U.S.- War with Syria?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Chilidawg » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:24 am

assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.


So, was the gas attack justified?



Yes.

How so?

Are you arguing that "any dead Muslim is a good Muslim?"
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am


Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby assateague » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:26 am

Nope. I'm basically using the same argument we used when dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our government incinerated two cities with nukes, killing hundreds of thousands, to help us win a war. Assad (if it was Assad) dropped chemical weapons on three neighborhoods, killing several hundred, to help him win a war.


How is there any moral difference?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby assateague » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:29 am

And much to my amusement, Putin just called John Kerry a liar, multiple times, in front of the world :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby swampbilly 1980 » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:29 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
swampbilly 1980 wrote:Why on this earth doesn't anyone ever consider that perhaps Bush used whatever intel that was provided to him before making a decision
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war as a U.S. Senator. I've heard rumors that she may have had inside access to a person that would have been as knowledgeable as President Bush on the intelligence and had even ordered an attack Iraq because of their WMD programs. If this is true, it is either very supportive of Bush or very damning of Hillary. If she had access to the previous President and therefore knew it was not reliable, wow, why did she vote for the war? :huh:

Even if it is 100% irrefutable that Bastard al-Assol order the chemical attack, I'm not sure we should attack them.

What would it take for Obama to make this claim?

Image

Does taking out his regime get us anywhere? Does leaving his regime in get us anywhere? What if we leave him in place, he defeats the rebels and then exacts retribution by massacring 10 times as many people, but this time with bullets and not gas? Would our in action not be a de facto sanctioning of massacre as long as it's not with gas? We don't care if you kill your people, you just have to use the approved methods. Yeah, that puts us on the moral high ground :rolleyes:

I get the counter argument too. It is most definitely a screwed up situation. All choices as laid out are very bad. Doing nothing is a bad choice, but I don't see a solid argument that it is not the least bad option.

I think the best options are not on the table. Granted they are bigger risk, but they have the potential to actually accomplish something. I just don't think we will commit to them. At this point, I believe that the best thing for America is that a severely weakened Assad remains in power. So we make that happen or we do nothing and hope that it happens. Everything else in the middle just seems totally half-assed with all downside and no upside.

Agree 'Spinner
It's a no-win either way.
How 'bout this-
Turn the Naval battlegroup 30deg. to port and bomb Irans' nuclear arms facilities. (You know,..before they get re-located :lol3: )
Swampbilly1980- I got a feeva',..and the only cure is more Mergansers and face paint.
User avatar
swampbilly 1980
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 9108
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Gloucester,Va.

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:30 am

assateague wrote:Nope. I'm basically using the same argument we used when dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our government incinerated two cities with nukes, killing hundreds of thousands, to help us win a war. Assad (if it was Assad) dropped chemical weapons on three neighborhoods, killing several hundred, to help him win a war.


How is there any moral difference?

I do not think Assad did it. But to answer your question, the difference is one of scale.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58118
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:19 am

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:Nope. I'm basically using the same argument we used when dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our government incinerated two cities with nukes, killing hundreds of thousands, to help us win a war. Assad (if it was Assad) dropped chemical weapons on three neighborhoods, killing several hundred, to help him win a war.


How is there any moral difference?

I do not think Assad did it. But to answer your question, the difference is one of scale.

We killed more, so that made it better? :huh:

The scale of killing by the chemical weapons by Assad doesn't rank very highly on the massacring your people scale.

BTW, I agree with AT. Whether we sent many planes on multiple raids to incinerate more people in Tokyo or just one plane to do the same, albeit slightly smaller scale, thing in Hiroshima has zero moral difference.

The issue for Americans with WMDs is not a government using them instead of a lot of bullets or bombs to do the same job is any morally different. It is the much higher risk that they can be used by a sub-national group that may not care if they get caught while they have the ability to kill on the same scale as a large military unit or maybe entire army. One man with a gun can kill a lot of people. One man with a nuke can kill an entire small city. If ground zero in NY were ground zero for a nuke, it makes 9/11/01 look like we got off easy. If Russia or China nukes Manhattan or bombs it flat with conventional weapons, it makes no moral difference, but they run the risk of mutual assured destruction. What risk does a suicide bomber run by strapping on a nuclear vest versus a conventional explosives vest? Exactly zero additional risk. It's not about Assad. America does not care if he has WMDs. We care about who might have them afterward, like those Al Qaeda rebels fighting against him. Does bombing Assad make it more likely or less likely that Assad's WMDs will be used against us or our allies? :huh:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:09 pm

The sum of this entire thing so far as I can tell is that Syria, attack Syrians, after Syrians attacked Syria. We are now going to make it all better by attacking Syria.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Me and Black Betty » Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:13 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The sum of this entire thing so far as I can tell is that Syria, attack Syrians, after Syrians attacked Syria. We are now going to make it all better by attacking Syria.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Yea, that pretty much sums it up. I suppose we could come to the rescue of our inner-city violence problems by adding more guns to the equation. The outcome will just be more dead gang bangers and more dead innocent folks caught in the cross-fire.
Whoa, Black Betty BAM-BA-LAM
User avatar
Me and Black Betty
hunter
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:51 am
Location: Eastern CT

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby dudejcb » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:05 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The sum of this entire thing so far as I can tell is that Syria, attack Syrians, after Syrians attacked Syria. We are now going to make it all better by attacking Syria.
yes and the parts are interchangeable and fluid. Depending on who you listen to the Saudi's and others support the notion of the US making a move? Let's see how they step up.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:21 am

Me and Black Betty wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:The sum of this entire thing so far as I can tell is that Syria, attack Syrians, after Syrians attacked Syria. We are now going to make it all better by attacking Syria.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Yea, that pretty much sums it up. I suppose we could come to the rescue of our inner-city violence problems by adding more guns to the equation. The outcome will just be more dead gang bangers and more dead innocent folks caught in the cross-fire.


More guns in the hands of citizens with the right to use them in self defense is the answer. When inner city thugs are the only ones with guns crime skyrockets. Arm the citizens and violent crime plummets. FBI statistics have proven it to be true.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby slowshooter » Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:45 am

Has anyone mentioned Chicago yet? :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby cartervj » Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:05 am

slowshooter wrote:Has anyone mentioned Chicago yet? :lol3:


it is ripe for invasion, throw in Detroit while we're at it



I do love the hypocrisy of Obama and Kerry, it's on full display :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7358
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby beretta24 » Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:56 am

Can't believe the repubs aren't jumping on this. Vote no this and they will clean house in the next elections. Obama and the supporting dems will look like a fools out on his island. The public doesn't want this.

Fools.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:00 am

slowshooter wrote:Has anyone mentioned Chicago yet? :lol3:

You because the Dear Leader is flailing the the inexperience and unqualified man that he is and you are looking for a distraction.

Keep trying, I know you are looking to change the subject from the Dear Leader's obvious failures.

Maybe try this.

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:22 am

Chilidawg wrote:
assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.


So, was the gas attack justified?



Yes.

How so?

Are you arguing that "any dead Muslim is a good Muslim?"




assateague wrote:Nope. I'm basically using the same argument we used when dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our government incinerated two cities with nukes, killing hundreds of thousands, to help us win a war. Assad (if it was Assad) dropped chemical weapons on three neighborhoods, killing several hundred, to help him win a war.


How is there any moral difference?






Chili- where'd you go?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:30 am

He knows you are correct, there is no moral ground for us to attack Syria. Has anyone noticed they keep teling us that Assad gassed his people yet provide no proof of any kind. GWB at least used intelligence on hand and supported his arguments repeatedly. Obummer just keeps telling us to trust him and provides nothing but we are pretty sure he did it.

Our liberal brothers on here need to address how they feel about Obummer become GWB the Second. With less proof, less facts, and less justification, and no real reason he is promoting war against a Muslim nation. Where is the outcry? Where is the equal treatment. Ole GW got a beating, seems like they need to stop bowing before their new Messiah and face the facts.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Rat Creek » Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:51 am

Two things:

Why are chemical weapons a WMD in Syria when several hundred are killed, but not a WMD in Iraq when many thousands are killed? Maybe one of the Useful Idiots on this site can explain that one. :huh:

Never forget that this administration never let's a good crisis go to waste. I am more concerned this is a giant distraction for Obama to cram other bad stuff down our throats like the implementation of Obamacare and raising the debt limit so his eight year assault on the financial underpinnings of the country can continue. Dead people are just the means to an end for committed socialists. :mad:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4535
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Chilidawg » Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:23 am

assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.


So, was the gas attack justified?



Yes.

How so?

Are you arguing that "any dead Muslim is a good Muslim?"




assateague wrote:Nope. I'm basically using the same argument we used when dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our government incinerated two cities with nukes, killing hundreds of thousands, to help us win a war. Assad (if it was Assad) dropped chemical weapons on three neighborhoods, killing several hundred, to help him win a war.


How is there any moral difference?


Chili- where'd you go?


Got a little busy there for a while, couldn't come out to play

Besides for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we also firebombed Tokyo and Dresden. We gave smallpox infected blankets to native Americans. The Romans salted Carthage. Moses slaughtered the Hittites because they have his men STDs ( except for the virgin Gil's whom he have to his soldiers for their sexual gratification)

History is replete with morally questionable acts

Does that mean that we should use them to justify a morally questionable act today?
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby beretta24 » Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:38 am

Rat Creek wrote:Two things:

Why are chemical weapons a WMD in Syria when several hundred are killed, but not a WMD in Iraq when many thousands are killed? Maybe one of the Useful Idiots on this site can explain that one. :huh:

Never forget that this administration never let's a good crisis go to waste. I am more concerned this is a giant distraction for Obama to cram other bad stuff down our throats like the implementation of Obamacare and raising the debt limit so his eight year assault on the financial underpinnings of the country can continue. Dead people are just the means to an end for committed socialists. :mad:

If you support repubs, you should advocate for them to get out of the way of Obamacare and ONLY challenge Obama's desire not to fully implement it as designed. They are fighting a lost battle, and look like cry babies. They'd be better off pushing for Obama to follow the law, and tell people their going to get what Obama gave them. When its implemented in the fashion that passed through congress it will hurt most. THEN you can wake people up for the next election.

The repubs in charge are very poor politicians.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6285
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:46 am

The R's in charge are RINO's. They should have D behind their name.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:02 am

beretta24 wrote:The repubs in charge are very poor politicians.

The repubs in charge are just politicians and that is why they are very poor and on top of that they are terrible politicians.

Politicians have no principles and if you have no principles then you may as well be a Democrat because you will never compete with the masters. What are the inviolable principles that the Democrats stand for? Image

I know what they say, but I mean what they do and what they will be punished for by their voters if they do not do.

Protect the innocent from criminals - Chicago (that's for you slow), Detroit, ... Nothing but lip service

Protect women from being abused by powerful men - Clinton, oh yea, trailer trash doesn't count, they just lie unlike women that accuse people despised by the liberals.

Education - hey Chicago provides safe passage routes for the kids to get to terrible schools, so clearly they care regardless of how many kids get a lousy education.

ScaupHunter wrote:The R's in charge are RINO's. They should have D behind their name.
Your wrong. It's all about winning. All we need to do is get Hillary to put an R after her name and she can run on both tickets and then we have a guaranteed Republican victory in 2016 :thumbsup:

I actually think the bigger issue is not that they are D's in R's clothing, but that they are just politicians looking out for them and their job and would be would perfectly happy being Mayor of Chicago providing safe passage routes to the kids going to schools that fail to educate a large fraction of the kids.

The R's in charge attack any R that wants to stand on principle. Politicians cannot stand that. The machine needs people that get in line and not people that challenge their failures.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:46 am

Chilidawg wrote:
assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.


So, was the gas attack justified?



Yes.

How so?

Are you arguing that "any dead Muslim is a good Muslim?"




assateague wrote:Nope. I'm basically using the same argument we used when dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our government incinerated two cities with nukes, killing hundreds of thousands, to help us win a war. Assad (if it was Assad) dropped chemical weapons on three neighborhoods, killing several hundred, to help him win a war.


How is there any moral difference?


Chili- where'd you go?


Got a little busy there for a while, couldn't come out to play

Besides for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we also firebombed Tokyo and Dresden. We gave smallpox infected blankets to native Americans. The Romans salted Carthage. Moses slaughtered the Hittites because they have his men STDs ( except for the virgin Gil's whom he have to his soldiers for their sexual gratification)

History is replete with morally questionable acts

Does that mean that we should use them to justify a morally questionable act today?




You're changing your argument. Is the concern over "justified" (the original question) or is it over "morally questionable"? Although either way doesn't give us the right (legally) to do a damn thing. People scream about imposing one's morals on folks here in the states via legislation, but am I to believe that those same folks screaming to the heavens about that are fine with imposing our "morals" overseas via cruise missiles? Sure, makes a lot of sense.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:04 pm

What I find endlessly amusing about this whole thing is that the liberals are pushing for the exact same thing Bush pushed for while they screamed and fought then voted for it. Except Obama of course. Now Obama wants to do the same thing with less justification, is blaming everyone but himself, and it is all about him feeling good about doing something. He is going to save people we don't care about, by killing people we don't care about, in a manner in which we have no legal standing to perform. We had an interest in Iraq becuase of the previous war. We had UN backing for the first war, and allied support during the second war.

Now we have only the French in support? Using the French as a supporting element is like trying to protect the hen house from the fox with a frog! :fingerhead:

I do appreciate that our liberal folks on here are at least not trying to justify this behavior by our idiot in chief. He is clearly a man with no morals, no compass on reality, and very clearly no memory of his past stands and actions.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:13 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:That is simply not true. The oath does not force you to obey an unlawful order and places you under direct responsibility for your actions while under orders.


The oath is to : "defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies foreign and domestic and to uphold all orders given to me by my appointed officers." Off the top of my head, but it was years ago that I had to swear it. How will it be unconstitutional?




This argument worked well at Nuremberg

Apparently not by what I've ben reading the last couple days. They are going after them. That was what, 68 years ago? Say they were 14 at the youngest...that makes their crime 82 years ago. I'm sure they've punished themselves more over 68 years than any method we could devise to impose justice. This isn't for justice, victim finality, or retribution. It's evil politics attempting to sway popularity. Give it a rest and make plans for the future, not apologies for the past.



It was sarcasm, GJ.

Give me an opportunity to miss subtlety and I'm all in, AT! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:37 pm

assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.


So, was the gas attack justified?



Yes.

How so?

Are you arguing that "any dead Muslim is a good Muslim?"




assateague wrote:Nope. I'm basically using the same argument we used when dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our government incinerated two cities with nukes, killing hundreds of thousands, to help us win a war. Assad (if it was Assad) dropped chemical weapons on three neighborhoods, killing several hundred, to help him win a war.


How is there any moral difference?


Chili- where'd you go?


Got a little busy there for a while, couldn't come out to play

Besides for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we also firebombed Tokyo and Dresden. We gave smallpox infected blankets to native Americans. The Romans salted Carthage. Moses slaughtered the Hittites because they have his men STDs ( except for the virgin Gil's whom he have to his soldiers for their sexual gratification)

History is replete with morally questionable acts

Does that mean that we should use them to justify a morally questionable act today?




You're changing your argument. Is the concern over "justified" (the original question) or is it over "morally questionable"? Although either way doesn't give us the right (legally) to do a damn thing. People scream about imposing one's morals on folks here in the states via legislation, but am I to believe that those same folks screaming to the heavens about that are fine with imposing our "morals" overseas via cruise missiles? Sure, makes a lot of sense.

How is it any different than the Nation of Islam imposing it's version of "What is right" on the world? You know...killing infidels, raping women and all that????
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58118
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests