"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/27/13 5:29 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 8/27/2013 2:05 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/27/13 12:07 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/27/13 11:53 AM, Califbill wrote:
John H wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:01:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:29:25 -0400, John H
wrote:

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

John (Gun Nut) H.

Oh ****, another WMD war.

Is he going to find them?

Carney says that Kerry says that more info is coming in the next few
days. I'll tell you, this sure
sounds much like the Bush administration's rationale and
reasoning. But,
this time the Syrian leader
is not threatening the USA - unless we take action.

John (Gun Nut) H.

And the Russkies and Chinese say to stay out? Sounds like good
advice.
Let them reduce their population without USA help. Neither side
is our
friend.



It's that humanitarian approach in you pro-fetus types I find so
enlightening.

I am humanitarian. Keep our soldiers healthy and safe. Why send
our kids
over where neither side wants them. Also, what happens when we
attack a
country that did not attack us? Seems as they then have a right to
attack
us. More 9/11's?


I was referring to your comment about letting both sides in Syria
"reduce
their population without USA help." *That* is not a humanitarian
comment.

They seem to be a bang up job of reducing their population now. Why
should
we get involved? Maybe if they had to spend time growing food,
instead of
depending on humanitarian aid, they would have less time and materials
for
reducing their population via war.


Quote of the day right there...


No question that you and your right-wing moron buddies Herring and
Bilious Bill get woodys over statements that indicate no displeasure over
the situation in Syria.

I see no pleasure in the Syrian situation. Also Iraq and Afghanistan.
Look what getting involved in those two places as accomplished. You want
to have a 3rd front?