Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » So Democrats, if we are on the run from Al Qaeda in the Middle East then why are we arming Syrian rebels who are dominated by Al Qaeda?

So Democrats, if we are on the run from Al Qaeda in the Middle East then why are we arming Syrian rebels who are dominated by Al Qaeda?

+2
Sal
Floridatexan
6 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

Foreign policy ineptness? Hmmmm. Is the tail wagging the dog? Or is it because most people in the admin are clueless?

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Ask this guy:

So Democrats, if we are on the run from Al Qaeda in the Middle East then why are we arming Syrian rebels who are dominated by Al Qaeda? Mccainfacemove

Guest


Guest

He's not part of the administration. Of course, no liberal can defend what the admin is doing. Nuf said.

Sal

Sal

I don't see any liberals defending it.

Maybe this makes clearer why we have opposed increasing our involvement with the conflict in Syria from the beginning.

It's very unfortunate.

boards of FL

boards of FL

I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.



Last edited by boards of FL on 8/7/2013, 12:57 pm; edited 1 time in total


_________________
I approve this message.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PACEDOG#1 wrote:He's not part of the administration. Of course, no liberal can defend what the admin is doing. Nuf said.

He's a sitting US Senator who took it upon himself to make a recent visit to Syria to meet with the "rebel opposition". He then advanced the theory that (paraphrasing) "we can separate the good rebels from the bad rebels." What a guy.

Sal

Sal

boards of FL wrote:I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.

I'm down with that.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Sal wrote:
boards of FL wrote:I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.

I'm down with that.

Ditto. Boards for Congress.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Sal wrote:
boards of FL wrote:I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.

I'm down with that.

Ditto. Boards for Congress.

I'm for it too... pull way back from every direction.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

boards of FL wrote:I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.

It is going to happen with or without consensus as the government is forced to reduce spending. You can see the trend developing now. And had he been elected, Romney was going to double-down on defense spending in the current fiscal environment?

Except, radically cutting defense spending will put reservists like Pace Dog out of work, and Markle will complain about how the U.S. will leave an empty void in the world if it ceases being the world's policeman.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.

What we give to others is NOT part of the Defense Budget. As for half, you see the HELL the military is going through just on 10% with sequestration. You must be nuts.

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
boards of FL wrote:I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.

It is going to happen with or without consensus as the government is forced to reduce spending. You can see the trend developing now. And had he been elected, Romney was going to double-down on defense spending in the current fiscal environment?

Except, radically cutting defense spending will put reservists like Pace Dog out of work, and Markle will complain about how the U.S. will leave an empty void in the world if it ceases being the world's policeman.

And wrong again Gumby. My job is only expanding and growing and will do so because what I do actually is preventative and saves lives of people in harms way. The government doesn't have to deploy me either to do my job, thus saving more lives, and saves money by not having to pay all the extras that someone downrange would get while deployed. You're just an uninformed muppet trying to hang on to his glory days that were short lived at best. Give it a rest.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:He's not part of the administration. Of course, no liberal can defend what the admin is doing. Nuf said.

He's a sitting US Senator who took it upon himself to make a recent visit to Syria to meet with the "rebel opposition".  He then advanced the theory that (paraphrasing) "we can separate the good rebels from the bad rebels."  What a guy.

Sure he did, but no decisions are made by McCain. That rests with the POTUS.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

PACEDOG#1 wrote:why are we arming Syrian rebels?

I just looked and my Taurus pistol and my SKS rifle are still here.  So I must not have given them to Syrian rebels.  And I couldn't anyway because even if I wanted to give someone arms I wouldn't know a Syrian rebel from a Hungarian gypsy.  
BUT,  I'll gladly take credit for it if I can also get to go on one of those month long vacations on Air Force One.  Shit I'll even settle for a White House tour.  When I was in D.C. earlier this year the closest I could get to the "people's house" required a pair of binoculars to even see it.

So with all due respect, the "we" part of this does not really include me.  All I know about it is what I see on television and that's probably just a load of horseshit.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
boards of FL wrote:I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.

What we give to others is NOT part of the Defense Budget. As for half, you see the HELL the military is going through just on 10% with sequestration. You must be nuts.

I also see the hell the US is going through supporting a ridiculously bloated military budget that gets us...what, exactly?

More money comes out of my paycheck and flows to the US Military than that which goes towards my own health insurance, so I couldn't give any less of a shit if the military were to struggle with half their budget.  

It's time to come back to reality.

So Democrats, if we are on the run from Al Qaeda in the Middle East then why are we arming Syrian rebels who are dominated by Al Qaeda? 0053_defense-comparison-crop


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:

More money comes out of my paycheck and flows to the US Military than that which goes towards my own health insurance, so I couldn't give any less of a shit if the military were to struggle with half their budget.  

It's time to come back to reality.

So Democrats, if we are on the run from Al Qaeda in the Middle East then why are we arming Syrian rebels who are dominated by Al Qaeda? 0053_defense-comparison-crop

This time I'm with you. But don't expect anything to change. There's now just too much of the economy and too many jobs dependent on that military spending. Without borrowing the money to keep that going, the country would probably go back into recession.
The decision to cut or not cut that budget no longer has much to do with national defense. It's all about the national economy.

Sal

Sal

The money cut out of defense could be spent on upgrading our infrastructure, and the economy would be better off for it.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.

Yes, Vladimir Putin has already bitch slapped President Barack Hussein Obama, Putin would be happy to have us out of the way so he could take control of the Middle East and North Africa.

Sal

Sal

So Democrats, if we are on the run from Al Qaeda in the Middle East then why are we arming Syrian rebels who are dominated by Al Qaeda? Missed10

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
boards of FL wrote:I say we cut the defense budget by half and don't give any weapons to anyone in the middle east.

It is going to happen with or without consensus as the government is forced to reduce spending. You can see the trend developing now. And had he been elected, Romney was going to double-down on defense spending in the current fiscal environment?

Except, radically cutting defense spending will put reservists like Pace Dog out of work, and Markle will complain about how the U.S. will leave an empty void in the world if it ceases being the world's policeman.

Please show us where Governor Mitt Romney said he was going to double spending on defense.

How are President Barack Hussein Obama's plans working?

And you have yet to provide an answer as to who would fill the vacuum were we to pull back all our troops and radically slash our spending on defense. Not at all surprising.

Regardless of what you want to believe, ridiculing the question does not render it invalid.

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:So Democrats, if we are on the run from Al Qaeda in the Middle East then why are we arming Syrian rebels who are dominated by Al Qaeda? Missed10

So Democrats, if we are on the run from Al Qaeda in the Middle East then why are we arming Syrian rebels who are dominated by Al Qaeda? ReaganObama

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:I don't see any liberals defending it.

Maybe this makes clearer why we have opposed increasing our involvement with the conflict in Syria from the beginning.

It's very unfortunate.

I can only assume that the reason the Republicans on here believe that all Democrats think like the president does is that they are required to think a certain way to maintain their "conservative" ideas.
I don't see any democrats defending what we're doing in the middle east either. I haven't defended it. The POTUS has been dead wrong several times since he's been in the White House. I assume he'll be dead wrong several times more.
He listens to his advisers too much and a lot of them seem to be hawks.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:The money cut out of defense could be spent on upgrading our infrastructure, and the economy would be better off for it.

Absolutely, and why are we still defending all those countries in Europe with standing bases when they are perfectly capable of defending themselves?  Close at least half of our overseas bases and cut back on the military,both manpower and equipment.
China isn't threatening us. They own us. The only other threat is from the middle east, and if we got our butts out of there, things might change on that scene too.

And Markle, if you judge manhood by the ability to ride a horse, George W was scared shitless of horses. That's a known fact.

Guest


Guest

bluemoon wrote:
Sal wrote:I don't see any liberals defending it.

Maybe this makes clearer why we have opposed increasing our involvement with the conflict in Syria from the beginning.

It's very unfortunate.

I can only assume that the reason the Republicans on here believe that all Democrats think like the president does is that they are required to think a certain way to maintain their "conservative" ideas.
I don't see any democrats defending what we're doing in the middle east either. I haven't defended it. The POTUS has been dead wrong several times since he's been in the White House. I assume he'll be dead wrong several times more.
He listens to his advisers too much and a lot of them  seem to be hawks.

The Dems could speak out against it....and they aren't

Markle

Markle

bluemoon wrote:
Sal wrote:The money cut out of defense could be spent on upgrading our infrastructure, and the economy would be better off for it.

Absolutely, and why are we still defending all those countries in Europe with standing bases when they are perfectly capable of defending themselves?  Close at least half of our overseas bases and cut back on the military,both manpower and equipment.
China isn't threatening us. They own us. The only other threat is from the middle east, and if we got our butts out of there, things might change on that scene too.

And Markle, if you judge manhood by the ability to ride a horse, George W was scared shitless  of horses.  That's a known fact.

Why do we have bases in Europe? Because they are allies and the system has kept relative peace in the world for nearly 70 years. How is that a bad thing?

China isn't threatening us? Why are they building up their military, thanks to President Carter and Clinton, now control both ends of the greatly expanded Panama Canal, the Long Beach Seaport and are expanding a seaport in the Bahamas which adjoins an airport with a 13,000 foot runway? That is the size runway needed for China's largest aircraft. Thanks to President Clinton, China can also knock out orbiting satellites.

As for owning us, how much of our now $17 TRILLION debt is owned by China?

As for the Middle East and North Africa, I'll ask you again, who would fill the vacuum if we left and how would that serve the best interests of America? Around the World, the weakness and timidity of President Barack Hussein Obama has already cost us dearly. Vladimir Putin bitch slapped President Obama and Obama does...nothing.

Oh, was Sal trying to show the manliness of President Obama by having him ride...A UNICORN? Who knew?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » So Democrats, if we are on the run from Al Qaeda in the Middle East then why are we arming Syrian rebels who are dominated by Al Qaeda?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum