Mitt Romney: arm the Syrian rebels, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 05:21 AM by FlyersFan
reply to post by daaskapital

That's a pundits summation .. but it's not a direct quote from Romney.
The person has interjected what he gets out of the speech.
Originally posted by daaskapital
Now that it came directly from the horses mouth,

It wasn't directly from the horses mouth. There is no direct quote saying Romney intends to arm the rebels. He said he wants to make it easier for them to obtain .. but that's different than having the USA directly arm them.
Romney supporters

I voted Libertarian (absentee ballot) and I don't support Romney or Obama.

ETA .. I can see how someone could get 'I will arm the rebels' out of what he said.
But it isn't a direct quote. It doesn't say that the USA will ship arms .. just make it easier.


For the record .. Romneys luv affair with Israel and his itch to smack Iran make me nervous ...
But I doubt he'll get elected so ...
edit on 10/9/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 07:49 AM by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by vkey08


Wait.. so you don't believe it because it's from a foreign source even though there is a video of the guy saying it? I would say it's .. you know.. credible.

So do you still support Romney now that he has said he will give weapons to rebels that are made up of al qeada?
Here is a US source for you: Chicago Tribune



reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 06:11 PM by ipsedixit


Is America already at war with Iran? I suppose so. I'm nostalgic for the days when these sorts of situations were more formal and involved "declarations" and legislative consultation. I guess I'm not "Gen X" enough.

"Entitlement" is the thing nowadays. America is entitled to feel good about itself and to think of itself as the upholder of all that is most precious in the world while raining down depleted uranium on the Middle East, overturning secular Arab governments in favor of Islamists and just being all round "crap disturbers".

Maybe people do hate America's "freedoms".
edit on 9-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 07:13 PM by poloblack
Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by daaskapital


There it is

Then tell me Romney is no warmonger.

I wonder where he is hiding the symbol of skull and bones on his body ?
See, that's the thing with chickenhawks, they don't have to experience any action, and still get desired results. They'll send the poor and downtrodden, but they won't send any rich kids. Then, there's another side to that, rich kids don't have to sign up to go and die to provide a living for their families, get a college education, ''see the world'', or fight for bankers and globalists, under the guise of ''freedom for America''. Most world leaders don't have the stones to fight on a battlefield beside their men. In 300, (I know, it was a dramatization of the Spartans), Leonidas was on the frontlines with his men. That's the characteristic of a true leader, a true warrior. I'm no fan of Putin or his regime, but, if it came to a pay-per-view world leader brawl, he'd kick the sh!+ out of all these chickenhawk, panstywaist a$$ed ''leaders'', Obama and Romney included. To me, it takes a coward of a man to send another man to his death, and not die for his own beliefs and convictions. Just as Leonidas, King of the Spartans, was killed in battle, Sparta continued. Let the cowardly chickenhawks marinate on THAT.


reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 09:40 AM by phinubian
How can you arm rebels that you have suspicians that their numbers contain foreign fighters and also possibly elements of the elusive group called Al quaeda ? also what is the end to that strategy, especially if our proxy war brings in other enemy proxy nations ?

Again I propose for all big talkers who have never served, including this idiot Mitt Romney, tell your sons to honor their committment to the United States, march down to the recruiting office and sign up to help us when this escalates and calls for ground troops, now I did serve with someone of a certain religious faith back in the eighties (1984) but he carried a rubber M16 in basic training instead of a real weapon like everyone else also we never carried rubber ducks beyond a couple of days then got real weapons he kept his though , me and my fellow recruits were all wondering what that was all about because I knew nothing about any religions that are against war or weapons that would be joining the Army to begin with, we found that out because the drill SGT made a joke and big deal about it until the guy explained that his faith said he could not kill.

If your religious doctrine says you really are not supposed to be involved with war, violence, killing or politics really, how can you expect to be a commander in chief of the worlds greatest military and be able to make decisions that actually make any sense, and how much would your religious belief interfere with sound decision making, to me this is a real issue.

Since people will get all bent out of shape if you bring religious doctrine into the picture, the press has pretty much not made an issue or even talked about it , but they did not hold back when questioning the president when he was a candidate and they pulled out everything they could to make religion a big deal then, what's the difference now ? Arming any rebels has usually backfired on us, has he not learned from history that these sort of actions contribute to wider escalation and involvement of our country and thus committment from Americans to this effort?
edit on 10-10-2012 by phinubian because: (no reason given)
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^