Syrian civil war (5 Viewers)

[Seven]

Your source says nothing to back up your claim.

It's been a while since I've seen you. Did you finally find out how insurance works?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Osman]

Your source says nothing to back up your claim.

Your post says nothing that interests me whatsoever.

Skickat från min SM-G930F via Tapatalk

 

[Juliano13]

Obama wanted to bomb Syria but Repubs said no.

And what would the bombings have accomplished?

 

[Juliano13]

It's been a while since I've seen you. Did you finally find out how insurance works?

Your tiny brain can't get past that still. Pathetic

 

[Enron]

And what would the bombings have accomplished?

Not a lot obviously.

 

[Juliano13]

Not a lot obviously.

Bombings without a ground attack or at least an ally with a ground force are pointless. The only time I can remember whe thwy worked was against Mulosevic, but that was a total fluke. He was nowhere near as crazy as these guys and Eltsin tricked him into surrendering.

 

[Seven]

Your tiny brain can't get past that still. Pathetic

You still haven't figured it out. See, this is why Bulgaria is where it is.

 

[Maddy]

you nerds. trump had little to no saying in this attack. he only had to approve it.

that said I think the attack might have a positive influence on thw hole west vs putin conflict.

i mean syria and the middle east is just :lel2: in this matter

proxy proxy proxy

 

[Juliano13]

You still haven't figured it out. See, this is why Bulgaria is where it is.

Im not the emperor of Bulgaria, but thanks for the credit.

 

[Enron]

Bombings without a ground attack or at least an ally with a ground force are pointless. The only time I can remember whe thwy worked was against Mulosevic, but that was a total fluke. He was nowhere near as crazy as these guys and Eltsin tricked him into surrendering.

I agree. Point wasn't for or against the strategy. Just that the executive branch has had an idea to drop bombs for a while.

 

[Seven]

Bombings without a ground attack or at least an ally with a ground force are pointless. The only time I can remember whe thwy worked was against Mulosevic, but that was a total fluke. He was nowhere near as crazy as these guys and Eltsin tricked him into surrendering.

Japan surrendered six days after the bombing of Nagasaki.

 

[Juliano13]

Japan surrendered six days after the bombing of Nagasaki.

I dont think enron meant obama should have nuked syria.

 

[Enron]

I dont think enron meant obama should have nuked syria.

Absolutely not.

 

[Seven]

I dont think enron meant obama should have nuked syria.

Of course not. But my point is that what you're saying is way too big of a generalisation. Bombs can have the desired effect at times, even without the presence of ground forces. And to be honest it's pretty easy to see why one would prefer bombs over a costly and probably highly criticized invasion.

 

[Maddy]

Bombings without a ground attack or at least an ally with a ground force are pointless. The only time I can remember whe thwy worked was against Mulosevic, but that was a total fluke. He was nowhere near as crazy as these guys and Eltsin tricked him into surrendering.

no.

and the attack is a message/warning: "use chemical weapons [again] and we will destroy your military infrastructure, and then you'll never regain power of Syria".

 

[Juliano13]

Of course not. But my point is that what you're saying is way too big of a generalisation. Bombs can have the desired effect at times, even without the presence of ground forces. And to be honest it's pretty easy to see why one would prefer bombs over a costly and probably highly criticized invasion.

Bombing Assad cannot have the desired effect, unless the desired effect is ISIS to take control of the country.

 

[Maddy]

Bombing Assad cannot have the desired effect, unless the desired effect is ISIS to take control of the country.

no.

isis is in a appaling state. they are loosing to a shitty iraqi army and kurdish lolsoldiers. this is exactly why isis are so desperate regarding attacks in europe. they are on a downfall.

 

[Hust]

No it's not. He's the least secure president ever. Not to mention the dumbest. Though it does make for a laugh. Hopefully we get a Kushner v Bannon death match in a couple of month when his approval rating drops again.

Coulter v Kellyann would be my celebrity death match first choice

 

[Seven]

no.

and the attack is a message/warning: "use chemical weapons [again] and we will destroy your military infrastructure, and then you'll never regain power of Syria".

I agree.

And you know, it's a bit of a PR thing too.

 

[Enron]

Coulter v Kellyann would be my celebrity death match first choice

The whole nazis v jews thing doesn't get you going?

- - - Updated - - -

I agree.

And you know, it's a bit of a PR thing too.

Yeah, it will boost his approval rating a tad. Which will boost his ego.