Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US has the number 1 military in the world for a reason. And a coalition without us is sure to bring 5 times the casualties... The Arab League knows this as well as the European Union...
I have no doubts that we are the biggest kid on the block. That still doesn't make Syria our problem or that our intervention will make things any better. I look at our lessons we should have learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly believe that some cultures actually need a firm government to control them. Democracy only works among reasonable people. That region is not exactly known for being reasonable.
The casualties saved today will only be multiplied tomorrow. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Notice how so many of our allies have such small military forces compare to ours? And notice how much money they save by not having to prop up such forces? They only do so because we do the dirty work for them. I'm tired of spending our money and our lives doing military actions we do not belong in.
Time to severely cut back our military, use the money saved for us, and our problems. Let these other nations start building up their own military forces if they so wish. We have to stop being the world thug, er world police. We are tired of it, cannot afford it, and need to move on.
Notice how so many of our allies have such small military forces compare to ours? And notice how much money they save by not having to prop up such forces? They only do so because we do the dirty work for them. I'm tired of spending our money and our lives doing military actions we do not belong in.
Time to severely cut back our military, use the money saved for us, and our problems. Let these other nations start building up their own military forces if they so wish. We have to stop being the world thug, er world police. We are tired of it, cannot afford it, and need to move on.
Hah! Try getting the conservative republicans to sign on to any bill that takes money away from the military budget. but have a democratic president try to use any of that military and those same conservative republicans will scream "Warmonger".
Notice how so many of our allies have such small military forces compare to ours? And notice how much money they save by not having to prop up such forces? They only do so because we do the dirty work for them. I'm tired of spending our money and our lives doing military actions we do not belong in.
Time to severely cut back our military, use the money saved for us, and our problems. Let these other nations start building up their own military forces if they so wish. We have to stop being the world thug, er world police. We are tired of it, cannot afford it, and need to move on.
To label the U.S. as a "thug" is a bit naive.
The United States and its primary role in counterbalancing the Soviets during the Cold War enabled European countries to focus less on their own military and defense spending. Instead those countries focused their tax revenues establishing Socialist and Liberal entitlement programs.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. remains the dominant power and continues to counterbalance emerging threats, while most other nations have yet to pick up their own slack.
However unlikely, perhaps it is time for those nations in the "European Union" to grow up, step up to the plate, and build their own unified force that can counterbalance.
The United States and its primary role in counterbalancing the Soviets during the Cold War enabled European countries to focus less on their own military and defense spending. Instead those countries focused their tax revenues establishing Socialist and Liberal entitlement programs.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. remains the dominant power and continues to counterbalance emerging threats, while most other nations have yet to pick up their own slack.
However unlikely, perhaps it is time for those nations in the "European Union" to grow up, step up to the plate, and build their own unified force that can counterbalance.
I think the US agenda is far more aggressive and malevolent than it appears. Sure, we play the good-guy card, disguising our resource conquests as liberation and peace keeping missions, but anyone with half a brain, knows it mostly bull****.
What's more, and as previously mentioned, this is a lose-lose for Obama, political suicide, if you will. It really brings out the conspiracy theory side of me thinking just where this influence is coming from.
Clearly, if Obama gave a damn about the Syrians, I'm sure he could have at least sent a couple "edible arrangements" to a family in Sudan.
Agian, I want to know who is pulling the strings, because it sure as hell doesn't appear to be Obama.
I think the US agenda is far more aggressive and malevolent than it appears. Sure, we play the good-guy card, disguising our resource conquests as liberation and peace keeping missions, but anyone with half a brain, knows it mostly bull****.
As with the previous poster, to have some utopian view that the U.S. operates purely out of benevolence is quite naive.
The U.S. operates for the most part in its best interests, as it should. And that includes continuing to counterbalance emerging threats
Syria is no threat to the US. We don't even have to worry about getting oil from the region if we use the oil and gas under our own soil. The Syrian civil war should be left to the Syrians to figure out. 110,000 people have been killed so far. It is awful, but still not our business. Because 500 people were killed by gas doesn't make it our business either. To quote the words of a brilliant former Sec of State, " WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!?"
As with the previous poster, to have some utopian view that the U.S. operates purely out of benevolence is quite naive.
The U.S. operates for the most part in its best interests, as it should. And that includes continuing to counterbalance emerging threats
We invaded Iraq on a premise of half-truths, fabrications, scape-goat intelligence gathering and outright lies. It was a level of aggressive propaganda not seen since Nazi Germany, and resulted in the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqi civilians, and over 5 thousand US service members and contractors. If that isn't the pinnacle of sinister malevolence, I don't know what is.
The lead-up and case-building for the war preyed upon the post 9/11 nationalism and the vulnerability of a frightened and paranoid public, who the Bush administration new damn well would eat up the "axis of evil, WMD, evil-doers" sh*t.
Naive, you got that right. But point the finger at yourself. This war-mongering, corporate-interest, military complex governing by our presidents and congress is bullsh*t, and it's time every American excercised their brains inside their heads, turn the TV's off, get involved, and put an end to this sh*t.
We invaded Iraq on a premise of half-truths, fabrications, scape-goat intelligence gathering and outright lies. It was a level of aggressive propaganda not seen since Nazi Germany, and resulted in the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqi civilians, and over 5 thousand US service members and contractors. If that isn't the pinnacle of sinister malevolence, I don't know what is.
The lead-up and case-building for the war preyed upon the post 9/11 nationalism and the vulnerability of a frightened and paranoid public, who the Bush administration new damn well would eat up the "axis of evil, WMD, evil-doers" sh*t.
Naive, you got that right. But point the finger at yourself. This war-mongering, corporate-interest, military complex governing by our presidents and congress is bullsh*t, and it's time every American excercised their brains inside their heads, turn the TV's off, get involved, and put an end to this sh*t.
/end rant. I think I blacked out
Yawn. Do you really want to go there?
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, Clinton Administration, February 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 1998
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." - President Bill Clinton, December 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 1998
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001
"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors" - Robert Einhorn, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation, Clinton Administration, March 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we." - United States General Wesley Clark, September 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." - Howard Dean, Democratic Governor of Vermont, September 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years." - Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, October 2002
"He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country." - Howard Dean, Democratic Governor of Vermont, February 2003
"There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." - President Jacques Chirac, President of France, February 2003
"It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there." - Former President Bill Clinton, July 2003
"When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime." - Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, Prime Minister of Portugal, October 2003
Nations party to the United Nation have all signed off on an Agreement stating that the use of chemical weapons....especially on one's own citizens.....is illegal. In the absence of a UN mandate, the United States has the moral obligation to step in where warranted. The Agreement we entered into is all the permission we need to intervene. The lack of UN support by rogue allies such as China and Russia is wholly irrelevant. As for the Arabs, they haven't intervened in a regional war with international ramifications in decades. We shouldn't expect that that will change anytime soon.
I think we've lost the moral high ground years ago with all we've done, kind of interesting we're supposed to buy that thinking now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
