If Obama Attacks Syria...

Idiopathic Joker
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?
«134

Comments

  • CraigMakaveli
    CraigMakaveli Members Posts: 651 ✭✭✭✭
    Ww3 is going on now
  • Rozetta5tone
    Rozetta5tone Members Posts: 4,506 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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
  • Idiopathic Joker
    Idiopathic Joker Members, Moderators Posts: 45,691 Regulator
    7figz 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.
  • unspoken_respect
    unspoken_respect Members Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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?
  • Idiopathic Joker
    Idiopathic Joker Members, Moderators Posts: 45,691 Regulator
    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
  • unspoken_respect
    unspoken_respect Members Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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?
  • Idiopathic Joker
    Idiopathic Joker Members, Moderators Posts: 45,691 Regulator
    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.
  • VIBE
    VIBE Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • 7figz
    7figz Members Posts: 15,294 ✭✭✭✭✭
    7figz 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.
  • Idiopathic Joker
    Idiopathic Joker Members, Moderators Posts: 45,691 Regulator
    VIBE 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?
  • Mr.LV
    Mr.LV Members Posts: 14,089 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Different circumstances they did not find wmd's instead they found rocks and sand.
  • VIBE
    VIBE Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
    VIBE 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.
  • unspoken_respect
    unspoken_respect Members Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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 have been playing that cat and mouse game for a long time.

    Still, do you think that Bush would have been able to justify invading Iraq because of that?
  • huey
    huey Members Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2013
    homie tryna cover up that false flag before the inspectors find out..you aint hear that from me though
  • Mr.LV
    Mr.LV Members Posts: 14,089 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hopefully its like Libya where you used airstrikes and did not put one boot on the ground for that campaign.
  • a.mann
    a.mann Members Posts: 19,746 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't envy him on this..............
  • VIBE
    VIBE Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gas prices is gonna go way up if this happens.

    I like Obama but I don't support this.
  • AZTG
    AZTG Members Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I give no ? . The war aint coming to US soil and until my house is threatened to get bombs no ? shall be given
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Regulator
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Regulator
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Regulator
    The user and all related content has been deleted.