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.
I never thought I'd dislike a president as much as Bush, but Obama's policies (foreign and domestic) are DESTRUCTIVE.
Somone give me one reason why we should get involved in SYRIA???
Because Obama gave his big red line speech and will look like a fool if he does nothing to back it up. So we're going to spend millions of dollars certainly and possibly take many lives so that Obama's image doesn't get tarnished.
What policies are you talking about exactly and what are you whining about? I mean, I haven't checked CNN in a few hours, but I'm pretty sure that we didn't invade Syria.
Most first world countries will do something if the Syrian government did use chemical weapons and that's not a bad thing. Nobody wants to open that door.
Incidentally, the current administration has gone out of its way to stay out of additional conflicts. I really don't get what all of you are whining about.
The stupid thing here is that people assume that the only response is boots on the ground. They'll probably bomb a few targets that are high value to the government. They do it again and they'll lose more. It's not rocket science. Basically people are whining because they don't know any better and whine about anything POTUS does regardless of whether its a good move or not.
The worlds gone topsy turvy. Liberals support the government in everything it does and conservatives are anti establishment. 60s Hippies must be totally batty not knowing whats going on.
Yes, at this point you really have to look at what the governments doing and wonder if its in the country's own self interests or not. They seem to be self destructive in many of their goals. Before, right or wrong, they put the country's self interests first. Now, its all done for the New World Order and the benefit of shadowy power brokers.
We're all just pawns to them. Well, a pawn can still take down a Queen or King in chess.
The stupid thing here is that people assume that the only response is boots on the ground. They'll probably bomb a few targets that are high value to the government. They do it again and they'll lose more. It's not rocket science. Basically people are whining because they don't know any better and whine about anything POTUS does regardless of whether its a good move or not.
I can't speak for everyone but I'm well aware we're not talking boots on the ground. I'm against any lethal response.
I expect the US & NATO ally response will be limited to bombing military targets (bases, aircraft, supply depots...) - to degrade Assad's offensive capabilities and tip the balance in favor of the insurgents. I'll be a couple of days of bombing runs and be more limited than the blatant Libyan regime change objective or an Iraq type invasion.
I never thought I'd dislike a president as much as Bush, but Obama's policies (foreign and domestic) are DESTRUCTIVE.
Somone give me one reason why we should get involved in SYRIA???
We need this war to topple an ally of Russia, one ally down in the Middle East, one more to go, Iran. Remember, Iran also has some imaginative line that can be crossed at literally any time and they aren't even committing any crime. Once our Middle East conquest is done, we'll continue to turn our eyes to the Pacific and no one knows what would happen from there.
If I were the leaders of China or Russia, I would say go to the UN and make threats to dump US debt or even aide Iran with its nuclear program if things don't calm down. The thing about Syria is people like myself feel as if its out of our spheres of influence, if Russia wants the civil war to stop then they could do it, not us. The sad part about it is that this seems too damn orchestrated, Obama doesn't want to hold talks with Russia anymore because he feels as if there isn't enough common ground and bam, we cancel a meeting specifically about Syria with Russia because we are itching to go to war on a 'peace conquest'. Give me a break, provide us with the evidence that Assad did this, the rebels have much, much more to gain out of this then Assad. Why would Assad use chemical weapons when he knows NATO would intervene? The rebels know only two things could happen with these attacks, one the US arms them, or two their number one foe is toppled.
It's really not that complicated, we want war, we could careless about the lives of Syrians. But I believe people like myself would probably want some sort of short-term intervention if Assad was indeed killing his own people, but I'm just terrified that a war would last longer than needed and could lead to our forces combatting Russians or even creating more terrorists networks. Maybe I take that back, even if Assad were proved to be killing his citizens, it would take a lot more than that to make me believe intervention is needed unless the US and Russia teamed up to combat it together.
Also, I believe any military intervention wouldn't sit too well with Iran and probably could lead to the entire Middle East engulfed with war.
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.
