Syria?

GNBRETT

Registered
im thinkn the Brits have the right idea. mind our own business and let them fight their own civil war.....:whistle:
 

skydivr

Jumps from perfectly good Airplanes
Donating Member
When the only allies you can find to sign on are the French....
 

voodoolord

Registered
Now our president is going to wait for it to be debated by congress. This guy is the most feckless moron in a national leadership role. He's painted himself into a corner and his weakness and lack of strategy is appalling. What a fool.
 

GNBRETT

Registered
we have cities like Detroit that have citizens that cant get a cop to respond within (45) minutes to an armed robbery but we need to send US troops to Syria and spend a billion dollars. how bout this, spend a billion dollars making our OWN country safer. wat a joke!

the middle east has been fighting for thousands of years over their religious beliefs and a 1000 years from now will be doing the same and once again the US government thinks were gonna solve their problems with our military muscle. you wud have thought by now we wud hav learned from iraq and afghan.

yep, children are being killed in syria. well, here is a news flash children are being killed here too in our poor cities with gun violence. Detroit is seeing its highest homicide rate in 20 years but we need to spend money fighting another civil war....... smfh!
 

RYC1966

Donating Member
Registered
More lives lost and tax money...the money matters but the kids that are running around matter way more...god bless them
 

voodoolord

Registered
the problem is he announced a "red line" and said if Syria crossed it there would be "consequences". If he lets it go he's going to be seen as weak to our allies and enemies. If he acts with anything other than total war he will be seen as weak also. He created this problem with his pathetic understanding of geopolitics and has put us in a very bad place. The guy is an amateur on the world stage and it shows. His policies have made us less safe and his dithering and indecision will go down in history as one of the worst bungling policies by any president ever.
 

DaCol.

D' Colonel
Donating Member
I'am not quite sure when both sides HATE OUR GUTS :tantrum: we care what happens to them. Much less, try to stop them from killing each :guns: other :oops:

And if Turkey is so keen for us to intervene, why not have THEIR troops do the attacking. After all, they're a part of NATO; making the backup and equipment available to them !
 

red1100cc

Registered
i see nothing good in our future.
you can say "they have been fighting over religon for 1000 years", and they may have. i donno, never been there. (ask Blanca)
but one huge deal breaker here is, they are using modern weapons and may have used chemical weapons against women and children.
a big no no in the new world order.

and i have to agree. honor in war. ya do not kill women and kids.
and mustard, and nerve gas are some of the most aweful things ever invented.


don't some of these countries have nukes?

WW3?? i hope not.
 

skydivr

Jumps from perfectly good Airplanes
Donating Member
I'm glad the President caved under considerable pressure and decided to consult Congress. If he hadn't I think it might have realllly caused trouble here. It wasn't just Code Red that didn't want to start a fight (btw, kinda hypocritical we haven't heard a peep from them, isn't it?). The President (just like GWB, btw) needs to find some political cover before we take this action. We may STILL take action, but this way it will be deliberate, and thought out about the ramifications (the Russians are NOT kidding). The UN inspectors get to make their report, which may also sway public and world opinion, and we need our allies to be on our side (and help) in this. Even the UN going to the Hague with a War Crimes Charge like Kosovo gives us cover.

The only time we need to take immediate action is if this is in our STRATEGIC interests to either US soil or our ALLIES (for example, they gassed/nuked Israel). Most of us still see this as a fight between Assad/Hezbollah/Iran vs. Al Queda - which most Americans are not willing to shed even a tear for. Until that perception changes, it needs to be discussed. Now, if we get a report that Assad does it again....I hope we have a laser designator pointing at his head...

They need to file
 

Delgado

Formerly known as KAI
Registered
i see nothing good in our future.
you can say "they have been fighting over religon for 1000 years", and they may have. i donno, never been there. (ask Blanca)
but one huge deal breaker here is, they are using modern weapons and may have used chemical weapons against women and children.
a big no no in the new world order.

and i have to agree. honor in war. ya do not kill women and kids.
and mustard, and nerve gas are some of the most aweful things ever invented.


don't some of these countries have nukes?

WW3?? i hope not.

The problem is the double standards. The US can't pretend to be all about humanitarian aid and against the killing of innocents when one of their biggest allies has been doing this for how long now? And when/if it makes the news, they just shrug it off. If the US gets involved, it certainly wouldn't be for humanitarian reasons. I'll just leave it at that and kindly step aside.
 

TallTom

Registered
the problem is he announced a "red line" and said if Syria crossed it there would be "consequences". If he lets it go he's going to be seen as weak to our allies and enemies. If he acts with anything other than total war he will be seen as weak also. He created this problem with his pathetic understanding of geopolitics and has put us in a very bad place. The guy is an amateur on the world stage and it shows. His policies have made us less safe and his dithering and indecision will go down in history as one of the worst bungling policies by any president ever.

Pretty well sums it up!
 

shawnski

Donating Member
Registered
no no need to go there.. we got more opportunities here that that we should worry about..
 

DaCol.

D' Colonel
Donating Member
I can give you a Long List of Countries in Africa that have and are killing and maiming their people, but with NO U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST. And the NUMBERS and horrible wounds far exceed what has been done
in Syria. So why not go there also (like the Northern Sudan - For those who don't know, their President has been charged by the World Court for War Crimes against Humanity)
 

voodoolord

Registered
The President (just like GWB, btw) needs to find some political cover before we take this action. We may STILL take action, but this way it will be deliberate, and thought out about the ramifications (the Russians are NOT kidding). The UN inspectors get to make their report, which may also sway public and world opinion, and we need our allies to be on our side (and help) in this. Even the UN going to the Hague with a War Crimes Charge like Kosovo gives us cover.

The problem with your argument while it is in line with our constitution it is a terrible mistake strategically. This 9+ days until it can be debated in congress gives Assad time to disperse anything we were targeting. Cruise missiles while accurate are not good for changing targets on the fly. By the time Congress debates this and gives the ok or Obama decides to disagree with congress and go it alone we will have lost any and every reason to strike in the first place. It will be less than worthless as it will not do anything to degrade Syria's military and will incite retribution by Syria, Iran, and maybe others possibly against Israel who will retaliate and then were are we? Starting a regional war between Israel, Iran and Syria for a non effective strike on Syria. Like I said we have lost the surprise element and any military action now unless its total war is worse than doing nothing at this point. Obama blew it period. The guy is a total amateur.
 

DaCol.

D' Colonel
Donating Member
The problem with your argument while it is in line with our constitution it is a terrible mistake strategically. This 9+ days until it can be debated in congress gives Assad time to disperse anything we were targeting. Cruise missiles while accurate are not good for changing targets on the fly. By the time Congress debates this and gives the ok or Obama decides to disagree with congress and go it alone we will have lost any and every reason to strike in the first place. It will be less than worthless as it will not do anything to degrade Syria's military and will incite retribution by Syria, Iran, and maybe others possibly against Israel who will retaliate and then were are we? Starting a regional war between Israel, Iran and Syria for a non effective strike on Syria. Like I said we have lost the surprise element and any military action now unless its total war is worse than doing nothing at this point. Obama blew it period. The guy is a total amateur.


Could not have put it better :rulez:
 

shawnski

Donating Member
Registered
So with throwing few missles to warn assad they think he is going to say"oh please stop I am sorry about what I have done if will never happen again" Lmao
 

skydivr

Jumps from perfectly good Airplanes
Donating Member
The problem with your argument while it is in line with our constitution it is a terrible mistake strategically. This 9+ days until it can be debated in congress gives Assad time to disperse anything we were targeting. Cruise missiles while accurate are not good for changing targets on the fly. By the time Congress debates this and gives the ok or Obama decides to disagree with congress and go it alone we will have lost any and every reason to strike in the first place. It will be less than worthless as it will not do anything to degrade Syria's military and will incite retribution by Syria, Iran, and maybe others possibly against Israel who will retaliate and then were are we? Starting a regional war between Israel, Iran and Syria for a non effective strike on Syria. Like I said we have lost the surprise element and any military action now unless its total war is worse than doing nothing at this point. Obama blew it period. The guy is a total amateur.

I don't think so. If we were tracking the chemical weapons deployment systems, that would be cause for an immediate JDAM. But we don't HAVE that intel yet, so an immediate strike would do nothing BUT inflame EVERYBODY. If evidence exists, it will create time to build a consensus. Because it's not the weapons we are going to bomb, it's going to hopefully be whatever camel Assad happens to be hiding under at the time. I suspect the #1 target to track at the moment is ASSAD himself; NOT the weapons. Now, if we get intel that it's about to happen again, and can pinpoint the weapons, Weapons free.....

Edit: In fact, if he'd HAD that intel, I'd have fired missile first, notified Congress afterwards. But he didn't. This isn't a precision strike to take out a single target, but a more general military action to 'punish' Assad for using these weapons. So, they don't HAVE a single target at the moment....
 

Latest Bikes

Forum statistics

Threads
177,954
Messages
3,205,779
Members
50,515
Latest member
FraterSol
Top