• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition

So much deflection from the two most outspoken supporters of Obama's handling of this whole mess. Bush, Reagan...any other Republican bogeymen you want to bring into the discussion?

I think the whole goddamned thing sucks and I hoped Obama would be better than the rest, but he is just the same. Disappointing.

That said, the Pubs worship Reagan and Bush I and they made foreign policy gaffes with (up until now) much worse results yet you pretend this Democrat president is somehow worse. They all suck because the Middle East is a fucking quagmire and there is no right answer to any of this shit except to stay out which we can't do because we are oil junkies and, just like a junkie, we have decided that we just can't live without it. And the Jews run us. So I have enjoyed reading how Obama and this Putin thing are the worst, and you guys have all stroked each other off which is funny, but historically this is just another American folly in the ME.
 
Last edited:
That said, the Pubs worship Reagan and Bush I and they made foreign policy gaffes with (up until now) much worse results yet you pretend this Democrat president is somehow worse.

I pretend nothing of the sort. I just want to be able to discuss something happening TODAY under THIS ADMINISTRATION without the constant "yeah, well Bush did something worse 10 years ago!!" arguments from a couple old, angry, irrational guys. Hell, it wouldn't even be so bad if it could be ignored, but it can't...it literally just consumes the thread and makes any mature, educated discussion impossible.

I'm not even a Bush fan, or a Republican, for that matter. I voted for the guy because I thought he was a better choice than the Democratic challenger at the time. Since 2004, I've given up on the two major parties in National politics, seeing them as two sides of the same autocratic coin.
 
No one has answered the question. Do you want the US to sends arms to the anti-Assad rebels?

If your answer is yes, then this action was absolutely necessary to follow the law.
 
No one has answered the question. Do you want the US to sends arms to the anti-Assad rebels?

If your answer is yes, then this action was absolutely necessary to follow the law.

Actually, no, this was the question:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama...llow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885


Ok, so those that support arming the rebels/terrorists, why is this weapons transfer essential to the national security interests of the United States? Help me understand.
 
Obama could solve his legal problem by sending American gun nuts along to operate the weapons. Sort of killing two birds with one stone: sending weapons legally to Syria and getting rid of a bunch of potentially dangerous gun toters. Works out all the way around, don't you think?
 
maybe it's time to dust off answerthequestiondeac
 
No one has answered the question. Do you want the US to sends arms to the anti-Assad rebels?

If your answer is yes, then this action was absolutely necessary to follow the law.

Probably because the question is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve an answer. Of course not; who the fuck in their right mind wants the US to send arms to anyone in the middle east (or anywhere else for that matter) at this point in time?
 
Probably because the question is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve an answer. Of course not; who the fuck in their right mind wants the US to send arms to anyone in the middle east (or anywhere else for that matter) at this point in time?

Arms manufacturers. But other than their limited company, you have a very good point.
 
Back
Top