Romney wants to arm Syrian rebels.
 

Discuss.

http://www.newsday.com/elections/mit...iran-1.4086147

This Assad bastard needs to go down, but what is the best way?

Give enough to keep the fight there going, and to keep casualties high on both sides.

Works for me. For all I care, you could build a wall around the place, air lift in rifles and ammunition, and call back in 10 years to see who won.

I was hoping Turkey would lay the pimp hand down.

Assad is the Iranian Mullahs pawn, the rebels are supported by Al-Quaeda like groups.

The more they massacre each other the better for the rest of the world.

Like Iran - Iraq .... we don't care who wins, as long as the casualties are high ! .... :supergrin:

.

:goodpost::agree::yourock:

We need to go into the Middle East with a heavy hand, before Iran unites them all into an Islamic nuclear power super state, that threatens the entire world.

If we go in full force now we can win, as opposed to waiting until they are united, stronger and have nukes.

It's time for the tenth Holy Crusade....:50cal:

Arm the rebels just enough to match Iranian and Russian armament, but stay out of there. Love to see Iran's conduit into the ME cut off, but don't want to help the Muslim Brotherhood accelerate their caliphate plans either.

This has its' good points. (IMHO) This will be the ultimate outcome of the ME unrest, as Iran is posturing more daily.

One thing that would really help is drilling into every single American oil field, thus increasing global supply of oil and lowering crude prices, thus de-funding Russia, Venezuela, and Middle East states whose economies rely almost exclusively on oil profits.

Let them slaughter each other but I am hesitant to arm any AQ affiliated groups

One way or the other, most of what we send ends in the hands of AQ anyway, lets just make them all more efficient at lowering their overall numbers.

Stupid. There is very little we can do about situation in Syria. Neither side is "good" and whoever wins, we lose. Sitting out is best choice between all the choices we have.

Then kill them.

Problem solved.

Shouldn't we pay down the national debt first?

First we have to get the goober that keeps raising it out of the White House.

We tried that several times already. The guy that replaces him raises it even more.

Of course, "this time" will be different, right?

.... If we get enough 'tea party' in .... :supergrin:

.

This one beat the record of all previous goobers COMBINED. I call that "A Clue".

Of course, for some, "Cluelessness is it's own reward"

We can pay off our debt by selling captured Middle East oil fields, seizing the multi-billion dollar bank accounts of anti-American trouble makers who fund terrorist groups, and by charging other countries when we free them from Islamic domination.

War can be very profitable.

..

That tends to happen when numbers get exponentially larger. He's not the first to do that. Reagan and GWB did it and I didn't see anybody catching a clue at that time.

If G29Reload had an ounce of consistency, he'd pipe in here to reference your uncle's balls.

That post is fantasy. You would have to competely disregard how we actually engage in war.

I think back to the Iran-Iraq War, when opposing jihadists were annihilating each other left and right with contemporary weapons and WWI tactics.

Those were the days, my friends... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/personal/beach.gif


.

Id like to see you go first.