I don't believe that anyone is really sure that a few precision military strikes is going to scare the bad people or not, but the cost of no response, beyond a lot of talk, is in my view, far worse for everyone in the long term. Sincerely, Jon .
Attack on Syria is it justified ?
- Thread starter Mr Deeds
- Start date
Which tells me the kind of people they are, and please don't mistake me for someone who takes you young fellows seriously. Best of luck. Sincerely, Jon .
No.
It's a war of wastage that will only make the PRC stronger. Bush Sr didn't lose any sleep over Saddam gassing Kurds, how has the situation changed? If Turkey or Israel is involved then maybe but to go it alone is foolhardy. They are slaves of an archaic religion and nothing will change unless they leave the 12th Century behind. Cold but true.
It's a war of wastage that will only make the PRC stronger. Bush Sr didn't lose any sleep over Saddam gassing Kurds, how has the situation changed? If Turkey or Israel is involved then maybe but to go it alone is foolhardy. They are slaves of an archaic religion and nothing will change unless they leave the 12th Century behind. Cold but true.
Wait until Al Qaeda get ahold if the chemical weapons. See if suddenly the US develops an interest. Say, an interest that is loaded into a container and shipped to Manhattan, arriving on Wall Street on Sept 11, 2014.
That might be an interest.
It's never a good idea to go to war against two different Arab countries at the same time, (Afghanistan doesn't really count - it's a nation of hillbillies, where the richest man is the one with the most goat shit). Most of the Middle East countries don't trust each other, but many of them have the "The enemy of my enemy is my firiend". mentality. You don't want to give them a reason to ally with each other, for common goals.
Like I said before fuji.
Some of your comments are brilliant, some asinine and this falls into the later category. Al Qaeda is taking over the resistance movement and at the same time destabilizing Iraq. So which horse does Obama back; Al Quada or Hezbollah?
Either way it's snake eyes for the President.
Imaginative but Moot.
Whether or not the US attacks Syria, AQ could still get their dirty paws on or make chem weapons, when will people understand they don't play by "western" rules.
The so called evidence right now is American manufactured bullshit for all intents and purposes.
It's best to wait and see what the lab results from the Hague determine. If it is determined chem was used, then Assad must be formally asked to turn himself and his regime in or face an attack that will remove him and the regime.
Simply jumping in and bombing with no objective is immoral, weak, pathetic even and completely inflammatory to the M.E.
Great powers often turn into bullies with the agenda of self preservation at the expense of your life. For all we know the US has some new plane they need to test out.
I have always wondered why the people in the West believe we have the right to interfere with other countries domestic issues.
Before you go there... I understand that they might be using chemical weapons against each other and that innocent people are getting killed.
How does it solve the problem if the west goes in with drone strikes????
Have we not figured out that every time we interfere with other countries, it is like interfering with a family situation? After the fight is over, everyone
ends up hating the person who interfered?
Many of these countries are not ready for "democracy" nor do they want the responsibility of being a citizen in a democratic society. So let them battle it out
until they either wipe themselves out, or come to the realization that peace is the best solution.
Syria is completely fucked... getting involved is extremely stupid, and will only breed a new group of people who hate the west.
Before you go there... I understand that they might be using chemical weapons against each other and that innocent people are getting killed.
How does it solve the problem if the west goes in with drone strikes????
Have we not figured out that every time we interfere with other countries, it is like interfering with a family situation? After the fight is over, everyone
ends up hating the person who interfered?
Many of these countries are not ready for "democracy" nor do they want the responsibility of being a citizen in a democratic society. So let them battle it out
until they either wipe themselves out, or come to the realization that peace is the best solution.
Syria is completely fucked... getting involved is extremely stupid, and will only breed a new group of people who hate the west.
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
+1 best reply by far.
If anything these other neighbouring countries that have the similar culture should be the ones that should get involved if they see fit and not the west. You ask the US citizens and I bet that over 90% would say don't get involve, nothing but trouble in the future and waste of their taxes.
somebody maybe cia manufactured all the evidence.
it makes no sense for the government forces to use chemical weapons now just to kill hundreds when they are winning the war and have killed tens of thousands rebels by conventional weapons. why would they give the reason for the us to attack them when they have rebels surrounded?
Putin and Assad both said that Assad didn't do it. Isn't that good enough for us?
Question for the OP. How did you manage to correct the typo ("attach") in the thread title?
The situation concerning Syria is just one more example that proves George Carlin's observation:
Perry
"When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat."
Perry
YOu are joking, right? Afganistan is not Arab, nor is it in the Middle East. This post appears to come from a profound state of ignorance. Perhaps the poster is confusing Arab (linguistic group) with Islam (world religion). Sad, really, when one can't tell the difference between religion and language, wrongly identifies the region of a country, and still feels the need to expound his own particular solution to complex political problems.
Sort of like saying the problem with the English is that they are divided politically into 50 states and are geographically isolated in South America. Oh, and they are a bunch of hillbillies because they eat haggis.
