War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Geaux4it]

I fear that Congress will NOT listen to the vast majority of the American people on this issue.

We will attack Syria, which will lead to wider war including Israel, Turkey, Iran, maybe even Russia.

This is a BAD thing coming our way.

I think Congress will not approve and Obama goes anyway against Americans, Congress, and the International community.

Russia said they have sent additional ships to the area to make sure International law and the rule of the UN hold the day

Smoke em if you got em

-Geaux

What would Reagan do?

I don't think things would of got this bad under someone that actually knows what their doing. Obama is inept

-Geaux

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I think Congress will not approve and Obama goes anyway against Americans, Congress, and the International community.

Russia said they have sent additional ships to the area to make sure International law and the rule of the UN hold the day

Smoke em if you got em

-Geaux

What would Reagan do?

I don't think things would of got this bad under someone that actually knows what their doing. Obama is inept

-Geaux

Yep, Reagan would have been on this about 2 1/2 years ago and the problem would be solved by now.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

There is nothing to gain by going to war with Syria, because engineering conflicts have never worked.

Debate: Does The U.S. Have A Dog In The Fight In Syria? : NPR

Graham Allison (@6:30): ...Has anybody been able to identify a feasible American military intervention that would likely make the situation better over the long run, after we had acted than in the case we did not act?...No one has, at least to my satisfaction or Rich's* or indeed to Chairman Dempsey the chairman of the JCS, identified a feasible American military intervention, which after the fact, likely make the situation over time better than the alternative...

*Richard Falkenrath

Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Douglas Dillon professor of government at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, where he served as the founding dean from 1977 to 1989. Allison served as special adviser to the secretary of defense under President Reagan and as assistant secretary of defense for policy and plans under President Clinton, coordinating Defense Department strategy and policy toward Russia, Ukraine and the other states of the former Soviet Union. He has the sole distinction of having twice been awarded the Defense Department's highest civilian award, the Distinguished Public Service Medal. He has written five books, including Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971).

 

[U2Edge]

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.

It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Assad is the only one escalating things by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. US military action will prevent more such attacks which could cause as much as 10,000 or 50,000 people to be killed in just one day.

The United States is less likely to have WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION used against it in the future by punishing Assad for his use of such weapons in 2013.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Reality is that the D-Day Normandy invasion killed over 20,000 French civilians. But do you think launching D-Day was a mistake?

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Not launching the missile strike will be seen as a green light by Assad for more Sarin gas attacks. The death toll on August 21, 2013 was 1,469. But the next strike by Assad could kill 10,000 or even 50,000 in a single day. Do you want to see that happen?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

They only have to save ONE rocket launcher to launch another chemical attack. And the will save a lot more than one.

The goal of the missile strike is to deter further use of chemical weapons, not completely destroy all the means with which such chemicals could be delivered.

 

[KissMy]

The goal of the missile strike is to deter further use of chemical weapons, not completely destroy all the means with which such chemicals could be delivered.

That is only the political sales job. The goal is to weaken Iran & Russia's grip on the Mideast oil.

 

[KissMy]

There will be a big collision with US in the attack on Syria.

"Davutoglu said Turkey's priority was to act according to U.N. decisions, but the country would join a coalition if there was no U.N. mandate. He said "36 or 37" countries were already discussing options, but he did not list those nations."

 

[JWBooth]

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.

They only have to save ONE rocket launcher to launch another chemical attack. And the will save a lot more than one.

The goal of the missile strike is to deter further use of chemical weapons, not completely destroy all the means with which such chemicals could be delivered.

If you truly believe that, I have several acres of undeveloped land on Manhattan Island that I can let go of pretty cheap.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

But our interest are not at risk. But if they are, acceptable risk IMO when compared to the cost we will pay. A preemptive strike is not warranted here

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

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?

Assad is the only one escalating things by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. US military action will prevent more such attacks which could cause as much as 10,000 or 50,000 people to be killed in just one day.

The United States is less likely to have WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION used against it in the future by punishing Assad for his use of such weapons in 2013.

Not true

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

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?

Not launching the missile strike will be seen as a green light by Assad for more Sarin gas attacks. The death toll on August 21, 2013 was 1,469. But the next strike by Assad could kill 10,000 or even 50,000 in a single day. Do you want to see that happen?

It might happen, might not. What is definite is, Russia, the UN which Obama adores, and the American people will see this as an aggressive act of war.

-Geaux

 

[KissMy]

Obama is the biggest military spending president of all time. If we are not going to stand up to Syria, Russia & Iran, then why are we wasting all this money?

 

[georgephillip]

I fear that Congress will NOT listen to the vast majority of the American people on this issue.

We will attack Syria, which will lead to wider war including Israel, Turkey, Iran, maybe even Russia.

This is a BAD thing coming our way.

If Obama defies Congress and the majority of US taxpayers, impeachment could be one GOOD thing coming out way.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

 

[TooTall]

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.

Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?

Probably not nearly as many as 2 or 3 hundred US Tomahawk missiles would.

 

[JWBooth]

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.

Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?

And when spread by incomplete destruction by Tomahawk missile?
Or does collateral damage still not count?