Syria--To Bomb or Not To Bomb
Posted 27 August 2013 - 06:11 AM
What is the proper response in your opinion?
Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:33 AM
apologizing for our arrogance and butting in on their affairs. War is not the answer we just just send ourextreme liberals over there to explain why what they are doing is bad because you know war is not the answer.... to saving innocent people from horrible chemical warfare deaths
- Cat PIE'd this
Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:41 AM
Stay the fug out unless the United States is intent on getting into yet another regional conflict that will cost trillions of dollars we don't have, cost thousands of lives of American soldiers for no apparent reason, accomplish very little in the long run and further denigrate the reputation of the country while creating yet another economy-killer.
Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:54 AM
To the rest of the worlds populations, it will seem that we are choosing sides in a muslim conflict. Public perception will cost us deeply in this scenario. its because of the types of engagements that we be branded the great satan. there is nothing to gain in this. Mainly, because we've stayed nuetral for far too long. And not just us. the rest of the world has allowed this to escalate to these depths. Clearly a no win for all those effected. And those who will be effected. My hands are up in the air on this one. But my gut says no.
- twylyght PIE'd this
Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:01 AM
I'm not sure why, with all the bitching from every corner of the planet about the US "interfering" in the middle east, we would get involved in this at all.
I get the humanitarian issues, but how the fug is bombing them going to aid in that???
Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:07 AM
What does a president do when he gets up in front of the world and basically draws a line in the sand, and then it is crossed at least a couple of times? Should never have made the original speech?
He never should have said it. Or he could let the UN security council vote and when they vote no he can just play along.
Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:13 AM
Why would Assad use chem weapons when he's winning? Why invite UN inspectors and then shoot at them?
Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:18 AM
So sick of this same, worn-out, song and dance. People who still believe this garbage are beyond gullible.
Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:22 AM
The UN Security Council? Really?
Talk about a huge waste of prime office space and real estate in New York....
Who gives a rat's a$$ what the UN Security Council says? The United States has certainly never paid any attention to them and has always done whatever the fug they wanted in the end regardless, although recent history repeatedly shows the United States hasn't made very many good decisions themselves.
- Chimera PIE'd this
Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:32 AM
It's clear to me that the "rebels" used chemical weapons and not Asad. This is all a bunch of bullshit and a calculated plot to involve western powers in the war. The US and allies are claiming that they have irrefutable proof that Asad was behind the attacks, before the fuging inspectors were even on the site - how is that even fuging possible, without having your own people on the ground? The whole thing is a bunch of crap and anyone who falls victim to this hullabaloo is dimwitted.
This has major, major international implications a well. With Russia and China backing Syria, the US will have to really substantiate it's claims before bombing Syria, or Russia and China will be forced to retaliate in some way or look like fools who's international clout lacks teeth.
Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:37 AM
I mean seriously, what's the logic here for Assad to use these weapons? Assad was winning this war. The rebels, backed by western armament and finances, were failing to complete their goal. Why would Assad use fuging chemical weapons, knowing full fuging well that this would drag the US and her allies into a war that he would ultimately lose? That's goddamn idiotic.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users