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.
Since you are so gung ho about war, perhaps you will be volunteering? USA! USA!
War? It seems like only RWNJ's are declaring war. I am for a limited engagement to do the maximum possible damage to the Assad regime, to indicate that chemical weapons are in-no-way acceptable.
War? It seems like only RWNJ's are declaring war. I am for a limited engagement to do the maximum possible damage to the Assad regime, to indicate that chemical weapons are in-no-way acceptable.
There's nothing "limited" when you lob 900+ missiles into a country.
They said Libya was limited as well and lobbed several hundred into the country.
Are you thinking 2 or 3 ?
From the article you reference:
Quote:
Secretary of State John Kerry opened the door Tuesday to sending American troops into Syria if Bashar Assad’s regime collapses and al-Qaida-linked extremist groups stand to get their hands on his chemical weapons.
I agree with him. In that case, we'd have to prevent al-Qaida groups from possessing the chemical weapons. Unless, of course, you'd like to see them released in the NY subway system.
There's nothing "limited" when you lob 900+ missiles into a country.
They said Libya was limited as well and lobbed several hundred into the country.
Are you thinking 2 or 3 ?
the way your posts have been rolling, you'll have the masses believing that we are going to storm the Syrian beaches like we did in WWII and that's not the case at all. If, the chemical weapons have a chance of falling into Al Nasra's hands we will move to secure them.
Yes, yes, I know AQ already has limited capability of CWs but they don't have delivery systems and they don't have military grade CW. We cannot allow syrian CW to fall into terrorists hands, period.
the way your posts have been rolling, you'll have the masses believing that we are going to storm the Syrian beaches like we did in WWII and that's not the case at all. If, the chemical weapons have a chance of falling into Al Nasra's hands we will move to secure them.
Yes, yes, I know AQ already has limited capability of CWs but they don't have delivery systems and they don't have military grade CW. We cannot allow syrian CW to fall into terrorists hands, period.
Suppose Syria manages to destroy the American fleet. Then what? Did we make the right decision?
It's easy to say you want to wage war when you believe your adversary to be impotent.
Same standard should have been applied. Chemical weapons are unacceptable. Period.
Interestingly, during the period you are discussing, St. Ronald Reagan was president. Perhaps you should ask some of the more conservative folks around here why their party didn't react.
Yeah; you're right, things done in your name by your government have no reflection on you as an individual.
I get carried away sometimes.
An apology is in order and consider it tendered.
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.
