BREAKING: United States attacks Syria

Really? I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread, but that's not the impression I got from his posts. I didn't see the slightest indication that he was first, and foremost, worried about this primarily from the perspective of Israel.

I thought it was just an important news story. Violating another country's sovereignty is always tricky, especially in the volatile middle east. I'm sure this is all hush hush covert ops though, and the media won't be able to report much about it.

Israel can take care of itself. I'm more concerned with American lives and our complete withdrawl from Iraq. We're still in the midst of negotiating a timeline for us to leave Iraq... the way it looks, we may have to be out of iraq entirely by the end of 2008. Negotiations with the Shi'a have been extremely delicate and they will NOT like an invasion on Syrian soil. Syria has the right to respond militarily any way it wishes. If Mexico sent ground troops into Brownsville, believe me, it would matter. The fact the conservatives on this board aren't concerned about it is shocking.

Let me clear. The United States violated Syrian territory. US Ground forces stepped foot in Syria and killed Syrians. You can't just go into any country you wish with American lives and do whatever the hell you want.

Now, I will say that if these were high value operatives for Al Queda and this was a once in a lifetime chance to take them out, then that's another story. But if these were run of the mill "terrorists", you cannot just invade another country to kill them.
 
I pigeonholed you because of the person you were posting with. He's had years to prove where he stands on the "jewish question". I apologize if I've misunderstood where you come from on the issue.

And I love Thunder Road... best song ever ;)

59 Bruce shows and counting...

no problem. 59 Bruce shows......that has to get expensive. The beauty of music is it brings people of different creeds and viewpoints together.
 
Israel can take care of itself. I'm more concerned with American lives and our complete withdrawl from Iraq. We're still in the midst of negotiating a timeline for us to leave Iraq... the way it looks, we may have to be out of iraq entirely by the end of 2008. Negotiations with the Shi'a have been extremely delicate and they will NOT like an invasion on Syrian soil. Syria has the right to respond militarily any way it wishes. If Mexico sent ground troops into Brownsville, believe me, it would matter. The fact the conservatives on this board aren't concerned about it is shocking.

Let me clear. The United States violated Syrian territory. US Ground forces stepped foot in Syria and killed Syrians. You can't just go into any country you wish with American lives and do whatever the hell you want.

Now, I will say that if these were high value operatives for Al Queda and this was a once in a lifetime chance to take them out, then that's another story. But if these were run of the mill "terrorists", you cannot just invade another country to kill them.

Well, I pretty much agree with that. If these were high value al qaeda targets, and we had good actionable intelligence, that would be one thing.

If we went in there and killed (by accident) some innocent syrian civilians, that would be fucked up.
 
no problem. 59 Bruce shows......that has to get expensive. The beauty of music is it brings people of different creeds and viewpoints together.

some shows have been more expensive than others and the count did start in 1985 ;)

but that's the truth about music. Just one of the reasons every life should have a soundtrack.
 
If we weren't slaves to foreign oil, why would we need military bases in central asia, africa, and the persian gulf?

And can't Germany and the UK defend themselves without our bases in europe?

There is no if about it ---we are. Why screw around with theoretical BS?

btw---we are also dependent on having trading partners for about a zillion other goods and services.
 
If we weren't slaves to foreign oil, why would we need military bases in central asia, africa, and the persian gulf?

And can't Germany and the UK defend themselves without our bases in europe?

Are you willing to drill for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, the Rocky Mountains, the Great Lakes, and other places the democrats refuse to drill in?
 
Why do we need a huge bloated military to have trade?

We "need" access to oil in the middle east for our economy to continue. We "need" to make sure that other countries that don't like us can't threaten our access to Mideast oil.
 
Because there are those who would love to have it. Is it you claim that we could stand down out entire military and continue to function as we do ?

This doesn't even make sense. How does having a half a trillion dollar military ensure that we have trade? Are we forcing people to trade with us because of our military, through force of arms? You must be joking. People trade with us because of our economy, not because of the number of aircraft carriers we have.
 
This doesn't even make sense. How does having a half a trillion dollar military ensure that we have trade? Are we forcing people to trade with us because of our military, through force of arms? You must be joking. People trade with us because of our economy, not because of the number of aircraft carriers we have.

The military prevents other countries from interfering with trade.
 
How would China interfere with trade, if we had eight aircraft carriers instead of twelve?

China wants that oil just as much as America does. Where are the twelve aircraft carriers stationed right now?
 
China wants that oil just as much as America does. Where are the twelve aircraft carriers stationed right now?

We've already been over this. My entire point was predicated on us being energy independent. So, you and I agree - the only reason we have a massive military, and a global network of bases in because of oil. Not because of "trade".

We wean oursleves off of oil, and the neccessity of a massive global military network is diminished.
 

Forum List

Back
Top