Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Aug 21, 2013.
yeah new war!!!
Honestly, we shouldn't be involved militarily in Syria at all unless Syria is being taken over -- not Assad, not the Rebels, but being either taken over by some western coalition, or chopped up and given to its neighbors. Neither side of this is even remotely friendly to us, so there is no reason the US should help either of them run a country.
that is always your fall back position isn't it?
Here is an idea, if you don't want to have to go to war don't volunteer to do so. That seems pretty simple. Did the draft get reinstated and I missed it?
Did you support the hands off policy while Hitler committed his atrocities too? Tell me again why we should encourage rebellion against oppression and then stand by and watch those we encouraged get systemically eliminated and how that will help our cause?
The world has a lot of options without ever putting boots on the ground but watching a tyrant use chemical weapons and iranian mercenaries to commit genocide.
Hitler had been dead for some time before I was born, so I guess I was silent about his acts during that era...
Changing the killer running a nation in the middle east for a different killer, isn't much help.
The Sunni is attacking the Hez in Lebanon. Let them do it themselves. Without any of our kids getting killed in the process.
Maybe the kids that did join would appreciate the fact that all of us don't get pissed off and send them to fight and die in perpetuity. Just because they volunteer, does not mean they don't have lives to protect also.
The rest of us still have to pay for it, to the tune of around 3k a piece at a trillion dollars for the last two wars . We also get to watch the further expansion of our military which is massively outsized relative to the world, further stretching of our resources, more long term commitments in a region we need to get away from not entrench further in, all so we can intervene in a tangled civil war in a country that holds very little strategic interest right now.
It's like we learned nothing from Iraq.
A couple of points:
1. We actually didn't get involved against Germany even after we were aware of the concentration camps.
2. There really was no question about who was committing those atrocities. Not the case here.
Barry really intimidates terrorist huh.
probably another phony set up by the cia to get the u.s. in another war for no reason.
There are a few sides to this war it seems. The bad, the bad, and the bad. When someone figures out which is which let me know.
I'll believe that when I see French troops in Damascus. Yeah right.
Put me with the group that wants no US military involvement. No how. No way.
I also don't want the great and terrible Oz in the White House to let his mouth write another check that his a$$ can't cash. No more fake red lines. It just makes him look weak and foolish. Come to think of it that's pretty accurate. :yes:
Why don't we just nuke the place and they can start over in 100 years or so.
They are not bothering us. Why don't we just stay away from them.
This is a good alternative to nuking them!
Maybe we should change our name to the United States of Buttinski.
No worries Hall, Obama is getting the UN inspectors to gather all the facts, determine it was a chemical attack and it was initiated by Assad, he will then move a carrier task force into the area and draw a new Red Line.
FWIW, I'm for staying out of this mess also. Obama does not need to be making statements or drawing lines in the sand unless he is prepared to act on the threat. Credibility is at stake with our allies and friends in the region. All one of them.
If we find that Assad used chemical weapons our involvement should be limited to UN support as it was in Bosnia, Somalia, etc. We do not need to be first-in, last-out again.
Or launch a few of our "older" cruise missiles with "use by dates" that are about to expire. Wouldn't want to use a "skunky" cruise missile down the road.
I find it amusing in the article quoted earlier that they're upset the US isn't involved.
Muslims get upset IF the US is involved, then get upset IF the US is NOT involved.
Frankly, the UN needs to take the lead, some other countries need to get involved and I'm sorry but I do NOT want US troops in contact with chemical weapons. Enough is enough.
the UN will not / can not take the lead as Russia and China will veto it.
Should we let Iranian puppet supported with Iranian funded Hezbollah fighters go in and commit genocide using wmd's on a ethnic group that opposes them?
Should the US have stayed out of Europe while Hitler was running his gas chambers? I know we did but should we have sat by and let that genocide occur?
If we stay out of Syria, should we also stay out of Africa where we are actively hunting war criminals that enslave children and use torture? Should we have stayed out of Libya?
Again, we are not talking boots on the ground scenario here.
As I understand it China has been on board for about a month and Russia has all but acquiesced at this point.