War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Gracie]

Cameron??

 

[aaronleland]

If someone says yes they better explain themselves.

Well, last time I saw this subject, the reason for yae was "for the children". And mean ol Gracie said tough shit about the children. Kids are dying all over the world, sadly.

Let's bomb children... FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

 

[High_Gravity]

If someone says yes they better explain themselves.

Well, last time I saw this subject, the reason for yae was "for the children". And mean ol Gracie said tough shit about the children. Kids are dying all over the world, sadly.

Children are being gunned down and killed right here on our city streets too.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think it's an honest question.

Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?

Has anyone even came out and said it? I mean I am sure they want the man gone but I think this has become about alot more than 1 man now.

 

[High_Gravity]

Wow this is the most lop sided poll ever!

 

[RandallFlagg]

I said NO in Iraq. I said NO in Afghanistan and I'm sayin NO in Syria. We are dangerously close to taking a step toward that cliff that we can't back away from.

Russia, China and Iran has warned us to "stay out of it".

Who are we actually supporting? The bad guys or the bad guys? Hell, if we have to go to war to protect ourselves, then so be it. But going to war to support Al Queada terrorists?


No. No. No.


I have ZERO respect for that pecker-head in the White House, but in this case I would sy "Mr President, for ONCE in your life, THINK about what you are about to do".

 

[Borillar]

Not only no, but fuck no! There is nothing to be gained by military adventurism in Syria, only loss.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.

I totally support going to war with syria as long as we do it this way;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q]Nuke the entire site fom orbit - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.

I'll offer the opposite view. Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do. Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war. Hardly anyone has used them since WW1. Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them. We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
There are few good options here. That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into. But that is where we are.

 

[dilloduck]

"[R]emoving the threat posed by Syria's chemical weapons stockpile by military force "is very, very complex."

"Even under international law, if you strike a chemical weapons base and there is collateral damage to civilians it is as if you, the attacker, used chemical weapons," he said.

Report Israeli Bombed Syrian Chemical Weapons - Business Insider

 

[Kondor3]

Nay.

--------------------

Based on what I know, and the way I feel about it, now.

I reserve the right to change my mind later if that strikes me as appropriate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

FUCK NO! Lets go back to the moon

 

[RandallFlagg]

With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.

I'll offer the opposite view. Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do. Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war. Hardly anyone has used them since WW1. Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them. We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
There are few good options here. That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into. But that is where we are.

I agree to this point. Barry stated (a year ago) that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red" line. The time to "lob" a few missiles was THEN.

Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it. Syria is a HUGE ally of both Russia AND Iran. I can't help but believe that THEY are feeling the same pressure to back Assad AGAINST the US. At some point, Russia and Iran MUST support Assad. Will this be Russia's and Iran's "red" line also?

This could potentially become an extremely dangerous standoff. And for what? To overthrow one terrible regime in favor of another terrible regime?

I don't know. But I surely don't like the way this thing smells.

 

[bianco]

I can't figure for the life of me why he hates Assad this much.

This is beyond strange. He and Cameron are really over the top on trying to kill him.

Indeed...and to what end?
Installing the 'Muslim rebels'/Muslim Brotherhood as 'king', like they did in Egypt and Libya.

Maybe they are in love with the Muslim Brotherhood?

 

[RandallFlagg]

FUCK NO! Lets go back to the moon

What!?!?


Dumb and Dumber - We Landed on the Moon! - YouTube

 

[Vox]

If someone says yes they better explain themselves.

Well, last time I saw this subject, the reason for yae was "for the children".

they say that wise people learn on other people mistakes.

What will you call us if we do not want to learn on our own mistakes?

 

[The Rabbi]

With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.

I'll offer the opposite view. Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do. Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war. Hardly anyone has used them since WW1. Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them. We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
There are few good options here. That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into. But that is where we are.

I agree to this point. Barry stated (a year ago) that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red" line. The time to "lob" a few missiles was THEN.

Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it. Syria is a HUGE ally of both Russia AND Iran. I can't help but believe that THEY are feeling the same pressure to back Assad AGAINST the US. At some point, Russia and Iran MUST support Assad. Will this be Russia's and Iran's "red" line also?

This could potentially become an extremely dangerous standoff. And for what? To overthrow one terrible regime in favor of another terrible regime?

I don't know. But I surely don't like the way this thing smells.

Yes it is a tough situation. The deal with Russia is very dangerous and thanks to Obama's "reset" in relations we have even less leverage than we did under Bush.

 

[RandallFlagg]

If someone says yes they better explain themselves.

Well, last time I saw this subject, the reason for yae was "for the children".

they say that wise people learn on other people mistakes.

What will you call us if we do not want to learn on our own mistakes?

Doomed........

 

[dilloduck]

damn right it stinks. We're helping Islamic militants to take over Syria . Do we really need any more evidence than that ? Time to ask ourselves what the real agenda is here. Do we want to risk global war just so Islamic militants can take over Syria ?

 

[francoHFW]

War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...With some help from France and UK, and go ahead from the Arab League. Some patience.