[Bjorn Jensen]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Remember Iraq and freedom fries, Britain? Now it's YOUR turn, fish and chips eating surrender monkeys!

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Remember Iraq and freedom fries, Britain? Now it's YOUR turn, fish and chips eating surrender monkeys!

Buck tooth limp wristed LIMIES!! I suspose they want to relive the greatest hits of the British Empire with Syria; Yorktown and Singapore!!! Gimp Britannia indeed.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Well now it seems Obama is bowing down to the British by following their failed model of asking for permission from elected officials. That's just what we need - a surrender monkey in Chief. No, what this country needs is strong leader who can make tough decisions and do the unpopular thing even when it's Right. We don't need a popularity contest following, public opinion monitoring loser - you have to LEAD Mr. President. That means DOING something, like launching cruise missiles, not sitting on your cowardly backside asking someone else to do something.

[Attila's Wife]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Well now it seems Obama is bowing down to the British by following their failed model of asking for permission from elected officials.

Worrying news for all Real Americans. But that link leads to a report from the British Balderdash Corporation and so the story is very unlikely to be true. The BBC is nothing but a communistic propaganda device for the weak, left-wing, islamofascist-loving government of the Untied Kingdom and that story was probably planted by its unelected leader "Call-me-Dave" Cameron.

I know Guy Fawkes was a Cathlick, but he had the right idea.

[Free Market Fred]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Obama just wants some "limited" strikes with Tomahawk missiles...which proves that he's a bleeding-heart liberal and a closet Muslim himself. He might succeed in blowing up a few markets and elementary schools, but what will that accomplish? Assad is just going to laugh at us!

It's obvious that a stronger response is needed. The sensible thing to do is nuke Syria back to the stone age. That will teach Assad not to kill innocent civilians with weapons of mass destruction.

While we're at it, why not nuke Iran too? After all, we already own Iraq, and once we've got Syria and Iran, we can complete that oil pipeline to the Mediterranean which my company has been wanting to build for more than a decade.

Now, before those libtard alarmist peace wackos come on here and start ranting about how using the "nuclear option" could trigger World War III, let me assure you that we at Uranus Corporation have got it under control. And if you can't trust Uranus, who can you trust?

So, if Russia and China jump in, and hurl nuclear missiles at the USA, it's really no problem. First of all, my company has its gold stashed in Panama, the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, and other places unlikely to be attacked. Secondly, I've got bomb shelters at all 27 of my mansions around the globe. The cities likely to be disintegrated are places like New York, Chicago and San Francisco - all anti-American cesspools of liberal ideology that we're better off without. As for the rest of you out there in flyover land, all you need is a basement stocked with Budweiser and potato chips, and you'll be OK. Just keep your TV set tuned to Fox News for the latest info about America's great victory.


Remember to duck-and-cover

[Constantine1648]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Worrying news for all Real Americans. But that link leads to a report from the British Balderdash Corporation and so the story is very unlikely to be true. The BBC is nothing but a communistic propaganda device for the weak, left-wing, islamofascist-loving government of the Untied Kingdom and that story was probably planted by its unelected leader "Call-me-Dave" Cameron.

I know Guy Fawkes was a Cathlick, but he had the right idea.

It is extremely worrying that Obama is now copying the UK and it's degenerate leadership. Many people thought that the US would just get stuck in and bomb the Syrian's back to the stoneage, but no. The UK changes it's mind and then Obama suspiciously follows suit.

Do you think he secretly works for the Queen??

[Free Market Fred]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

It is extremely worrying that Obama is now copying the UK and it's degenerate leadership. Many people thought that the US would just get stuck in and bomb the Syrian's back to the stoneage, but no. The UK changes it's mind and then Obama suspiciously follows suit.

Do you think he secretly works for the Queen??

If by "the Queen," you mean homos, then most definitely. Everyone knows that practically all men in the UK are screaming queens - in Brit slang they call 'em "Scottish" and you can always spot them because they wear plaid dresses. They've been having "gay pride" marches over there in jolly old England long before Homo International moved its headquarters to San Francisco. UK fags are high on drugs almost all the time.


Gay-pride marchers publicly smoking dope from hookahs


Trans-gendered youths at "Scottish" (homo) school

Quite frankly, we don't need the Brits, NATO, the UN or other wimpy foreign queens. American soldiers kick ass! Furthermore, we've got the most awesome weapons, many of which are proudly made by my company, in China.


US soldier visiting a high school in Los Angeles

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite - a strange cult of Shiite mooselimbs whose beliefs are largely secret to keep them from being declared infidels by other Shiites. Nonetheless, Sunni mooselimbs still think that Shiite mooselimbs are infidels and need to be killed. Aside from being a member of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, Assad is dictator over a country whose population is largely composed of Sunni mooselimbs - which is what they are all fighting about since the "Arab Spring" started a few years ago - not to mention that the Mooselimb Brotherhood (which Obama is a member of - at least according to recent reports in the Egyptian press) are Sunni mooselimbs.

So what's all the fighting about you may ask. Well, it all goes back to moohammeds (the mooselimb prophet) death and a little disagreement on who should be the successor - much like the difference between the cathylicks (and the pope) and everyone else when it comes to Jesus.

…
After Mohammed’s death in 632, leadership of the Islamic community passed to Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, one of Mohammed’s closest companions. Some in the community felt that this succession was not legitimate, and that the title of caliph really belonged to Ali ibn Abi Talib. Ali’s claim was supported by the fact that he was Mohammed’s cousin, his adopted son, his first convert (at the age of nine), and husband of his daughter Fatima. Both sides believe that Mohammed specifically designated their man: Supporters of Abu became the Sunnis, those of ibn Ali the Shiites.

The Caliphate passed from Abu Bakr to Umar, and from Umar to Ulthman. Ulthman at last passed the torch to Ali. When Ali was murdered in 661, the Caliphate passed to Muawiya, who would found the famous Umayyid Caliphate. Ali was buried in Najaf in what is now Iraq, and the site remains a major Shiite holy site.

Sunni refers to the sunnas, or oral traditions and interpretations of the Koran -- a body of work similar to the Jewish Talmud. Sunnis believe that the position of Caliph should be a position to which one is elected by the religious leaders of the Islamic community, and not dependent on direct lineage from Mohammed.

Shiite comes from the word shia, which means "the party (of Ali)." They are mostly found in Iran and Iraq, and among the Palestinians. They consider certain direct descendants of Ali - the Imams - infallible and the true inheritors of Mohammed. Ali was the first Imam, his son Hassan the second, his second son Hussein the third. Ali’s sons were killed in the conflict with Caliph Muawiya. However, their succession ended with the 12th Imam, who went into hiding in 940. Most Shiites believe that the 12th Imam will reemerge someday as the Mahdi or Messiah, and reassert his leadership of the Islamic world. In the meantime, ayatollahs are elected to serve as caretakers of the faith.

Most Sunnis and Shiites are liberal, although not by western standards. In peaceful and prosperous times, there is little conflict between them. But both have more extreme factions as well. Some Shiites, for example, have a tradition of valuing martyrdom that came out of their early experiences of conflict with the Sunnis. The most famous Sunni extremist faction is the Wahhabi sect, of which Osama bin Laden is possibly a member. It is characterized by radical fundamentalism: The Koran is not to be interpreted but rather taken literally. There are to be no prayers or other appeals to prophets, saints, or any entity other than God. There are to be no images of or monuments to any supposed Islamic leaders, not even elaborate tombs for famous Moslems. And the Koran is to be the soul source of secular as well as religious law.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/sunnisshiites.html

When it comes to the killing of Shiites by Sunnis, they are more prized than the killing of Christians - by a factor of 70. I'm sure the feeling is mutual from the standpoint of the Shiites.

….
At various times Shia groups have faced persecution. In 1514 the Ottoman sultan, Selim I, ordered the massacre of 40,000 Anatolian Shia. According to Jalal Al-e-Ahmad, "Sultan Selim I carried things so far that he announced that the killing of one Shiite had as much otherworldly reward as killing 70 Christians." In 1801 the Al Saud-Wahhabi armies attacked and sacked Karbala, the Shia shrine in eastern Iraq that commemorates the death of Husayn.
….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam

Given that the mooselimbs can be more motivated and preoccupied with killing each other than going after Christians, it should suggest a more rational foreign policy on the part of Christian nations. We should be giving arms to both sides and sit back, make some popcorn, open a brew, watch the whole thing on Hi-Def, and then go in, convert those still alive to Christianity, and take the oil.

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

It is extremely worrying that Obama is now copying the UK and it's degenerate leadership. Many people thought that the US would just get stuck in and bomb the Syrian's back to the stoneage, but no. The UK changes it's mind and then Obama suspiciously follows suit.

Do you think he secretly works for the Queen??

You mean Barney Frank?

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

I have rethought my original position, which was that the US should invade and destroy the godless Syrians and do it post haste. I was thinking that it would please God to massacre them and level the whole country, but I have evolved my thinking.

If we do that, some other Syrians who survive our wrath will just take over and then where will we be? I'll tell you where- right back where we started with filthy unsaved Arabs making vulgar gestures, trying to cheat us and making advances towards our Christian women.

I have decided that the only possible course that makes any sense is to invade all of Araby and lay it waste, killing or maiming all the citizenry and taking everything they posess for godly purposes. They are godless heathens, all of them. They are among the wretches of the world who oppose God's will, but they can't just sit in their desert or jungle or whatever and wait their turn for the trip to Hell. No, they have to cause trouble- cheating us for oil, blowing us up, buying up all the little stores, flying airplanes into buildings, taking over France, taking over England, killing off their betters... the list goes on and on.

I believe that if the Arabs and their vile, treasonous religion were eradicated from the world, the Lord would be pleased.

Therefore I propose the immediate destruction of South West Asia (possibly the rest of Asia too, now that I think about it), North Africa, the Arabian Pennensula, Indonesia (which would be included in the general destruction of Asia, which is looking better and better), the rest of the Middle East and those areas of France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, England and other parts of Europe where Muslims have gained control. Also, Dearborn, Michigan should be obliterated, as should any other place that has allowed a large population of these wretched heathens to take root.

I believe that atomic bombs would prove efficatious for this purpose and they should be employed immediately.

I pray that this is God's will.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

This is the Baptist moment. This is our time. We need to defend our country and do it now.

If we let a Muslim gas his own people now, he will gas us later. History has proven this.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

This is the Baptist moment. This is our time. We need to defend our country and do it now.

If we let a Muslim gas his own people now, he will gas us later. History has proven this.

I vehemently disagree Mayor - this is clearly a TRAP set by Barry Soutro to lure the US Military to its destruction in a massive Al Quida AMBUSH thus forcing and end to the Godly SEQUESTER!!!
SYRIA IS BENGHAZI EXCEPT TIME TIMES WORSE!!!

So you have sold out to The One just like McCain Joe Hold???

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Our path in this matter is clear, as the Lord has commanded:

But let judgement run down as waters, And righteousness as a mighty stream.
Amos 5:24

We are going to have to smite every single one of the fiends.

[Free Market Fred]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Therefore I propose the immediate destruction of South West Asia (possibly the rest of Asia too, now that I think about it), North Africa, the Arabian Pennensula, Indonesia (which would be included in the general destruction of Asia, which is looking better and better)

Great idea, Brother Alvin, but remember that The Lord aims to protect my company's factories in China, Vietnam and Cambodia. That's why He - in all his wisdom - loves precision missiles strikes.

[Stupid Scottish Drunk]

Re: Why the U.S. should invade Syria.

Even though you're not funny, you people do make me think.