance with of the 192 other member states of the UN you said "a coalition of UN forces". 

But you know this. 

As I said quote them.  Or we can just go with your commentary. It's real simple, just quote the lies, You do know how to use the quote feature don't you? 

Are you saying US, France, and Britain are not a coalition of UN forces? (insert smiley thingy)

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2018, 12:48 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Wow. Awesome super job. You are the best. Smart. I see why you like Trump so much. Smart. winning. Real humble and weary of praise.

Once again. Just super. Top notch. Golden stuff. Err wait maybe not golden. 

But anyway. Good job. Your prediction was great. 

Moving along now...

Thanks. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-14-2018, 12:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said quote them.  Or we can just go with your commentary. It's real simple, just quote the lies, You do know how to use the quote feature don't you? 

Are you saying US, France, and Britain are not a coalition of UN forces? (insert smiley thingy)

Stop being a child and move on. Does every thread have to be you feigning ignorance and not addressing the topic?

[*bfine32*]

Just one quick question and we can put the "silliness"aside:

Are US, France, and Great Britain a coalition of UN forces.

It only takes one word. Yes or No.

[BmorePat87]

(04-14-2018, 12:52 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Cant say ive been paying much attention to Turkey. They seem to have been trending toward aligning against us.

They've been going back and forth. They support the US before then suggesting we need to wait and investigate. They want to buy weapons from Russia but they also against the Kurds who are backed by the US and Russia.

[*bfine32*]

I will ask again perhaps to excuse my "lies". Are US, France. and Great Britain a coalition of UN forces? it only requires 2 or 3 letters to answer.

Two letters= no

Three letters= yes