I think we're going to war with Syrian rebels guys.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Or makes people happy that they were saved from a regime bent on destroying them. There is always two sides to every equation. Unless you're living there....then I don't think you can understand what's happening.....Solaryellow

And this is why all these efforts are not for humanitarian reasons

[QUOTE="Solaryellow"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Or makes people happy that they were saved from a regime bent on destroying them. There is always two sides to every equation. Unless you're living there....then I don't think you can understand what's happening.....wis3boi

And this is why all these efforts are not for humanitarian reasons

Although North Korea is a terrible example

Just dunk a missile on Assad's palace or w/e hes at and be done with it.

Postal_Guy

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

Just dunk a missile on Assad's palace or w/e hes at and be done with it.

sherman-tank1

Here's a question to ponder: If the United States feels it has the right to flex its muscles and attack people because of wrong doing, does any country also reserve the right to do the same to America thanks to the innocent people killed during our wars?

Chemical weapons are a hell of a lot worse then conventional armaments. Giving Assad the okay to use chemical weapons, gives any country the okay to use them.Person0

That's right. Our involvement is because the chemical weapons in Syria's possession are harmful to our country......or so our leaders say. Didn't we hear this a while ago from another President?Solaryellow

That isn't the case that is being made at all. No one is claiming Syria is a threat to the US. The case for war is to stop future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government if they have used such weapons though I'm not sure how these strikes will do that as you can't hit these sites without collateral if they even knew where they all were.

Please god no PleaseGodNo

That isn't the case that is being made at all. No one is claiming Syria is a threat to the US. The case for war is to stop future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government if they have used such weapons though I'm not sure how these strikes will do that as you can't hit these sites without collateral if they even knew where they all were.

AllanLane

[QUOTE="Solaryellow"]That's right. Our involvement is because the chemical weapons in Syria's possession are harmful to our country......or so our leaders say. Didn't we hear this a while ago from another President?AllanLane

That isn't the case that is being made at all. No one is claiming Syria is a threat to the US. The case for war is to stop future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government if they have used such weapons though I'm not sure how these strikes will do that as you can't hit these sites without collateral if they even knew where they all were.

[QUOTE="AllanLane"]

That isn't the case that is being made at all. No one is claiming Syria is a threat to the US. The case for war is to stop future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government if they have used such weapons though I'm not sure how these strikes will do that as you can't hit these sites without collateral if they even knew where they all were.

Solaryellow

Ok. I stand corrected. I actually had not read the national security angle being pushed yet. 

Ok. I stand corrected. I actually had not read the national security angle being pushed yet. 

AllanLane

If Assad was using the chemical weapons, which isn't a logical move from his end, then I'm sure the United States will act with the full force of "democracy."

There's a lot of information we still don't know about the situation over there and I think acting now would be a waste of resources. Who knows how long the UN investigation will take.

 

Anyone who's actually been paying attention knows that a Syrian intervention has been in the works for years. Years ago I was hearing that Syria was the new target, since a military conflict with Iran was increasingly unlikely. China and Russia have said in no uncertain terms that intervention in Syria could drag them into it. I'm very skeptical that the chemical weapon attack was made by the Syrian state, it's all too perfect. This is an intervention to maintain and prop up the petro-dollar, which is one of the few things keeping America's economy from imploding. This whole situation stinks to high Heaven.Rhazakna

It's not a new target, it's an old target. This plan has been in th e works for nearly 12 years.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Libyan revolution and this Syrian civil war were both instigated and fueled by the CIA. We already saw an overt example of American interest, when NATO bombed the hell out of lLibya.

Youtube won't embed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_CUUY3MRU

[QUOTE="Person0"]Chemical weapons are a hell of a lot worse then conventional armaments. Giving Assad the okay to use chemical weapons, gives any country the okay to use them.II_Seraphim_II

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Anyone who's actually been paying attention knows that a Syrian intervention has been in the works for years. Years ago I was hearing that Syria was the new target, since a military conflict with Iran was increasingly unlikely. China and Russia have said in no uncertain terms that intervention in Syria could drag them into it. I'm very skeptical that the chemical weapon attack was made by the Syrian state, it's all too perfect. This is an intervention to maintain and prop up the petro-dollar, which is one of the few things keeping America's economy from imploding. This whole situation stinks to high Heaven.TheGrat1

It's not a new target, it's an old target. This plan has been in th e works for nearly 12 years.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Libyan revolution and this Syrian civil war were both instigated and fueled by the CIA. We already saw an overt example of American interest, when NATO bombed the hell out of lLibya.

Youtube won't embed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_CUUY3MRU

you can imbed if you manually insert the 'http:' part

That's right. Our involvement is because the chemical weapons in Syria's possession are harmful to our country......or so our leaders say. Didn't we hear this a while ago from another President?

 

Here's a question to ponder: If the United States feels it has the right to flex its muscles and attack people because of wrong doing, does any country also reserve the right to do the same to America thanks to the innocent people killed during our wars?

Solaryellow

First off, Obama is different from Bush. Bush is a warmongering Republican in which I protested him daily where as Obama is a Democrat and he's African-American. That's right, he's a black Democrat. Even though he's doing almost the exact same thing, I support him because I'm a goodamn idiot liberal.

/sarcasm

Intervention may be necessary to stop the chemical attacks. Also, many argued that we didn't do enough to intervene when Saddam massacred his own people. It's a Catch-22 in situations like these. However, it can't be half-assed. We need to go in hard, fast, and do things right unlike what Bush Sr. did and just finished the mission with Saddam still in power and eating cake immediately after the first Gulf War.

No one wants war but whenever there are those that will do harm against their own people, they need to be stopped. Non-interventionism and isloationism caused the deaths of millions simply because we were too stubborn to help, thinking it's their problem.

Anyone who's actually been paying attention knows that a Syrian intervention has been in the works for years. Years ago I was hearing that Syria was the new target, since a military conflict with Iran was increasingly unlikely. China and Russia have said in no uncertain terms that intervention in Syria could drag them into it. I'm very skeptical that the chemical weapon attack was made by the Syrian state, it's all too perfect. This is an intervention to maintain and prop up the petro-dollar, which is one of the few things keeping America's economy from imploding. This whole situation stinks to high Heaven.Rhazakna

Thank you.  General Wesley Clark said that something like this was in the works years ago.  

Threads like these really bring out the nutjobs.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="Person0"]Chemical weapons are a hell of a lot worse then conventional armaments. Giving Assad the okay to use chemical weapons, gives any country the okay to use them.II_Seraphim_II

>implying the UN is now, or has ever been, taken seriously.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="Person0"]Chemical weapons are a hell of a lot worse then conventional armaments. Giving Assad the okay to use chemical weapons, gives any country the okay to use them.dude_brahmski

>implying the UN is now, or has ever been, taken seriously.

don't fvck with their strongly worded letters of disapproval

2 years too late, should been proving support to the secular rebels from the start of the revolution.

this.

All for it. That sick family dynasty deserves some payback. Unfortunately there will be more innocent people killed, but something needs to happen to topple the family business. We also seem to forget that all of this started by average everyday Syrians demanding change in largely peaceful protest...and getting murdered and disappeared by their gov't for their efforts. Long before jihadists got involved. We should have acted far earlier.

Why does the US give a shit about Syria?Capitan_Kid

Why does the US give a shit about Syria?Capitan_Kid

we get bored easily

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="Person0"]Chemical weapons are a hell of a lot worse then conventional armaments. Giving Assad the okay to use chemical weapons, gives any country the okay to use them.dude_brahmski

>implying the UN is now, or has ever been, taken seriously.

Why does the US give a shit about Syria?Capitan_Kid

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]Why does the US give a shit about Syria?Gaming-Planet

Obama authorized the fire bombing of Qadaffis home.

He wasn't even there . . . but his grandchildren were.

They burned to death.

What should be done to someone who burns someone's grandchildren to death?

So according to liberals - obama can set children on fire and burn them to death, but Assad can't use chemical weapons.

Is that the situation?

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]Why does the US give a shit about Syria?Gaming-Planet

I'd throw out the chemical weapons excuse, too...in a way.  They are only doing it to save face.  The US has repeatedly supported backdoor use of chemical weapons when it went against a common enemy.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] Ignoring the UN is giving every country the OK to ignore the UNII_Seraphim_II

>implying the UN is now, or has ever been, taken seriously.

ROFL

Acting w/o approval would change exactly nothing.

Obama authorized the fire bombing of Qadaffis home.

He wasn't even there . . . but his grandchildren were.

They burned to death.

What should be done to someone who burns someone's grandchildren to death?

So according to liberals - obama can set children on fire and burn them to death, but Assad can't use chemical weapons.

Is that the situation?

Born_Lucky

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

>implying the UN is now, or has ever been, taken seriously.

coolbeans90

ROFL

Acting w/o approval would change exactly nothing.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] You know, I agree with you 100%. I do think the UN is absolutely worthless and is nothing more than League of Nations 2.0. We should probably disband it, save some money and just let people do whatever they wanna do. The whole premise of the UN is flawed. You give certain nations veto powers? and then we look at international law and the international criminal court where Americans are immune? wtf is the point? all these organizations are a big sham. My point is, the UN was that worthless organization that everyone likes to pretend works...and that kept some form of order in the world. Doing this will be the final nail in the coffin for an already dead organization and then who knows what will happen.II_Seraphim_II

ROFL

Acting w/o approval would change exactly nothing.

We've already seen.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Anyone who's actually been paying attention knows that a Syrian intervention has been in the works for years. Years ago I was hearing that Syria was the new target, since a military conflict with Iran was increasingly unlikely. China and Russia have said in no uncertain terms that intervention in Syria could drag them into it. I'm very skeptical that the chemical weapon attack was made by the Syrian state, it's all too perfect. This is an intervention to maintain and prop up the petro-dollar, which is one of the few things keeping America's economy from imploding. This whole situation stinks to high Heaven.hartsickdiscipl

Thank you.  General Wesley Clark said that something like this was in the works years ago.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Anyone who's actually been paying attention knows that a Syrian intervention has been in the works for years. Years ago I was hearing that Syria was the new target, since a military conflict with Iran was increasingly unlikely. China and Russia have said in no uncertain terms that intervention in Syria could drag them into it. I'm very skeptical that the chemical weapon attack was made by the Syrian state, it's all too perfect. This is an intervention to maintain and prop up the petro-dollar, which is one of the few things keeping America's economy from imploding. This whole situation stinks to high Heaven.BossPerson

Thank you.  General Wesley Clark said that something like this was in the works years ago.  

Right after they consult the crystal skull

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Thank you.  General Wesley Clark said that something like this was in the works years ago.  

wis3boi

Right after they consult the crystal skull

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Im sure the CIA also lit Mohamed Bouazizi on fire as well. you guys are all fvcking demented. Do you know how the US operates? If they wanted to go to war with Syria they would have already done so when they had enough reason to do so (when the killings started 2 years ago). The US does not want to invade, at the moment they are all timid and reserved about actually bombing Syria. go back to reading the fvcking emerald tablets and trying yo turn your own piss into gold you idiot BossPerson

Right after they consult the crystal skull

Tell that to General Clark.  They've been planning this since 9/11.  You want to call him a nutjob?

Don't republicans regularly use the whole "war's messy, and sometimes civilians get caught up in it"?

chrisrooR

I believe I asked this before but no answer was given: The United States has killed many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan from the use of drones so would it be acceptable for Russia or China to bomb some of our military installations?

I think we need to take a break from wars in general for like the next 100 years........ Not feasible, but w/e. Rich3232

I think we need to take a break from wars in general for like the next 100 years........ Not feasible, but w/e. Rich3232