Obama admits end goal is Iran - GoFuckYourself.com

onwebcam · 09-03-2013, 12:34 PM

"Earlier, Obama ramped up his parallel sales pitches for striking Syria, warning lawmakers that the standoff amounts to a dress rehearsal for a possible confrontation with Iran while assuring the U.S. public he won’t give them a rerun of Iraq or Afghanistan."

http://news.yahoo.com/-obama-puts-tw...152634247.html

Ofcourse it won't be a rerun Syria and Iran have conventional weapons...

mineistaken · 09-03-2013, 12:48 PM

African war monger

mikesinner · 09-03-2013, 12:50 PM

Nuclear weapons don't mean shit any more when you are going up against one of the major superpowers. All other countries are just pawns in the game.

When Iran or Syria launches ballistic missiles only to see all of them disintegrated before they even cross the border into enemy territory they will see their folly.

We've had lasers that can take down heavy ballistic missiles for years now. The navy has these on some of their ships. They are very effective and only need to hit an inflight missile for a second or two and they are obliterated.

Rochard · 09-03-2013, 02:05 PM

Wait a second, back the bus up. What exactly did Obama say?

Quote:

The president did not mention Iran by name in his brief on-camera appearance Tuesday, but the implications were clear.

?This is a limited, proportional step that will send a clear message not only to the Assad regime, but also to other countries that may be interested in testing some of these international norms, that there are consequences,? he said.

Those ?other countries? clearly include Syria?s patron Iran, which has been locked in a tense standoff with the United States and other world powers over its suspect nuclear program.

So clearly he didn't say "the end goal is Iran". He didn't even mention Iran by name. It was more of a blanket warning to "other countries". The "other countries" could also mean North Korea.

People need to stop making shit up already. Between the article wanting to include Iran in there to the poster here on GFY making up "end game" statements, at this point you can't believe anything on line.

wehateporn · 09-03-2013, 02:09 PM

End game is Russia, after Iran

BFT3K · 09-03-2013, 02:12 PM

baddog · 09-03-2013, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Wait a second, back the bus up. What exactly did Obama say?

So clearly he didn't say "the end goal is Iran". He didn't even mention Iran by name. It was more of a blanket warning to "other countries". The "other countries" could also mean North Korea.

People need to stop making shit up already. Between the article wanting to include Iran in there to the poster here on GFY making up "end game" statements, at this point you can't believe anything on line.

Consider the source (onwebcam)

Rochard · 09-03-2013, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Shhhhhh.

During the original gulf war I was working for a restaurant called The Wall Street Cafe". The owner played the market, did well, invested the money into a cafe, etc... So he got me to invest into a company that make skin grafts, sort of a like a "fake skin". We all invested in this company and the second day of the war we pulled out - making a killing.

I can see how war is big business.

DWB · 09-03-2013, 02:42 PM

Retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark...

Quote:

"US will attack 7 countries in 5 years"

Then he names them. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan... and Iran.

But I'm guessing GFY has more intel than he does, so it's probably not even worth a watch.

- Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
- Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), which granted him overall command of NATO military forces in Europe 1997 - 2001.
- Awarded Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service in Viet Nam and numerous subsequent medals and citations.
- Graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point.

dyna mo · 09-03-2013, 02:55 PM

sounds official

Quote:

In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: "As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan."

hallway chat with an anon senior military staffwritten about in a book for sale is certainly official policy.

pornmasta · 09-03-2013, 03:13 PM

the real goal is russia

seeandsee · 09-03-2013, 03:16 PM

I bet this is their test polygon, will Russia give them this?!

Rochard · 09-03-2013, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark...

Then he names them. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan... and Iran.

But I'm guessing GFY has more intel than he does, so it's probably not even worth a watch.

- Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
- Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), which granted him overall command of NATO military forces in Europe 1997 - 2001.
- Awarded Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service in Viet Nam and numerous subsequent medals and citations.
- Graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point.

The things that General Wesley Clark knows would most likely scare the piss out of all of us.

With that said, add in North Korea and that's the standard list of bad people these days. If he's right, we better pick up the pace.

Rochard · 09-03-2013, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

sounds official

hallway chat with an anon senior military staffwritten about in a book for sale is certainly official policy.

So he said this about a conversation in 2001? So it wasn't true then?

notinmybackyard · 09-03-2013, 03:28 PM

If it brought peace to this world. (Hell if it saves the life of even just one innocent child)
I personally will suck off Obama to get him thrown out of office. In fact I will suck off each and ever single tin pot democratic nation's dictator that comes along.

And I can leave my false teeth in or take them out as whatever they prefer. There comes a point in time when you are old that all you really to see is people getting along.

pornmasta · 09-03-2013, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notinmybackyard

In fact I will suck off each and ever single tin pot democratic nation's dictator that comes along.
.

dyna mo · 09-03-2013, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

So he said this about a conversation in 2001? So it wasn't true then?

it's called hearsay or anecdotal evidence. it's reads good in a book and sounds good on the book tour but it's no way at all evidence of policy or even a fact the "chat" happened.

Mutt · 09-03-2013, 04:50 PM

It's way over 5 years since they invaded Iraq so that part is wrong.

Rochard · 09-03-2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's called hearsay or anecdotal evidence. it's reads good in a book and sounds good on the book tour but it's no way at all evidence of policy or even a fact the "chat" happened.

My point was not that he accepted this potential conversation as fact, but was instead about how 12 years later someone repeats it on a message board when it's obviously not true because we haven't attacked all of those countries.

Jman · 09-03-2013, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark...

Then he names them. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan... and Iran.

But I'm guessing GFY has more intel than he does, so it's probably not even worth a watch.

- Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
- Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), which granted him overall command of NATO military forces in Europe 1997 - 2001.
- Awarded Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service in Viet Nam and numerous subsequent medals and citations.
- Graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point.

PHEW!!! Good thing Canuckstikan ain't on that list

DWB · 09-03-2013, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's called hearsay or anecdotal evidence. it's reads good in a book and sounds good on the book tour but it's no way at all evidence of policy or even a fact the "chat" happened.

Yea... General Clark, who was probably the most powerful military commander in the world while he was serving, is probably just trying to sell books and made shit up. Because there is nothing else in his boring life he could have written about.

If this came from Alex Jones, I'd agree with you.

And considering NO ONE expected Iraq and Afghanistan to last as long as they did, it is very plausible they extended their time line. There is only so much money and military might, they can only do so much at once. Syria is up next. I guess we'll have to wait and see about the others. However, Iraq and Libya are done. France mostly did Libya, but the US helped arm the rebels. They are already talking about sending some troops to Somalia. So that will be 4 of 7. Only 3 more to go after Syria and Somalia, it just took longer than 5 years, which would be expected given the state of the other two drawn out wars and financial melt down. Had Iraq and Afghanistan went quick and smooth the way they thought it was going to go, they would have already moved on.

baddog · 09-03-2013, 06:02 PM

Someone thought Afghanistan would be quick? hmmm . . . . they had to be complete idiots to think that.

DWB · 09-03-2013, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jman

PHEW!!! Good thing Canuckstikan ain't on that list

Canuckstikan is coming next mutha fucka! The mic cut him off before he said it, but you could see it in his beady little eyes.

DWB · 09-03-2013, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Someone thought Afghanistan would be quick? hmmm . . . . they had to be complete idiots to think that.

Yea... well....

Jman · 09-03-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Canuckstikan is coming next mutha fucka! The mic cut him off before he said it, but you could see it in his beady little eyes.

Yeah... I can picture it now

winter_ · 09-03-2013, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornmasta

the real goal is russia

and china. actually china could be, rather foolishly now, the target for the united states military to bring regime change in the end, as the grand finale.

what a big mistake for ahmadinejad to win another term in office not so long ago but it was a while, not sure when the next election there perhaps if he can be voted out or be the lucky one to be reasoned with democratically but before then prolong any heat of war before it bursts in to flame.

obama isn't a liberal or a democrat anymore going around doing and supporting this.

noshit · 09-03-2013, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

End game is Russia, after Iran

Yep. Maybe even before Iran.

How much you wanna bet they are moving warheads to the east coast right now, as us 'serfs' try to figure out what's going on.

This Syria thing needs to be stopped. SSSeriously Stopped...

winter_ · 09-03-2013, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noshit

Yep. Maybe even before Iran.

How much you wanna bet they are moving warheads to the east coast right now, as us 'serfs' try to figure out what's going on.

This Syria thing needs to be stopped. SSSeriously Stopped...

you went for the alarmist tone, please don't.

but you are right, yes i can bet everyone's bases are on alert. but all is good here in my part of the world, perhaps considering coming down and knocking on my door, i have plenty of room for you.

sarettah · 09-03-2013, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornmasta

Tom_PM · 09-03-2013, 08:45 PM

I'm just curious what people would say if they saw with their own eyes the Syrian president load and fire chemical weapons against protestors? Are they still cool with that/ vote to not do anything about it?

My feeling is that 99% of the reason people say they don't want to do anything is because they think it's one conspiracy theory or another and it makes me sick.

Put another way, what WOULD it take? Forget someone else telling you anything, what would your eyes need to witness before you would use a remote weapon to bomb a site that fired the weapons you SAW kill babies with chemicals? Forget whatever the real situation is, would you want to take out a missile site that fired a weapon that you SAW kill babies with chemical agents or not?

I don't get people on this issue but really want to. Again, forget the reality and just pretend the president of Syria walked up to a baby carriage and sprayed poison into it. Would you say "no" to intervention? Do people really say "no" to intervening? Or "no" because they don't believe anyone anymore?

Again, 99% positive it's all conspiracy/false flag/ whack a mole conspiracy theory of the day reasoning behind polls like that, but would love to hear someone explain how it's fine with them if people use chemical weapons as long as it's not in their baby's face.

winter_ · 09-03-2013, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

I'm just curious what people would say if they saw with their own eyes the Syrian president load and fire chemical weapons against protestors? Are they still cool with that/ vote to not do anything about it?

My feeling is that 99% of the reason people say they don't want to do anything is because they think it's one conspiracy theory or another and it makes me sick.

Put another way, what WOULD it take? Forget someone else telling you anything, what would your eyes need to witness before you would use a remote weapon to bomb a site that fired the weapons you SAW kill babies with chemicals? Forget whatever the real situation is, would you want to take out a missile site that fired a weapon that you SAW kill babies with chemical agents or not?

I don't get people on this issue but really want to. Again, forget the reality and just pretend the president of Syria walked up to a baby carriage and sprayed poison into it. Would you say "no" to intervention? Do people really say "no" to intervening? Or "no" because they don't believe anyone anymore?

Again, 99% positive it's all conspiracy/false flag/ whack a mole conspiracy theory of the day reasoning behind polls like that, but would love to hear someone explain how it's fine with them if people use chemical weapons as long as it's not in their baby's face.

toushae.

but when the united states does it it is okay.

baddog · 09-03-2013, 09:44 PM

I don't care who did it, none of our business. If you think it is that important, urge your government to go do something about it. Why should we?

Rochard · 09-03-2013, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

I'm just curious what people would say if they saw with their own eyes the Syrian president load and fire chemical weapons against protestors? Are they still cool with that/ vote to not do anything about it?

My feeling is that 99% of the reason people say they don't want to do anything is because they think it's one conspiracy theory or another and it makes me sick.

Put another way, what WOULD it take? Forget someone else telling you anything, what would your eyes need to witness before you would use a remote weapon to bomb a site that fired the weapons you SAW kill babies with chemicals? Forget whatever the real situation is, would you want to take out a missile site that fired a weapon that you SAW kill babies with chemical agents or not?

I don't get people on this issue but really want to. Again, forget the reality and just pretend the president of Syria walked up to a baby carriage and sprayed poison into it. Would you say "no" to intervention? Do people really say "no" to intervening? Or "no" because they don't believe anyone anymore?

Again, 99% positive it's all conspiracy/false flag/ whack a mole conspiracy theory of the day reasoning behind polls like that, but would love to hear someone explain how it's fine with them if people use chemical weapons as long as it's not in their baby's face.

Well, after eight years of Bush and lies about weapons, you can understand why.

Even if I saw it happen with my own eyes, I still question if we should get involved. The US gets involved and we look like the bad guys. Fuck this. Let the UN decide, we'll pay the money, and someone else do the dirty work. France seems to be eager.

dyna mo · 09-03-2013, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Yea... General Clark, who was probably the most powerful military commander in the world while he was serving, is probably just trying to sell books and made shit up. Because there is nothing else in his boring life he could have written about.

If this came from Alex Jones, I'd agree with you.

And considering NO ONE expected Iraq and Afghanistan to last as long as they did, it is very plausible they extended their time line. There is only so much money and military might, they can only do so much at once. Syria is up next. I guess we'll have to wait and see about the others. However, Iraq and Libya are done. France mostly did Libya, but the US helped arm the rebels. They are already talking about sending some troops to Somalia. So that will be 4 of 7. Only 3 more to go after Syria and Somalia, it just took longer than 5 years, which would be expected given the state of the other two drawn out wars and financial melt down. Had Iraq and Afghanistan went quick and smooth the way they thought it was going to go, they would have already moved on.

why anyone would trust him just because he said it is beyond me. he's more trustworthy than other military? because he didn't keep the *secret*? instead revealing this chat in a book he was pitching.

wesley clark was a political candidate and a book writer as well as being top military and i'm just supposed to go along with an anecdotal story about a hallway chitty chat outlining formal war policy that is embraced by 2 presidents from different parties and is still front & center plan 12 years later.

no, i'm not going to just buy that line.

moreover-

no one is talking about sending troops to somalia or even bombing it

no one is talking about attacking/bombing/sending troops to lebanon

no one is talking about attacking/bombing/sending troops to the sudan

Rochard · 09-03-2013, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Yea... General Clark, who was probably the most powerful military commander in the world while he was serving, is probably just trying to sell books and made shit up. Because there is nothing else in his boring life he could have written about.

Maybe. Or maybe he was just commenting on something someone told him at the Pentagon. Just because he heard it at the Pentagon, doesn't mean it's true. There are a lot of people who work at the Pentagon; I am guessing some of the totally crazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

And considering NO ONE expected Iraq and Afghanistan to last as long as they did, it is very plausible they extended their time line. There is only so much money and military might, they can only do so much at once. Syria is up next. I guess we'll have to wait and see about the others. However, Iraq and Libya are done. France mostly did Libya, but the US helped arm the rebels. They are already talking about sending some troops to Somalia. So that will be 4 of 7. Only 3 more to go after Syria and Somalia, it just took longer than 5 years, which would be expected given the state of the other two drawn out wars and financial melt down. Had Iraq and Afghanistan went quick and smooth the way they thought it was going to go, they would have already moved on.

So you are saying that because the US was "tied down" in Afghanistan and Iraq we were... Unable to do anything else? What was the entire Pacific Fleet doing during this time? And what forces did we have in Europe? Korea?

Rochard · 09-03-2013, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no one is talking about sending troops to somalia or even bombing it

no one is talking about attacking/bombing/sending troops to lebanon

no one is talking about attacking/bombing/sending troops to the sudan

I don't even understand how these three countries came up in discussion at all. Why would the US want to attack or invade any of these three? I can see Lebanon, but that's a far stretch of the imagination isn't it?

winter_ · 09-03-2013, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Well, after eight years of Bush and lies about weapons, you can understand why.

Even if I saw it happen with my own eyes, I still question if we should get involved. The US gets involved and we look like the bad guys. Fuck this. Let the UN decide, we'll pay the money, and someone else do the dirty work. France seems to be eager.

hell no. africans will be fighting many africans fight or keep the peace in the united nations force the black separatists won't be having it because they will be ultimately helping the united states even with a black president, but he is actually genetically a cross.

mikesinner · 09-03-2013, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notinmybackyard

If it brought peace to this world. (Hell if it saves the life of even just one innocent child)
I personally will suck off Obama to get him thrown out of office. In fact I will suck off each and ever single tin pot democratic nation's dictator that comes along.

And I can leave my false teeth in or take them out as whatever they prefer. There comes a point in time when you are old that all you really to see is people getting along.

The republican party as a whole i done for the next twenty years and good riddance to them.

Syria could be a turning point if there is major intervention though. Still I see it as something that will be worse for republicans.

PornoMonster · 09-04-2013, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesinner

The republican party as a whole i done for the next twenty years and good riddance to them.

Syria could be a turning point if there is major intervention though. Still I see it as something that will be worse for republicans.

Yeah Obama will Bomb Syria, because "there is Chemical Weapons"
and BUSH will get Blamed...............

MovieMaster · 09-04-2013, 02:31 AM

Wheres Cindy Sheehan and all the other libs? When they protest Obama like they did Bush I'll believe they are sincere in their beliefs. Still havent seen them during Egypt, Tunisha, Libya, and Now syria...

Politicians will all most likely agree in private that they support it but they have to play their role and keep those in tight districts in office at the same time.... its all a game to fool the sheeple.

DWB · 09-04-2013, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

why anyone would trust him just because he said it is beyond me.

1) Because what he said is playing out. Just slower than expected.

2) Clark isn't a schmuck. It doesn't make sense for a retired four star general who had so much respect and trust to just make shit up for the sake of making it up and risk tarnishing his reputation. Men like him want to leave an legacy, and the quickest way for him to ruin his would be to start telling lies just so he could sell a few books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no one is talking about sending troops to somalia or even bombing it

You don't have to bomb a place to attack it. And it often starts with the USA training their forces to fight "terrorists" and/or arming them.

US special forces are already there training them to fight against Al-Shabab, and Obama is going to send them weapons.

http://rt.com/usa/us-deploying-troops-order-749/
(US deploying troops to 35 African countries )

Quote:

Additionally, the AP says that US troops will head specifically to Libya, Sudan, Algeria and Niger in order to prepare for any advances from al-Qaeda linked groups. Americans will also train and equip forces in Kenya and Somalia, reportedly, in order to stand up to al-Shabab militants.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/0...ns-to-somalia/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1516943.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no one is talking about attacking/bombing/sending troops to lebanon

http://rt.com/usa/us-military-lebanon-iraq-335/

http://www.armytimes.com/article/201...s-Lebanon-Iraq

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no one is talking about attacking/bombing/sending troops to the sudan

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...troop-mission/

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/01/10/o...o-south-sudan/

And you forgot the first boogieman they created, Kony. Excellent creation to get our foot further in the door with full support.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/send...lp-south-sudan

This is how it starts, with baby steps and making deals with the governments and war lords. Getting the pieces of the chess board into place.

Pay attention man, there are a lot of small but significant and strategic moves happening globally. Resources are being secured and the US is in a race with China and Russia to secure as much as Africa as possible. As soon as the middle east is on lock down, the boogieman fight will focus and shift to Africa. Count on it.

just a punk · 09-04-2013, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesinner

When Iran or Syria launches ballistic missiles only to see all of them disintegrated before they even cross the border into enemy territory they will see their folly.

This is a fairytale. No one (the USA or any other country) is able to intercept the modern ballistic missiles. Because they (the missiles) are flying too high and too fast

DWB · 09-04-2013, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I don't even understand how these three countries came up in discussion at all. Why would the US want to attack or invade any of these three? I can see Lebanon, but that's a far stretch of the imagination isn't it?

The thing about being an empire is, you have to keep expanding. And you can't continue an expanding empire without resources.

Right now China and Russia are securing a lot of Africa while the USA plays with it's dick and gets sucked into war after war in the Middle East. Eventually the US Empire is going to want everything it can get in Africa, and needs to start securing it now or risk being shut out.

DWB · 09-04-2013, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I don't even understand how these three countries came up in discussion at all. Why would the US want to attack or invade any of these three? I can see Lebanon, but that's a far stretch of the imagination isn't it?

Sudan:

Quote:

Natural resources: petroleum; small reserves of iron ore, copper, chromium ore, zinc, tungsten, mica, silver, gold; hydropower

Definition: This entry lists a country's mineral, petroleum, hydropower, and other resources of commercial importance.

Somalia:

Quote:

Natural resources: uranium and largely unexploited reserves of iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper, salt, natural gas, likely oil reserves

Definition: This entry lists a country's mineral, petroleum, hydropower, and other resources of commercial importance.

Lebanon:

Quote:

Natural resources: limestone, iron ore, salt, water-surplus state in a water-deficit region, arable land

Definition: This entry lists a country's mineral, petroleum, hydropower, and other resources of commercial importance.

And so on.

winter_ · 09-04-2013, 04:08 AM

i still think the end game is china maybe a fall of communism repeat from 1991 in 2021. china is still marxist-leninist, and it is very difficult to get news out of that country.

mineistaken · 09-04-2013, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

I'm just curious what people would say if they saw with their own eyes the Syrian president load and fire chemical weapons against protestors? Are they still cool with that/ vote to not do anything about it?

My feeling is that 99% of the reason people say they don't want to do anything is because they think it's one conspiracy theory or another and it makes me sick.

Put another way, what WOULD it take? Forget someone else telling you anything, what would your eyes need to witness before you would use a remote weapon to bomb a site that fired the weapons you SAW kill babies with chemicals? Forget whatever the real situation is, would you want to take out a missile site that fired a weapon that you SAW kill babies with chemical agents or not?

I don't get people on this issue but really want to. Again, forget the reality and just pretend the president of Syria walked up to a baby carriage and sprayed poison into it. Would you say "no" to intervention? Do people really say "no" to intervening? Or "no" because they don't believe anyone anymore?

Again, 99% positive it's all conspiracy/false flag/ whack a mole conspiracy theory of the day reasoning behind polls like that, but would love to hear someone explain how it's fine with them if people use chemical weapons as long as it's not in their baby's face.

Its THEIR civil war, other countries has nothing to do with it.

mikesinner · 09-04-2013, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

Yeah Obama will Bomb Syria, because "there is Chemical Weapons"
and BUSH will get Blamed...............

The Senate and Congress will take most of the blame but it will hurt Obama too. I just think it will be worse for the republicans but I suspect it won't make much difference for either party unless things go really bad in Syria.

As things stand now the republicans will lose the most in 2012 as they are doing absolutely nothing to help the economy move forward as Obama has been blocked at every turn.

DWB · 09-04-2013, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Its THEIR civil war, other countries has nothing to do with it.

Flip the script. The US breaks out in a civil war 10 years from now. Militias and civilians (labeled as "insurgents" or "rebels" to lessen the blow of killing them) go against the National Guard / Military and police. The "rebels" start to lose. China or Russia runs to the rebel's aid and arms them so they can better fight the US government.

Such a thing is unthinkable and would be seen as an act of war by the US gov. Yet, time and time again the west meddles into affairs it doesn't belong in.

That said, if the Syrian gov really did gas their own people, they need to have those chemical weapons taken from them or lose their ability to use them again. Even in war, among the civilized their are rules. But they have to be 100% sure who did it, and it needs to be a fast, well targeted military strike, and then it's over. Let the war continue and allow Syria's future to be decided by Syrians.

dyna mo · 09-04-2013, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

But I'm guessing GFY has more intel than he does, so it's probably not even worth a watch.

for someone who chides everyone else for thinking they know wtf is up, you sure seem to think you know wtf is up.

nico-t · 09-04-2013, 06:30 AM

3rd world country only making money with weapons = United States of Africa

09-03-2013, 12:34 PM	#1
onwebcam Fake Nick 1.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Rent free, your head Posts: 27,652	Obama admits end goal is Iran "Earlier, Obama ramped up his parallel sales pitches for striking Syria, warning lawmakers that the standoff amounts to a dress rehearsal for a possible confrontation with Iran while assuring the U.S. public he won’t give them a rerun of Iraq or Afghanistan." http://news.yahoo.com/-obama-puts-tw...152634247.html Ofcourse it won't be a rerun Syria and Iran have conventional weapons... __________________ PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF..... ██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete. Last edited by onwebcam; 09-03-2013 at 12:38 PM..

09-03-2013, 12:50 PM	#3
mikesinner Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 5,646	Nuclear weapons don't mean shit any more when you are going up against one of the major superpowers. All other countries are just pawns in the game. When Iran or Syria launches ballistic missiles only to see all of them disintegrated before they even cross the border into enemy territory they will see their folly. We've had lasers that can take down heavy ballistic missiles for years now. The navy has these on some of their ships. They are very effective and only need to hit an inflight missile for a second or two and they are obliterated. __________________ My Best Sponsors MPl l Camsl CUMSHOTSl LESBIANSl FETISHl BJ RACESl TEEN BJl BSDMl VODl USE YOUR PC TO CURE CANCER

09-03-2013, 02:09 PM	#5
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	End game is Russia, after Iran __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

09-03-2013, 03:16 PM	#12
seeandsee Check SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe (Skype: gojkoas) Posts: 50,945	I bet this is their test polygon, will Russia give them this?! __________________ BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year Contact here

09-03-2013, 03:28 PM	#15
notinmybackyard Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 3,230	If it brought peace to this world. (Hell if it saves the life of even just one innocent child) I personally will suck off Obama to get him thrown out of office. In fact I will suck off each and ever single tin pot democratic nation's dictator that comes along. And I can leave my false teeth in or take them out as whatever they prefer. There comes a point in time when you are old that all you really to see is people getting along. __________________ *officially retired as of March 01 2018 but still fucking around and getting into shit.*

09-03-2013, 12:48 PM	#2
mineistaken See signature :) Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: ICQ 363 097 773 Posts: 29,656	African war monger

09-03-2013, 02:12 PM	#6
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764

09-03-2013, 03:13 PM	#11
pornmasta Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 18,950	the real goal is russia

09-03-2013, 04:50 PM	#18
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	It's way over 5 years since they invaded Iraq so that part is wrong. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

09-03-2013, 06:02 PM	#22
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,090	Someone thought Afghanistan would be quick? hmmm . . . . they had to be complete idiots to think that.

09-03-2013, 08:45 PM	#30
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	I'm just curious what people would say if they saw with their own eyes the Syrian president load and fire chemical weapons against protestors? Are they still cool with that/ vote to not do anything about it? My feeling is that 99% of the reason people say they don't want to do anything is because they think it's one conspiracy theory or another and it makes me sick. Put another way, what WOULD it take? Forget someone else telling you anything, what would your eyes need to witness before you would use a remote weapon to bomb a site that fired the weapons you SAW kill babies with chemicals? Forget whatever the real situation is, would you want to take out a missile site that fired a weapon that you SAW kill babies with chemical agents or not? I don't get people on this issue but really want to. Again, forget the reality and just pretend the president of Syria walked up to a baby carriage and sprayed poison into it. Would you say "no" to intervention? Do people really say "no" to intervening? Or "no" because they don't believe anyone anymore? Again, 99% positive it's all conspiracy/false flag/ whack a mole conspiracy theory of the day reasoning behind polls like that, but would love to hear someone explain how it's fine with them if people use chemical weapons as long as it's not in their baby's face. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

09-03-2013, 09:44 PM	#32
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,090	I don't care who did it, none of our business. If you think it is that important, urge your government to go do something about it. Why should we?

09-04-2013, 02:31 AM	#40
MovieMaster Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 897	Wheres Cindy Sheehan and all the other libs? When they protest Obama like they did Bush I'll believe they are sincere in their beliefs. Still havent seen them during Egypt, Tunisha, Libya, and Now syria... Politicians will all most likely agree in private that they support it but they have to play their role and keep those in tight districts in office at the same time.... its all a game to fool the sheeple. __________________ 100% Exclusive Program Babe-Bucks.com = HotModelClub.com \| NextDoor-Models.com Payments by: CCBILL ICQ Three 02 Five 638 Five 6 ReliableServers.com - NEED BANDWIDTH?

09-04-2013, 04:08 AM	#45
winter_ So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Perth, Adelaide, Auckland, Seattle Posts: 750	i still think the end game is china maybe a fall of communism repeat from 1991 in 2021. china is still marxist-leninist, and it is very difficult to get news out of that country.

09-04-2013, 06:30 AM	#50
nico-t emperor of my world Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: nethalands Posts: 29,903	3rd world country only making money with weapons = United States of Africa