Sometimes when you know it is gonna happen, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.

Embrace the war!

HockeyDad wrote:

Can't congress stop this nutcase from bombing Syria???!!!

bloody spaniard wrote:

^This allows for unprovoked aggression, meaning it justifies our attacking people arbitrarily that we see as the criminals even though they haven't harmed nor interefered with our national interests? That's F'ed up.
:-k
That would also explain why we bombed the Serbs during the Bosnian conflict- folks who defended and hid our pilots from the nazis in WWII. All so that the Bosnian muslims would later fight us in Iraq.
](*,)

bloody spaniard wrote:

^This allows for unprovoked aggression, meaning it justifies our attacking people arbitrarily that we see as the criminals even though they haven't harmed nor interefered with our national interests? That's F'ed up.
:-k
That would also explain why we bombed the Serbs during the Bosnian conflict- folks who defended and hid our pilots from the nazis in WWII. All so that the Bosnian muslims would later fight us in Iraq.
](*,)

bloody spaniard wrote:

I heard she had been doing the dope.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

For various players in the Syrian war, it would make tremendous strategic sense to conduct a false flag operation and draw the USA into the conflict.

For Assad and his government, it makes absolutely no sense to use chemical weapons.



Whatever....I need to go buy some Raytheon and Lockheed stock.

HockeyDad wrote:

Miley n Biden?? Eewwwwww:-&

dkeage wrote:

I bet it is too late on the stock.

Others postulate that it makes sense for Assad to use gas as a way of flaunting/antagonizing the west and its "red line" mentality. The theory is tht he will continue pushing his limits a little bit at a time over the long run- and that the west will aqcuess by default.

In play-ground speak: "Whatcha gonna do aboutit, huh? My big brother (Russia) will kick your a$$ if you touch me... ."

rfenst wrote:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel suggested Friday that the Pentagon was moving naval forces closer to Syria in preparation for a possible decision by President Obama to order military strikes.

The president's senior national security advisers are expected to meet at the White House this weekend to discuss possible military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, a U.S. official told Fox News Friday.

U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.

U.S. Navy ships are capable of a variety of military action, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government.

"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets, to be able to carry out different options -- whatever options the president might choose," Hagel said.

He said the U.S. is coordinating with the international community to determine "what exactly did happen" in the reported use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons against civilians earlier this week. "We're still assessing that," he said.



What then? Bomb them. Rebuild them $$$. Give them visas to come here. Finally, thank everyone for service to our country?
We are MAD.

bloody spaniard wrote:

I wonder what they call a quarter-pounder w/cheese over in Syria... 🤔 🤔

DrafterX wrote:

You forgot the Mission Accomplished banner. That raise the costs even higher.

8trackdisco wrote: