damn Gator. Well Said. Thats the most logical thing anyone has said about our current state of affairs.
Like him or not.... Take a look at Glen Becks take on this. Damn scary. He has a video of one of the rebels cutting the liver and heart out of a dead syrian soldier and eating it among a whole lot of other alarming stuff.
Its kind of like going in the gift shops with all the pretty china, crystal and what nots. You break it you buy it..... Like Medic said hell we blow $#!+ up then spend money rebuilding while our southern border is wide open and our damn country falls apart from within.
We in one helluva mess no matter what at this point. $1.5 million per missle... MY GOD that hurts.....
Syria???
-
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:21 pm
Re: Syria???
"Life is tough, life is even tougher if you're stupid" John Wayne
"Forgive and forget; but always remember." Jack Miner
"Forgive and forget; but always remember." Jack Miner
Re: Syria???
here we go. Let's see how fast we back down now.
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sending-wa ... 57880.html
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sending-wa ... 57880.html
How do you like your Hope and Change?
Re: Syria???
Although I might have chosen my words a little different
, Gator, you hit the nail on the head.

There will be a day....
- BAY KINGFISHER
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1827
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:26 pm
- Location: Bay St. Louis ,MS
Re: Syria???
You got it right Gator!! I told someone the same thing yesterday, and they thought I was crazy!! lol... I believe in "big stick" diplomacy, and its time to start swinging!!
HRCH Mr. Buck's Delta Do "Dee" MH
Re: Syria???
gator wrote: kinda what i meant....syria is a forgone conclusion. we've - and by "we" i mean the morons in congress and the white house - have "decided" who's to blame though, as deltamud77 stated - we don't know who's to blame but we know who we're going to blame. the UN, God bless their terrorist supporting, limp-dicked, American hating azzes even went so far as to state "we're not interested in WHO did this, only that they did do it."
who the f_ck makes decisions of such a costly fashion based off such ignorance? answer - we do.....cause, that assshat is going to be proclaimed "king" before this is all said and done.
as a country we've been in all-out war for a DECADE, the longest in our history...everyone - troops, families, bystanders - we're all tired of this chit.......pull our boys and girls home, turn the key and push the button...............turn that pisshole into the largest, smoothest, most crystalline piece of glass in the universe, then call up russia, china, north korea, mexico, venezuala (sp?) and giggle as we say - TRY US.
shoot an email to every other country that hates our azzes and hasn't stood with us - but a few steps behind so they could bury the knife easier - and warn them that accidents happen all the time.........sure would hate for a 50 ton warhead to end up in some walmart in paris.
personally, i want our guys and girls home.........i want every UN "ambassador" put on their asses and given 48 hours to vacate these here premises.....i want guns, missiles, subs, nukes, and any other damned thing we got pointed due south and straight up mexico's booty with a big, "stay calm and die on" sign at the gate................i want term limits on these old f_cks wasting my time and money in washington and this damn state, i want nothing more from this goddamned gov't than a modicum of infrastructure and protection and like i tell my boss ALL THE DAMNED TIME - i just want to do my job and be left alone, so dammit, leave me the hell alone...i want this big azzed caca of a gov't to leave me the hell alone....................................and lastly and most importantly, by God, i want my country back.
gator

Where'd who go?
Re: Syria???
4dawgma wrote:gator wrote: kinda what i meant....syria is a forgone conclusion. we've - and by "we" i mean the morons in congress and the white house - have "decided" who's to blame though, as deltamud77 stated - we don't know who's to blame but we know who we're going to blame. the UN, God bless their terrorist supporting, limp-dicked, American hating azzes even went so far as to state "we're not interested in WHO did this, only that they did do it."
who the f_ck makes decisions of such a costly fashion based off such ignorance? answer - we do.....cause, that assshat is going to be proclaimed "king" before this is all said and done.
as a country we've been in all-out war for a DECADE, the longest in our history...everyone - troops, families, bystanders - we're all tired of this chit.......pull our boys and girls home, turn the key and push the button...............turn that pisshole into the largest, smoothest, most crystalline piece of glass in the universe, then call up russia, china, north korea, mexico, venezuala (sp?) and giggle as we say - TRY US.
shoot an email to every other country that hates our azzes and hasn't stood with us - but a few steps behind so they could bury the knife easier - and warn them that accidents happen all the time.........sure would hate for a 50 ton warhead to end up in some walmart in paris.
personally, i want our guys and girls home.........i want every UN "ambassador" put on their asses and given 48 hours to vacate these here premises.....i want guns, missiles, subs, nukes, and any other damned thing we got pointed due south and straight up mexico's booty with a big, "stay calm and die on" sign at the gate................i want term limits on these old f_cks wasting my time and money in washington and this damn state, i want nothing more from this goddamned gov't than a modicum of infrastructure and protection and like i tell my boss ALL THE DAMNED TIME - i just want to do my job and be left alone, so dammit, leave me the hell alone...i want this big azzed caca of a gov't to leave me the hell alone....................................and lastly and most importantly, by God, i want my country back.
gator
I think you summed up how we all feel. And this absolutely makes the most sense to everyone not actually in power to make the decisions.. Gator is right, we need our country back, but first we have to take it back from the 537 people in power now that don't have a clue on reality..
http://safefireshooting.com/
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them"
-George Washington
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them"
-George Washington
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:00 am
- Location: Grenada Ms
- Contact:
Re: Syria???
Make gators post a sticky, be a long time before we read a better one!!!
Re: Syria???
I like what he has to say------
Krauthammer: Vindicating the Vanity and Ego of a President Who's Become a Laughingstock Around the World Is No Reason to Go to War
Shamed into war?
By Charles Krauthammer, Publiched in The Washington Post
Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria — (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not “regime change”) — perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.
So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.
Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn’t commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.
Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.
The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.
There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration. Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.
In 1998, after al-Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa, Bill Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles into empty tents in Afghanistan. That showed ’em.
It did. It showed terminal unseriousness. Al-Qaeda got the message. Two years later, the USS Cole. A year after that, 9/11.
Yet even Clinton gathered the wherewithal to launch a sustained air campaign against Serbia. That wasn’t a mere message. That was a military strategy designed to stop the Serbs from ravaging Kosovo. It succeeded.
If Obama is planning a message-sending three-day attack, preceded by leaks telling the Syrians to move their important military assets to safety, better that he do nothing. Why run the considerable risk if nothing important is changed?
The only defensible action would be an attack with a strategic purpose, a sustained campaign aimed at changing the balance of forces by removing the Syrian regime’s decisive military advantage — air power.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/30/kr ... z2dU07EqB6
Krauthammer: Vindicating the Vanity and Ego of a President Who's Become a Laughingstock Around the World Is No Reason to Go to War
Shamed into war?
By Charles Krauthammer, Publiched in The Washington Post
Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria — (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not “regime change”) — perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.
So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.
Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn’t commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.
Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.
The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.
There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration. Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.
In 1998, after al-Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa, Bill Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles into empty tents in Afghanistan. That showed ’em.
It did. It showed terminal unseriousness. Al-Qaeda got the message. Two years later, the USS Cole. A year after that, 9/11.
Yet even Clinton gathered the wherewithal to launch a sustained air campaign against Serbia. That wasn’t a mere message. That was a military strategy designed to stop the Serbs from ravaging Kosovo. It succeeded.
If Obama is planning a message-sending three-day attack, preceded by leaks telling the Syrians to move their important military assets to safety, better that he do nothing. Why run the considerable risk if nothing important is changed?
The only defensible action would be an attack with a strategic purpose, a sustained campaign aimed at changing the balance of forces by removing the Syrian regime’s decisive military advantage — air power.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/30/kr ... z2dU07EqB6
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests