"Why would anyone vote Republican? Please give reason. Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!"
^ Not sure how he didn't realize that a long time ago. Anyway, poll on the Drudge Report with more then 505,800 votes showed only 8.44% and 91.56% oppose military action in Syria."It's now Authoritarian vs. Libertarian. Since Democrats vs. Republicans has been obliterated, no real difference between parties..."
Assad's gotta give the MSM something to Helen Lovejoy about.http://bigstory.ap.org/article/syria...-moving-troops
The Syrian regime is moving its assets into schools and residential areas. Fuck that place.
Yeah, but we'd be doing the same shit if under attack by vastly superior forces who are democratic and love kids and puppies, but also love killing brown people.http://bigstory.ap.org/article/syria...-moving-troops
The Syrian regime is moving its assets into schools and residential areas. Fuck that place.
Could we have possibly expected anything different? It's not like the regime has a great record of caring for its citizens in the past couple of years.http://bigstory.ap.org/article/syria...-moving-troops
The Syrian regime is moving its assets into schools and residential areas. Fuck that place.
That shrewd asshole. I said that he'd move the classrooms to the military installations, but vice versa is even more dastardly.http://bigstory.ap.org/article/syria...-moving-troops
The Syrian regime is moving its assets into schools and residential areas. Fuck that place.
I don't disagree. It's not a bad strategy to covertly use civilians as shields when you're being attacked.Yeah, but we'd be doing the same shit if under attack by vastly superior forces who are democratic and love kids and puppies, but also love killing brown people.
Wouldn't this be overt? Covert would be more like eomer's suggestion, but without telling anyone till after the missiles rained down and killed the kids. Overtly is definitely the best way to deploy a human shield.I don't disagree. It's not a bad strategy to covertly use civilians as shields when you're being attacked.
Drudge claimed he wasnt a Republican even back in late 90s. He hasn't liked the GOP in decades.Matt Drudge, founder of Drudge Report,is pissed off today. Here's a couple tweets:
^ Not sure how he didn't realize that a long time ago. Anyway, poll on the Drudge Report with more then 505,800 votes showed only 8.44% and 91.56% oppose military action in Syria.
We do have that policy Khalid. But they don't care. It makes for EXCELLENT headlines. The anti-Israel countries, especially Palestine (well pseudo-country) claim 100 children killed for every missile battery in a school that is blown up. But they don't mention the missile battery. Just the headline "ISRAEL MASSACRES 123 PRESCHOOLERS!"The US should make it very clear that we will bomb military forces no matter where they are, even if they are in schools or hotels, regardless of "human shields". If we continue on with that policy, then regimes will realize it is pointless to move their forces into these facilities and this kind of human shield bullshit would stop. Civilian casualties caused because a regime moves their forces next to civilians should be the fault of that regime, not us.
edit: Not that I am in favor of any bombing in this particular situation.
I totally agree with you.I'm not picking on you, Tuco. It's just splitting hairs, and our media loves to make us out to be the good guys. We aren't. This might be the "right" and "good" thing to do, but I hate when our media acts like we have an honorable track record. FFS some protester was just escorting out of the Kerry hearing for pointing out we used White Phosphorous in Iraq. And we do...
In war there's no taboo. Unless you're CNN.