War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[U2Edge]

flawed logic. Its none of our damn business. Let them kill each other until someone wins. Why are we the world's referee?

No one doubts the capability of the US military, we don't have to lob missiles into Syria to prove our strength.

Its not the capability they doubt, its the willingness to use that capability which is in doubt by some around the world, due to US war weariness.

91% of americans do not want us involved in Syria. Isn't congress supposed to do the will of the people? or are they so pious and powerful that they can ignore the people who sent them to DC for lifetime jobs?

A Gallup poll at in May 2013 showed that 35% of Republicans would like to see direct US involvement in the Civil War there. Gallup has not put up a poll about Syria since the missile strike, but I think even more Republicans would support a missile strike.

Obama automatically gets over 50% of support from his party. With 35% of Republicans in the last gallup poll supporting intervention, I would say Obama has all the support he needs.

But really, the only thing that could stop Obama would be 2/3 veto proof majority in both houses of congress cutting off the funding for military operations.

There is no change of that happening.

 

[RandallFlagg]

1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
.

Shalom

How are things in TelAviv?

How the **** do the military knows where the chemical stockpiles are?

.

Because of the facilities that are needed to produce them and then store them can be identified by various intelligence methods. That does not mean they know where everything is though.

Buddy, as someone who worked in the Intelligence field for 22 years, that is the most opened ended statement I have ever heard. Talk about "double-speak"!

Why do I get the distinct feeling that you are a worthless politician?

 

[Redfish]

Who's advocating war? My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.

If any country shot 200 missiles into US territory would we consider it an act of war? Would we believe that that country had declared war on us? would we retaliate?

are we the neighborhood bully that beats up others because he can? or are we the beat cop who uses his nightstick on drunks that are making too much noise?

 

[RandallFlagg]

[

4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL

Lethal Weapon

FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial


After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.

Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?

.

This was one of the saddest moments in American history. As it happens, I was at Fort Hood when this all happened. Very sad, indeed.

 

[Redfish]

Its not the capability they doubt, its the willingness to use that capability which is in doubt by some around the world, due to US war weariness.

91% of americans do not want us involved in Syria. Isn't congress supposed to do the will of the people? or are they so pious and powerful that they can ignore the people who sent them to DC for lifetime jobs?

A Gallup poll at in May 2013 showed that 35% of Republicans would like to see direct US involvement in the Civil War there. Gallup has not put up a poll about Syria since the missile strike, but I think even more Republicans would support a missile strike.

Obama automatically gets over 50% of support from his party. With 35% of Republicans in the last gallup poll supporting intervention, I would say Obama has all the support he needs.

But really, the only thing that could stop Obama would be 2/3 veto proof majority in both houses of congress cutting off the funding for military operations.

There is no change of that happening.

wise up, he is going to do it anyway, getting congress involved was just to give him someone to blame if it escalates or causes more deaths.

Obama has effectively made congress his scapegoat, and the silly fuckers don't even know it.

 

[U2Edge]

If all that is true, if the entire world wants to punish the use of chemical weapons, then where is the rest of the world on this attack? Where are our allies? Where is China, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, Australia, Vanuatu?

Why does this fall only on the US to mete out punishment?

BTW, why is killing a person with gas worse than killing him with bullets or bombs? He is just as dead either way. I would really appreciate an answer

China and Russia are not U.S. allies.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France and the United Arab Emerites have offered to help. But this initial strike is being done by Cruise Missiles. Most United States allies don't have Cruise Missiles. The United Kingdom and France have some.

Its in the United States own personal interest to do this whether or not other countries come along. The United States has one of the largest military's in the world which naturally gives it a much better capacity to carry out high tech, or difficult military strikes.

The issue is now how a single individual dies, but that chemicals used effectively can kill 10 or 100 times as many people as a conventional artillery shell. That is why it is called a weapon of mass destruction. Their use is great threat to the rest of the world and erodes the US's greater capability in conventional military strength.

I did not say that China and Russia were our allies. I was responding to your claim that the entire world wants the use of chemical weapons punished.

blowing up some runways and buildings will not deter Assad. He is fighting for his life. Unless we target him personally like Reagan did to Kadaffi, we will accomplish nothing but to piss off the rest of the world and put Israel in grave danger.

Assads position is not that dire at this time, but it could quickly become that way if he decides to challenge the United States. Assad was worried about blow back from the United States which is why he tried chemical attacks on a very tiny scale to see what the response would be. He has miscalculated with the August 21st attack and once the US response he will go back to just fighting with conventional weapons.

 

[Mustang]

Who's advocating war? My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.

Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...

It's all the same, from a legal perspective...

Those are all Acts of War...

You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law? That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.

 

[Redfish]

Who's advocating war? My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.

Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...

It's all the same, from a legal perspective...

Those are all Acts of War...

You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law? That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.

was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor an act of war? How does that differ from us lobbing 200 cruise missiles on Syria?

 

[Redfish]

China and Russia are not U.S. allies.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France and the United Arab Emerites have offered to help. But this initial strike is being done by Cruise Missiles. Most United States allies don't have Cruise Missiles. The United Kingdom and France have some.

Its in the United States own personal interest to do this whether or not other countries come along. The United States has one of the largest military's in the world which naturally gives it a much better capacity to carry out high tech, or difficult military strikes.

The issue is now how a single individual dies, but that chemicals used effectively can kill 10 or 100 times as many people as a conventional artillery shell. That is why it is called a weapon of mass destruction. Their use is great threat to the rest of the world and erodes the US's greater capability in conventional military strength.

I did not say that China and Russia were our allies. I was responding to your claim that the entire world wants the use of chemical weapons punished.

blowing up some runways and buildings will not deter Assad. He is fighting for his life. Unless we target him personally like Reagan did to Kadaffi, we will accomplish nothing but to piss off the rest of the world and put Israel in grave danger.

Assads position is not that dire at this time, but it could quickly become that way if he decides to challenge the United States. Assad was worried about blow back from the United States which is why he tried chemical attacks on a very tiny scale to see what the response would be. He has miscalculated with the August 21st attack and once the US response he will go back to just fighting with conventional weapons.[

I disagree, but thats why we have debates.

 

[candycorn]

Who's advocating war? My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.

Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...

It's all the same, from a legal perspective...

Those are all Acts of War...

You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law? That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.

We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now. However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.

That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria. Simply not worth it. The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.

But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Who's advocating war? My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.

If any country shot 200 missiles into US territory would we consider it an act of war? Would we believe that that country had declared war on us? would we retaliate?

are we the neighborhood bully that beats up others because he can? or are we the beat cop who uses his nightstick on drunks that are making too much noise?

The United States lives by the ideology that we are somehow the "arbiters" of the world. We know, for instance, that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons (and nerve agents) on both his people and the Iranians during the Iraq/Iranian war. There was/is no dispute to that.

Those acts didn't propel us into war. Nothing more than a "strong condemnation" from the US and the world.

China uses political prisoners for target practice. Known fact. The US response? Silence.

MILLIONS have been killed in Africa by waring factions over the last 30-40 years. The US response? Nothing.

Syria used Chemical weapons on it's own people WELL OVER A YEAR AGO. The response, after putting forth that famous "red line" that Obama now says "I didn't set" - nothing. Absolutely nothing. Now, a year later, after the SECOND act, Obama looks like a complete and utter FOOL and (in his own mind) MUST act - or risk his miserable legacy.

Now, we are attempting to overthrow Assad to install a radical, Islamic extremists regime that wants nothing more than the "death of the West" and we are working towards putting them in power - which will be the ultimate outcome. One more country who hates America and actively seeks to destroy us. Put into power by us!

Finally, the country (notice I didn't say POLITICIANS - they are lemmings) is united AGAINST this action because quite frankly, we want someone else to shoulder SOME of the responsibility for a change - and it's the worthless LEFT that is defending Barry.

Now tell me that the world isn't upside down......

 

[Mustang]

Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...

It's all the same, from a legal perspective...

Those are all Acts of War...

You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law? That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.

We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now. However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.

That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria. Simply not worth it. The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.

But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.

Yeah, the conservative reluctance to embrace the latest chapter in shock and awe is perplexing. Think they've been reading any Chris Hedges books where perpetual war is the topic? Probably not.

At any rate, I'm not advocating an attack. Personally, despite evidence of a chemical attack, I haven't seen or heard any evidence which pins the tail of responsibility on the Assad donkey. Additionally, why are the last 1,400 deaths so outrageous compared to the first 100,000 deaths? Or am I supposed to believe death by light and heavy armaments is kinda okay, but chemical attacks are verboten, like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?

 

[Redfish]

Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...

It's all the same, from a legal perspective...

Those are all Acts of War...

You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law? That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.

We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now. However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.

That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria. Simply not worth it. The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.

But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.

your conclusion is correct, but you are wrong that the right has supported every stupid war that we have engaged in. Many on the right opposed Iraq and afghanistan, as well as korea and viet nam.

 

[Redfish]

You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law? That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.

We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now. However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.

That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria. Simply not worth it. The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.

But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.

Yeah, the conservative reluctance to embrace the latest chapter in shock and awe is perplexing. Think they've been reading any Chris Hedges books where perpetual war is the topic? Probably not.

At any rate, I'm not advocating an attack. Personally, despite evidence of a chemical attack, I haven't seen or heard any evidence which pins the tail of responsibility on the Assad donkey. Additionally, why are the last 1,400 deaths so outrageous compared to the first 100,000 deaths? Or am I supposed to believe death by light and heavy armaments is kinda okay, but chemical attacks are verboten, like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?

I think we agree, but what amazes me is the support for this lunatic attack from the left. are they so up obama's butt that they can't think clearly?

 

[Contumacious]

1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
.

Shalom

How are things in TelAviv?

How the **** do the military knows where the chemical stockpiles are?

.

Because of the facilities that are needed to produce them and then store them can be identified by various intelligence methods. That does not mean they know where everything is though.

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally?

LINK

.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is there a plan to secure the chemical weapons?

No.

Assad will remain in control or they will fall into the hands of the obama allies, al quaeda.

If it just wasn't all about obama's vanity. It would be over. obama has so poisoned our relationship with every other country that no one is willing to cooperate with us.

 

[Mustang]

We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now. However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.

That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria. Simply not worth it. The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.

But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.

Yeah, the conservative reluctance to embrace the latest chapter in shock and awe is perplexing. Think they've been reading any Chris Hedges books where perpetual war is the topic? Probably not.

At any rate, I'm not advocating an attack. Personally, despite evidence of a chemical attack, I haven't seen or heard any evidence which pins the tail of responsibility on the Assad donkey. Additionally, why are the last 1,400 deaths so outrageous compared to the first 100,000 deaths? Or am I supposed to believe death by light and heavy armaments is kinda okay, but chemical attacks are verboten, like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?

I think we agree, but what amazes me is the support for this lunatic attack from the left. are they so up obama's butt that they can't think clearly?

No doubt our arms industry supports the attack since cruise missiles cost somewhere in the range of a million dollars apiece. The whole smart bomb business depends on weapons being used to get repeat orders.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Just heard that the Saudi's have agreed to "finance" the operation in Syria. My, My, My...what does that make us?

I guess it's true, we ARE Saudi Arabia's "*****". Just keep collecting those petro dollars.....

I'll say it once again for the cheap seats: This thing STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!

 

[Mac1958]

Just heard that the Saudi's have agreed to "finance" the operation in Syria. My, My, My...what does that make us?

I guess it's true, we ARE Saudi Arabia's "*****". Just keep collecting those petro dollars.....

I'll say it once again for the cheap seats: This thing STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!

Arab League: Impotent
United Nations: Impotent
NATO: Impotent

Let America do it. The Arabs already ******* hate them anyway, what is there to lose?

.

 

[Contumacious]

[

4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL

Lethal Weapon

FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial


After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.

Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?

.

This was one of the saddest moments in American history. As it happens, I was at Fort Hood when this all happened. Very sad, indeed.

So the US has been using gas against their own people a foreign countries, using white phosphorus chemical which it has given to Israel.

So they can NOT claim the moral high ground.

.