Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Biden:
"...I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority...to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him....."
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... -Authority" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chimpy McCheneyburton. No blood for oil. Bush lied kids died.

I am alarmed that Biden has been given such a prominent role in this fiasco. Barry backed himself into a corner with that "line in the sand" bloviation. We stayed out of Rwanda, which was a real bloodbath. We have no interest in Syria worth the price of intervention. And I don't care which side launched the gas attack. Just my .

Ivytalk wrote:I am alarmed that Biden has been given such a prominent role in this fiasco. Barry backed himself into a corner with that "line in the sand" bloviation. We stayed out of Rwanda, which was a real bloodbath. We have no interest in Syria worth the price of intervention. And I don't care which side launched the gas attack. Just my .

But we absolutely should have intervened in Rwanda. Allowing genocide to occur on that scale fifty years after swearing we wouldn't was inexcusable.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I am alarmed that Biden has been given such a prominent role in this fiasco. Barry backed himself into a corner with that "line in the sand" bloviation. We stayed out of Rwanda, which was a real bloodbath. We have no interest in Syria worth the price of intervention. And I don't care which side launched the gas attack. Just my .

But we absolutely should have intervened in Rwanda. Allowing genocide to occur on that scale fifty years after swearing we wouldn't was inexcusable.

Could you please pass the sauerkraut GATW?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I am alarmed that Biden has been given such a prominent role in this fiasco. Barry backed himself into a corner with that "line in the sand" bloviation. We stayed out of Rwanda, which was a real bloodbath. We have no interest in Syria worth the price of intervention. And I don't care which side launched the gas attack. Just my .

But we absolutely should have intervened in Rwanda. Allowing genocide to occur on that scale fifty years after swearing we wouldn't was inexcusable.

Yeah, Clinton said that was one of his biggest regrets as President. But there were similar debates about intervention in Bosnia and Darfur for humanitarian reasons. Is there a litmus test, either quantitative or qualitative, in terms of death or suffering that justifies intervention in some other country's civil war? "Genocide" seems to be the term that interventionists throw around, with questionable accuracy. The Holocaust was a systematic effort to exterminate a group of people who shared a particular characteristic. Saddam went after the Kurds -- "genocide" was used in that context too -- and the west wrung its hands. Pol Pot went after almost anyone in Cambodia who could have been considered hostile to the Khmer Rouge regime, but in the immediate post-Vietnam era people seemed to be numbed to all that, and the facts really never came out for years. Syria is nowhere near that.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I am alarmed that Biden has been given such a prominent role in this fiasco. Barry backed himself into a corner with that "line in the sand" bloviation. We stayed out of Rwanda, which was a real bloodbath. We have no interest in Syria worth the price of intervention. And I don't care which side launched the gas attack. Just my .

But we absolutely should have intervened in Rwanda. Allowing genocide to occur on that scale fifty years after swearing we wouldn't was inexcusable.

No, we should not have intervened in Rwanda.

If you feel you want to intervene in any country's business, then get your azz over there and do your thing.

Nothing is stopping you except for your own cowardice.

Typical Lib..."Hey, I have an idea. Why doesn't everyone else go help those people...and we'll use everyone else's money to do it. There, I feel good about myself. Now...I've got a football game to watch."

Moran.

I don't see the USA's objective in getting involved in Syria....

Are American's tired of war?

From Reuters

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

Gil Dobie wrote:Are American's tired of war?

From Reuters

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

100% of the US defense contractors said the US should intervene in Syria.

Cluck U wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Are American's tired of war?

From Reuters

100% of the US defense contractors said the US should intervene in Syria.

We shall see soon if we have an Obamaburton in charge.

Both sides need weapons and munitions. Better get our nose in the trough before those grubby little Euros take our bidniz.

No win situation for the US...

On one side we have Assad who is supported by the Iranians and Ruskies, on the other side we have the rebels who are supported by the muslim brotherhood, hezbollah, and al qaeda. Neither faction is our friend.

Our strategic interest is keeping the flow of oil going in a stable and economical way and protecting those Arab nations and Israel who are our allies- nothing more.

Cluck U wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
But we absolutely should have intervened in Rwanda. Allowing genocide to occur on that scale fifty years after swearing we wouldn't was inexcusable.

No, we should not have intervened in Rwanda.

If you feel you want to intervene in any country's business, then get your azz over there and do your thing.

Nothing is stopping you except for your own cowardice.

Typical Lib..."Hey, I have an idea. Why doesn't everyone else go help those people...and we'll use everyone else's money to do it. There, I feel good about myself. Now...I've got a football game to watch."

Moran.

Go fuck yourself, dork.

blueballs wrote:No win situation for the US...

On one side we have Assad who is supported by the Iranians and Ruskies, on the other side we have the rebels who are supported by the muslim brotherhood, hezbollah, and al qaeda. Neither faction is our friend.

Our strategic interest is keeping the flow of oil going in a stable and economical way and protecting those Arab nations and Israel who are our allies- nothing more.

This.

blueballs wrote:No win situation for the US...

On one side we have Assad who is supported by the Iranians and Ruskies, on the other side we have the rebels who are supported by the muslim brotherhood, hezbollah, and al qaeda. Neither faction is our friend.

Our strategic interest is keeping the flow of oil going in a stable and economical way and protecting those Arab nations and Israel who are our allies- nothing more.

Then perhaps we should begin feeding BOTH sides weapons.

BDKJMU wrote:Biden:
"...I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority...to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him....."
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... -Authority" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you're saying Biden was playing politics? Exactly like you are with this post? Two peas in a pod, you and Joe. Congrats!

AZGrizFan wrote:

blueballs wrote:No win situation for the US...

On one side we have Assad who is supported by the Iranians and Ruskies, on the other side we have the rebels who are supported by the muslim brotherhood, hezbollah, and al qaeda. Neither faction is our friend.

Our strategic interest is keeping the flow of oil going in a stable and economical way and protecting those Arab nations and Israel who are our allies- nothing more.

Then perhaps we should begin feeding BOTH sides weapons.

ding ding ding

AZGrizFan wrote:

blueballs wrote:No win situation for the US...

On one side we have Assad who is supported by the Iranians and Ruskies, on the other side we have the rebels who are supported by the muslim brotherhood, hezbollah, and al qaeda. Neither faction is our friend.

Our strategic interest is keeping the flow of oil going in a stable and economical way and protecting those Arab nations and Israel who are our allies- nothing more.

Then perhaps we should begin feeding BOTH sides weapons.

Spoken like a true military industrialist big government conk. Atta boy!

Also, upon further reviewing of BB's post, I'm not sure Hezbollah, AQ, MB, and Iran are all on opposite sides. But I still agree with his general idea.

grizzaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Then perhaps we should begin feeding BOTH sides weapons.

ding ding ding

And another big government interventionist conk.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
No, we should not have intervened in Rwanda.

If you feel you want to intervene in any country's business, then get your azz over there and do your thing.

Nothing is stopping you except for your own cowardice.

Typical Lib..."Hey, I have an idea. Why doesn't everyone else go help those people...and we'll use everyone else's money to do it. There, I feel good about myself. Now...I've got a football game to watch."

Moran.

Go fuck yourself, dork.

In other words, you agree that you absolutely don't want to make any personal sacrifices for the actions you say are absolutely necessary.

Typical, weak minded fool.

Glad you cleared that up.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Then perhaps we should begin feeding BOTH sides weapons.

Spoken like a true military industrialist big government conk. Atta boy!

Also, upon further reviewing of BB's post, I'm not sure Hezbollah, AQ, MB, and Iran are all on opposite sides. But I still agree with his general idea.

I'm just saying...we have our enemies fighting with our enemies...wouldn't we want as many of them as possible eliminated?

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Spoken like a true military industrialist big government conk. Atta boy!

Also, upon further reviewing of BB's post, I'm not sure Hezbollah, AQ, MB, and Iran are all on opposite sides. But I still agree with his general idea.

I'm just saying...we have our enemies fighting with our enemies...wouldn't we want as many of them as possible eliminated?

That is what I call, good ole 'Merican ingenuity. Why fight your enemy when you can get another enemy to fight? Kill two birds with one stone.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm just saying...we have our enemies fighting with our enemies...wouldn't we want as many of them as possible eliminated?

That is what I call, good ole 'Merican ingenuity. Why fight your enemy when you can get another enemy to fight? Kill two birds with one stone.

Why give them weapons or money when they can kill each other with machetes, stones, and/or soviet era equipment?

Cluck U wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Go fuck yourself, dork.

In other words, you agree that you absolutely don't want to make any personal sacrifices for the actions you say are absolutely necessary.

Typical, weak minded fool.

Glad you cleared that up.

I was approximately 10 when the incident in Rwanda happened. Should I have suited up and grabbed a rifle?