Romney wants to arm Syrian opposition

Newsflash- our sons and daughters are dying now and they aren't allowed to defend themselves even when fired upon.

Obama's plan is to keep sending our troops over there to be sitting ducks until the deadline comes when we will retreat.

September was the bloodiest month yet for our brave men and women. Didn't see much about it on the news since the media quit doing a daily body count when Obama took office.
 
Draft dodger Mitt loves war.

Just like all chicken hawk Republicans.

How many of Romney's sons will go?
 
Romney calls for arming Syrian opposition, as part of Middle East course change | Fox News

Ladies and Gentleman, you have now been introduced to the next GOP war, where your sons and daughters will be dying one day....if Mitt is elected.

Now, wait just a darn minute!

When Obama consented to allow US forces to back Europe's intervention on the side of the Libyan rebels, and limited them to recon and support roles, that was warmongering to the right.

What is it when Mitt wants to arm the Syrian rebels? And, one must wonder just what he'd do if that didn't swing the balance of power in their civil war. Or, if it pissed off the Russian's and Chinese and they began shipping arms to Assad directly (which they would).
 
How would arming the Syrian rebels do that? FYI that is pretty much what Obama did with Libya the problem being once the dictator was gone he walked away from Libya and we all know what the result of that was.


Walked away? Prove it. We've been deeply involved in post-war Libya all along and still are.
 
Romney calls for arming Syrian opposition, as part of Middle East course change | Fox News

Ladies and Gentleman, you have now been introduced to the next GOP war, where your sons and daughters will be dying one day....if Mitt is elected.

Right because leading from behind in Libya worked so well:rolleyes:


Anyway, arming them is starting a war? Hello, wtf you think is going down over there now?



And, for the record, it's too late, we have no and won't have influence in Syria, this shoud have happened lat year when it really got going......whomever takes over after Assad will never trust us because we sat it out, supplies wise etc.
 
Yeah lets train and arm some more Muslims like we did the taliban and Sadam and Iran, etc.

Well it will keep the military budget up and the MIC in money.
think of all those jobs we can save by killing people.
 
Newsflash- our sons and daughters are dying now and they aren't allowed to defend themselves even when fired upon.

Obama's plan is to keep sending our troops over there to be sitting ducks until the deadline comes when we will retreat.

September was the bloodiest month yet for our brave men and women. Didn't see much about it on the news since the media quit doing a daily body count when Obama took office.

That liberal PBS That Romney plans on defunding kept doing it. a minute of silence showing pics and names of the fallen.
 
How would arming the Syrian rebels do that? FYI that is pretty much what Obama did with Libya the problem being once the dictator was gone he walked away from Libya and we all know what the result of that was.


Walked away? Prove it. We've been deeply involved in post-war Libya all along and still are.
Prove it really ok a destroyed embassy a murdered ambassador along with three other Americans and the situation on the ground so dangerous we can't get people on the ground to investigate. If we were deeply involved in Libya I really don't think that would have happened.
 
How would arming the Syrian rebels do that? FYI that is pretty much what Obama did with Libya the problem being once the dictator was gone he walked away from Libya and we all know what the result of that was.


Walked away? Prove it. We've been deeply involved in post-war Libya all along and still are.
Prove it really ok a destroyed embassy a murdered ambassador along with three other Americans and the situation on the ground so dangerous we can't get people on the ground to investigate. If we were deeply involved in Libya I really don't think that would have happened.


If we'd walked away like you say, those folks wouldn't have been there, would they?

What do you think they were doing in Libya in relation to your "walking away" comment?

ps: It was a consulate, not the embassy.
 
Arming rebels or anyone over there always backfires and the terrorists wind up with the weapons and/or the rebels turn and become terrorists. I hasn't worked in the past and if anything it has escalated things to the point of the US needing to intervene. Even John Bolton thinks it's a bad idea (surprise).
 
Walked away? Prove it. We've been deeply involved in post-war Libya all along and still are.
Prove it really ok a destroyed embassy a murdered ambassador along with three other Americans and the situation on the ground so dangerous we can't get people on the ground to investigate. If we were deeply involved in Libya I really don't think that would have happened.


If we'd walked away like you say, those folks wouldn't have been there, would they?

What do you think they were doing in Libya in relation to your "walking away" comment?

ps: It was a consulate, not the embassy.
When you leave your people there with inadequate security that is walking away when the now dead ambassador voiced his concerns about the security to the administration and nothing was done that is walking away. PS embassy or consulate does not change the fact the security was inadequate the concerns over it by those one the ground were not addressed and four people died because of it. Again if the administration was deeply involved in Libya as you say this would not have happened.
 

Forum List

Back
Top