UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
there is plenty of strategic and tactical upside to gassing the opposition.
Syria distraction.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Not if you're winning and you know the world is watching because you made an agreement to give them up.
And since when was gassing civilians tactically advantageous?
It just doesn't make sense.
That said, I respect your opinion even when I disagree with it.
You two should get room.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not my opinion, it's the opinion of a marine who used to post here.
where does this "assad is winning" canard come from? people said the same thing in 2013 too. there's no truth to it.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I may be naive but I have a good nose and smell a rat in this pile of garbage.
You want to hang out with Jones, be my guest.
Your debate question is laughable. It's like asking "If Ben Johnson didn't write Shakespeare, then who did? You started with a false premise then asked why it was so. Why did Saddam Hussein build up such a huge stockpile of WMD's if he didn't plan to use them? LOL
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
not my opinion, it's the opinion of a marine who used to post here.
where does this "assad is winning" canard come from? people said the same thing in 2013 too. there's no truth to it.
This won't be a mystery forever. If I'm wrong it will come out soon enough. It happens and I'll have my helping of crow if it does.
I'm just not willing to buy Washington's line without question.
Ace Yonder
Well-Known Member
Yet you're willing to buy crazy infowars/breitbart conspiracy theories and adopt their lexicon instantly and without a shred of proof. Good job.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'm just not willing to buy Alex Jones' line without question
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
BS. you cant admit you're wrong. EDIT: you criticized trump for spending that hasnt happened yet and ignored the fact obama nearly doubled the federal debt in another guys grow thread (you know who, and im not tagging and dragging him into this). but you were crickets when i posted the CBO debt below. why is that?
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
heres the link to the post mentioned above, post 3323
https://www.rollitup.org/t/groerr-grows.851933/page-167
https://www.rollitup.org/t/groerr-grows.851933/page-167
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
probably more effective than how maduro is controlling his people; starving them. they're both worthless dictators, so whats the real question here? i think you're more conflicted that you actually support it. but you cant admit it, so you're going the conspiracy theory route it seems with your false flag nonsense. so funny
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no he didn't. that was bush.
obama inherited a massive deficit from bush, which is what increased the debt.
obama only ever cut the deficit, by well over a trillion dollars.
we have no need for your mcdonaldsnomics.
LSD-25
Well-Known Member
correction............. 7 and 3/4 years left.. Trump is the man.. U.S. is the shit again.. and im starting a business making rosin presses.. you want one?
LSD-25
Well-Known Member
No.. the use of chemical warfare is a breach of treaty.. Carne Asadda broke the law and the U.S. military is enforcing it..
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what a retarded post to make. i can't believe you actually took the time to open the intenet, come to this forum, start a membership, type those words, and press send.
your business will fail because failures beget failures, and you are a failure.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he needed congressional approval to act. he failed to get it or even ask for it. that's unconstitutional.
at least he warned putin and assad ahead of time. brilliant.
Ace Yonder
Well-Known Member
Ehhh Politifact examined this and came down on the other side of it.
Mark Pocan wrongly claims Donald Trump had no legal authority to launch missile attack on Syria
"[...]
There’s certainly debate over the extent of a president’s authority to use military force without approval from Congress.
But Pocan went too far in saying there is no legal basis for Trump’s action.
[...]
Experts agree that in limited instances, such as the Syrian missile attack, a president has legal authority provided in the Constitution as commander-in chief.
[...]
"While the precise scope of this power is unclear, a strong argument can be made that the president can use force in short military operations -- especially where there is minimal risk to American lives -- without congressional authorization. Indeed, over the years, Congress has generally acquiesced in such presidential uses of force.
"Because the air strikes were undertaken by cruise missiles that put virtually no American lives at risk and because the strikes lasted only minutes, the president's action would seem to be a lawful use of force under the Constitution. Needless to say, if further military actions were to be undertaken, they could rise to the level of requiring congressional authorization."
[...]
- Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.
- Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.
- Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that point.
Pocan said: "There is no legal basis" for Trump's "missile strike against Syrian military assets."
For limited military activities like the missile strike, presidents can send in forces without approval from Congress.
We rate Pocan’s statement False."
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/apr/07/mark-pocan/mark-pocan-wrongly-claims-donald-trump-had-no-lega/
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
HAF2
Well-Known Member
Maybe trump was just waiting for an excuse to bomb someone? Sounds legit.
Maybe Assad and Putin weren't getting along so well so trump/ Putin planned this to out him and make Syria under Russian rule? There's a million maybes here.
Still doesn't account for the fact that the rebels didn't have the planes, or chemical weapons, And there were chemical weapons dropped. Maybe Russia did it? I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of the Russia or Assad propaganda machine. Confusing times.
Maybe Assad and Putin weren't getting along so well so trump/ Putin planned this to out him and make Syria under Russian rule? There's a million maybes here.
Still doesn't account for the fact that the rebels didn't have the planes, or chemical weapons, And there were chemical weapons dropped. Maybe Russia did it? I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of the Russia or Assad propaganda machine. Confusing times.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Silly snowflake has social democracy mixed up with leftist totalitarianism.
Your burgers are burning.