What would you do in Syria

[NATI BENGALS]

Gee whiz Trumpman. Who do we listen to now?

Our pals over at Infowars are saying it was a false flag attack. And Ivanka and Kushner talked poor old Trumpman into an airstrike just like the globalists wanted.

Shiiiiiit.

What should the genius lone soul capable of solving all of Americas problems do? Tweet like a tween and golf of course.

Then send a strike group toward Korea.!
That will buy us some time to get in a round or two Sunday while the Trump team thinks up the next big shit show for Monday.

Brilliant. Trumpman #1

[JustWinBaby]

This is only a debate because Trump took action...as opposed to letting the liberal media excuse inaction.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-09-2017, 02:32 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This is only a debate because Trump took action...as opposed to letting the liberal media excuse inaction.

That is funny. This action showed the media has more bloodlust than anybody. 

They couldnt have been happier to cover missiles launching. I was pretty disgusted no matter what channel i turned on.

PS
Where did you get video of the time I squared up with Seagal and he ran faster than Usain Bolt?

[JustWinBaby]

(04-09-2017, 02:41 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Where did you get video of the time I squared up with Seagal and he ran faster than Usain Bolt?

If you think Seagal can run....then he kicked you WAY too hard in the head.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-08-2017, 11:23 PM)Benton Wrote: Sides change fairly quickly.

Over the last year or so all we've heard from some is how we shouldn't be involved in Syria, how all refugees are Syrian men (with the allegation being they're all terrorists), and that Assad is only gassing ISIS.

Now, we have a political change and we should be involved in Syria, we should do something to help refugees (although not let them in to the US) and Assad is a bastard.

Weird.

(11-09-2016, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let Assad and Russia handle it in Syria. We may need to step in in Iraq.

Weird indeed.

[GMDino]

Met with my college roommate and another college friend Friday night and as usual we talked a good bit of politics.

They are both very conservative.

One is an accountant/insurance salesman, and he's been "born again"....anything short of the most extreme conservative budget/tax plan is socialism....and everything about gays, social programs etc is wrong.

One is a doctor...he's more open minded to social liberal ideas than fiscal ideas.

First thing we talked about was the air strikes.  We ALL agreed that this was the least best/best least thing that could be done no matter who did it.  It looked good and made a big noise....but the question we ALL had was "what happens next"?  Especially with a POTUS who claims to want to to do LESS involvement in foreign countries.

Also I finally got the doctor to agree to legalized marijuana.  It was quite the win!  

[fredtoast]

(04-09-2017, 01:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Maybe you missed the point where you said we should base our foreign policy on what's best for the people of our country and then implied we took military action based upon what is best for the people of Syria.

Rep.

[fredtoast]

(04-08-2017, 05:10 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: So what's the proper way to punish Syria?

What is the poroper way to punish someone else child?

Don't worry about it if you are not the one being hurt by his misbehavior.  it is none of your business.

[fredtoast]

(04-09-2017, 12:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  Seems the only ones not praising it are extremists from all sides. 

Yep.  The same crowd that said it was crazy to invade Iraq in the frist place.

I don't mind being called an extrem "extremist" when I am right.

[fredtoast]

(04-08-2017, 12:08 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: It has nothing to do with throwing your junk on the table and saying "We're #1" it's between right and wrong because no one else will or is able to do it.

But who gets to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

Hint:  If no one else is willing to join you then you may not be on the "right" side.

(04-08-2017, 12:08 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote:  I'd bet there have been moments in your life you were in the minority on something you felt was wrong. 

Yes.  That has happened plenty of times.  But I never once said "Lets decide this issue by letting the strongest or richest person decide what is right and what is wrong" just because they have the most power.

[GMDino]

Random tweet from the POTUS yesterday:

The reason you don't generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2017

Someone must have asked him if he hit the intended targets. Excuse making time?

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2017, 09:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep.  The same crowd that said it was crazy to invade Iraq in the frist place.

I don't mind being called an extrem "extremist" when I am right.

What was your extremely correct view of bombing Libya?

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2017, 10:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But who gets to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

Hint:  If no one else is willing to join you then you may not be on the "right" side.

I am one that disagrees with military action in Syria, but this statement is ignoring some facts. Plenty of world leaders applauded the missile strike. Now, would they support further military action? Hard to say, but it's fairly obvious that the rest of the world is of the mindset that something needs to be done.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 09:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What is the poroper way to punish someone else child?

Don't worry about it if you are not the one being hurt by his misbehavior.  it is none of your business.

If punishment becomes unlawful abuse there is a legal way to handle the situation. The police, the courts, social services, etc would be the correct way to handle the situation. Going to someone else's house and trashing their vehicle with a baseball bat as a warning to stop beating their kid is the incorrect way to handle the situation.

The correct way to handle the Syrian abuses is through a UN resolution legally authorizing use of force and build an international coalition like we did to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 02:32 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This is only a debate because Trump took action...as opposed to letting the liberal media excuse inaction.

Other than every time every president invoked the War Powers Act to use military force without Congressional approval since the 1970s you're right.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2017, 09:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1) What is the poroper way to punish someone else child?

2) Don't worry about it if you are not the one being hurt by his misbehavior.  it is none of your business.

1) Well it damn sure ain't by dropping chlorine bombs on them.

Would you intervene is you saw someone physically abusing their child or would it be "none of your business"

2) Some folks prefer the reactive approach some prefer the proactive one.

He is using chemical weapons in a country that has wind in which where we have Troops.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 11:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: Random tweet from the POTUS yesterday:

The reason you don't generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2017

Someone must have asked him if he hit the intended targets. Excuse making time?

It's even cheaper and quicker to fix a runway when you don't hit them at all.

It's Military 101. That's why the infantry doesn't destroy bunkers. It's easy for the enemy to fix destroyed bunkers.

[Dill]

(04-09-2017, 11:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am one that disagrees with military action in Syria, but this statement is ignoring some facts. Plenty of world leaders applauded the missile strike. Now, would they support further military action? Hard to say, but it's fairly obvious that the rest of the world is of the mindset that something needs to be done.

Bels, our press reports "support." China and Brazil, among others, have condemned the attack. India and other countries hoping for trade/aid deals have been silent. Support from France, Germany and Italy turns out to be statements affirming they "understand" why the US acted and that Assad caused the attacks. Full throated applause from the world is not what I am hearing.

Certainly much of the world hopes something will be done--a hopeful sign for comprehensive UN sanctioned action.

Keep in mind that this is Trump, and precedent suggests he will undo this moment hopeful media are celebrating, just as he did his Congressional address.

[Dill]

(04-09-2017, 12:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: With your first line you just answered your own question of "Why did we do it". He has that regard because he knows what we will do, we just sent him a reminder.
As I said about 10 pages ago: It is amusing to watch the usual suspect try to paint this in a bad light.
Perhaps folks would think you and others were more genuine in their responses if they haven't complained about everything else he has done to date.
I had a Anniversary thing today and I've mentioned that I am the lone conservative in my family. Even my anti-Trump uncle was praising this. Seems the only ones not praising it are extremists from all sides. 

You have not answered my question regarding the attack's relation to our national interest. And now you contradict your own justification of "national interest" by acknowledging Assad's respect for US forces.  Apparently, you cannot "paint" Trump's action in a good light on its own merits, appealing rather to an imagined world census (which you will readily reject when it goes against Trump) plus your family.

Rather than answer the question, you shift discussion to your amusement, to your loneliness, and to "extremists," a label which includes those who continue to reason with logic and evidence without drifting into reports of how they feel.

A "lone conservative" should have some incentive to reject consensus as a criterion of truth.

[Dill]

(04-09-2017, 12:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's even cheaper and quicker to fix a runway when you don't it them at all.

  They could have postponed Assad's flight scheduling for at least a day.