War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[The T]

The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.

The Constitution doesn't give authorization to use the military for "US interests," it gives authorization to use it to defend the US. And the Founders chose the right standard.

I did support blowing the crap out of the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda who actually attacked us. I lived in NY many years and worked for a period across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center. That was an attack on the US.

However, actually invading Afghanistan and "nation building" I don't support.

Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.

Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!

Yes because the places WE inhabit are to mutual benefit...But I think it is time for those Countries to foot their OWN BILL for a change. WE...are broke.

 

[deltex1]

DOW futures are up 65 points on the dithering...let the ditherer dither.

 

[kaz]

Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.

Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!

So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.

I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?

We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.

 

[deltex1]

Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.

Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!

So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.

I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?

We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.

We are in people's shit because they can't defend their own shit and we need them to buy our shit so we defend their shit against the enemies shit. It's a shit world...and we need our share of shit.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.

I hear ya, but try to approach it from another angle. If another Nation began bombing the U.S., would you consider that a 'limited missile strike' or an act of War?

You would think act of war because the purpose was never stated nor an end date given for the bombing.

With what Obama is proposing, he is saying a limited missile strike that would not last more than one to two days. He has let Syria know this in advance and stated when it would stop, and why it was being done to begin with.

When you just say WAR in a poll, that brings up different visions in peoples minds. Many people think it means sending 200,000 American troops to invade occupy and pacify all of Syria. Others understand to be one day missile strike.

Do you think there is anything different from sending 200,000 US troops to invade occupy and pacify Syria for years, VS a limited one day launching of missiles to take out a few buildings weapon systems?

You don't declare a mini-war without the full consideration of what may come next. Do you really think they are just going to sit there and not retaliate because obumble just wants to shoot a few missiles, proclaim victory and pat himself on the back like a child looking for his mommie's approval?

A war is a war whether it lasts 24 hours or 24 years and you're completely ignoring the side effect this action may have concerning Iran, Russia and China.

 

[Hoffstra]

attacking Syria may lead to a much wider war.

that's why we better have the full support of the American people, through our representatives, behind this action.

 

[kaz]

Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.

Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!

So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.

I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?

We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.

We are in people's shit because they can't defend their own shit and we need them to buy our shit so we defend their shit against the enemies shit. It's a shit world...and we need our share of shit.

We don't need the military for that, you're full of shit.

 

[deltex1]

So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.

I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?

We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.

We are in people's shit because they can't defend their own shit and we need them to buy our shit so we defend their shit against the enemies shit. It's a shit world...and we need our share of shit.

We don't need the military for that, you're full of shit.

So who will do it...you libtard pansies?

 

[kaz]

We are in people's shit because they can't defend their own shit and we need them to buy our shit so we defend their shit against the enemies shit. It's a shit world...and we need our share of shit.

We don't need the military for that, you're full of shit.

So who will do it...you libtard pansies?

Who will do it is not my problem. My problem is that we're doing it.

 

[deltex1]

We don't need the military for that, you're full of shit.

So who will do it...you libtard pansies?

Who will do it is not my problem. My problem is that we're doing it.

If we don't do it, it will become your problem eventually...only bigger.

 

[The T]

attacking Syria may lead to a much wider war.

that's why we better have the full support of the American people, through our representatives, behind this action.

And why OBAMA/Kerry are FORCED to listen...like it or not. They press on with their intentions (as they are still out there stating)?

The Reprecussions from the people will be DIRE for their ouster.

 

[deltex1]

Carrier group arriving on scene for the "mission accomplished" photo OP...does Obabble have to do everything W did?

 

[Hoffstra]

considering this could turn into a big regional war, why the hell should we get involved?

 

[U2Edge]

Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.

Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!

So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.

I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?

We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.

Well, we tried that once before and it gave us World War I and then World War II. In order to prevent World War III and the severe cost imposed on the United States by not deterring and preventing conflicts overseas, the United States deployed its forces around the globe and cooperated with its allies to try and bring stability and peace. Abandoning that will not make things better, but in fact bring about the dark days of World War and global economic depression.

We live in a global economy today and the price you pay at the pump for gas, and for that matter food or anything you buy at the store is dependent on the flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf. United States companies have operations all over the world and companies and individuals have investments all over the world. Billions of dollars worth of goods are traded between countries in Europe, North America, Japan, China and other places.

You may physically be in the United States, but your life is heavily impacted by things happening thousands of miles away whether you know it or not.

In 1812, it was much easier to simply live isolated in North America. Most people back then were farmers simply living off what they could produce on the land they owned or rented. No electricity, no plumbing, no hospitals, just you and what your family taught you in terms of feeding yourself. No cars, trains, airplanes or automobiles. It took 10 weeks to get across the Atlantic on a ship powered by the wind. The average life expectancy was only 30 due to high infant and child mortality rate. Very different times. People had to depend on themselves because they were indeed isolated.

In 2013, the world is growing rapidly smaller. International Relations in all its forms is having an ever increasing impact on everyone's life.

Unless you decide to pick up and leave society and become some type of survivalist living underground, in a cave, in a remote wooded area and living off the land, you can't run and hide from this.

 

[The T]

considering this could turn into a big regional war, why the hell should we get involved?

And we shouldn't is the point. Obama at whatever direction he is going (and IT isn't HIM...HE isn't bright enough to orchestrate this...He's a puppet)...is changing the Mideast to favour MUSLIMS.

Time he and his handlers were called OUT. WE the PEOPLE will NOT be party to it. Not at our blood or treasure.

They Come here and start their crap? Different story. Squashed like the bugs upon the flesh of Humanity they are.

 

[The T]

Carrier group arriving on scene for the "mission accomplished" photo OP...does Obabble have to do everything W did?

And will he don a flightsuit and LAND upon that carrier? I hope he PUKES in his helmet if he attempts it...but then HE hasn't the balls. W served in the military as a fighter jock...Obama? Just an ordinary 'community organizer'...shit disturber...

 

[Freewill]

Carrier group arriving on scene for the "mission accomplished" photo OP...does Obabble have to do everything W did?

And will he don a flightsuit and LAND upon that carrier? I hope he PUKES in his helmet if he attempts it...but then HE hasn't the balls. W served in the military as a fighter jock...Obama? Just an ordinary 'community organizer'...shit disturber...

I am not sure if he was a distributor, I think he was just a packer.

 

[The T]

Carrier group arriving on scene for the "mission accomplished" photo OP...does Obabble have to do everything W did?

And will he don a flightsuit and LAND upon that carrier? I hope he PUKES in his helmet if he attempts it...but then HE hasn't the balls. W served in the military as a fighter jock...Obama? Just an ordinary 'community organizer'...shit disturber...

I am not sure if he was a distributor, I think he was just a packer.

Whatever he was? WE the People are suffering because he loathes everything WE are about..."Dreams From My father" indeed...THEY are being imposed...and rejected.

 

[The T]

The Fruit never falls FAR...from the tree it was bourne.

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama is anti-American and our fellow Americans put him in office

America will cease to exist in the context that brave men fought and died for

Thanks you 51% communist

-Geaux