Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Sep 1, 2013.
we don't have the money to fight wwIII when CHina and Russia attack Israel
No. I am waiting fot the argument that it is our National Interest and National Security. Our military are not political pawns.
Vietnam 2.0, no will to fight for 'no real cause.' This is all about Obama's pride and nothing more... or he would have acted a long time ago.
Hell no... no way, no how, do we need this war.
NO. There is no national interest there. The 1,400 people that died as a result of poison gas are horrible but no less dead than the tens of thousands already killed by Assad. there are evil leaders elsewhere doing similarly horrible things. Why do some of us feel compelled to try to make things right ?
It wouldn't even be Constitutional.
What wouldn't be?
It is true that more civilians have died from non-chemical weapons and that is an important point, but I think a line is crossed that we shouldn't as civilized people when chemical weapons are allowed to be used with impunity. There is a valid reason why they were outlawed after WWI, a ban that has been mostly effective. Given that bombs are capable of similar and even worse indiscriminate killing - see WWII ending with Hiroshima and Nagasaki - at least we can say that only a few nations are capable of delivering that kind of mayhem. Rather than open the door to these lesser forms of indiscriminate killing, we should be working to limit and even outlaw the use of the bombs.
PS It is also in our national interest - as well as the world's - that these weapons remain outlawed.
Is it their obligation to authorize only if our national security is in jeopardy? If so, it likely will not happen. But what is the precedent... is their one? If their lobbyists tell them it's good for business does that weigh in their decision?
Well, what is the UN for?
It's for trying to do these things with still sovereign nations as members. Why, are you ready for us to go under their authority?
Does the UN have the ability to punish Assad? If so, then we contribute cruise missiles, bunker buster bombs, whatever the plan is and let them do it.
I believe we are being suckered into attacking which starts an Islamic holy war and me thinks someone else should be the sucker.
The world already knows Obama is a flypaper lightweight or he would have bombed the hell out of those cats a year ago or whenever they started targeting civilians. He's hesitated, so let someone else take the lead. Plus, Obama is such a dumb chit, he would likely give them our game plan and end date before we attacked.
Jimmy Carter is smiling over Obama's predicament. I remember the lead in on Nightline with Ted Koppel...day 42 of the Hostage Crisis...no end in sight. Obama is learning what most of us already know. Bullies, dictators, terrorists understand one thing. Brute force used swiftly and surely. Obama has blinked how many times now?
Better to just sit tight.
I agree with a lot of what has been said so far from many of the comments.
Depends if our national security is in jeopardy. We likely never will know one way or the other (wish people would acknowledge that wrt Iraq). Congress needs to take the intelligence and discuss it to make the determination of whether we are at risk. This is much more complicated than just Syria and the nutjob/evil leader in charge.
I don't know but my gut says no atthis point.
Tell it to OBL, Qaddafi, and the Pakistanis.
You need to make up your mind whether you want a military response (Obama's position) or not. Schizophrenia is only amusing for a post or two.
How come we have not heard anything out of the other Arab states? What is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan, or Bahrain saying in regards to the use of chemical weapons against other arabs?
The Arab league voted against supporting a strike last week, but then in a partial turn around yesterday said they welcomed it, though somehow that is not official. They are said to be straddling the issue for political reasons, while supposedly in favor of strikes.
"CAIRO — The Arab League on Sunday urged international action against the Syrian government to deter what it called the “ugly crime” of using chemical weapons. It was a major step toward supporting Western military strikes but short of the explicit endorsement that the United States and some Persian Gulf allies had hoped for.
The League moved beyond the more cautious stance it took just a few days ago, when it asked the United Nations Security Council to overcome its internal differences on the Syrian conflict — an outcome that was extremely unlikely given Russia’s strong support for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.
This time, the League called for the United Nations and “the international community” at large to exercise their responsibilities under international law “to take the necessary measures” against the Syrian government. But aside from calling for trials of the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks, the resolution — adopted at a meeting in Cairo late Sunday night — did not specify what kind of international measures might be needed or justified.
Obama administration officials considered the statement a step forward because it opened the door to action outside the Security Council. But many in the region said the ambiguity was the latest manifestation of Washington’s diminishing influence...."
If we are going to be the world's strong-arm man then they have to start paying in advance. No more promise of oil or the like. Cash up front. Tomahawks are around $600K each.