Attack on Syria is it justified ?

[Smallcock]

I doubt it. Israel doesn't want either side victorious (unless the small weak democratic, rights supporting movement counts). In fact I'm sure that many there would rather keep Assad because he at least kept the advanced weapons under central control and was not willing to risk his own neck to launch an attack which jihadist groups would be willing to do.

Israel favors anything that destabilizes its neighbors in the ME.

If you think Obama has any interest in bombing Syria other than to appease the powers he's beholden to, you're sadly mistaken. Syria is not a threat to the US, and likely never will be.

Yes, the president painted himself into a corner with his tough talk but he's just been vocalizing the words and interests of his powerful handlers. He's not the first president to go down this road. Now he'll have to follow through and the US won't be better off for it.

 

[Aardvark154]

Israel favors anything that destabilizes its neighbors in the ME.

If you think Obama has any interest in bombing Syria other than to appease the powers he's beholden to, you're sadly mistaken. Syria is not a threat to the US, and likely never will be.

First I rather doubt Israel favours destabilizing the situation. True, there is no love lost with Syria and the Assad Regime, but you honestly believe that the Government of Israel would prefer an Islamist regime in Syria?!

Obviously you have totally ignored my posts about the Administration going whole hog for the "Brother Jonathan" school of U.S. Foreign Policy. The moral streak of U.S. Foreign Policy has very little to do with the State of Israel, predating the modern state of Israel by not quite a century and half.

 

[Scarey]

Military Industrial Complex.Presidents will come and go but from here on out i think the U.S will always be in some state of war.At least until they start losing ...perhaps badly.Politics stopped being part of equation on the war machine long ago.....they simply need to convince the right people in any way possible.HOWEVER.I do think you are going to see a end in the next 50 years to warfare as we see it now.Private armies and private contractors will do the fighting.I think he gets the OK from congress for air strikes and perhaps"peacekeeping"(private contractors)

 

[MRBJX]

So what you are basically saying is: It doesn't matter if the missiles were fired from Syrian Army controlled areas and landed only in rebel controlled areas. It doesn't matter that there are communications intercepts. It doesn't matter that there are statements from physicians. The only thing that matters is whether the U.N. inspectors find evidence of nerve gas. However, would you mind explaining to us how that will show who was responsible?


By the way the U.S. statement on all of this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...n-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21

Ok I read it - the main problem is there are no references, not one, it just says we know and we know and we know - how do you know? Did you do any test?
The answer is NO, the usa has done nothing to verify that this took place. Its realy funny how there are a hundred videos and lots of social media that says "chem was used" ...really..where? The press would be all over that, they got nada.

Second, I'm not saying anything of what you imply above. I am saying the only way this is a USA battle is if there is some monetary interest for the states, and I'm also saying there is no hard evedence - only conjecture and unknown and undisclosed sources - that a nerve gas was used.


Who used it? Who knows? - Could be the USA funded parties in that area, could be Assaad, could be the rebels. Assaad must answer for his country, if its the rebels I'm sure he will have a very good idea on how to prove that.

Waging a missile strike or a war serves no purpose in this conflict.

 

[basketcase]

Because of all this shit gas is almost 1.36 here in the GTA, greedy mother fuckers.

I blame the USA, Britain and France..... :thumb:

Gas is 1.36 because the oil companies know they can screw us over any excuse (as if it being a long weekend isn't bad enough).

 

[basketcase]

Israel favors anything that destabilizes its neighbors in the ME.

When destabilizing means advanced weaponry and chemical weapons falling into the hands of jihadists I doubt it.

 

[onthebottom]

UN says no, UK says no, I don't see any compelling need for the US to act.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Gas is 1.36 because the oil companies know they can screw us over any excuse (as if it being a long weekend isn't bad enough).

EXACTLY!!!!!

The joys of Republican Deregulation, which allows these BIG OIL motherfuckers to to rape us all at will, while blaming rising prices on any lie they can create and pull out of their fat pompous greedy ARSES!!!.....:eyebrows:

 

[Rockslinger]

Gas is 1.36 because the oil companies know they can screw us over any excuse

Our silly Prime Minister said he will fix that by allowing Verizon to enter Canada. In fact, he will give Verizon free Canadian oil fields to entice them to enter Canada.

 

[diehard]

Our silly Prime Minister said he will fix that by allowing Verizon to enter Canada. In fact, he will give Verizon free Canadian oil fields to entice them to enter Canada.

And he will invite Dubya and Condy over to Canada to lecture about the benefits.

 

[diehard]

USA tapped their phones.
Was in today's News.....

I just wanna hear one such phone conversation, even I don't understand Arab....

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

This is really the job for the UN to do. But they are a dysfunctional toothless bunch, so the US has to step in and solve this shit.

Oh, and its a bad idea I think. I'm becoming more anti-war as I get older and turning into a softie

 

[Butler1000]

This is really the job for the UN to do. But they are a dysfunctional toothless bunch, so the US has to step in and solve this shit.

Oh, and its a bad idea I think. I'm becoming more anti-war as I get older and turning into a softie

Or likke so many others you are realizing that the ME is a cesspool of factions within factions. At some point it may be best to let them fight it out until they are so sick of war thay actually find a way to make peace. Then deal with the winners.

 

[Smallcock]

When destabilizing means advanced weaponry and chemical weapons falling into the hands of jihadists I doubt it.

Anything happening in the ME is a priority for the US only because it's in the interest of Israel. If it weren't for Israel, we wouldn't know nor care about what's purportedly happening in Syria.

 

[SchlongConery]

Anything happening in the ME is a priority for the US only because it's in the interest of Israel. If it weren't for Israel, we wouldn't know nor care about what's purportedly happening in Syria.

Had to chuckle when Obama said he would seek Congress's approval for military intervention in Syria.

Everyone knows it isn't called Congress, it's called the Knesset.

 

[fuji]

Anything happening in the ME is a priority for the US only because it's in the interest of Israel. If it weren't for Israel, we wouldn't know nor care about what's purportedly happening in Syria.

The fact that most of the world's oil fields could get sucked into any regional war might be on their minds as well. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting a proxy war in Syria, and the conflict could easily spill into Iraq.

Israel is likely to sit this one out so I don't think that is a factor at all here.

 

[kaempferrand]

Attacking Syria is NOT justified because honestly that civil war is none of our business. You know what should and be our business?????

That damn Fukushima catastrophe. If U.S. should be thinking about attacking and occupying is Japan. That nuclear mess will have more damage to not only the U.S. but the whole world many times over in years to come.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Israel is likely to sit this one out so I don't think that is a factor at all here

Not if Israel is attacked out of revenge by Syria or even Iran, like they have threatened

 

[fuji]

Not if Israel is attacked out of revenge by Syria or even Iran, like they have threatened

That would imply that Assad can free up his forces from fighting the rebels and afford to open up a new front with Israel, while still fighting the rebels.

I just don't see it as anything more than bluster.

Israel will probably carry out a few surgical strikes to prevent Hezbollah from getting their hands on chemical weapons, but not intervene beyond that.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

That would imply that Assad can free up his forces from fighting the rebels and afford to open up a new front with Israel, while still fighting the rebels.

I just don't see it as anything more than bluster

And Iran???