If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Senate resolution for WW3 includes boots on the ground. So much for just a few missile strikes   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 287
    More: Asinine, President Obama, boots on the ground, Senate, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Syrians, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen, Senate resolution, Gulf of Tonkin  
•       •       •

9770 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2013 at 4:14 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 05:10:39 PM
Whether or not we intervene, when all is said and done Syria will be a humanitarian and political clusterfark.

However, we have a lot of missiles just sitting around. We need to do something with them. And those warships are just treading water
 
2013-09-04 05:11:22 PM

jjorsett: Tell me again why we're even talking about taking a side in this thing? I'd be equally happy if both the Christian-slaughtering terrorist backers and the ruling despotic thug went poof. That we'd want to spend money and potentially lives helping either one is nutso.


Because they have the third largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, and that supply either remains in the hands of the despotic thug that's been using them, or potentially falls into the hands of Islamist groups.  Wherever those weapons end up, it's not going to be good for us.
 
2013-09-04 05:11:30 PM

jjorsett: That we'd want to spend money and potentially lives helping either one is nutso.


There's more than two sides to it.
 
2013-09-04 05:12:06 PM

Radioactive Ass: darth_badger: But I'm watching CSPAN and kerry just said there would be no boots on the ground. Damn, he sure can lie with a straight face.

While that general sitting next to him has said differently about how to actually contain Syrias chemical weapons just a few short months ago...

"This option uses lethal force to prevent the use or proliferation of chemical weapons. We do this by destroying portions of Syria's massive stockpile, interdicting its movement and delivery, or by seizing and securing program components. At a minimum, this option would call for a no-fly zone as well as air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers. Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites. Costs could also average well over one billion dollars per month. The impact would be the control of some, but not all chemical weapons. It would also help prevent their further proliferation into the hands of extremist groups. Our inability to fully control Syria's storage and delivery systems could allow extremists to gain better access. Risks are similar to the no-fly zone with the added risk of U.S. boots on the ground. "

(emphasis mine). Link.

These people are talking from both sides of their mouths.


And that bastard child of Fred Gwynn pops his "P's" on the microphone.
 
2013-09-04 05:13:38 PM
vudukungfu: snip

 /Apologies to Country Joe Mac Donald.

That's awesome.
 
2013-09-04 05:13:44 PM

farkinglizardking: Whether or not we intervene, when all is said and done Syria will be a humanitarian and political clusterfark.

However, we have a lot of missiles just sitting around. We need to do something with them. And those warships are just treading  displacing water



FTFY
 
2013-09-04 05:14:40 PM

Guadior42: shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.

If I remember correctly, those 'advisors' were a combination of CIA spooks and Green Berets. The details aren't really important. Yet again, we're going in to fix somebody else's problems with the inevitable result that we will create more problems and create more enemies.


They were. Regular Army and DoD personnel went in too. The point is that the escalation doesn't start with combat troops.  It starts with what will be called 'trainers' or 'technical experts' or some other antiseptic euphemism that the Pentagon comes up with to avoid obvious parallels with Vietnam.
 
2013-09-04 05:14:45 PM

Sum Dum Gai: jjorsett: Tell me again why we're even talking about taking a side in this thing? I'd be equally happy if both the Christian-slaughtering terrorist backers and the ruling despotic thug went poof. That we'd want to spend money and potentially lives helping either one is nutso.

Because they have the third largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, and that supply either remains in the hands of the despotic thug that's been using them, or potentially falls into the hands of Islamist groups.  Wherever those weapons end up, it's not going to be good for us.


Outside of us putting boots on the ground (which despite the derpline is not in consideration) those weapons will not be secured.

The only solace I take is that chemical weapons have a short shelf life, and the people taking them probably are more likely to kill themselves than other people.
 
2013-09-04 05:14:54 PM
Well, if we are going to start a war with Syria (a very bad idea), then let's not fark around about it.  Start by telling the Syrian government that they have until a date to surrender and no one dies.  If that date comes and no surrender, then the following day we bomb one civilian city (level every building, do what we can to turn said city into a smoking crater).  Ask the Syrian government "Do you surrender or do we turn another randomly selected city into a memory?"  Repeat until they surrender or until Syria looks like the moon (lifeless and full of craters).  Not put the life of a single U.S. service man into the nation until they have either been reduced to that nation of craters or until they've surrendered and member of the government and military has surrendered their weapon and it's been made clear to the entire civilian population that anyone with a weapon will be shot first and disarmed second.

But, as I typed the above, the question hit me, "What would the U.S. get if Syria surrendered?"  And then I thought about it and, it's so farking pointless.  We went into Iraq, we ousted Saddam, the people cheered.  They didn't cheer because they were going to have U.S. style democracy, they cheered that someone took out Saddam.  After 10 years of being there, we're leaving and NOTHING has changed...well, aside from those who were changed from living to dead as a result of combat.  Nothing is going to change by going into Syria.  People will die, those in charge will be removed, and that will be the only change.  They don't want to be like us, so if that's the goal, it's a pointless one, and one that we should have learned not to strive for.

I really wish the U.S. would change it's policy from helping out every country on the planet to an inward focused "USA first" policy.  Instead of sending billions of dollars in disaster relief to other nations, let's save it and use it on our own people when we get hit by disaster, or put that money into our nation's healthcare.  Another nation uses chemical gas against it's population, let that population deal with it instead of us getting involved in another nation's civil war.  Before we should go around the planet telling others how to behave and act, let's fix our own national problems so we can be that world leader.
 
2013-09-04 05:16:29 PM

Great Janitor: I really wish the U.S. would change it's policy from helping out every country on the planet to an inward focused "USA first" policy.


We can do both.
 
2013-09-04 05:16:34 PM

uber humper: Looks like Al Qaeda now has the most advanced navy in the world

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x279]


It's worse than that.
The CHECHENS have the most advanced Navy in the world.
Putin's not going to like this.
 
2013-09-04 05:17:06 PM

mbillips: Assad better not get too cocky with the public appearances, because if we know exactly where he is, I can definitely see an attempt to put a warhead on his forehead.


No - we're specifically avoiding killing him. We don't want that kind of power vacuum.
 
2013-09-04 05:17:06 PM
Radioactive Ass:

These people are talking from both sides of their mouths.

Of course they are. They're politicians.
 
2013-09-04 05:17:34 PM
A bunch of lawyers, writing something that isn't riddled with holes - say it ain't so!
 
2013-09-04 05:18:45 PM

Hobodeluxe: HotIgneous Intruder: Elegy: Hah, you've got to be kidding subby. TFA clearly states the senate resolution specifically denies the opportunity for Obama to put boots on the ground, unless he uses the "loophole" in the poorly structured legal language written into the bill to push his powers beyond the scopw of what was duly authorized by congress.

Boots are on the ground, meat.
The 1st Armored Division is in Jordan and has been since spring.

they aren't fighting though. they're helping with the refugee crisis.


Right. The last thing troops should do is fight.
HInt: It's why they're called, "troops."
 
2013-09-04 05:18:48 PM
big.assets.huffingtonpost.com
 
2013-09-04 05:18:59 PM

WhyteRaven74: Guadior42: Yet again, we're going in to fix somebody else's problems with the inevitable result that we will create more problems and create more enemies.

Please point out anything anywhere that says we're going in anywhere as opposed to launching some cruise missiles and air strikes?

uber humper: Is Libya not a lawless shiathole ,right about now?

It's not.


I'm not there myself so I go by what I read. Libya has all but quit producing oil, militias rule a good part of the country

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all -t hought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-879704 1.html
-published about an hour ago
 
2013-09-04 05:19:42 PM

jshine: justtray: farkinglizardking: justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.

I know you're trying to make some grand point, but what is it?

That the same exact argument was said about Libya, that we would have a huge war and put boots on the ground.

Conveniently all Republicans are ignoring being wrong there and the obvious similarities to Syria. Derpers gotta derp as long as it presents an opportunity for low-information outrage against Obama.

Or maybe there are just those among us Farkers who disapprove of unprovoked attacks on foreign countries, regardless of which president orders it.  There's no reason to twist such a consistent & straightforward position into a perceived attack on your favorite politician.


First, I noticed you didn't address the Libya comparison. I wonder why that is. Kind of totally destroys your false narrative of boots going on the ground in some war occupation.

Secondly, while I'm only almost certain your own position on attacks on foreign countries IS entirely depedent on which political party orders it, for me it is not quite so simple. It's actually based on situation, evidence, and reason.

I can say honestly that I never voted for Obama in either election, but that I find the attacks on his presidency to be entirely without a shred of merit. Not on NSA Spying, Drone Strikes, International Relations, Government Policy, etc. It's just a bunch of really economic, technical, and internationally retarded people with opinions based entirely in irrational paranoia and political bias.

I was for the war in Afghanistan because it seemed to be the hub of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, while not liking the idea of attacking a country for the sole purpose of eliminating one terrorst sect. I was entirely against the war in Iraq because it was based on false pretenses, with no real need for urgency, in a ground occupation with no actual goal. If we were going to attack Iraq, why not North Korea, who posed(poses still) a much higher threat than Iraq ever would?
 
2013-09-04 05:19:51 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: It starts with what will be called 'trainers' or 'technical experts' or some other antiseptic euphemism that the Pentagon comes up with to avoid obvious parallels with Vietnam.


You realize there was no Vietnam back then? There was a North Vietnam and a South Vietnam. The whole mess in Vietnam was at the end of the day because the French refused to let South Vietnam vote for reunification. Ho Chi Minh figured if he couldn't get an election to achieve it, he'd get the North Vietnamese military to do it. The parallels between Vietnam and Syria are limited to both being countries in Asia.
 
2013-09-04 05:20:29 PM

uber humper: WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.

French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should


Your link says that the French position is that inaction is not an option, not that they pulled out.
 
2013-09-04 05:20:58 PM
t2.gstatic.com

Gee, the Fark pants-shiatting brigade is out in force today.  Guess what gurlz - if chemical weapons were used, we're going in.  Deal with it.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
 
2013-09-04 05:21:31 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.

If I remember correctly, those 'advisors' were a combination of CIA spooks and Green Berets. The details aren't really important. Yet again, we're going in to fix somebody else's problems with the inevitable result that we will create more problems and create more enemies.

They were. Regular Army and DoD personnel went in too. The point is that the escalation doesn't start with combat troops.  It starts with what will be called 'trainers' or 'technical experts' or some other antiseptic euphemism that the Pentagon comes up with to avoid obvious parallels with Vietnam.


I think we are on the same page. It smells like another quagmire, and I don't mean:

media.screened.com

/everything old is new again
 
2013-09-04 05:21:43 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: uber humper: Looks like Al Qaeda now has the most advanced navy in the world

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x279]

It's worse than that.
The CHECHENS have the most advanced Navy in the world.
Putin's not going to like this.


I wonder if they know the Tsarnaev brothers?
 
2013-09-04 05:22:25 PM

21-7-b: uber humper: WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.

French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should

Your link says that the French position is that inaction is not an option, not that they pulled out.


I corrected myself a couple posts down
 
2013-09-04 05:23:17 PM

uber humper: 21-7-b: uber humper: WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.

French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should

Your link says that the French position is that inaction is not an option, not that they pulled out.

I corrected myself a couple posts down


Sorry, missed that
 
2013-09-04 05:23:44 PM

uber humper: HotIgneous Intruder: uber humper: Looks like Al Qaeda now has the most advanced navy in the world

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x279]

It's worse than that.
The CHECHENS have the most advanced Navy in the world.
Putin's not going to like this.

I wonder if they know the Tsarnaev brothers?


Anyways, everyone knows Chechens can't fly
 
2013-09-04 05:24:20 PM

21-7-b: uber humper: 21-7-b: uber humper: WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.

French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should

Your link says that the French position is that inaction is not an option, not that they pulled out.

I corrected myself a couple posts down

Sorry, missed that


We're getting too polite around here
 
2013-09-04 05:24:42 PM

Guadior42: It smells like another quagmire,


So, despite the provision in the Authorization of Force specifically prohibiting troops on the ground, apart from special forces in very specific circumstances, we're going to be dumping thousands of troops on the ground and are going to turn this into another Vietnam?

Stop being stupid.
 
2013-09-04 05:25:48 PM

uber humper: wonder if they know the Tsarnaev brothers?


They were such dreamy looking dupes!
 
2013-09-04 05:26:56 PM

justtray: jshine: justtray: farkinglizardking: justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.

I know you're trying to make some grand point, but what is it?

That the same exact argument was said about Libya, that we would have a huge war and put boots on the ground.

Conveniently all Republicans are ignoring being wrong there and the obvious similarities to Syria. Derpers gotta derp as long as it presents an opportunity for low-information outrage against Obama.

Or maybe there are just those among us Farkers who disapprove of unprovoked attacks on foreign countries, regardless of which president orders it.  There's no reason to twist such a consistent & straightforward position into a perceived attack on your favorite politician.

First, I noticed you didn't address the Libya comparison. I wonder why that is. Kind of totally destroys your false narrative of boots going on the ground in some war occupation.

Secondly, while I'm only almost certain your own position on attacks on foreign countries IS entirely depedent on which political party orders it, for me it is not quite so simple. It's actually based on situation, evidence, and reason.

I can say honestly that I never voted for Obama in either election, but that I find the attacks on his presidency to be entirely without a shred of merit. Not on NSA Spying, Drone Strikes, International Relations, Government Policy, etc. It's just a bunch of really economic, technical, and internationally retarded people with opinions based entirely in irrational paranoia and political bias.

I was for the war in Afghanistan because it seemed to be the hub of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, while not liking the idea of attacking a country for the sole purpose of eliminating one terrorst sect. I was entirely against the war in Iraq because it was based on false pretenses, with no real need for urgency, in a ground occupation with no a ...


First, I don't really care whether there are boots on the ground or not; I'd disapprove either way.  So that isn't a salient issue as far as I'm concerned.

Second, I disapproved just as strongly of Bush's actions and I did vote for Obama.  I'm entirely on-board with most of his other policies, and feel Obamacare didn't go far enough (i.e., single-payer), so no, this really isn't a partisan thing with me.  I'm generally a Democrat.  Believe it or not, it really is a matter of policy & principle, not politics.

/ though I do agree with you on Afghanistan; for all practical purposes, they did attack us first
// though that's about all we seem to share in common
 
2013-09-04 05:29:23 PM

cptjeff: So, despite the provision in the Authorization of Force specifically prohibiting troops on the ground, apart from special forces in very specific circumstances, we're going to be dumping thousands of troops on the ground and are going to turn this into another Vietnam?

Stop being stupid.


The old proverb "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." has been around for centuries. To bad people keep forgetting it when it's convenient for their own causes.
 
2013-09-04 05:29:25 PM
Boots on the ground? I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. Flip floppers.
 
2013-09-04 05:30:40 PM
The resolution puts a 60-day limit on Mr. Obama's ability to conduct strikes, while allowing him one 30-day extension of that authority.

LOL, this is like the facebook post I saw an image of where some guy is wanting to sell his iphone for "...$110-$125..."
 
2013-09-04 05:30:47 PM

Chilito:


That sums it up nicely.
 
2013-09-04 05:31:11 PM

Snarfangel: Boots on the ground? I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. Flip floppers.


Flip floppers? That's a croc.
 
2013-09-04 05:31:21 PM

WhyteRaven74: shifty lookin bleeder: It starts with what will be called 'trainers' or 'technical experts' or some other antiseptic euphemism that the Pentagon comes up with to avoid obvious parallels with Vietnam.

You realize there was no Vietnam back then? There was a North Vietnam and a South Vietnam. The whole mess in Vietnam was at the end of the day because the French refused to let South Vietnam vote for reunification. Ho Chi Minh figured if he couldn't get an election to achieve it, he'd get the North Vietnamese military to do it. The parallels between Vietnam and Syria are limited to both being countries in Asia.


You realize that post isn't a treatise on the history of colonialism in Southeast Asia and is merely a hypothetical example of how limited engagement can progress to hopeless quagmire without much public contemplation?

Although you are missing a obvious parallel that does currently exist between Syria and Vietnam in that the contemplated actions have no strategic military purpose and are primarily focused on making sure the US doesn't look weak.
 
2013-09-04 05:31:54 PM

darth_badger: uber humper: wonder if they know the Tsarnaev brothers?

They were such dreamy looking dupes!


Yea... I get lost in the young one's eyes
 
2013-09-04 05:33:20 PM

Sentient: I don't want to go to war in Syria. I don't really want to get involved in any more wars at all. In fact, I'd kind of like to just stop attacking other nations altogether. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who thinks this way, and I find that depressing.


I'm with you.
 
2013-09-04 05:40:48 PM
Meet the old boss same as the new boss
 
2013-09-04 05:41:18 PM

ZoeNekros: Wangiss: patrick767: Whexican: ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?

/I didn't even bother reading. The last article I read said the resolution strictly forbid boots on the ground.
//I suppose they might mean it included the phrase, "boots on the ground", and neglected to mention that it was preceded by "no"

Its the one you don't agree with.

Because the Moonie Times is clearly on the same level as the 47 Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post (six in one year in 2008).

I think homey was referring to the New York Times versus the New York Post.  There's a clear distinction there.

Why would you think that in Washington Times thread?


I was assuming the reader was off base.  I was basing that thought on "I didn't even bother reading."
 
2013-09-04 05:41:20 PM

Radioactive Ass: cptjeff: So, despite the provision in the Authorization of Force specifically prohibiting troops on the ground, apart from special forces in very specific circumstances, we're going to be dumping thousands of troops on the ground and are going to turn this into another Vietnam?

Stop being stupid.

The old proverb "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." has been around for centuries. To bad people keep forgetting it when it's convenient for their own causes.


Some of us like to actually weigh the facts and situation at hand before immediately hysterically proclaiming that things specifically prohibited in a bill will inevitably happen despite that prohibition.

We're not going to be putting boots on the ground in Syria. Absolutely no one wants to see that happen. Not Congress, not the President, not the Military, not John Kerry... You see this great big threat of another Vietnam, but it's just not there. You're imagining it. The Moonie Times and dumbassmitter are lying to you.
 
2013-09-04 05:43:51 PM
This war brought to you by our friends, AIPAC.
 
2013-09-04 05:44:45 PM
I heard Obama was going to strike Syria but then CNN called and told him Wolf Blitzer had scheduled time off for vacation, yada yada yada, you can't start a war without Blitzer yada yada yada so everything is on hold until Wolf gets back from holiday and CNN gets the war coverage opportunity that they paid for.
 
2013-09-04 05:45:25 PM

cptjeff: Some of us like to actually weigh the facts and situation at hand before immediately hysterically proclaiming that things specifically prohibited in a bill will inevitably happen despite that prohibition.



http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/uk-syria-crisis-usa-idUKBRE9 8 303G20130904">http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/uk-syria-crisi s-usa-idUKBRE98 303G20130904

"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country," Kerry told the committee.
But when Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the committee, told Kerry he "didn't find that a very appropriate response regarding boots on the ground," Kerry quickly, and repeatedly, backtracked.
Kerry said he was simply "thinking out loud" and raising a hypothetical situation, but he did not want to leave the door open to sending ground troops to Syria.

but i mean, he's just thinking out loud about how we might eventually need to put boots on the ground past this specific authorization, so don't worry.
 
2013-09-04 05:45:56 PM

WhyteRaven74: Great Janitor: I really wish the U.S. would change it's policy from helping out every country on the planet to an inward focused "USA first" policy.

We can do both.


Sure - but wouldn't it be great if we could exclude 'fire cruise missiles at' from our definition of 'help'?
 
2013-09-04 05:49:02 PM

Wangiss: Sentient: I don't want to go to war in Syria. I don't really want to get involved in any more wars at all. In fact, I'd kind of like to just stop attacking other nations altogether. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who thinks this way, and I find that depressing.

I'm with you.


There's lots with you, but if a person is elected to US congress, they go through a retraining program that makes them power-mongers. They are programmed to go to war to save their jobs.

/War! What is it good for?
//Thousands dead in Arabian sand
///Wave the flag for those who about to die
///Phase IV
 
2013-09-04 05:50:04 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: I hope the first platoon that goes into combat in Syria consists of the sons and daughters of US Senators. And that they are led by the 1rst Regimental British Petroleum Combat Engineers.


If the government demographics of the combat arms (infantry, artillery and armor -in order of importance) are still up to date it will be predominately white males from red state, middle class families so progressives should not have any problem with this.
 
2013-09-04 05:51:18 PM

hasty ambush: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope the first platoon that goes into combat in Syria consists of the sons and daughters of US Senators. And that they are led by the 1rst Regimental British Petroleum Combat Engineers.

If the government demographics of the combat arms (infantry, artillery and armor -in order of importance) are still up to date it will be predominately white males from red state, middle class families so progressives should not have any problem with this.


As an american progressive I'm saddened anytime a member of the US military is killed whether they came from a red state or a blue state. Especially in a war we have no reason for being in.
 
2013-09-04 05:59:34 PM
i.usatoday.net
jta-live.alley.ws
 
2013-09-04 06:03:36 PM
Writing the actual language to empower and constrain Mr. Obama is proving to be a difficult task

"Under no circumstances whatsoever are American ground forces allowed to enter Syria."

How difficult was that, exactly?
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report