U.S.-NATO Missiles/Bombs on Syria within 15 to 25 days . . .

[CNS]

75% is a whole lot of "Other"

Is that like rocks, empty buildings, dogs, and stuff?

I mean, yeah, the 5% kids is bad, but does grandparents, tweens, and middleaged innocent bystanders make up the 75%?  Seems important to any drone discussion.

 

Also, I am pro drone.

Also, Also, I don't necessarily see any outcome as a big deal if we don't go to war.  I mean, I am against innocent ppl dying, but that happens in huge numbers in other places that we aren't debating bombing.  However, this is a country that we have suspected of aiding those we consider enemies for some time now and it's not like we interact with them on a business level at this point.  They only two talking points I can think of off the top of my head(aside from kids hating mustard gas) for going to war is that we don't want Al Queda to have a new PowerPlay/MonkeyBusiness/PlayZone area and/or Isreal needs more fake puppet govts with "democracy" as neighbors.  Both of which are stupid reasons to go to war, imo.

Why would we get involved in this?

[HeinBallz]

That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.

But hell yeah!  What's another war?!?

Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point.  Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?

Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?

I thought the drones are killing kids?  So that one soldier every 25 hours is directly responsible for killing little kids?  This is getting to be pretty informative.

No, they're part of the giant lie. 

[HeinBallz]

That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.

But hell yeah!  What's another war?!?

I'm not sure anybody here is arguing with you.

Ben seems to be anxious to defend Obama as the Peace minister himself and certainly is not involved in the war racket that's dominated foreign policy over the last 100 years.

I've never defended Obama as a "peace minister."  I just don't get all butthurt about drones because I view them as a better alternative than putting American troops in harm's way.  Take your anti-Obama psycho ramblings somewhere else, dipshit.

Watch the leaked video and tell me that type of policy doesn't create more terrorist  than it stops.  And understand I don't want boots on the ground either.  I want "stop financially supporting extremist in foreign countries and then coming to the rescue of no ones call when those extremist go rough ridin' bat nuts crazy"

Why isn't get the eff out of everyone's business a logical option as opposed to murdering innocent people?

[HeinBallz]

75% is a whole lot of "Other"

Is that like rocks, empty buildings, dogs, and stuff?

I mean, yeah, the 5% kids is bad, but does grandparents, tweens, and middleaged innocent bystanders make up the 75%?  Seems important to any drone discussion.

 

Also, I am pro drone.

Also, Also, I don't necessarily see any outcome as a big deal if we don't go to war.  I mean, I am against innocent ppl dying, but that happens in huge numbers in other places that we aren't debating bombing.  However, this is a country that we have suspected of aiding those we consider enemies for some time now and it's not like we interact with them on a business level at this point.  They only two talking points I can think of off the top of my head(aside from kids hating mustard gas) for going to war is that we don't want Al Queda to have a new PowerPlay/MonkeyBusiness/PlayZone area and/or Isreal needs more fake puppet govts with "democracy" as neighbors.  Both of which are stupid reasons to go to war, imo.

Why would we get involved in this?

1: "Other" is any male victim old enough to hold a gun.  "Might" be a terrorist - "might" be a 14 year old kid sitting on his front porch.

2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate?  You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?

3: we're the ones supporting al Qaeda.  We give money to the SFA, they defect to Muslim extremist al Nusra. This is all the fault of the US, UN, etc. etc.

[8manpick]

That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.

But hell yeah!  What's another war?!?

Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point.  Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?

Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?

I thought the drones are killing kids?  So that one soldier every 25 hours is directly responsible for killing little kids?  This is getting to be pretty informative.

Those drones have pilots. Frequently in places like Nevada. Some of them contribute to the suicide start. There was a pretty interesting article about it linked on this board about a year ago

[8manpick]

2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate?  You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?

Couldn't a significant chunk of the other be medium-profile targets (i.e. enemy combatants or something of the like)?

[Dugout DickStone]

That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.

But hell yeah!  What's another war?!?

Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point.  Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?

Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?

I thought the drones are killing kids?  So that one soldier every 25 hours is directly responsible for killing little kids?  This is getting to be pretty informative.

Those drones have pilots. Frequently in places like Nevada. Some of them contribute to the suicide start. There was a pretty interesting article about it linked on this board about a year ago

So they pull the trigger then travel to afghanistan to evac shredded kids?  Sounds expensive.  I am against this.

[8manpick]

That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.

But hell yeah!  What's another war?!?

Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point.  Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?

Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?

I thought the drones are killing kids?  So that one soldier every 25 hours is directly responsible for killing little kids?  This is getting to be pretty informative.

Those drones have pilots. Frequently in places like Nevada. Some of them contribute to the suicide start. There was a pretty interesting article about it linked on this board about a year ago

So they pull the trigger then travel to afghanistan to evac shredded kids?  Sounds expensive.  I am against this.

Yes, v. inefficient

[felix rex]

I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.

I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.

So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?

No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.

[Dugout DickStone]

I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.

I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.

So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?

No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.

Don't they already?

[CNS]

75% is a whole lot of "Other"

Is that like rocks, empty buildings, dogs, and stuff?

I mean, yeah, the 5% kids is bad, but does grandparents, tweens, and middleaged innocent bystanders make up the 75%?  Seems important to any drone discussion.

 

Also, I am pro drone.

Also, Also, I don't necessarily see any outcome as a big deal if we don't go to war.  I mean, I am against innocent ppl dying, but that happens in huge numbers in other places that we aren't debating bombing.  However, this is a country that we have suspected of aiding those we consider enemies for some time now and it's not like we interact with them on a business level at this point.  They only two talking points I can think of off the top of my head(aside from kids hating mustard gas) for going to war is that we don't want Al Queda to have a new PowerPlay/MonkeyBusiness/PlayZone area and/or Isreal needs more fake puppet govts with "democracy" as neighbors.  Both of which are stupid reasons to go to war, imo.

Why would we get involved in this?

1: "Other" is any male victim old enough to hold a gun.  "Might" be a terrorist - "might" be a 14 year old kid sitting on his front porch.

2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate?  You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?

3: we're the ones supporting al Qaeda.  We give money to the SFA, they defect to Muslim extremist al Nusra. This is all the fault of the US, UN, etc. etc.

As for #2, I support drones because if you are going to war, limit your exposure.  War sucks and is messy and unfortunately has to be, imo.

#3: I know we are supporting AQ.  What I am saying is that let them have Syria or let the other ppl have Syria, or whogivesafuck who gets Syria.  They haven't been #TeamUSA and those with their hands in the air wanting to claim Syria won't be #TeamUSA.  None of these ppl have or will want to be part of the economy we work within.  So why get involved.

[HeinBallz]

2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate?  You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?

Couldn't a significant chunk of the other be medium-profile targets (i.e. enemy combatants or something of the like)?

No; the 1.5% were people actually holding guns or engaging us - that is what made them a target.  What kind of a medium threat goes walking around a war zone without a weapon?  The 75 percent were the guys standing next to a guy with an AK or were walking past/into a building that had a guy with a weapon walk into or were trying to remove/help the victim a strike.

[CNS]

Yeah, but it's war.  I mean, imagine the individual atrocities we would know about if twitter, etc existed during WWI, WWII, or Vietnam. 

Part of war is breaking your opponent and being surgically clean and super nice about everyone other than the boss of the enemy isn't an effective way to do that. 


Truman busted up Japan with the worst weapon ever used and he is considered a winner.   

[felix rex]

I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.

I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.

So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?

No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.

Don't they already?

No. Not really. Unless you consider Israel a US interest.

[CNS]

I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.

I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.

So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?

No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.

Don't they already?

No. Not really. Unless you consider Israel a US interest.

I mean, this is the reason for it all, right?

[HeinBallz]

75% is a whole lot of "Other"

Is that like rocks, empty buildings, dogs, and stuff?

I mean, yeah, the 5% kids is bad, but does grandparents, tweens, and middleaged innocent bystanders make up the 75%?  Seems important to any drone discussion.

 

Also, I am pro drone.

Also, Also, I don't necessarily see any outcome as a big deal if we don't go to war.  I mean, I am against innocent ppl dying, but that happens in huge numbers in other places that we aren't debating bombing.  However, this is a country that we have suspected of aiding those we consider enemies for some time now and it's not like we interact with them on a business level at this point.  They only two talking points I can think of off the top of my head(aside from kids hating mustard gas) for going to war is that we don't want Al Queda to have a new PowerPlay/MonkeyBusiness/PlayZone area and/or Isreal needs more fake puppet govts with "democracy" as neighbors.  Both of which are stupid reasons to go to war, imo.

Why would we get involved in this?

1: "Other" is any male victim old enough to hold a gun.  "Might" be a terrorist - "might" be a 14 year old kid sitting on his front porch.

2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate?  You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?

3: we're the ones supporting al Qaeda.  We give money to the SFA, they defect to Muslim extremist al Nusra. This is all the fault of the US, UN, etc. etc.

As for #2, I support drones because if you are going to war, limit your exposure.  War sucks and is messy and unfortunately has to be, imo.

#3: I know we are supporting AQ.  What I am saying is that let them have Syria or let the other ppl have Syria, or whogivesafuck who gets Syria.  They haven't been #TeamUSA and those with their hands in the air wanting to claim Syria won't be #TeamUSA.  None of these ppl have or will want to be part of the economy we work within.  So why get involved.

No one is team USA but us.  We're Paris Hilton. The only friends we have are the ones on the payroll.  There's some dumb asses that think we're hawt, but they're just star struck.

[CNS]

Pfft.  We are hot as eff and others are jealous. 

[Dugout DickStone]

I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.

I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.

So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?

No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.

Don't they already?

No. Not really. Unless you consider Israel a US interest.

I think most of us do.

[felix rex]

I would stop doing that. That's just my advice, though.

[CNS]

Didn't Isreal come out this morning and basically say that they wanted to warn any dumbass that they shouldn't attack Isreal just because the US attacks you all willy nilly?

I mean, I read it quickly, but it basically sounded like Isreal thinks what we are threatening to do is a dumb misguided move and that they want all the non Israeli ppl to know that they aren't part of this.

[Mr Bread]

I would stop doing that. That's just my advice, though.

Shun?  Cold shoulder?  Please explain further. 

[HeinBallz]

Yeah, but it's war.  I mean, imagine the individual atrocities we would know about if twitter, etc existed during WWI, WWII, or Vietnam. 

Exactly.  Which is why war is bad. And we should avoid it at all cost.  But we're not; we're financially backing our enemies indirectly.  We're creating more enemies by the minute. And we're lying to the American people so we'll be all patriotic and crap about killing people in other countries. 

[felix rex]

I would stop doing that. That's just my advice, though.

Shun?  Cold shoulder?  Please explain further.

We have some overlapping objectives. But we act in our interests, not Israel's. Favors happen, but states are not altruistic.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Didn't Isreal come out this morning and basically say that they wanted to warn any dumbass that they shouldn't attack Isreal just because the US attacks you all willy nilly?

I mean, I read it quickly, but it basically sounded like Isreal thinks what we are threatening to do is a dumb misguided move and that they want all the non Israeli ppl to know that they aren't part of this.

They already have 100,000+ fewer enemies and I imagine they would like to see it continue. Any US strikes would probably slow the process and shift the attention their way.

[p1k3]

I understand Barry is the Prez but we probably shouldn't bomb anybody