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.
To suggest someone is confused is not an argument, good or bad. Pointing at confusion is perhaps an introduction toward an argument, which hopefully is not a bad argument.
But who wants to argue about argument? Right? When the issue is to bomb or not to bomb...
Put myself in Obama's shoes, or Trump's shoes, and I'm not sure I too wouldn't want to retaliate against the likes of Assad gassing people in Syria, along with acting in response to other most egregious acts against humanity that should be addressed all over the world, but when/if these acts can't get Congressional approval, sure seems to me that "we the people" are not in support of retaliating. If/when that is the case, should Congress be ignored or worked around?
There's the key question for me and a lot of other Americans right now, and a question that needs answering, because at this rate there is no telling what we will do with North Korea or Iran or Syria going forward. Not exactly what I want determined by Trump's whim on any given day...
One minute I thought we were discussing the right or wrong of dropping that mega bomb and your point that the decision was made by a military commander. Next thing I know..., well, moving right along got sidelined a bit, delayed is all.
Put myself in Obama's shoes, or Trump's shoes, and I'm not sure I too wouldn't want to retaliate against the likes of Assad gassing people in Syria, along with acting in response to other most egregious acts against humanity that should be addressed all over the world, but when/if these acts can't get Congressional approval, sure seems to me that "we the people" are not in support of retaliating. If/when that is the case, should Congress be ignored or worked around?
There's the key question for me and a lot of other Americans right now, and a question that needs answering, because at this rate there is no telling what we will do with North Korea or Iran or Syria going forward. Not exactly what I want determined by Trump's whim on any given day...
Trump nor Obama nor Bush is/was trustworthy enough to lead us into war.
It is how guerrilla warfare works. The guerrilla force in this case is the US-backed jihadist rebels. They attack the government forces and hide among the civilian population despite being mostly comprised of foreign fighters. In order to fight the rebels, the government's attacks will hit civilian areas. The rebels will then use the incidents to make appeals through the media to get their foreign government backers to constrain the Syrian military or to provide military support.
Many of the groups that are employed to make these appeals through the media are themselves financed and organized by the same governments that finance and support the rebels.
"Let's broaden the scope of this a little. In your opinion, is there any action or any event that might occur outside of US borders that would justify a US military response?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Sure. If another countries military assassinated the president for example.
Ok, that's a good example. So now let's narrow it down a little, if that's OK.
Let's say a country like Russia installed some nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba. Would that justify a US military response?
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.