If Obama Attacks Syria...
Options
Idiopathic Joker
Members, Moderators Posts: 45,691 Regulator
y'all ? gonna give him ? like you have Bush, or does Obama slide with y'all?
Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. Saddam threatened UN inspectors. No one back Bush like no one is backing Obama. What's y'all thoughts?
Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. Saddam threatened UN inspectors. No one back Bush like no one is backing Obama. What's y'all thoughts?
Comments
-
Ww3 is going on now
-
Obama needs to show his true colors. The time has come for him to stop being a politician and be a president. The man hasn't taken a definite stance since the beginning of his first term. He needs to show some teeth and even snap at a few hands to prove he's more than a spokesman for all of the major corporations and lobbyists.
-
Well considering that Bush's administration falsely implied that Saddam was responsible for 911 and had WMDs, I'd have to say it's a different situation. This is [supposedly] only about whether or not Assad used chemical weapons against protesters.
That said, if we don't intervene in Africa when local governments slaughter Black Africans, then I don't see why we're supposed automatically get all worked up over this Syrian ? . -
Bush went in for a ? reason, but at least that ? had a clear goal in mind and had the international homies backing him.
Obama has neither, and the reason is still pretty weak.
He wants to attack the Syrian regime but he doesn't want this to overthrow them; plus, his homies have left him standing out in the rain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgxzpQrqSkg -
Well considering that Bush's administration falsely implied that responsible for 911 and had WMDd have to say it's a different situation. This is [supposedly] only about whether or not Assad used chemical weapons against protesters.
That said, if we don't intervene in Africa when local governments slaughter Black Africans, then I don't see why we're supposed automatically get all worked up over this Syrian ? .
Bush never implied Iraq was responsible for 9/11, just that Saddam was harboring those responsible and he said he would make no distinction between those terrorists and those that harbor them. Chemical weapons was also a issue with Saddam seeing as how he used them on his own people just like Assad. Same situation, bruh. -
Bush used 9/11 as a reason to attack Iraq. I mean, if he felt that strongly about going into to Iraq to get rid of Saddam/WOMD then why not make that the goal from the beginning?
-
unspoken_respect wrote: »Bush used 9/11 as a reason to attack Iraq. I mean, if he felt that strongly about going into to Iraq to get rid of Saddam/WOMD then why not make that the goal from the beginning?
See my last post, he never blamed iraq for 9/11 -
Makaveli Joker wrote: »unspoken_respect wrote: »Bush used 9/11 as a reason to attack Iraq. I mean, if he felt that strongly about going into to Iraq to get rid of Saddam/WOMD then why not make that the goal from the beginning?
See my last post, he never blamed iraq for 9/11
Do you think without 9/11 that we would have invaded Iraq? -
unspoken_respect wrote: »Makaveli Joker wrote: »unspoken_respect wrote: »Bush used 9/11 as a reason to attack Iraq. I mean, if he felt that strongly about going into to Iraq to get rid of Saddam/WOMD then why not make that the goal from the beginning?
See my last post, he never blamed iraq for 9/11
Do you think without 9/11 that we would have invaded Iraq?
How old were you in 2003? All Saddam had to do was allow UN weapon inspectors in his country and he would still be in power. -
America attacks Syria.
Iran says they will attack Israel.
Plus, I guess we gotta throw down w Russia, too.
So, yeah, pretty much WW3.
We should keep our noses out of Syria.
-
Makaveli Joker wrote: »Well considering that Bush's administration falsely implied that responsible for 911 and had WMDd have to say it's a different situation. This is [supposedly] only about whether or not Assad used chemical weapons against protesters.
That said, if we don't intervene in Africa when local governments slaughter Black Africans, then I don't see why we're supposed automatically get all worked up over this Syrian ? .
Bush never implied Iraq was responsible for 9/11, just that Saddam was harboring those responsible and he said he would make no distinction between those terrorists and those that harbor them. Chemical weapons was also a issue with Saddam seeing as how he used them on his own people just like Assad. Same situation, bruh.
It was definitely implied, even if they tried to downplay it as the reason. How many mentions of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers were there in prelude to that war ? There was also talk of Saddam having "nucular weapons" and "weapons of mass destruction" - to which the U.N. found no evidence.
In this situation, it's clear that there were chemical weapons used. Not that I agree with U.S. intervention, but I don't think it's the same ? as directly misleading Americans about why we're going to war.
-
imma be in flroda
doin the same ? I been doin -
America attacks Syria.
Iran says they will attack Israel.
Plus, I guess we gotta throw down w Russia, too.
So, yeah, pretty much WW3.
We should keep our noses out of Syria.
China and a few other countries threatened Bush if he attacked iraq, but nothing came of those threats. You think this time might be different?
-
Makaveli Joker wrote: »unspoken_respect wrote: »Makaveli Joker wrote: »unspoken_respect wrote: »Bush used 9/11 as a reason to attack Iraq. I mean, if he felt that strongly about going into to Iraq to get rid of Saddam/WOMD then why not make that the goal from the beginning?
See my last post, he never blamed iraq for 9/11
Do you think without 9/11 that we would have invaded Iraq?
How old were you in 2003? All Saddam had to do was allow UN weapon inspectors in his country and he would still be in power.
they killed saddam after they realized he had no womd
that ? was two things
1. iraq and kuwaiti oil
2. revenge for trying to plot to ? george bush's dad
-
Different circumstances they did not find wmd's instead they found rocks and sand.
-
Makaveli Joker wrote: »America attacks Syria.
Iran says they will attack Israel.
Plus, I guess we gotta throw down w Russia, too.
So, yeah, pretty much WW3.
We should keep our noses out of Syria.
China and a few other countries threatened Bush if he attacked iraq, but nothing came of those threats. You think this time might be different?
Not sure.
Regardless if they're empty threats or not, the chance shouldn't be taken. -
Makaveli Joker wrote: »unspoken_respect wrote: »Makaveli Joker wrote: »unspoken_respect wrote: »Bush used 9/11 as a reason to attack Iraq. I mean, if he felt that strongly about going into to Iraq to get rid of Saddam/WOMD then why not make that the goal from the beginning?
See my last post, he never blamed iraq for 9/11
Do you think without 9/11 that we would have invaded Iraq?
How old were you in 2003? All Saddam had to do was allow UN weapon inspectors in his country and he would still be in power.
Still, do you think that Bush would have been able to justify invading Iraq because of that?
-
homie tryna cover up that false flag before the inspectors find out..you aint hear that from me though
-
Hopefully its like Libya where you used airstrikes and did not put one boot on the ground for that campaign.
-
I don't envy him on this..............
-
Gas prices is gonna go way up if this happens.
I like Obama but I don't support this. -
I give no ? . The war aint coming to US soil and until my house is threatened to get bombs no ? shall be given
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.