Chemical Attack in Syria

[ClydeR]

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release April 04, 2017
Statement from President Donald J. Trump

Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable attack.

More... (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/04/statement-president-donald-j-trump)


Oh my.

[ClydeR]

Trump had to act quickly to head off blame. In the last few days, White House officials have indicated that they are okay with Assad staying in power. Certain People were already beginning to point fingers at the White House as signaling to Assad that he could do what he wanted.


ISTANBUL, Turkey—Days ago, in Ankara, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signaled that the U.S. had no quarrel with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a man Tillerson’s predecessor compared to Adolf Hitler after he slaughtered more than 1,000 people with poison gas in 2013.

The “longer-term status of President Assad,” Tillerson said, “will be decided by the Syrian people,” a euphemism used by Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran to indicate that he isn’t going anywhere.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer used almost identical language the next day, saying, “Well, I think with respect to Assad, there is a political reality that we have to accept in terms of where we are right now.”

More... (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/04/days-after-tillerson-mouths-russian-line-on-syria-assad-uses-gas.html)

[Gelston]

Thanks for the info, Fallen.

[Back]

So who did it? Russia? Syria? Iran? All three?

[Androidpk]

So who did it? Russia? Syria? Iran? All three?

You forgot Turkey.

[Androidpk]

Trump had to act quickly to head off blame. In the last few days, White House officials have indicated that they are okay with Assad staying in power. Certain People were already beginning to point fingers at the White House as signaling to Assad that he could do what he wanted.

I'm not sure if it's them being okay with Assad staying in power rather there really not being any other option available.

[Back]

You forgot Turkey.

I guess. Or Israel. Or Scotland. Or Ecuador.

But ask yourself... should our country be allied with the country who did it?

[Savageheart]

I don't think there is a viable option to him not being in power outside of an escalation of the current proxy war into a war war... Which we probably cannot do short of if not inciting WW3, getting right up to the brink.

That's a little bit of playing politics with the reality of the world, that being stated Trump did a Trump and invoked the Obama admin immediately.

It would have given them a lot more credibility just to state the realities of the situation. None of his base is disagreeing either way, but it does seem to possibly be shrinking?

[Back]

Yeah. Trump blames Obama. Who didn't see that coming. GG Trump team.

[Savageheart]

To be fair Obama spent a decent amount of his first term blaming Bush

[Androidpk]

I guess. Or Israel. Or Scotland. Or Ecuador.

But ask yourself... should our country be allied with the country who did it?

Uh.. are you just tossing out random countries?

[Back]

WAAAAA!!! ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!

[Androidpk]

No, we shouldn't be allied with a country that would do that.

Now answer my Q.

[Back]

Yes, yes I was. Genius.

[Androidpk]

Yes, yes I was. Genius.

Cause who cares about facts right?

[Parkbandit]

Yeah. Trump blames Obama. Who didn't see that coming. GG Trump team.

Irony... from the guy that blamed Bush for everything.

It's funny you don't even know what a flaming hypocrite you sound like.

[Parkbandit]

To be fair Obama spent a decent amount of his first term blaming Bush

FIRST?

FIRST???

FIRST TERM!??!?

lolol

[Back]

Cause who cares about facts right?

You obviously don't. For some reason you think Turkey might bomb Syrian rebels.

[SHAFT]

To be fair Obama spent a decent amount of his first term blaming Bush

He certainly had the right.

[Tgo01]

But ask yourself... should our country be allied with the country who did it?

Is Back asking for a US backed regime change in Syria?

Well color me shocked! But Russia said mean things about Hillary!!11!!11

[~Rocktar~]

And second.

[Back]

Back in the golden years of Obama at least Kerry made a show of getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Yeah, looks like he didn't give them all up, or got more, or the Russians did. Still... they did something.

What is Trump going to do? Blame Obama.

[ClydeR]

The Russians, if you trust them, dispute Trump. They say that the Syrians hit a depot where the rebels stored chemical weapons, which released the chemicals.


"Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhoun," he said in a video statement, referring to the rebel-held town in northern Syria where the deaths occurred Tuesday.

He said "chemical-laden weapons" made by rebels at the site had previously been used by militants in Iraq — an apparent reference to a report last month from the International Committee of the Red Cross that toxic agents had been used in fighting near Mosul.

Russia is a key supporter of Assad, who has been fighting rebels trying to unseat him for more than six years.

More... (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-blames-syria-gassing-leak-rebels-own-chemical-arsenal-n742791)

[Parkbandit]

Back in the golden years of Obama at least Kerry made a show of getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Yeah, looks like he didn't give them all up, or got more, or the Russians did. Still... they did something.

What is Trump going to do? Blame Obama.

Oh, you decided to just become a joke of yourself.

Sorry, we already have too many trolls. And it's not Drunk Backlash Tuesday.

[Androidpk]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/trump-syria-comments-response/index.html

Trump takes responsibility.

[Back]

Trump also encouraged Obama NOT to attack back when this happened the first time.


September 7, 2013 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/376334423069032448): President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!

September 9, 2013 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/377038618407493632): Don't attack Syria - an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again

[Androidpk]

Trump also encouraged Obama NOT to attack back when this happened the first time.

cool story

[Tgo01]

Trump also encouraged Obama NOT to attack back when this happened the first time.

Trump said something as a private citizen 4 years ago!!! This is relevant!

Democrats like yourself are such a laughing stock.

[Androidpk]

https://media.giphy.com/media/oibPFoTY3IhzO/giphy.gif

[macgyver]

Unless Trump strangles some prostitute in the White House blue room with the press corps filming it, these cucks won't say a bad word about Trump, you liberals are wasting your time.

Heh, even then Fox and friends will lead with, "but she was a whore..."

[Shaps]

Unless Trump strangles some prostitute in the White House blue room with the press corps filming it, these cucks won't say a bad word about Trump, you liberals are wasting your time.

Heh, even then Fox and friends will lead with, "but she was a whore..."

What if she's into strangling.. one President already proved that interns are into money shots.

[ClydeR]

cuck

That word, unfortunately, is becoming (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html) popular in mainstream political discourse.

[Methais]

Back in the golden years of Obama at least Kerry made a show of getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Yeah, looks like he didn't give them all up, or got more, or the Russians did. Still... they did something.

What is Trump going to do? Blame Obama.

It's ok to be incompetent as long as you're really really trying super hard, right?

[Ashliana]

It's ok to be incompetent as long as you're really really trying super hard, right?

It's okay to claim "I don't support invading Syria" only to turn around and hysterically blame someone who took your advice, fully expecting your supporters to be completely retarded and willfully ignorant about your own actions, right?

It's okay -- you can see yourself out now.

[Methais]

It's okay to claim "I don't support invading Syria" only to turn around and hysterically blame someone who took your advice, fully expecting your supporters to be completely retarded and willfully ignorant about your own actions, right?

It's okay -- you can see yourself out now.

So what you're saying is you don't want to answer my question, so instead you deflect.

How surprising.

To answer your question though: No.

[Back]

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/04/us-syria-strike/522237/

The U.S. Strikes in SyriaThe Trump administration targeted facilities belonging to President Bashar al-Assad, opening a new front in U.S. military operations.


The U.S. military struck a Syrian airfield near Homs, the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s response to this week’s chemical-weapons attack (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/521883/) by the Assad regime, and marking the first U.S. military operation against an Arab government since President Obama’s intervention in Libya in 2011.
The U.S. launched more than 50 tomahawk missiles into Syria, targeting the al-Shayrat military airfield near Homs, officials confirmed to NBC News (https://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/850154418486038528).

[Trump]

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/04/us-syria-strike/522237/

The U.S. Strikes in SyriaThe Trump administration targeted facilities belonging to President Bashar al-Assad, opening a new front in U.S. military operations.



I feel like this should get a new thread, kinda have a feeling this is going to escalate quick.

[SHAFT]

My conservative side has kicked in and I say bravo! I don't know what kind of damage this does to Assad, but I'm glad trump acted quickly on this. None of our allies will.

Hopefully the fuckfaces in Raqqa could see the bright lights.

[Trump]

In a few months airfields will be rebuilt as good as new. Unless, this is a prelude to something much bigger. Trump always talks about not announcing his moves so who knows?

[Fallen]

50+ cruise missiles sends a hell of a message.

[Back]

The comments section of the Russian Times is entertaining.

https://www.rt.com/news/383782-us-strikes-syria-tomahawaks/

[~Rocktar~]

Kind of like a bunch of F111 Aardvarks did in Libya.

[SHAFT]

50+ cruise missiles sends a hell of a message.

70 fired, 59 hit. Supposedly Russian defense systems shot down the rest. According to Jesters twitter feed.

[Back]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-latest-no-vote-on-security-council-resolution-tonight/2017/04/06/d4d71cc0-1b27-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_story.html?utm_term=.43c9e1873a87


Syrian state TV says a U.S. missile attack hit a number of military targets inside the country, calling the attack an “aggression.”

A military official speaking on Syrian TV says an air base in central Syria was hit early Friday, causing material damage. The unnamed official did not elaborate.

Talal Barazi, the governor of Homs province, where the targeted air base is located, said most of the strikes appeared to target the province in central Syria. He also said the strikes are meant to “support the terrorists on the ground.”

[time4fun]

On one hand, I'm glad something is being done. On the other hand, it's been fewer than 100 days and he's already launching missiles.

[time4fun]

Turns out there may have been Iranian national guard members at that base.

[Gelston]

Turns out there may have been Iranian national guard members at that base.

National or Republican?

[SHAFT]

Turns out there may have been Iranian national guard members at that base.

I hope so. Fuck Iran. They have it coming.

[~Rocktar~]

70 fired, 59 hit. Supposedly Russian defense systems shot down the rest. According to Jesters twitter feed.

Quite possible, tomahawks are 70s era tech, not stealthy and ground search radar is a LOT better now days for look down, shoot down or spotting capability.

[SHAFT]

On one hand, I'm glad something is being done. On the other hand, it's been fewer than 100 days and he's already launching missiles.

I agree on both. I want to feel good Assad was hit, but consider this: how do we know trumps team didn't communicate with Russia and say "Hey, let's conjure up a distraction. Tell Assad to drop some chemicals on a village and whaa la! Yuuuuge and bigly distraction"?

I know that's total tin-hat shit, but you never know.

[time4fun]

I hope so. Fuck Iran. They have it coming.

Also Russian and Iraqi.

Stop and think. We may have effectively bombed 4 countries.

A lot of those forces were there to combat ISIS in the area.

[Tgo01]

On the other hand, it's been fewer than 100 days and he's already launching missiles.

Not all US bombs can be dropped by Nobel peace prize winners.

[Tgo01]

Stop and think. We may have effectively bombed 4 countries.

No, we didn't bomb four countries. Jesus Christ.

[Gelston]

Did you know hitting a nations troops in another country doesn't mean you hit thst nation with bombs? Shocking I know. Gee though, hoe many countries has Obama bombed?I can think of at least 8.

[Back]

I've read that the Pentagon let the Russians know ahead of time through deconflict protocols. If that were the case I'd bet Russia let Syria know also.

[Gelston]

I've read that the Pentagon let the Russians know ahead of time through deconflict protocols. If that were the case I'd bet Russia let Syria know also.

Source

[SHAFT]

Also Russian and Iraqi.

Stop and think. We may have effectively bombed 4 countries.

A lot of those forces were there to combat ISIS in the area.

This was a message: stop using chemical weapons. Everyone at the base had notice, they hid in bunkers. I doubt anyone died.

[Back]

Source


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/us-said-to-weigh-military-responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html?_r=0


“Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line,” said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. “Military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield.” No Russian aircraft were at the base, military officials said.

[Back]

https://www.rt.com/news/383785-us-missiles-syrian-army/


07 April 201704:30 GMTThe US attack on Syria is “an act of aggression against a UN member,” the chair of the Russian Senate’s security and defense committee, Viktor Ozerov, told RIA Novosti. He added that Moscow would call an emergency UN Security Council meeting to discuss the situation.

[~Rocktar~]

And just how much concern did the UN have when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea? They are a laughing stock these days.

[Tgo01]

The UN might send the US a strongly worded letter!

[Parkbandit]

Also Russian and Iraqi.

Stop and think. We may have effectively bombed 4 countries.

A lot of those forces were there to combat ISIS in the area.

http://www.animated-gifs.eu/category_leisure/leisure-circus-clowns-1/0002.gif

[Parkbandit]

Did you know hitting a nations troops in another country doesn't mean you hit thst nation with bombs? Shocking I know. Gee though, hoe many countries has Obama bombed?I can think of at least 8.

PolitiFACT has never addressed this issue, so how do we actually know if it's actually a fact? Let's wait and see.

[Parkbandit]

This was a message: stop using chemical weapons. Everyone at the base had notice, they hid in bunkers. I doubt anyone died.

If this is true and there were no casualties.. did we actually bomb any countries then?

[macgyver]

But the question is, why is it our job to deal with Syria? Why can't China deal with them? or Great Britain? Or Germany? Or any one of these countries who live far closer to the region in question and are more than capable financially and technologically.

[Methais]

But the question is, why is it our job to deal with Syria? Why can't China deal with them? or Great Britain? Or Germany? Or any one of these countries who live far closer to the region in question and are more than capable financially and technologically.

Our bombs are cooler.

[drauz]

Our bombs are cooler.

https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/ajDwY2Q_700b.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

Finally a strong response from a US President. It's about time. Obummer, you still suck.

[Back]

Congress did not approve military action and Trump was against it back in 2013. Now they're going to turn around and blame Obama for this? GTFO. That's some pussy ass bullshit right there.

[Androidpk]

Congress did not approve military action and Trump was against it back in 2013. Now they're going to turn around and blame Obama for this? GTFO. That's some pussy ass bullshit right there.

Well Obama was the one that drew a red line then allowed Syria to cross it with 0 repercussions.

[Wrathbringer]

Well Obama was the one that drew a red line then allowed Syria to cross it with 0 repercussions.

That's some pussy ass bullshit right there. Right, Back?

[Back]

Well Obama was the one that drew a red line then allowed Syria to cross it with 0 repercussions.

And when he went to get congress on board with military action they turned him down while Trump was tweeting not to do it. Everyone is culpable.

[Androidpk]

And when he went to get congress on board with military action they turned him down while Trump was tweeting not to do it. Everyone is culpable.

No, only Obama and you liberals are culpable. Haven't you learned how this game works yet?

[Back]

No, only Obama and you liberals are culpable. Haven't you learned how this game works yet?

Yeah. I know. No sportsmanship from you. Just sore losers.

[Methais]

Congress did not approve military action and Trump was against it back in 2013. Now they're going to turn around and blame Obama for this? GTFO. That's some pussy ass bullshit right there.

Remember when Obama spent 8 years blaming everything on Bush and you were totally cool with it?

What happened?

[Back]

Remember when Obama spent 8 years blaming everything on Bush and you were totally cool with it?

What happened?

Well deserved.

[Parkbandit]

Well deserved.

So..

Blaming Bush = Well deserved.

Blaming Obama = TRIGGERED!

I'd say I'm surprised.. but I'm not.

[Back]

So..

Blaming Bush = Well deserved.

Blaming Obama = TRIGGERED!

I'd say I'm surprised.. but I'm not.

Bush's illeagal invasion of Iraq over false pretenses is the whole reason when are in this position in the first place.

[Androidpk]

Bush's illeagal invasion of Iraq over false pretenses is the whole reason when are in this position in the first place.

Thanks, Hillary.

[Parkbandit]

Bush's illeagal invasion of Iraq over false pretenses is the whole reason when are in this position in the first place.

The stupidity in this is just too hard to ignore.

Please, go slap your teachers in the face.

In before you blame your phone/computer/sunlight/tennis elbow for the stupidity displayed.

[Parkbandit]

This seems like a good place for the classic WALL O TEXT:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[SHAFT]

Bush's illeagal invasion of Iraq over false pretenses is the whole reason when are in this position in the first place.

If you really want to get into it, we're in this mess when we told the world we'd leave the Middle East after the gulf war/desert storm and we never did. We stayed in the "holy land" and pissed off osama bin laden and his cronies.

Dubya just fueled the fire by invading Iraq.

[Methais]

This seems like a good place for the classic WALL O TEXT:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Bush's fault.

I also fixed it so it would be a true wall of text, for accuracy.

[Back]

Oh man... the comments section on RT.com are hilarious.

8453

[Tisket]

Stop and think. We may have effectively bombed 4 countries.


I had a fender bender with a French family a few weeks ago that was my fault.

I wonder if France is going to retaliate.

[Astray]

I had a fender bender with a French family a few weeks ago that was my fault.

I wonder if France is going to retaliate.

They'll do it but their hands will be in the air as a preemptive measure.

[Methais]

Not all US bombs can be dropped by Nobel peace prize winners.

And for 2922 days in a row.

[Geijon Khyree]

Footage of that base doesn't show much damage from 59 cruise missiles. What exactly is that message? If you kill people with gas we'll pot hole your air base so you have to drive around the holes next time you gas your people?

[Wrathbringer]

Footage of that base doesn't show much damage from 59 cruise missiles. What exactly is that message? If you kill people with gas we'll pot hole your air base so you have to drive around the holes next time you gas your people?

The base was destroyed, along with at least 20 syrian jets.

eta: but I get it. You're still butthurt you lost. It's cool.

[Ashliana]

Well Obama was the one that drew a red line then allowed Syria to cross it with 0 repercussions.

You mean, as the guy you subsequently voted for, shouted repeatedly: NO! DON'T ATTACK! GET CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?

http://i.imgur.com/63m7YyB.png
http://imgur.com/Uho6BOS.png
http://i.imgur.com/DflLDFb.png
http://i.imgur.com/XZR61mx.png

Intellectual consistency? From Androidpk and the retarded cheetoh-in-chief he voted for? It's considerably less likely than you think.

[Parkbandit]

I had a fender bender with a French family a few weeks ago that was my fault.

I wonder if France is going to retaliate.

If you consider waving a white flag in your face "retaliation" then you are DOOMED

[Tgo01]

You mean, as the guy you subsequently voted for, shouted repeatedly: NO! DON'T ATTACK! GET CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?

http://i.imgur.com/63m7YyB.png
http://imgur.com/Uho6BOS.png
http://i.imgur.com/DflLDFb.png
http://i.imgur.com/XZR61mx.png

Intellectual consistency? From Androidpk and the retarded cheetoh-in-chief he voted for? It's considerably less likely than you think.

Trump as a private citizen said shit? This IS serious!

You Democrats are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now for this shit.

[Parkbandit]

You mean, as the guy you subsequently voted for, shouted repeatedly: NO! DON'T ATTACK! GET CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?

Intellectual consistency? From Androidpk and the retarded cheetoh-in-chief he voted for? It's considerably less likely than you think.

Yea.. if you really want to make a point, describe a red line that will not be crossed.. THAT will make Syria stop their shenanigans.

[Parkbandit]

Trump as a private citizen said shit? This IS serious!

You Democrats are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now for this shit.

#Russiaisatfault

[Stumplicker]

Trump as a private citizen said shit? This IS serious!

You Democrats are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now for this shit.

Are you saying that all things said prior to becoming inaugurated as President are invalidated the day of inauguration? Because if I recall, Donald Trump's entire life falls into that category right up until he was President.

I also recall he was a frontrunner early in the republican primaries in 2011 before dropping out of the race. Those twitter comments came at least a year after he started the process of running for President. Why exactly would you consider them invalid?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/16/donald-trump-us-presidential-race

[Parkbandit]

Are you saying that all things said prior to becoming inaugurated as President are invalidated the day of inauguration? Because if I recall, Donald Trump's entire life falls into that category right up until he was President.

I also recall he was a frontrunner early in the republican primaries in 2011 before dropping out of the race. Those twitter comments came at least a year after he started the process of running for President. Why exactly would you consider them invalid?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/16/donald-trump-us-presidential-race

You believe that candidate Trump had the same information as President Trump does?

If that is your biggest criticism of his action... you've already lost. Hell, even Schumer and Batshit Crazy Pelosi agreed with what he did.

[Tgo01]

Are you saying that all things said prior to becoming inaugurated as President are invalidated the day of inauguration?

No Mr. "Republican." I'm saying it's stupid to look at "policy decisions" Trump made before he became a politician or started running for office. This is shit he said 3 years before even announcing he was running for president.

It reminds me of the bullshit people were trying to pin on him for saying he was for the Iraq war, trying to downplay Hillary, who was in congress, whose word actually mattered in the debate because she could vote to go to war.


Those twitter comments came at least a year after he started the process of running for President.

You mean 2 years after he had already dropped out of a race he had no chance of winning? Well shit I change my mind, this IS more important than what actual politicians were saying and doing at the time!! IMPEACH TRUMP!

[Geijon Khyree]

The base was destroyed, along with at least 20 syrian jets.

eta: but I get it. You're still butthurt you lost. It's cool.

Try to be intelligent and read to understand instead of respond. I said the response wasnt significant enough. CNN has syrian footage and it looked minor with jets still in their hangers. We hit a bunch of earth overhangd that cover the jets. The runway looked fine.

Fox news has satellite images of scorch strikes where we hit hangers. The base hardly looks 'destroyed'.

If the message is we can destroy your entire air force and all of your bases lets actually get all their planes on that base to properly send the message.

I lost? Trump is President. I'm a realist and Clinton said the day before she'd order assads air fields destroyed so they kind of agree here.

Would you like to have a big boys discussion or you want to edit in petty ass lost shit. When little kids get gassed its not joke time.

[Ashliana]

Trump as a private citizen said shit? This IS serious!

You Democrats are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now for this shit.

Could you be any more intellectually dishonest if you TRIED? Trump said all that as someone:

1) who had clear political aspirations
2) who was trying to participate in the political process

He wasn't just some random Joe Schmo whose comments happened to be captured and are only now, unfairly, being scrutinized. He was a prominent public figure explicitly commenting on politics and policy.

He advocated (X), then once in power, hysterically blamed the last administration for doing exactly as he repeatedly, LOUDLY recommended.

I know, I know -- you're balls-to-the-wall dishonest, just like Trump is -- which explains why you and PB are sitting here doing insane mental gymnastics trying to explain away his actions.


It reminds me of the bullshit people were trying to pin on him for saying he was for the Iraq war, trying to downplay Hillary, who was in congress, whose word actually mattered in the debate because she could vote to go to war.

Reality: Trump, as a candidate, repeatedly claimed, in direct criticism of other Republicans (esp. Jeb Bush) and some Democrats: "I WAS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR FROM THE START, LOOK HOW GOOD MY JUDGMENT IS" only to have people point out "No, you weren't, you're lying." Nobody randomly pulled those comments out of nowhere in an effort to discredit him. Did Hillary support the Iraq war? She sure did. Did Trump lie about whether or not he supported the Iraq war? Holy fuck, yes, he lied, just like he lies about almost everything else.

Could you be any more of a shitty apologist?

[SHAFT]

Try to be intelligent and read to understand instead of respond. I said the response wasnt significant enough. CNN has syrian footage and it looked minor with jets still in their hangers. We hit a bunch of earth overhangd that cover the jets. The runway looked fine.

Fox news has satellite images of scorch strikes where we hit hangers. The base hardly looks 'destroyed'.

If the message is we can destroy your entire air force and all of your bases lets actually get all their planes on that base to properly send the message.

I lost? Trump is President. I'm a realist and Clinton said the day before she'd order assads air fields destroyed so they kind of agree here.

Would you like to have a big boys discussion or you want to edit in petty ass lost shit. When little kids get gassed its not joke time.

Wrath and PB just troll people all day. They'll have a troll-response for anything you come at them with.

They can't be reasoned with. They're like terminators or xenomorphs from aliens: lifeless, cold, and dead inside.

[Parkbandit]

Wrath and PB just troll people all day. They'll have a troll-response for anything you come at them with.

They can't be reasoned with. They're like terminators or xenomorphs from aliens: lifeless, cold, and dead inside.

Didn't you cry and leave here? What are you doing back?

Mommy gave you a new security blankie.. didn't she!

WHAT A BIG BOY YOU ARE!!

[Methais]

Are you saying that all things said prior to becoming inaugurated as President are invalidated the day of inauguration? Because if I recall, Donald Trump's entire life falls into that category right up until he was President.

I also recall he was a frontrunner early in the republican primaries in 2011 before dropping out of the race. Those twitter comments came at least a year after he started the process of running for President. Why exactly would you consider them invalid?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/16/donald-trump-us-presidential-race

Remember when Trump didn't actually run for that election?

[Tgo01]

Could you be any more intellectually dishonest if you TRIED? Trump said all that as someone:

1) who had clear political aspirations
2) who was trying to participate in the political process

He wasn't just some random Joe Schmo whose comments happened to be captured and are only now, unfairly, being scrutinized. He was a prominent public figure explicitly commenting on politics and policy.

He advocated (X), then once in power, hysterically blamed the last administration for doing exactly as he repeatedly, LOUDLY recommended.

I know, I know -- you're balls-to-the-wall dishonest, just like Trump is -- which explains why you and PB are sitting here doing insane mental gymnastics trying to explain away his actions.



Reality: Trump, as a candidate, repeatedly claimed, in direct criticism of other Republicans (esp. Jeb Bush) and some Democrats: "I WAS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR FROM THE START, LOOK HOW GOOD MY JUDGMENT IS" only to have people point out "No, you weren't, you're lying." Nobody randomly pulled those comments out of nowhere in an effort to discredit him. Did Hillary support the Iraq war? She sure did. Did Trump lie about whether or not he supported the Iraq war? Holy fuck, yes, he lied, just like he lies about almost everything else.

Could you be any more of a shitty apologist?

I can't possibly argue against all of those bold, underlined, and italicized words!

[Wrathbringer]

Could you be any more intellectually dishonest if you TRIED? Trump said all that as someone:

1) who had clear political aspirations
2) who was trying to participate in the political process

He wasn't just some random Joe Schmo whose comments happened to be captured and are only now, unfairly, being scrutinized. He was a prominent public figure explicitly commenting on politics and policy.

He advocated (X), then once in power, hysterically blamed the last administration for doing exactly as he repeatedly, LOUDLY recommended.

I know, I know -- you're balls-to-the-wall dishonest, just like Trump is -- which explains why you and PB are sitting here doing insane mental gymnastics trying to explain away his actions.



Reality: Trump, as a candidate, repeatedly claimed, in direct criticism of other Republicans (esp. Jeb Bush) and some Democrats: "I WAS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR FROM THE START, LOOK HOW GOOD MY JUDGMENT IS" only to have people point out "No, you weren't, you're lying." Nobody randomly pulled those comments out of nowhere in an effort to discredit him. Did Hillary support the Iraq war? She sure did. Did Trump lie about whether or not he supported the Iraq war? Holy fuck, yes, he lied, just like he lies about almost everything else.

Could you be any more of a shitty apologist?

Lol you lost

[Gelston]

I can't possible argue against all of those bold, underlined, and italicized words!

At least he isn't using colors.

[Parkbandit]

Could you be any more intellectually dishonest if you TRIED? Trump said all that as someone:

1) who had clear political aspirations
2) who was trying to participate in the political process

He wasn't just some random Joe Schmo whose comments happened to be captured and are only now, unfairly, being scrutinized. He was a prominent public figure explicitly commenting on politics and policy.

He advocated (X), then once in power, hysterically blamed the last administration for doing exactly as he repeatedly, LOUDLY recommended.

I know, I know -- you're balls-to-the-wall dishonest, just like Trump is -- which explains why you and PB are sitting here doing insane mental gymnastics trying to explain away his actions.



Reality: Trump, as a candidate, repeatedly claimed, in direct criticism of other Republicans (esp. Jeb Bush) and some Democrats: "I WAS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR FROM THE START, LOOK HOW GOOD MY JUDGMENT IS" only to have people point out "No, you weren't, you're lying." Nobody randomly pulled those comments out of nowhere in an effort to discredit him. Did Hillary support the Iraq war? She sure did. Did Trump lie about whether or not he supported the Iraq war? Holy fuck, yes, he lied, just like he lies about almost everything else.

Could you be any more of a shitty apologist?

You're as wrong as you are gay. I don't honestly care about explaining anything Trump does... it's fun to see idiots like you, Shaft, Backlash and time4fun going CRAZY because Trump is President and you are doing ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to show how upset you are about the election outcome.

I'm merely stoking the fire, sitting back with a bowl of popcorn and laughing at you.

Also, I used bold, italics, capitals and underline to show how serious I was about random words.

[Parkbandit]

At least he isn't using colors.

It's an amateur.

[Methais]

At least he isn't using colors.

Because he's racist no doubt.

[Ashliana]

I can't possibly argue against all of those bold, underlined, and italicized words!


Lol you lost


You're as wrong as you are gay. I don't honestly care about explaining anything Trump does...

What articulate, well-reasoned responses to pointing out Trump's long list of hypocrisy, tendency to contradict himself, and outright lying. It must be fun to seamlessly change whatever your position happens to be at the moment based on what you find politically expedient at the time, whether that's Trump or yourselves.

Kudos, though, on the complete intellectual surrender. Normally you at least endlessly, ineptly, try to defend yourselves. I'm glad to see that not even you guys could come up with your normal gymnastics of endless bullshit that wouldn't convince a third grader. Let me know how that cognitive dissonance works out for you.

[Parkbandit]

What articulate, well-reasoned responses to pointing out Trump's long list of hypocrisy, tendency to contradict himself, and outright lying. It must be fun to seamlessly change whatever your position happens to be at the moment based on what you find politically expedient at the time, whether that's Trump or yourselves.

Kudos, though, on the complete intellectual surrender. Normally you at least endlessly, ineptly, try to defend yourselves. I'm glad to see that not even you guys could come up with your normal gymnastics of endless bullshit that wouldn't convince a third grader. Let me know how that cognitive dissonance works out for you.

Please, please, please: Don't lecture us on what is "normal".

[Tgo01]

What articulate, well-reasoned responses to pointing out Trump's long list of hypocrisy, tendency to contradict himself, and outright lying. It must be fun to seamlessly change whatever your position happens to be at the moment based on what you find politically expedient at the time.

Kudos, though, on the complete intellectual surrender. Normally you at least endlessly, ineptly, try to defend yourselves. It's glad to see that not even you guys could come up with your normal gymnastics of endless bullshit that wouldn't convince a third grader. Let me know how that cognitive dissonance works out for you.

Trump said words in 2013! He's literally Hitler!

Obama as president warned Syria not to cross a line. Syria crossed line. Obama did nothing. The Republicans in Congress are literally Hitler!

This is honestly all the "well-reasoned, mental gymnastics" that needs to be said. Trying to argue any of your other distraction bullshit is just a waste of time when this argument was already won before it even started. You can bold, underline, colorize, and italicize every word in your response, it won't help you at all.

[Parkbandit]

Trump said words in 2013! He's literally Hitler!

Obama as president warned Syria not to cross a line. Syria crossed line. Obama did nothing. The Republicans in Congress are literally Hitler!

This is honestly all the "well-reasoned, mental gymnastics" that needs to be said. Trying to argue any of your other distraction bullshit is just a waste of time when this argument was already won before it even started. You can bold, underline, colorize, and italicize every word in your response, it won't help you at all.

You sound like Hitler when you post.

[Parkbandit]

What articulate, well-reasoned responses to pointing out Trump's long list of hypocrisy, tendency to contradict himself, and outright lying. It must be fun to seamlessly change whatever your position happens to be at the moment based on what you find politically expedient at the time, whether that's Trump or yourselves.

Kudos, though, on the complete intellectual surrender. Normally you at least endlessly, ineptly, try to defend yourselves. I'm glad to see that not even you guys could come up with your normal gymnastics of endless bullshit that wouldn't convince a third grader. Let me know how that cognitive dissonance works out for you.


Ok...
now that you've had an opportunity to wipe away the tears of frustration... answer me this:

Do you believe that President Trump's actions were appropriate, given the poison gas that was used? If no, what would you do (ZOMG!! I know.. you aren't President, so if you ever get elected we won't keep you to your word) in President Trump's place?

[Ashliana]

Trump said words in 2013! He's literally Hitler!

Obama as president warned Syria not to cross a line. Syria crossed line. Obama did nothing. The Republicans in Congress are literally Hitler!

Obama didn't "do nothing" -- the United States of America did nothing. Obama sought congressional approval for the authorization of force, just like Trump wanted, and guess what their response was? Crickets.


This is honestly all the "well-reasoned, mental gymnastics" that needs to be said. Trying to argue any of your other distraction bullshit is just a waste of time when this argument was already won before it even started. You can bold, underline, colorize, and italicize every word in your response, it won't help you at all.

Spoiler Alert: Not responding to anything that I said, declaring yourself the winner and patting yourself on the back doesn't constitute a reasoned position.

None of your mental gymnastics changes:

1) the fact that Trump endlessly bloviated about what a president should, or shouldn't do, became president himself, then did exactly the thing he criticized Obama for.
2) the fact that -- much like on healthcare -- the GOP never had any remotely-unified solution or position about what should actually be done in Syria, but they sure were convinced that it required congressional approval.

Now that Trump's proved himself a total hypocrite and liar once again, what's Tgo01's response? Oh. Unconditional support, of course, as always.


Ok...
now that you've had an opportunity to wipe away the tears of frustration... answer me this:

Do you believe that President Trump's actions were appropriate, given the poison gas that was used? If no, what would you do (ZOMG!! I know.. you aren't President, so if you ever get elected we won't keep you to your word) in President Trump's place?

:rofl: Since you're in the habit of sidestepping everything that's asked of you, and responding with a question, I'll do the same:

Do you believe that Trump was incorrect when he was hysterically raving about Obama needing congressional approval? Or was he incorrect yesterday, to order an attack on Syria despite having no such authorization? It's one or the other, buddy.

[Methais]

Obama didn't "do nothing" -- the United States of America did nothing. Obama sought congressional approval for the authorization of force, just like Trump wanted, and guess what their response was? Crickets.



Spoiler Alert: Not responding to anything that I said, declaring yourself the winner and patting yourself on the back doesn't constitute a reasoned position.

None of your mental gymnastics changes:

1) the fact that Trump endlessly bloviated about what a president should, or shouldn't do, became president himself, then did exactly the thing he criticized Obama for.
2) the fact that -- much like on healthcare -- the GOP never had any remotely-unified solution or position about what should actually be done in Syria, but they sure were convinced that it required congressional approval.

Now that Trump's proved himself a total hypocrite and liar once again, what's Tgo01's response? Oh. Unconditional support, of course, as always.



:rofl: Since you're in the habit of sidestepping everything that's asked of you, and responding with a question, I'll do the same:

Do you believe that Trump was incorrect when he was hysterically raving about Obama needing congressional approval? Or was he incorrect yesterday, to order an attack on Syria despite having no such authorization? It's one or the other, buddy.

It's funny that you still think they're taking you seriously and are expecting serious responses.

[Wrathbringer]

Obama shouldn't have written checks his ass couldn't cash, is what you're saying.

[Methais]

Obama shouldn't have written checks his ass couldn't cash, is what you're saying.

AA credit rating go go go!

[Parkbandit]

:rofl: Since you're in the habit of sidestepping everything that's asked of you, and responding with a question, I'll do the same:

LOL... the hypocrisy is strong with It.


Do you believe that Trump was incorrect when he was hysterically raving about Obama needing congressional approval? Or was he incorrect yesterday, to order an attack on Syria despite having no such authorization? It's one or the other, buddy.

Given the severity of using gas on his own citizens and clearly crossing a line, I think President Trump's actions were justified. To answer your retarded question though, part of me wishes President Trump would delete his Twitter account.. but the other louder part of me is cheering at every Tweet, knowing how your ilk goes absolutely nuts over it.

So, now that I answered your question, feel free to answer mine:

Do you believe that President Trump's actions were appropriate, given the poison gas that was used? If no, what would you do (ZOMG!! I know.. you aren't President, so if you ever get elected we won't keep you to your word) in President Trump's place?

[Gelston]

I think we should just start dumping our landfills on countries we hate. Not bombs, just all our garbage.

[Ashliana]

LOL... the hypocrisy is strong with It.

Given the severity of using gas on his own citizens and clearly crossing a line, I think President Trump's actions were justified. To answer your retarded question though, part of me wishes President Trump would delete his Twitter account.. but the other louder part of me is cheering at every Tweet, knowing how your ilk goes absolutely nuts over it.

So, now that I answered your question, feel free to answer mine:

Do you believe that President Trump's actions were appropriate, given the poison gas that was used? If no, what would you do (ZOMG!! I know.. you aren't President, so if you ever get elected we won't keep you to your word) in President Trump's place?

Attention, ignoramus: Assad didn't just use chemical weapons on his citizens for the first time, thus giving Trump or the GOP a get-out-of-hypocrisy free card. He'd done it in the past, and Trump, again, was one of the loudest voices calling on Obama to get congressional approval before taking them, and more, urging him not to attack them at all, regardless of Assad's actions.

So, PB, you're either wallowing in your usual proud, no-nothing willful ignorance or entirely bullshitting. Neither is surprising, coming from you. You're a deluded imbecile tripping over yourself to apologize for a maniac.


Do you believe that President Trump's actions were appropriate, given the poison gas that was used? If no, what would you do (ZOMG!! I know.. you aren't President, so if you ever get elected we won't keep you to your word) in President Trump's place?

Already addressed above - Assad's recent actions in no way change the equation. That Assad's been oppressing and murdering his own citizens isn't a magically new development that suddenly explains Trump's actions. Either:

A) Trump was right to call for Obama to seek congressional approval after Assad's previous attacks, and he's wrong now or
B) Trump was right to attack Assad over the recent attacks, and was wrong to urge Obama not to attack and instead seek congressional approval previously.

Try again, imbecile. I certainly wouldn't spend months ranting that Obama should seek approval, ranting that the United States shouldn't attack Syria -- regardless of what Assad's done -- only to turn around and ignore congress myself and launch attacks when the facts haven't appreciably changed. The GOP controls both houses of congress and the executive - if the GOP wants to start yet another war, not 100 days after getting into power, they should make sure they're all behind it.

[Wrathbringer]

I think we should just start dumping our landfills on countries we hate. Not bombs, just all our garbage.

I've often said if we just dropped shit on them from planes I know that would make me want to surrender.

[Wrathbringer]

Attention, ignoramus: Assad didn't just use chemical weapons on his citizens for the first time, thus giving Trump or the GOP a get-out-of-hypocrisy free card. He'd done it in the past, and Trump, again, was one of the loudest voices calling on Obama to get congressional approval before taking them, and more, urging him not to attack them at all, regardless of Assad's actions.

So, PB, you're either wallowing in your usual proud, no-nothing willful ignorance or entirely bullshitting. Neither is surprising, coming from you. You're a deluded imbecile tripping over yourself to apologize for a maniac.



Already addressed above - Assad's recent actions in no way change the equation. That Assad's been oppressing and murdering his own citizens isn't a magically new development that suddenly explains Trump's actions. Either:

A) Trump was right to call for Obama to seek congressional approval after Assad's previous attacks, and he's wrong now or
B) Trump was right to attack Assad over the recent attacks, and was wrong to urge Obama not to attack and instead seek congressional approval previously.

Try again, imbecile. I certainly wouldn't spend months ranting that Obama should seek approval, ranting that the United States shouldn't attack Syria -- regardless of what Assad's done -- only to turn around and ignore congress myself and launch attacks when the facts haven't appreciably changed. The GOP controls both houses of congress and the executive - if the GOP wants to start yet another war, not 100 days after getting into power, they should make sure they're all behind it.

wow you're super pissed about losing, huh. Well, you did. lol

[Ashliana]

wow you're super pissed about losing, huh. Well, you did. lol

Is that going to be your only response to Trump's obvious deficiencies being pointed out for the remainder of Trump's presidency? You might want to come up with a few new ones, or at least different ways of phrasing your precious fallback response.

[macgyver]

Trump's going to be one of the best presidents the U.S. ever produced, the office will change him and eventually he'll begin to make decisions on his own for the exclusive benefit for the country. I honestly believe that (yeah I'm naive but whatever).

[Stumplicker]

No Mr. "Republican." I'm saying it's stupid to look at "policy decisions" Trump made before he became a politician or started running for office. This is shit he said 3 years before even announcing he was running for president.

It reminds me of the bullshit people were trying to pin on him for saying he was for the Iraq war, trying to downplay Hillary, who was in congress, whose word actually mattered in the debate because she could vote to go to war.



You mean 2 years after he had already dropped out of a race he had no chance of winning? Well shit I change my mind, this IS more important than what actual politicians were saying and doing at the time!! IMPEACH TRUMP!

I like how you put "republican" in quotes to imply that I'm not one. Well, you're right. I'm not a "Democrat" either. I voted for Trump this election, and Obama in the last. How I vote has no bearing on whether or not those statements were factual, but as an aside, how dare I weigh the individual pros and cons of what a candidate says and writes rather than voting based on party lines. How DARE I?!

My point is, yes, he did in fact say those things, and whether he was saying them as a private citizen or in his newly elected office, he said them. He didn't say them any less, and they didn't mean any less because he said them before he was President. He literally criticized one person for doing the exact thing he just did.

That doesn't make it a bad decision that he did it. It didn't make it an unjust criticism when he said it. But he did say it, and it did happen as stated and shown and quoted whether he said it as a business owner, POTUS, or a circus clown. That's literally the only issue I have with anything you said. You can't just go "didn't count. He wasn't president then. lol" anytime someone shows you something he said that doesn't fit with your view of him.

[Wrathbringer]

Is that going to be your only response to Trump's obvious deficiencies being pointed out for the remainder of Trump's presidency? You might want to come up with a few new ones, or at least different ways of phrasing your precious fallback response.

Trump is President, and we're all better for it, which is why he'll be reelected. Meanwhile, you'll still be crying, I've no doubt. Your party is retarded, your candidate was retarded and your ideology is retarded. That's why you lost. Don't be retarded.

[Geijon Khyree]

Trump is President, and we're all better for it, which is why he'll be reelected. Meanwhile, you'll still be crying, I've no doubt. Your party is retarded, your candidate was retarded and your ideology is retarded. That's why you lost. Don't be retarded.

A white supremacist would say that, cause you are. You can kinda read, but not very well, just like Donald.

[Geijon Khyree]

Your troll handle is Wrathbringer. The fire is over there. You can go stand in it.

[Wrathbringer]

A white supremacist would say that, cause you are. You can kinda read, but not very well, just like Donald.

Now I'm a white supremacist? And I can't read? What? You're not even making sense. No wonder you buy the liberal agenda; you're obviously retarded, too.

[Wrathbringer]

Your troll handle is Wrathbringer. The fire is over there. You can go stand in it.

quoted before you change it once you realize how lame it is.

[Parkbandit]

Attention, ignoramus: Assad didn't just use chemical weapons on his citizens for the first time, thus giving Trump or the GOP a get-out-of-hypocrisy free card. He'd done it in the past, and Trump, again, was one of the loudest voices calling on Obama to get congressional approval before taking them, and more, urging him not to attack them at all, regardless of Assad's actions.

So, PB, you're either wallowing in your usual proud, no-nothing willful ignorance or entirely bullshitting. Neither is surprising, coming from you. You're a deluded imbecile tripping over yourself to apologize for a maniac.

Already addressed above - Assad's recent actions in no way change the equation. That Assad's been oppressing and murdering his own citizens isn't a magically new development that suddenly explains Trump's actions. Either:

A) Trump was right to call for Obama to seek congressional approval after Assad's previous attacks, and he's wrong now or
B) Trump was right to attack Assad over the recent attacks, and was wrong to urge Obama not to attack and instead seek congressional approval previously.

Try again, imbecile. I certainly wouldn't spend months ranting that Obama should seek approval, ranting that the United States shouldn't attack Syria -- regardless of what Assad's done -- only to turn around and ignore congress myself and launch attacks when the facts haven't appreciably changed. The GOP controls both houses of congress and the executive - if the GOP wants to start yet another war, not 100 days after getting into power, they should make sure they're all behind it.

It's posts like this that make me realize what a great choice Trump was for President. He has you so upset! I am a little sad this post didn't have more bold, underlines or italics though. Maybe President Trump has you SO UPSET you forgot??

Thank you for justifying my choice for OUR President.

https://media.tenor.co/images/bc2b05133dcbb695f9a18122aa522354/tenor.gif

[Back]

Obama shouldn't have written checks his ass couldn't cash, is what you're saying.

Actually Congress holds the purse strings and they voted against Obama using force on Syria.


I've often said if we just dropped shit on them from planes I know that would make me want to surrender.

When are you going to enlist then go hang your ass out of an airplane?

[Parkbandit]

I like how you put "republican" in quotes to imply that I'm not one. Well, you're right. I'm not a "Democrat" either. I voted for Trump this election, and Obama in the last. How I vote has no bearing on whether or not those statements were factual, but as an aside, how dare I weigh the individual pros and cons of what a candidate says and writes rather than voting based on party lines. How DARE I?!

My point is, yes, he did in fact say those things, and whether he was saying them as a private citizen or in his newly elected office, he said them. He didn't say them any less, and they didn't mean any less because he said them before he was President. He literally criticized one person for doing the exact thing he just did.

That doesn't make it a bad decision that he did it. It didn't make it an unjust criticism when he said it. But he did say it, and it did happen as stated and shown and quoted whether he said it as a business owner, POTUS, or a circus clown. That's literally the only issue I have with anything you said. You can't just go "didn't count. He wasn't president then. lol" anytime someone shows you something he said that doesn't fit with your view of him.

Thank you for electing Trump. Together, we're going to make America Great Again!

[Parkbandit]

A white supremacist would say that, cause you are. You can kinda read, but not very well, just like Donald.

What does white supremacy have to do with anything he posted?

[Wrathbringer]

Actually Congress holds the purse strings and they voted against Obama using force on Syria.



When are you going to enlist then go hang your ass out of an airplane?

Obama should have known his Congress better before writing the check his ass (congress) couldn't cash. Fact is, he should have done it anyway, like Trump did, and Reagan and Clinton before him. But, Obummer was a wimpy excuse for a president, so he didn't.

[Ashliana]

Trump is President, and we're all better for it, which is why he'll be reelected. Meanwhile, you'll still be crying, I've no doubt. Your party is retarded, your candidate was retarded and your ideology is retarded. That's why you lost. Don't be retarded.

:rofl: You're an ideologue -- and a remarkably poorly-informed one, to boot. You're desperately trying to convince yourself -- as most of the "conservatives" on this board are -- with Trump's win, that he somehow represents some magical resurgence of conservatism -- despite conservative ideology being INCREDIBLY unpopular and Trump losing by millions of votes -- rather than what it is, which is the last dying gasp of an ever-dwindling white population. Trump lost by millions of votes, but won because of his doubled down bet on white identity politics.

With a relieved sigh, Wrathbringer et al gets to delude themselves about the GOP not needing to change for another election cycle -- you've been allowed to temporarily overlook the fact that demographic trends bode disastrously for Republicans, and that conservative ideology is INCREDIBLY unpopular -- even with Republicans. The biggest example of the disparity between the popularity of Republicans and the insane unpopularity of conservative ideology is how your healthcare bill just went up in flames, and how Trump just passed a bill gutting internet privacy that was WILDLY unpopular with Republicans.

Whites, as a demographic group, will continue to shrink and shrink and shrink as a percentage of the population -- and they're the only demographic that Trump managed a majority of. Coastal, urban communities will continue to gain more and more economic power and population while the Midwest continues to decline. Nothing about Trump's election will change those, especially with the policies that Trump's trying to get put into place. Have fun living in your bubble of misinformation until even a dunce like you can't ignore it, though.

[Back]

Trump won. Get over it.

[Parkbandit]

Trump won. Get over it.

Damn, It! Even Backlash is tired of your stupidity!

Let go of your anger!

[Parkbandit]

:rofl: You're an ideologue -- and a remarkably poorly-informed one, to boot. You're desperately trying to convince yourself -- as most of the "conservatives" on this board are -- with Trump's win, that he somehow represents some magical resurgence of conservatism -- despite conservative ideology being INCREDIBLY unpopular and Trump losing by millions of votes -- rather than what it is, which is the last dying gasp of an ever-dwindling white population. Trump lost by millions of votes, but won because of his doubled down bet on white identity politics.

With a relieved sigh, Wrathbringer et al gets to delude themselves about the GOP not needing to change for another election cycle -- you've been allowed to temporarily overlook the fact that demographic trends bode disastrously for Republicans, and that conservative ideology is INCREDIBLY unpopular -- even with Republicans. The biggest example of the disparity between the popularity of Republicans and the insane unpopularity of conservative ideology is how your healthcare bill just went up in flames, and how Trump just passed a bill gutting internet privacy that was WILDLY unpopular with Republicans.

Whites, as a demographic group, will continue to shrink and shrink and shrink as a percentage of the population -- and they're the only demographic that Trump managed a majority of. Coastal, urban communities will continue to gain more and more economic power and population while the Midwest continues to decline. Nothing about Trump's election will change those, especially with the policies that Trump's trying to get put into place. Have fun living in your bubble of misinformation until even a dunce like you can't ignore it, though.

Quoted because this has underlines, bold, italics AND capitals. It means It's serious!

[Gelston]

A white supremacist would say that, cause you are. You can kinda read, but not very well, just like Donald.

What the actual fuck? Typical triggered liberal response. You're a (insert)ist.

[Parkbandit]

What the actual fuck? Typical triggered liberal response. You're a (insert)ist.

Retardist?

[Wrathbringer]

Quoted because this has underlines, bold, italics AND capitals. It means It's serious!

It means it's retarded. Still clinging to the 3 million votes mantra. Sad.

[Ashliana]

Quoted because this has underlines, bold, italics AND capitals. It means It's serious!

Translation: Tardbandit couldn't come up with a substantive reply, so he thought he'd trot out the same thing he's said a thousand times already. How are those demographic trends which spell disaster for the GOP looking, TB? Is your resentment toward liberals going to change them?

What's that? It's not? B-b-b-but that's not what Sean Hannity promised you!


It means it's retarded. Still clinging to the 3 million votes mantra. Sad.

Oh, look. Totally ignored the trends, too. What an amazing coincidence! Let me know how that willful ignorance works out for you.

[Gelston]

Retardist?

Hey, calm down with your microagressions.

[Wrathbringer]

Translation: Tardbandit couldn't come up with a substantive reply, so he thought he'd trot out the same thing he's said a thousand times already. How are those demographic trends which spell disaster for the GOP looking, TB? Is your resentment toward liberals going to change them?

What's that? It's not? B-b-b-but that's not what Sean Hannity promised you!



Oh, look. Totally ignored the trends, too. What an amazing coincidence! Let me know how that willful ignorance works out for you.

The only people who ignored the trends were the democraps. That's why you lost, so I don't think you're the world's foremost authority on trends.

[Gelston]

The only people who ignored the trends were the democraps. That's why you lost, so I don't think you're the world's foremost authority on trends.

They don't ignore all the trends, just the ones they don't want to see.

[Parkbandit]

Translation: Tardbandit couldn't come up with a substantive reply, so he thought he'd trot out the same thing he's said a thousand times already. How are those demographic trends which spell disaster for the GOP looking, TB? Is your resentment toward liberals going to change them?

I tell you what.. you post your first intelligent post with substance and I'll give you a substantive reply. Your slamming your hairy knuckles on the keyboard in such emotional distress makes me honestly happy.


What's that? It's not? B-b-b-but that's not what Sean Hannity promised you!

Sean never promised me anything. :(

[Parkbandit]

The only people who ignored the trends were the democraps. That's why you lost, so I don't think you're the world's foremost authority on trends.

You sound like one of those trendists...

or Hitler.

[Ashliana]

The only people who ignored the trends were the democraps. That's why you lost, so I don't think you're the world's foremost authority on trends.


They don't ignore all the trends, just the ones they don't want to see.

Right. And which trends would those be?

And FYI, you also ignored the point about conservative ideology, itself, not being popular. Lucky for Republicans, politics are far more about tribalism than they are about policy. As encapsulated by Trump himself, effortlessly flipping generations-long "conservative" attitude towards any number of things, most notably Russia, Wikileaks, NATO, etc.


I tell you what.. you post your first intelligent post with substance and I'll give you a substantive reply. Your slamming your hairy knuckles on the keyboard in such emotional distress makes me honestly happy.


Nobody does the clueless hypocrisy totally lacking in self-awareness quite like you, TB.

[Wrathbringer]

NEG REP!!!!11!!
04-07-2017 04:53 PM
Thread: Chemical Attack in Syria
Aww. Someone's mad because they can't muster up a coherent argument, aren't they? You elected an imbecile - and you'll be living with the consequences, retard. -Ashliana

for the lulz. I'm still laughing at how pissed you are. Good show, sir/madame, good show.

[Tisket]

None of us have ever said something and changed our minds later. That's just crazy talk right there.

[Tisket]

I think we should just start dumping our landfills on countries we hate. Not bombs, just all our garbage.

Just stay away from the countries I intend to visit eventually. If they aren't on my bucket list then I don't care.

[Gelston]

None of us have ever said something and changed our minds later. That's just crazy talk right there.

You mean gaining new information and changing situations cause you to change your opinion on things? Fucking flip flopper.

[Wrathbringer]

Just stay away from the countries I intend to visit eventually. If they aren't on my bucket list then I don't care.

My shit idea is better.

[Tisket]

Honestly, I admire people who do have the courage to step back from an opinion. I'd think that would be something to celebrate, not denigrate.

[Tisket]

My shit idea is better.

I haven't read every post in this thread so I missed it! Just think of the agricultural loss if we shipped our shit outside the U.S. though. All that lovely manure, gone.

[Wrathbringer]

I haven't read every post in this thread so I missed it! Just think of the agricultural loss if we shipped our shit outside the U.S. though. All that lovely manure, gone.

Oh. Well, it was the same idea, only using mass quantities of shit. I also have ideas for shit grenades and mortars. If something flew through your window and then exploded shit everywhere, wouldn't you give up?

eta: dear god, what if your mouth was open?

[Tisket]

Oh. Well, it was the same idea, only using mass quantities of shit. I also have ideas for shit grenades and mortars. If something flew threw your window and then exploded shit everywhere, wouldn't you give up?

I'd burn my house down then go burn yours to the ground.

But I'm a vengeful bitch.

[Gelston]

Some of those people live in shit anyways. Most of them wouldn't care. We had a dude in our AO called the Shit King, because he controlled the sewage river of shit.

[Wrathbringer]

I'd burn my house down then go burn yours to the ground.

But I'm a vengeful bitch.

I'd rig my house with shit booby (poopy?) traps. You wouldn't make it up the drive. It would be horrible.

[Wrathbringer]

Some of those people live in shit anyways. Most of them wouldn't care. We had a dude in our AO called the Shit King, because he controlled the sewage river of shit.

They live in it? Like, their houses are made from it?

[Gelston]

They live in it? Like, their houses are made from it?

Quite possibly. No one in my AO had running water and they didn't burn their shit like we do, so their mud houses most likely has generations of shit in it.

[SHAFT]

Retardist?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZKIfCJZvZo

[Wrathbringer]

Quite possibly. No one in my AO had running water and they didn't burn their shit like we do, so their mud houses most likely has generations of shit in it.

Wow. Interesting. Nasty, but interesting.

[Geijon Khyree]

We should have hit every one of their 4 airfields on this.

[Methais]

I think we should just start dumping our landfills on countries we hate. Not bombs, just all our garbage.

This is best solution.

[Wrathbringer]

This is best solution.

Better than my shit idea?

[Parkbandit]

None of us have ever said something and changed our minds later. That's just crazy talk right there.

It has. He said no one is going to tell him what he can do with his uterus.. then remembered he didn't have one on that account. :(

[Parkbandit]

We should have hit every one of their 4 airfields on this.

You believe Syria only has 4 airfields?

You sound like a white supremacist.

[Geijon Khyree]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Air_Force_bases

Major news network coverage indicated 4-5 of them in Syrian held territory that comprise of significant strike capabilities.

That isn't your point though. You don't want to have dialogue outside of your ideologue manifestations.

[Parkbandit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Air_Force_bases

Major news network coverage indicated 4-5 of them in Syrian held territory that comprise of significant strike capabilities.

So 5 is more than 4?


That isn't your point though. You don't want to have dialogue outside of your ideologue manifestations.

What part of my ideologue manifestations has Syria only having 4 airfields?

It's like you want to be intelligent and make a point.. you just are lacking 2 things: Intelligence and the ability to make a point.

You're almost there though!

PS - You sound like a white supremacist.

[Methais]

Is that going to be your only response to Trump's obvious deficiencies being pointed out for the remainder of Trump's presidency? You might want to come up with a few new ones, or at least different ways of phrasing your precious fallback response.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108212-Chemical-Attack-in-Syria&p=1936099#post1936099

[Methais]

A white supremacist would say that, cause you are. You can kinda read, but not very well, just like Donald.

I see non-white people saying the same thing. Are they also white supremacists?

[Methais]

Better than my shit idea?

They already wipe with their hands, so they probably wouldn't really even notice.

Unless it's shit from eating pork and it's made known to them before/during/after. Or even just pig shit. A mixture of both would be ideal.

And for it to be truly effective, we would need to enlist the help of Jim Lahey.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R8At-Qno_o

[cwolff]

Reports of unidentified fighters flying low over #Lebanon being reported all over.

Something is definitely happening (in #Syria?) tonight

@ThomasVLinge


@ThomasVLinge

#Syria: main target is reported to be the Tiyas (T4) airbase located in the desert on the road between #Homs and #Palmyra




#Syria BREAKING: pro-regime sources are reporting aerial attacks on military installations in the center of he country (#Homs governorate), claiming air defense systems are engaging "hostile targets in the sky"

Verified account

Are we bombing Syria?

[Androidpk]

The Pentagon says no.

[cwolff]

The Pentagon says no.

Would anyone else? France?

[cwolff]

Ahhh....




@MalcolmNance

It’s likely the Israelis striking Syria. T4 is a huge SYAF strike base & Iranian HQ and having IAF attack it is a good strategy for both countries. If so this is a Mattis designed move, not Trump or Bolton.

[Androidpk]

israeli airforce

[Methais]

Would anyone else? France?

http://favoritememes.com/_nw/89/21571433.jpg

[cwolff]

WASHINGTON — The Russian military (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/russia-has-figured-out-how-jam-u-s-drones-syria-n863931) has been jamming some U.S. military drones operating in the skies over Syria, seriously affecting American military operations, according to four U.S. officials.

Act of war or nah?

[Methais]

https://media.giphy.com/media/IYnJ7Fkj09njO/giphy.gif

[Taernath]

https://i.imgur.com/7J9DzV9.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/yIYPTx0.gif

[cwolff]

Dudes off his rocker.

[Wrathbringer]

Presented with no commentary.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKGN3gBVYAECHTZ.jpg
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/secondary/Russia-USA-war-smart-missile-Donald-Trump-Syria-strike-1302685.jpg

...and necro is back.

[Taernath]

Dudes off his rocker.

I think they kicked down the bathroom door and wrestled the phone away from him so he doesn't start WW3.

[Androidpk]

lol'ing about Trump's tweet that he's going to bomb Syria. It wasn't too long ago that he was bashing Obama for talking about military operations before they happened.

[cwolff]

A Quote from the U.S. President

Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?”

Jesus Fucking Christ. What a bitch. Whining, crying little bitch

[Wrathbringer]

Jesus Fucking Christ. What a bitch. Whining, crying little bitch

This describes you and your little friends here.

[Gelston]

Jesus Fucking Christ. What a bitch. Whining, crying little bitch

Um.. Where was he whining or crying in that?

[Methais]

Wtf is necro? If you don’t agree whatever and lol about rep in a shitty text mud forum.

You're really bad at not being easily identifiable by anyone on here. The brand of stupid sticks out like a sore thumb every time you click the post button.

You'd think Kranar wrecking your accounts over and over would help you realize this, but that's part of what makes you such a retard in the first place.

[Methais]

Jesus Fucking Christ. What a bitch. Whining, crying little bitch I am.

This is correct.

[cwolff]

Um.. Where was he whining or crying in that?

"Thank you America?"

Like a little emo bitch.

[Gelston]

"Thank you America?"

Like a little emo bitch.

Yeah, no.

[Androidpk]

Yeah, no.

Trump's always acting like a passive aggressive bitch.

[Methais]

You're really bad at not being easily identifiable by anyone on here. The brand of stupid sticks out like a sore thumb every time you click the post button.

You'd think Kranar wrecking your accounts over and over would help you realize this, but that's part of what makes you such a retard in the first place.

Necro's new Odin account has been wrecked. :lol:

[Wrathbringer]

Necro's new Odin account has been wrecked. :lol:

:lol:

[Latrinsorm]

It should really be

"Thank you America"?

happy to help

[cwolff]

It should really be

"Thank you America"?

happy to help

woosh. Over my head. Is the question mark supposed to be outside of quotations even when quoting a sentence ending in a ??

[cwolff]

Trump's always acting like a passive aggressive bitch.

Yup. Just a victim, a whiner, a crier. Typical bully. It's like he never grew up. How old was he when his brother died? No that's not it. His Dad, Mom and brother died after he was well grown. I was wondering if there is some childhood trauma that keeps his inner child so close to the surface. When I googled that I did find something interesting. FWIW his dad's name was Frederick Christ Trump. HAHAHA, that made me chuckle.

[Parkbandit]

Yup. Just a victim, a whiner, a crier. Typical bully. It's like he never grew up. How old was he when his brother died? No that's not it. His Dad, Mom and brother died after he was well grown. I was wondering if there is some childhood trauma that keeps his inner child so close to the surface. When I googled that I did find something interesting. FWIW his dad's name was Frederick Christ Trump. HAHAHA, that made me chuckle.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_exCCaXsAE19H0.jpg

[Gelston]

Yup. Just a victim, a whiner, a crier. Typical bully. It's like he never grew up. How old was he when his brother died? No that's not it. His Dad, Mom and brother died after he was well grown. I was wondering if there is some childhood trauma that keeps his inner child so close to the surface. When I googled that I did find something interesting. FWIW his dad's name was Frederick Christ Trump. HAHAHA, that made me chuckle.

Grow up.

[cwolff]

Grow up.

That's rich. Defending a 72 year old man who rants on Twitter every day about life not being "fair". Gelston, you got some fucking problems

[Gelston]

That's rich. Defending a 72 year old man who rants on Twitter every day about life not being "fair". Gelston, you got some fucking problems

You do nothing but whine day in and day out about Trump. You whine about him more than he tweets. What a person you are. Do you cry yourself to sleep every night?

[Methais]

Grow up.

cwolff is a closeted mall girl. Good luck with that.

[cwolff]

You do nothing but whine day in and day out about Trump. You whine about him more than he tweets. What a person you are. Do you cry yourself to sleep every night?

Blah blah gelly.

[Gelston]

Blah blah gelly.

So the answer is yes.

[time4fun]

Looks like Trump is getting ready to strike Syria very soon. A week on the job, and Bolton is now advising us to use missiles.

And Trump, I'm sure, isn't desperately looking to A) Change the headlines B) Try to shake the Russia suspicion off of him and C) Try to get his ratings up because he remembers when he did this a year ago, they went up.

Someone has to get him out of here before he lands us in a war.

[cwolff]

I don't think there's any avoiding a military strike in Syria. They used chem weapons again. That'd be enough, but then trump had to twitter it up like a crazy man then immideately back down a bit towards putin.


https://youtu.be/af7Jctuqhcg

[Gelston]

Looks like Trump is getting ready to strike Syria very soon. A week on the job, and Bolton is now advising us to use missiles.

And Trump, I'm sure, isn't desperately looking to A) Change the headlines B) Try to shake the Russia suspicion off of him and C) Try to get his ratings up because he remembers when he did this a year ago, they went up.

Someone has to get him out of here before he lands us in a war.

You would be the one that thinks the use of WMDs on civilians doesn't warrant any response.

[cwolff]

@SethAbramson

BREAKING (CNN): Trump is at this hour trying to convince the military to put U.S. soldiers in harm's way in a "sustained assault" on Syria—even as the Defense Department is pushing back hard on the idea. There can be little doubt they know this is just a ploy to distract America.

.

[Androidpk]

You would be the one that thinks the use of WMDs on civilians doesn't warrant any response.

Does it warrant a unilateral response from the US? This needs to be brought before the UN and the security council.

[Gelston]

Does it warrant a unilateral response from the US? This needs to be brought before the UN and the security council.

Russia will block anything from the UN.

[cwolff]

Sounds like inspectors are going in.

Malcolm Nance
‏
@MalcolmNance

It’s 03:11 Zulu/GMT+2. If a strike is not underway & ordnance impacting by 11 pm then it’s not going to happen until Sun/next week ... if ever. Reports of Mattis playing adult @ WH meeting means likely they’ll wait for OPCW tomorrow to inspect. Beware of Crazy override button.

@MalcolmNance

OPCW means Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

[cwolff]

Kaitlan Collins
‏
Verified account

@kaitlancollins

5 minutes ago


More
Press pool in Lima with Vice President Pence is rushing back to the hotel unexpectedly. White House is telling the press pool that’s here in Washington to gather.

Is something going down right now?

[Latrinsorm]

You would be the one that thinks the use of WMDs on civilians doesn't warrant any response.A foreign power attacking the United States didn't warrant any response in the President's mind.

[Gelston]

A foreign power attacking the United States didn't warrant any response in the President's mind.

I wasn't aware a foreign power hit the United States with chemical weapons. Please link this news article.

[Latrinsorm]

I wasn't aware a foreign power hit the United States with chemical weapons. Please link this news article.I get that this is your shtick now, but how are you as a soldier okay with this? Don't you still have friends on active duty? The President is sending them to their deaths because he can't stand bad publicity. That's it. He has spent the last year sending Syrian refugees back to get killed in this war, and now you believe he cares about them? Really? Really???

[Gelston]

I get that this is your shtick now, but how are you as a soldier okay with this?

WTF did you just call me?


Don't you still have friends on active duty?

Every Marine I knew signed up for this shit. If we had a big ass war I'd reenlist right fucking now.


The President is sending them to their deaths because he can't stand bad publicity. That's it.

No, he is doing it because a civilians are being murdered by chemical weapons. Also, he isn't sending anyone to their deaths. They are going to be doing the killing.


He has spent the last year sending Syrian refugees back to get killed in this war, and now you believe he cares about them? Really? Really???

No, he didn't want them here without extreme vetting. He wanted other Arab countries to take them in. He didn't feel nations like Saudi Arabia were doing their part.

[cwolff]

A US official says President Trump has made a final decision on Syria after a week of deliberation. The President will address the nation tonight. Follow here for live updates:

What are the odds the WH timed this for Friday evening?

[time4fun]

You would be the one that thinks the use of WMDs on civilians doesn't warrant any response.

It absolutely warrants a response.

But let me remind you that we bombed Syria last year, and it had zero impact on the big picture and- especially- in deterring the use of chemical weapons.

There are other options, and that's why everyone has been trying to talk him out of this. That tweet he sent was just another example of why he is abjectly unfit for this. He makes rash decision, his own self-interest is his only preoccupation, and the usual checks and balances are intentionally failing.

[Gelston]

It absolutely warrants a response.

But let me remind you that we bombed Syria last year, and it had zero impact on the big picture and- especially- in deterring the use of chemical weapons.

So then bomb them more this time.

[Latrinsorm]

We sent the Jews back to Hitler.
He killed them.
Then we got mad.

We sent the Syrians back to Assad.
He killed them.
Then we got mad.

How many times? Sickening.

[cwolff]

He's terrible at this. When he has to read the script he's fucking terrible. Luckily most of the world will read what he said instead of being forced to watch this shitbird on T.V.

[Gelston]

We sent the Jews back to Hitler.
He killed them.
Then we got mad.

We sent the Syrians back to Assad.
He killed them.
Then we got mad.

How many times? Sickening.

Are you comparing Donald Trump to Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

[Gelston]

Just heard missile strikes are going on right now, joint with UK and France.

[cwolff]

Just heard missile strikes are going on right now, joint with UK and France.

Ya, trump just told everyone in the world that. Are you near a TV?

[Gelston]

Reports of blasts in Damascus.

[cwolff]

Reports of blasts in Damascus.

Now that's some news!

[Gelston]

Now we see if Russia will follow up on their threat to hit back at the launch sites.

[time4fun]

And half of the country and half of the world are sitting around wondering if he did this specifically to change the headlines. Apparently he and Bolton both wanted to do something

Maddow made a great point a little bit ago- it doesn't matter whether or not he's actually doing this to change the headlines. As long as there's any suspicion of it- this is a genuinely bad move. It looks terrible.

They've used chemical weapons on their people over 50 times. Why did today need to be the response?

[cwolff]

And half of the country and half of the world are sitting around wondering if he did this specifically to change the headlines. Apparently he and Bolton both wanted to do something

Maddow made a great point a little bit ago- it doesn't matter whether or not he's actually doing this to change the headlines. As long as there's any suspicion of it- this is a genuinely bad move. It looks terrible.

They've used chemical weapons on their people over 50 times. Why did today need to be the response?

Because it's Friday night.

[Gelston]

And half of the country and half of the world are sitting around wondering if he did this specifically to change the headlines. Apparently he and Bolton both wanted to do something

Maddow made a great point a little bit ago- it doesn't matter whether or not he's actually doing this to change the headlines. As long as there's any suspicion of it- this is a genuinely bad move. It looks terrible.

They've used chemical weapons on their people over 50 times. Why did today need to be the response?

The majority of those were under a prior administration. there were 3 attacks within so many days after Trump took office. Trump hit them, they stopped until this year.

Also of note, most of the other attacks have been Chlorine. The last time we hit them, in April of last year, they used Sarin.

This last attack was Sarin, and we hit them.

[Taernath]

Short of an all-out war, it'll change the headlines for.. a few days. Then more stuff will be released on the investigation or he'll do something retarded again and we'll be talking about that.

[cwolff]

Syrian TV reporting that Syrians have launched counter attacks. Wonder if this is a Baghdad Bob situation.

[time4fun]

The majority of those were under a prior administration. there were 3 attacks within so many days after Trump took office. Trump hit them, they stopped until this year.

As a reminder- just days ago he was adamant that we had to pull every soldier out of Syria. And it needed to happen in 48 hours.

Then he was threatening to bomb Russia on Twitter- and none of his own staff had any idea he was going to say that.

And tonight- in one of the absolute worst news cycles he's ever had (And THAT'S saying something) he's suddenly arguing that we should have a sustained attack on Syria.

So our two most likely explanations are: he's starting wars to save his own hide, or he's a pathologically impulsive and dangerously ignorant man who has missiles at his disposal.

I find neither of those comforting.

[Androidpk]

Pentagon briefing in 30 minutes.

[Gelston]

As a reminder- just days ago he was adamant that we had to pull every soldier out of Syria. And it needed to happen in 48 hours.

Then he was threatening to bomb Russia

And tonight- in one of the absolute worst news cycles he's ever had (And THAT'S saying something) he's suddenly arguing that we should have a sustained attack on Syria.

So our two most likely explanations are: he's starting wars to save his own hide, or he's a pathologically impulsive and dangerously ignorant man who has missiles at his disposal.

He can still plan to pull out of Syria while sending in cruise missiles when Assad does retarded Sarin attacks. It almost seems like a Bill Clinton tactic.

[time4fun]

He can still plan to pull out of Syria while sending in cruise missiles when Assad does retarded Sarin attacks. It almost seems like a Bill Clinton tactic.

Sure. But that's not the point, and you know it.

He's not discussing this as an extension of- or addition to- that strategy. He dropped it and moved to a new one.

And forgive me for not buying that he's concerned for the Syrian people given what he's done in regards to Syrian refugees trying to enter the US to flee this war.

[Gelston]

Sure. But that's not the point, and you know it.

He's not discussing this as an extension of- or addition to- that strategy. He dropped it and moved to a new one.

And forgive me for not buying that he's concerned for the Syrian people given what he's done in regards to Syrian refugees trying to enter the US to flee this war.

Yes, he only ever does anything at all to change the news headline. There is never any other reason at all.

I'm glad he was also able to get the UK and France to help him change the headlines too.

[cwolff]

Sure. But that's not the point, and you know it.

He's not discussing this as an extension of- or addition to- that strategy. He dropped it and moved to a new one.

And forgive me for not buying that he's concerned for the Syrian people given what he's done in regards to Syrian refugees trying to enter the US to flee this war.

To be fair, we have no Syrian strategy. No strategy at all in anything. Our nation is winging it.

[Gelston]

Reports that B-1 Bombers also took part. Damascus airport completely destroyed.

[Androidpk]

Fox news said stealth B-1 bombers :lol:

[Gelston]

Fox news said stealth B-1 bombers :lol:

I didn't hear that. I heard them talking about B2s and calling them stealth. And then also F35s for whatever reason.

[Gelston]

Ah okay, this woman said she misspoke earlier and called one stealth. Probably confused with the B2. Dumbass civs.

[Gelston]

Syria claims to have shot down 13 Tomahawks.

[Taernath]

Syria claims to have shot down 13 Tomahawks.

Yugoslavia still has them beat.

[Gelston]

Damn, they hit a shitload of places. At least 9 places throughout the country.

[Gelston]

They did not prenotify the Russians of these strikes.

[Fortybox]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/l2SpMQIJOFiYXwxlS/giphy.gif
https://media0.giphy.com/media/huDUAwzQYv6g/giphy.gif