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?
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).
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?
Anonymous wrote:Can you please tell me that at least SOME of you saw this coming - from waaay back before Egypt exploded?
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!
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.
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.