War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Redfish]

FWIW, I don't think you were.
McCain and Mitt would have performed similarly to Obama in many ways, but at least progressives and liberals would have been united against their signature drone strikes and bankster bailouts. Possibly, Democrats and Republicans have outlived their usefulness to the political process in the US?

of course we will never know what McCain or Romney would do. But based on what they have said: McCain would have us in a full scale war with Iran by now with Russia siding with Iran and the US spending billions in a no-win situation.
Romney would have sat down with Putin and said "this is in your part of the world, you fix it".

That's nonsense. If you believe that, you clearly do not understand what is going on right now regarding Syria. This isn't a US call to make. This is about geopolitics of the region. We're involved because our allies requested it and have probably offered some rather nice deals for contracts should we comes through with regime change.

What you're seeing in western politics (our govt.) is a terrible poker hand on their part. They do not have the capability to execute a regime change with the same level of tact (if thats what you want to call it) as a former Bush and his army of neocon chickenhawks.

Romney would back McCain on a full scale war I would bet my last dollar on it.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. I do not believe that Romney would spend a billion dollars that we don't have on a sure-to-fail feel-good bombing. If the rest of the arabs want Assad removed let them do it.

What you are advocating is exactly what we tried in Egypt and Libya------and now the radical muslim brotherhood is in control of those countries.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

of course we will never know what McCain or Romney would do. But based on what they have said: McCain would have us in a full scale war with Iran by now with Russia siding with Iran and the US spending billions in a no-win situation.
Romney would have sat down with Putin and said "this is in your part of the world, you fix it".

That's nonsense. If you believe that, you clearly do not understand what is going on right now regarding Syria. This isn't a US call to make. This is about geopolitics of the region. We're involved because our allies requested it and have probably offered some rather nice deals for contracts should we comes through with regime change.

What you're seeing in western politics (our govt.) is a terrible poker hand on their part. They do not have the capability to execute a regime change with the same level of tact (if thats what you want to call it) as a former Bush and his army of neocon chickenhawks.

Romney would back McCain on a full scale war I would bet my last dollar on it.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. I do not believe that Romney would spend a billion dollars that we don't have on a sure-to-fail feel-good bombing. If the rest of the arabs want Assad removed let them do it.

What you are advocating is exactly what we tried in Egypt and Libya------and now the radical muslim brotherhood is in control of those countries.

We simply seem to have this plan for regime change for countries who do not take orders from us in the ME. And our plan for each is do as we say or we turn you into another Iraq. We could care less about the life of a single person in Syria, man or woman or child.

 

[paulitician]

That's nonsense. If you believe that, you clearly do not understand what is going on right now regarding Syria. This isn't a US call to make. This is about geopolitics of the region. We're involved because our allies requested it and have probably offered some rather nice deals for contracts should we comes through with regime change.

What you're seeing in western politics (our govt.) is a terrible poker hand on their part. They do not have the capability to execute a regime change with the same level of tact (if thats what you want to call it) as a former Bush and his army of neocon chickenhawks.

Romney would back McCain on a full scale war I would bet my last dollar on it.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. I do not believe that Romney would spend a billion dollars that we don't have on a sure-to-fail feel-good bombing. If the rest of the arabs want Assad removed let them do it.

What you are advocating is exactly what we tried in Egypt and Libya------and now the radical muslim brotherhood is in control of those countries.

We simply seem to have this plan for regime change for countries who do not take orders from us in the ME. And our plan for each is do as we say or we turn you into another Iraq. We could care less about the life of a single person in Syria, man or woman or child.

You are Spot-On.

 

[Kondor3]

So, with a survey score of 167 to 6 (as I write this) in favor of Peace, instead of Obama's strike-plan...

And with folks on the Left, the Right, and the Center, all incensed, over the possibility of the Obama Administration proceeding, against the clear Will of the American People...

Is it safe to say that the luster and sheen has finally worn off the Messiah facade, insofar as some of our resident ObamaBots are concerned?

 

[Katzndogz]

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!!!

Did you hear that from John Kerry? Doesn't that require a belief that John Kerry isn't lying?

 

[Redfish]

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!!!

Did you hear that from John Kerry? Doesn't that require a belief that John Kerry isn't lying?

its probably true, any war in the mid east will drive up the price of oil. The Saudis know this and they need a new fleet of mercedes for the royal family.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[paulitician]

Yeah, so many Americans have a warped mentality on the whole War issue. I'm pretty sure if a nation decided to start bombing the U.S., Americans would consider it an act of War.

 

[Kondor3]

Agreed. The number of clowns who hide behind a nit-picking, word-smithing uber-Literalism is staggering. Just staggering.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why do the partisans insist on making this a partisan issue? Why can't people wake up and finally see that there is no difference in parties? This poll clearly shows that our interests are really one, and not the same as the global elites. We have more in common with the average citizen of Syria than the interests of the ruling elites of the globe, be they the media elites that try to get us to believe that war is a good idea, the financial elites that fund the media, because war is good for their bottom line, or the political elites that make the whole thing happen because they are paid very well for their service and to do what they are told.

If Romney had been elected President, the elites at the CFR, and the foreign policy wonks that control international finance and international business would be directing him to do the same thing. He would probably be going directly after Iran though, instead of this circuitous indirect route via it's ally Syria. There really is no difference to the preemptive imperialistic war making doctrine. I told everyone back during the primaries when they still had a chance to AVOID war by voting for Paul in the primaries. If you voted for Obama, you were going to get war in Syria. If you voted for Romney, you WERE going to get war in Iran. It was a fact. They both work for the same people. The both work for the international bankers and military-industrial complex. There is nothing partisan about this. If there was, the US would not always find itself in a war. THE PEOPLE WOULD STOP IT. For Christ sakes. look at this unscientific poll, and yet, we will still have our nation destroyed over this.

The majority didn't want the affordable care act either, it was never about health care, it was about insurance companies and the government getting a bigger slice of the pie. So it is true about this war. We all know it isn't about chemical weapons or "innocent civilians." It is a distraction from all the other important issues on the hill, a distraction from the economy. It is also a golden opportunity for an elite few to make a buck, same as always. But it will ruin the rest of us.

 

[U2Edge]

Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.

Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.

There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.

There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.

You left out schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where they have moved the rocket launchers that deliver poison gas. Or wasn't crippling their ability to use poison gas the stated purpose of this "shot across the bow."

The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike.

The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.

 

[U2Edge]

Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.

Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.

There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.

There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.

and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians. For what? So obozo can save face?

Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.

 

[paulitician]

There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.

There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.

and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians. For what? So obozo can save face?

Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.

I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.

 

[paulitician]

There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.

There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.

You left out schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where they have moved the rocket launchers that deliver poison gas. Or wasn't crippling their ability to use poison gas the stated purpose of this "shot across the bow."

The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike.

The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.

We will escalate the War and it will cause more innocent civilian deaths. And we shouldn't be 'punishing' anyone. Assad and Syria have done nothing to our Nation. What if a nation decides it's time to 'punish' the U.S., and begins bombing? What would your reaction be?

 

[Redfish]

There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.

There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.

and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians. For what? So obozo can save face?

Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.

our missiles will kill civilians, count on it. probably thousands of them. probably more than assad killed with CW.

this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.

 

[paulitician]

and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians. For what? So obozo can save face?

Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.

our missiles will kill civilians, count on it. probably thousands of them. probably more than assad killed with CW.

this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.

Most Americans hate reality. They just go along everyday believing we don't routinely kill innocent men, women, and children all around the World. They just can't accept that reality. They pretend our bombs are only killing the bad guys. While it is true we're killing some bad guys, it is also true that we're killing many civilians in the process.

If Americans were exposed to the graphic photos and videos showing all the children we've brutally murdered, they would very likely gain a whole new perspective on War. But of course our MSM doesn't show them the ugly truth. It simply shows them what they want them to see. Personally, i won't support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's like people on this site have never heard of the "The Project for a “New Middle East”"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw]General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Camp]

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. I do not believe that Romney would spend a billion dollars that we don't have on a sure-to-fail feel-good bombing. If the rest of the arabs want Assad removed let them do it.

What you are advocating is exactly what we tried in Egypt and Libya------and now the radical muslim brotherhood is in control of those countries.

We simply seem to have this plan for regime change for countries who do not take orders from us in the ME. And our plan for each is do as we say or we turn you into another Iraq. We could care less about the life of a single person in Syria, man or woman or child.

You are Spot-On.

Not spot on at all. Spot off. Muslim Brotherhood is not in control of Egypt or Libya. All that analysis and it is closed with a ridiculously misleading conclusion. Egypt military took out the elected muslim brotherhood officials and threw them in jail and took control of the country. Brotherhood supporters were shot down in the streets or arrested when they protested. Libya is a no man's land with nobody in charge.

 

[rhodescholar]

We simply seem to have this plan for regime change for countries who do not take orders from us in the ME. And our plan for each is do as we say or we turn you into another Iraq. We could care less about the life of a single person in Syria, man or woman or child.

You're mentally ill trolling feces, who has no intelligence and lies in every post like the turd you are.

Why don't you tell us about your support for hamas and hezbollah?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.

We will "save" them by blowing their arms and legs off with high explosives?