ColdBoreMK23
Noob Saibot
Rand Paul.
That is all.
I broke my back... It's spinal.
That is all.
I broke my back... It's spinal.
We can't be sure if our plan was to actually steam in with guns though. A threat is really all we need against a country like that.Having worked at Westminster recently and Sat in on some pretty important meetings, Syria is NOT going to finish any time soon.
And we should all be thanking the Russians from preventing Obama and Cameron from steaming in with guns. Getting to the point where the only special relationship between US and UK is militaristic
I agree with this. I don't think our plan is perfect but something had to be done. Plus, no one from the right has really put out a good alternative other than the status quo, and we can all mostly agree that our healthcare system needs to be reformed in some way.. This is where you and I disagree. I think we definitely need to change the current healthcare system, because as it is now 50 million americans cannot afford healthcare and are not getting the aid they need. The problem with the healthcare system now is they will only cover you for a fair premium if you are perfectly healthy, which makes people born with a disease screwed from the beginning. If Obamacare doesnt pass the only real people who will benefit are the insurance companies that are currently cheating the american people blind. I dont think most people with good healthcare now will be that greatly affected by the law, but those without it or can't afford it will finally be able to get the care they need.
And we can't be sure it wasn't jihadist militants that didn't use a chemical weapon.We can't be sure if our plan was to actually steam in with guns though. A threat is really all we need against a country like that.
I thought congress gave Bush approval for Iraq due to that whole "omg they must have" WMD bullshit? I was a teenager when we invaded so I didn't really pay much thought.Because we're not really interested in involving ourselves in the actual civil war. Our objective is only to deal with the chemical weapons. Obama's actually done a good job with holding off so long on a decision and bringing it to congress (like he's supposed to) rather than going the Bush route. Right now it looks like things are going in a good direction, for us at least, with the international work to give up these weapons.
I actually think our threats at an intervention weren't much more than threats. Assad doesn't want to deal with us
We didn't know if the WMD's actually existed though. We know Syria has chemical weapons, and all the evidence we have points to the Syrian military being responsible. There's easily enough to implicate them in the attack.And we can't be sure it wasn't jihadist militants that didn't use a chemical weapon.
Sounds like WMD in Iraq all over again..
This topic always ends well on the Internet.
No, it was used to seize those oil fields though, oil fields of which Iraq was willing to hand over some over them in exchange for lifted sanctions, we had other plans and wanted them all.We didn't know if the WMD's actually existed though. We know Syria has chemical weapons, and all the evidence we have points to the Syrian military being responsible. There's easily enough to implicate them in the attack.
He's not though. Obama's supporting the resolution to get rid of the weapons. I don't get what we're still paranoid about.No, it was used to seize those oil fields though, oil fields of which Iraq was willing to hand over some over them in exchange for lifted sanctions, we had other plans and wanted them all.
It's no coincidence that Iraq and Afghanistan has turned out to be a massive burden on both the US and UK economies.
If it was Assad that used a chemical weapon again, he'll never do so, because they cant afford to lose Russia. Russia cannot afford to lose Syria because Syria is it's eye in the middle east in the same vein that Israel is America's eye into the middle east.
There are now more terrorist cells in Iraq today than there ever was under Hussein. You remove Assad from power, exactly the same will happen there. The jihadists will get in.
There was no reason to even consider using drones. Dismantling the chemical weapons was. I dont know how it was in the US, but most of the UK government were firmly AGAINST going into Syria. I thought Obama would be different to Bush, evidently not!
He wanted to send in Drones.He's not though. Obama's supporting the resolution to get rid of the weapons. I don't get what we're still paranoid about.
1.) Abortion: I'm pro choice...although I do believe "it" is alive at inception. Also, with the exception of rape or what have you, I think there should be a legal limit or something. I read a statistic about how it's common for everyday women to have like 3 a year or something...
2.) Gun Control: Absolutely against it. Government statistics prove that there is less crime when more law abiding citizens are carrying. I believe in background checks and all that...but no way in hell can you strip the law abiding citizens of their second amendment right. Chicago is a fine example of why gun control is a complete and utter failure. They have some of the strictest gun control laws and it's like GTA over there.
3.) Weed: Absolutely in favor of it's legalization. I don't smoke it...but the research and statistics add up to me. Rarely are crimes committed while on it...no one has ever OD'd while using it...and quite frankly our economy would be booming if it could be taxed and regulated. Also, I work in HealthCare, and so many of the patients I help just want their pain to go away...I'm all for it. I think it's absurd that people can be jailed for smoking or obtaining a plant, lol.
4.)Syria: I think this is the President's own little agenda...the majority of Americans (republicans/democrats) are opposed to going over and helping the rebels (essentially fighting for Al Quieda) and there is plenty of evidence that supports the fact that Bashar Al-Assad was set up. No way in hell, as evil as he is, would a dictator PUBLICLY use chemical weapons on his own people knowing full well what the international community would do to him/them. Even our allies don't buy the "official report"...I say stay out.
5.) Like 70% of hard working tax payers (American citizens) oppose Obamacare. I guess if you want your premiums to skyrocket and your doctors office to be turned into your local DMV...then sure. I'm for free market competition and that's what makes healthcare affordable. Whenever the Government takes a hold of something it turns to shit. Competition and the free market is what makes cell phones and computers reasonably priced...if the Government had full control over the I-Phone...trust me...only the elite would have them.
6.) War on terror: I'm for defending our nation and other nations from "terrorists". However, this topic is so convoluted and hard to define that it's hard for me to give a definitive answer. I think most of the stories we hear about "terrorists" or the "war on terror" is fabricated and just an excuse for governments to invade.
Just my two cents
Obamacare - How anyone can be against healthcare for everyone is beyond me. :/
He's not though. Obama's supporting the resolution to get rid of the weapons. I don't get what we're still paranoid about.
Syria: And the rest of the middle east can go fuck themselves. There aren't enough chemical weapons being used in that shithole region.
The benefits outweigh the negatives here, IMO. Many more people being covered is worth the problem of having inferior plans.The reason why people are against it is because companies might decide that they don't need to provide health insurance for their employees anymore so they could cut their service and save money by forcing them to buy the government run one. Obviously it will be cheaper, but being controlled by the government, the service is bound to be terrible.
EDIT: In addition to the reasons provided by Runway.
Wow......kinda didn't expect that from you but okaaaay....Only because Putin cockblocked him on his proposed strikes.
Syria: And the rest of the middle east can go fuck themselves. There aren't enough chemical weapons being used in that shithole region.
I'm an OEF Veteran and full time college student from California.
He wanted it, as in, that was our only option at the time to accomplish what we want. We had to count on Russia's diplomatic ties, which we do not have, to help us out.He wanted to send in Drones.
He's supporting it AFTER it was the Russians that suggested that was the best course of action.
To accomplish what you want? Since when is Syria anyones business BUT Syria? Since when is it Americas business to interfere in the going's on of another sovreign nation?He wanted it, as in, that was our only option at the time to accomplish what we want. We had to count on Russia's diplomatic ties, which we do not have, to help us out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
The Troubles weren't "that bad?" Jim Crow wasn't "that bad?" C'mon, now.To accomplish what you want? Since when is Syria anyones business BUT Syria? Since when is it Americas business to interfere in the going's on of another sovreign nation?
The UK have had civil wars, same as America and neither of us turned out all that bad in the end.
It's because of the chemical weapons attack, I don't agree with getting involved in a civil war otherwise. No one should be allowed to use them and there should be consequences when it happens.To accomplish what you want? Since when is Syria anyones business BUT Syria? Since when is it Americas business to interfere in the going's on of another sovreign nation?
The UK have had civil wars, same as America and neither of us turned out all that bad in the end.