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.
My reason is to stop the world threat to millions of people by weapons of mass destruction and atrocity. We should not let the use of these weapons escalate .If we do nothing their use will increase..If it does in order for us to protect ourselves here at home we will be forced to spend a great deal more on defense than we are now. This means our taxes could triple.or more....think about it .We cant have it both ways unless we just want to surrender to the arabs now and hope they let us live.
How could you watch the videos of Syrian children suffering and dying after a nerve gas attack by their own government and NOT support a military response? This is unacceptable and the penalty for the Assad Regime must be painful.
Take the politics out of it-- You can't let this atrocity go unanswered.
A measured, limited and very punishing response is warranted.
I must admit that I've never heard any hint of any boots on the ground. This is very new news to me.
I had heard that once the Free Syrian Army has secured the AO, the 101st airborne would come in and secure all the chemical weapons but the guy who told me this was stone drunk at the time.
Because Americans love war and violence in general (see our tv, movies and music currently)... Americans love seeing someone get owned and their lives wrecked (see our media) so they can look at their fat ugly bodies in the mirror and say "at lest I don't have it as bad as THEY do!"
All together now.... USA....USA! (as our quality of life and standard of living continue to move backward...... but at least we dropped bombs and made a half dozen war contracters wealthier
Yeah, I was against Iraq...... and Grenada, Kosovo, Vietnam and Korea too....
Not that I am "for" this operation (see my post above) but just so we are all clear. THIS right here is why you started this tread. so someone would come along and say they were for it and you could get your "zinger" in and drop the "would you go die for this cause" line.
Del Boy, that right there was childish.
and your timing stinks. The guy you dropped that on, opposes this and most conflicts we have been in. He was just stating what he thought were reasons....not his...
ugh
Actually my intention was for somebody to say, "I support the war, so the US can fulfill its foreign policy, by pacifying Syria, so it does not have a platform to attack Israel. Then we can move on to the next stage, Iran."
You said the US cannot pick and choose when to be the world police, but I just proved that the US does pick and choose when it decides to be the world police; thereby, debunking your statement.
So, why if the US failed to get involved in the conflict in Rwanda, should the US get involved in the conflict with Syria?
If it was Russia and not Syria who gassed it's citizens, would you support going to war against Russia?[/quote]
I already stated we should stop being the "world police". However, this is something that needs to be done without a pending conflict. It would be a complete idealogy change for America. If we do it now, it won't work. It will look like we did it to avoid this conflict. Then when the new one comes in the future, our stance won't be strong.
Based off our track record in the last 20 years, I don't see any valid point against why we don't go. Its really that simple.
Wait a minute here; your track record? You're not serious, surely?
You watched one of your copter pilots bodies being dragged through the streets of Moghadishu and did NOTHING! Rwanda? NOTHING again. You GAVE Saddam the intellignce he needed to Sarin gas the Iranians because Reagan said an Iraqi defeat at the hands of the Iranians was unacceptable. Your CIA assets within Iraq KNEW he was going to use Sarin shells before handing over that sattelite inel and so did Reagan.
You were NOT acting in the capacity of the world police. You were merely adhering to your foreign policy that functions only on the premise of "what's in it for us".
To ascribe any loftier a motive to your military incursions is simply disengenuous in the extreme and you are either deluding yourself or completely disconnected from historical facts apparent to everyone else.
You go into Syria with anything at all, you're doing so for one reason only and that is to continue poking a stick at Iran. It would have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with the death of innocent civilians due to a chemical weapon. That is a convenient excuse and nothing more.
When it suited your purpose you overlooked Sarin gas being used against the Kurds by Saddam and also against Iran either of which resulted in untold thousands of deaths.
World policeman indeed; give your head a shake nobody buys into that crap.
Actually my intention was for somebody to say, "I support the war, so the US can fulfill its foreign policy, by pacifying Syria, so it does not have a platform to attack Israel. Then we can move on to the next stage, Iran."
Nobody said that though. So for those that appear like they don't really know why the support the war, I am asking if they would be willing to fully confide in their convictions.
well you havent found anyone in that position. and your zinger was misplayed and petty.
Wait a minute here; your track record? You're not serious, surely?
You watched one of your copter pilots bodies being dragged through the streets of Moghadishu and did NOTHING! Rwanda? NOTHING again. You GAVE Saddam the intellignce he needed to Sarin gas the Iranians because Reagan said an Iraqi defeat at the hands of the Iranians was unacceptable. Your CIA assets within Iraq KNEW he was going to use Sarin shells before handing over that sattelite inel and so did Reagan.
You were NOT acting in the capacity of the world police. You were merely adhering to your foreign policy that functions only on the premise of "what's in it for us".
To ascribe any loftier a motive to your military incursions is simply disengenuous in the extreme and you are either deluding yourself or completely disconnected from historical facts apparent to everyone else.
You go into Syria with anything at all, you're doing so for one reason only and that is to continue poking a stick at Iran. It would have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with the death of innocent civilians due to a chemical weapon. That is a convenient excuse and nothing more.
When it suited your purpose you overlooked Sarin gas being used against the Kurds by Saddam and also against Iran either of which resulted in untold thousands of deaths.
World policeman indeed; give your head a shake nobody buys into that crap.
do you mind me asking your national allegence? from this post, I am left to assume you are not American? (question only....no attack here)
How could you watch the videos of Syrian children suffering and dying after a nerve gas attack by their own government and NOT support a military response? This is unacceptable and the penalty for the Assad Regime must be painful.
Take the politics out of it-- You can't let this atrocity go unanswered.
A measured, limited and very punishing response is warranted.
That's just an emotional reason. There is pretty much no logical reason to get involved in a foreign conflict.
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.
