Get involved in Syria: Yes or No? And why/not?

post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
[Post New]08/27/2013 18:00
quote
Anonymous
No. Keep them busy so they don't bother any other countries in the region.
[Post New]08/27/2013 18:28
quote
Anonymous
I would like there to be a World army that would step in every single time there was a crime against humanity.
[Post New]08/27/2013 19:57
quote
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:I don't know if this is the best thread to bring this up in, but in the UK the Parliament will vote to approve military action against Syria. In the US, Congress will have no such vote. Apparently, our Congress is quite satisfied to relinquish it's constitutionally-provided power to declare war.


Some members of Congress are asking for Obama to include them. A couple members already have given their approval.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323906804579034723096767510.html

But yeah, too loose for my comfort.
[Post New]08/27/2013 20:05
quote
Anonymous
I think it is because he made the big deal about the Red Line. I am ambivalent. Like one pundit said today, it's alright for him to kill the innocent--just not with chemical weapons. Crazy world.
[Post New]08/27/2013 20:08
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I think it is because he made the big deal about the Red Line. I am ambivalent. Like one pundit said today, it's alright for him to kill the innocent--just not with chemical weapons. Crazy world.


His balls are certainly in a sling now...
[Post New]08/27/2013 20:24
quote
Anonymous
No. Weve seen this movie before am not interested in another protracted middle east war with ppl who will always despise the US and all we stand for
[Post New]08/27/2013 20:57
quote
Anonymous
NO NO NO! It is astonishing that within such a short timespan in history we repeat so many of the same mistakes.

I think this is one thing we can ALL agree upon across all political lines. The mere suggestion of bombing Syria is preposterous, but I think we are going to do it anyways!
[Post New]08/27/2013 21:06
quote
Anonymous
NO NO NO! It is astonishing that within such a short timespan in history we repeat so many of the same mistakes.

I think this is one thing we can ALL agree upon across all political lines. The mere suggestion of bombing Syria is preposterous, but I think we are going to do it anyways!


+1
[Post New]08/27/2013 21:50
quote
Anonymous
Can you please tell me that at least SOME of you saw this coming - from waaay back before Egypt exploded?
[Post New]08/27/2013 22:08
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Can you please tell me that at least SOME of you saw this coming - from waaay back before Egypt exploded?


Not sure how this relates to Egypt. Are you saying that Syrians should have stuck with their dictator, so he wouldn't have to gas them?
[Post New]08/27/2013 22:13
quote
Anonymous
War is Hell for the poor and innocent. So, on a human level, yes. But you know we won't. Because we don't have a real stake in the matter. We've had our ass kicked getting involved in foreign conflicts before. Plus our economy is in shambles. If this were affecting our oil supply or something like that we would.
[Post New]08/27/2013 22:25
quote
Anonymous
Yes, but no to troops on the ground. Destroying some Syrian government aircraft and flying capability seems like a reasonable initial approach, from my understandings.

As for the US being the world's policeman/policewoman, I understand that argument, but at the same time we're human beings first, then Americans second (at best).
[Post New]08/27/2013 22:34
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Can you please tell me that at least SOME of you saw this coming - from waaay back before Egypt exploded?


Not sure how this relates to Egypt. Are you saying that Syrians should have stuck with their dictator, so he wouldn't have to gas them?


I'm saying this was a mess from the start and it was easily predicted - by the logical.
[Post New]08/27/2013 22:35
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Yes, but no to troops on the ground. Destroying some Syrian government aircraft and flying capability seems like a reasonable initial approach, from my understandings.

As for the US being the world's policeman/policewoman, I understand that argument, but at the same time we're human beings first, then Americans second (at best).


And the Syrians threatened Israel. And BiBi is NOT happy. And who can blame him?
[Post New]08/28/2013 08:03
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yes, but no to troops on the ground. Destroying some Syrian government aircraft and flying capability seems like a reasonable initial approach, from my understandings.

As for the US being the world's policeman/policewoman, I understand that argument, but at the same time we're human beings first, then Americans second (at best).


And the Syrians threatened Israel. And BiBi is NOT happy. And who can blame him?


Now being Israel's policeman, that's more what I have an issue with.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics