So yeah. Step up and be counted. I bet you voted socialist in the last election. Good job commies. 
If you side with Assad/Pukin' then you are communist!
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
Socialist as in communist. I see no difference between them.
The OP has no idea what side he's even on. He'll call people socialist and communist, (never mind that he claims there is no difference) but then support Obama's point of view on military strikes.
It's my guess he's an ultra neo-con, and a really stupid one at that. Just nuke everything! Yahooo! Doesn't get that supporting Assad means going against Al Qaeda.
Duh... I mean the REAL socialists... you know what I am talking about.
Quote from Tsing Tao:
The OP has no idea what side he's even on. He'll call people socialist and communist, (never mind that he claims there is no difference) but then support Obama's point of view on military strikes.
It's my guess he's an ultra neo-con, and a really stupid one at that. Just nuke everything! Yahooo! Doesn't get that supporting Assad means going against Al Qaeda.
Okay, hopefully you don't keep editing your response. Duh.
If Romney was President Syria would already be rubble by now. He would tell everybody (including you) to screw off. So why not back Obama to do the same thing? Because he is a Democrat? WTF! It's the principle of the matter. KIDS were frickin' killed with chemical weapons! Don't you get it? Letting Assad get away with this shit means more chemical warfare in the Middle East. Sounds good to you? Sure seems like it. You are just a Russian/Asian commie that is against whatever America does no matter what. It's obvious.
I suspect that US geopoliticians think al qaeda in charge of Syria is a better outcome for the US. Maybe because this faction is bought and paid for, maybe because they're not that friendly to Iran, Russia, or China (the enemy of my enemy is my friend fallacy), maybe because Assad's Syria has become more profitable for our enemies than for us, or some combination of these. The public never, ever gets these calculations, it can't stomach them.Quote from Tsing Tao:
The OP has no idea what side he's even on. He'll call people socialist and communist, (never mind that he claims there is no difference) but then support Obama's point of view on military strikes.
It's my guess he's an ultra neo-con, and a really stupid one at that. Just nuke everything! Yahooo! Doesn't get that supporting Assad means going against Al Qaeda.
I really wish I could find an excellent piece from years back that did actual quantification of the ROI on various US military interventions, but I can't. The gist was, for the most part, our interventions pay more than they cost, all things considered. It took into account the landed cost of our various inputs over time, etc.
I'm neither Russian nor Asian. I voted for Romney this last time around (would have preferred Ron Paul but was in a swing state and wanted to try to out Obama) and would be against the strike no matter who was in the White House. Why? Because we don't know who ordered/executed the chemical weapons strike. Apparently, your security clearance is higher than anyone's here - you must have definitive information on that, so perhaps you can explain why Assad would order a chemical strike on his people when he knew that would bring in the West, and he was already winning the conflict against the opposition without it? Perhaps you can explain how that makes sense.
Perhaps you can also explain how this is not about a natural gas pipeline that Obama wants to go from Saudi Arabia to Turkey (and has to pass through Syria), despite the Saudis admitting this and even offering to fund the attack on Syria to get it?
I doubt there's any ability for you to explain anything here other than your droning on about non-existent communists and other random stupidity. So drone away.