Boehner supports military action in Syria...

[squeeze berry]

. . . which has nothing to do prevent us from putting a missile between his eyes.

If you disagree with your congressperson or senator, vote against them in the primary next year.

your theory is that anyone that opposes Obama is a racist

 

[squeeze berry]

We have dismissed Redfish as having anything to offer other than an anti-Semite racist and hater of American values.

Neither Iran nor Russia would dare touch Israel, and neither would dare fire on our ships or our planes.

We see what would have happened if Redfish had been the president in 1941 or 1962.

We would be a fourth rate nation.

Jake hates white people and wants them exterminated from the face of the planet

 

[Beachboy]

Yay instead of building America...We're going to waste more resources on the middle east. Damn, what a fucked up people.

Could not agree with you more! I can not believe Boehner is supporting President Obama on this. Wouldn't you know that getting into another war is the one thing these two idiots can agree upon! As an Independent voter, I will vote every incumbent out in 2014.

 

[squeeze berry]

You laugh at dead children, QuickHitCurepon

jake loves dead children

You are a sick person, squeeze berry.

I would punish those who kill children, while apparently you would protect Assad and his killers.

you would punish those that did not share your sick beliefs of killing children, you masturbate thinking about it

 

[squeeze berry]

Frank, you make no sense as usual.

How is the tailoring on your new commissar uniform?

Squawk 50000 killed squawk $6 trillion spent squawk Jake wanna cracka

Yep you are parroting the communist line.

you are the communist line

 

[francoHFW]

Not at all. Bush launched an all out invasion of Iraq on bad intelligence, wrecked the economy, killed and hurt 200,000 Iraqis and 50,000 Americans.

Obama wants to punish Syria with a limited missile strike.

There is no equivalence.

Limited missle strike? That's what they say now. But it will be much different when it's over.

of course it will, syria is being armed by Iran and Russia. What will we do when they hit Israel? What will we do if they hit one of our ships or shoot down a plane?

Obama will probably sit in the oval office looking at his monkey face in a mirror and say "look what I have done, I have fucked up the USA really good, just like I planned"

You brainwashed racist Pub dupes will attack ANYONE (see Coulter in that thread) without fear for W, but are terriffied of a desperate tin horn dictator...LOL Look, the sky is falling, fool. No one will retaliate to protect a chemical weapon user from a well deserved one time smack down...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionary simples are absolutely amazing in their inability to logically discuss the OP.

The fact is this: they are yelling because they know absolutely nothing will be influenced by their whatever comments.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I generally like Boehner but I can't support his opinion on this issue. I think the US should sit this one out. My reasons? Well, while it's true the leader of Syria is an ass, so are a large portion of the folks fighting against him. Let them continue to gas each other. Only the strong survive. **** 'em.

 

[Antares]

Clinton was so succesful lobbing missiles at Iraq (rolling eyes)

 

[Spoonman]

Not at all. Bush launched an all out invasion of Iraq on bad intelligence, wrecked the economy, killed and hurt 200,000 Iraqis and 50,000 Americans.

Obama wants to punish Syria with a limited missile strike.

There is no equivalence.

Double standard there jake. you can't argue both sides of the coin, which is exactly what you are trying to do. Remember, in your words The administration and Congress are our representatives, empowered to make decisions in our name.

This is a democratic republican, with the representatives, senators, and president as our folks to make decisions.

Remember, bush never went in with the intention of killing 200,000 Iraqis and 50,000 americans. Clinton tried limited missile strikes, they didn't work. they probably won't work for Obama either. just like Obama's original strategy of supporting air strikes on assad's forces didn't work. he is already responsible for the deaths of thousands and the displacement of thousands of others with his support of these multiple arab uprisings. 3 sovereign nations have already been thrown into turmoil with Obama's edging. If Obama is justified in his actions, bush was just as justified. you can't play it both ways and be right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, you are guilty of a derivative analogy that has failed: limited missile strikes of Syria some how can be compared to Iraq's invasion.

They can't logically. Everything you conclude from the false comparison . . . is immaterial.

 

[Antares]

Obama is a global embarassment....the man a joke.

 

[Londoner]

Remember, bush never went in with the intention of killing 200,000 Iraqis and 50,000 americans. Clinton tried limited missile strikes, they didn't work. they probably won't work for Obama either. just like Obama's original strategy of supporting air strikes on assad's forces didn't work. he is already responsible for the deaths of thousands and the displacement of thousands of others with his support of these multiple arab uprisings. 3 sovereign nations have already been thrown into turmoil with Obama's edging. If Obama is justified in his actions, bush was just as justified. you can't play it both ways and be right.

The Bush policy was regime change, which his father rejected in the Gulf War because he was advised that regime change would lead to terrible instability and a bloody civil war. The Bush policy was also for boots on the ground. Both these factors have much higher casualty rates than the Obama plan. So it's not quite accurate to say they are the same thing and have identical consequences, however unforeseen. On the other hand, Vietnam started with a very limited engagement, so I take your point (sort of) RE unintended consequences.

The fact that the Bush fabricated WMDS and the 9/11 link in order to pursue a policy that that his defense team created in the 90s makes me even more skeptical about trusting Washington when it comes to military engagements.

As a Lefty I'm allowed to oppose my leaders when it comes to things like war. The student Left actually lead the charge again LBJ, which costs him a second term. On the other hand, the average rightwing voter would never oppose a GOP president when it comes to war. When Bush announced the Iraq War, the majority of Republican voters became attack dogs on behalf of Washington - they attacked anybody who questioned Dear Leader. Indeed, critics of Bush's war were called anti-Americans and terrorist sympathizers.

When Republicans said we could turn an Iraqi civil war into a modern, western style democracy, I laughed.

I laughed because Republicans have always told us that Washington isn't competent enough to run a laundromat, yet somehow they tried to convince us that Washington bureaucrats could remake the Arab world in our democratic image. Republicans never questioned whether or not Washington had the power to save an Arab country. They never asked questions like the follwoing: what if our intervention makes things worse? What if it's not as easy and quick as dear leader promised? What if we unleash a bloody civil war and the Iraqi civilian death toll climbs higher than it did under Hussein? Republicans don't know how to question their leaders because their party cultivates commitment to leaders rather than principals.

Most of my democratic friends think we don't have the ability to effectively help Syria, and they oppose Obama. If we were on the right, we would be completely outcast for opposing dear leader.

 

[Spoonman]

Actually, you are guilty of a derivative analogy that has failed: limited missile strikes of Syria some how can be compared to Iraq's invasion.

They can't logically. Everything you conclude from the false comparison . . . is immaterial.

and what if the limited missile strikes accomplish nothing? they didn't work in iraq. they didn't work in syria earlier this year. and based on what? what proof do we have assads forces are the ones who even used sarin? how do we know it wasn't some terrorist depot that got blown up? idk, the reactionaries on the left are jumping the gun on this one. funny how they can't learn from the mistakes they have been claiming others made for years. but thats what reactionaries do

 

[Redfish]

Actually, you are guilty of a derivative analogy that has failed: limited missile strikes of Syria some how can be compared to Iraq's invasion.

They can't logically. Everything you conclude from the false comparison . . . is immaterial.

and what if the limited missile strikes accomplish nothing? they didn't work in iraq. they didn't work in syria earlier this year. and based on what? what proof do we have assads forces are the ones who even used sarin? how do we know it wasn't some terrorist depot that got blown up? idk, the reactionaries on the left are jumping the gun on this one. funny how they can't learn from the mistakes they have been claiming others made for years. but thats what reactionaries do

yep.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope.

We don't know they won't work. We do know if we do nothing that won't work either.

There is no more "just once more" on whether Assad's forces used gas: that argument is finished.

We will not go further than the cruise missile strikes. If they don't work, we at least tried.

 

[Katzndogz]

Just as soon as there is some proof that Assad used those weapons.

Russia has a 100 page report that it was the rebels.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.UiiiaIDn85s

Do you see a report from the US saying that it was Assad? Aren't you just taking obama's and Kerry's word for it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Katzndogz, there is no more "just once more" that will influence the admin's decision.

All of the 'tin foil window' has failed.

 

[Desperado]

Boehner shows his true colors.....
another politician who refuses to listen to the will of the people.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Fakey has no evidence. He's just a world class boot licker. Mentality unstable to boot.