should the u.s. strike syria?

[ban basketball]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

1.  Syria has WMDs and links to Al Qaeda

2.  Syria has used the WMDs on their own people

3. This is part of the war on terrorism.  After all, Al Qaeda is there.

4.  Iran is Sponsoring Terrorism in Syria

5.  A chance at nation building with our (lost) allies.  France has already stated they they are on board, and given how they ran Al Qaeda out of Mali recently, with boots on the ground, we shouldn't scoff too much at how much help they could be.

[AKIN]

I think we should stop being a sheriff to the world and take a step back as a special deputy.

Gagreed!! If they want to kill each other, let them kill each other. Why does our government feel the need to stop them?

[Cougar1]

I think we should stop being a sheriff to the world and take a step back as a special deputy.

Gagreed!! If they want to kill each other, let them kill each other. Why does our government feel the need to stop them?

Precisely. If International Law has been violated let the international community deal with it. Nobody else seems to be interested in stepping up to the plate.

[ban basketball]

I think we should stop being a sheriff to the world and take a step back as a special deputy.

Gagreed!! If they want to kill each other, let them kill each other. Why does our government feel the need to stop them?

Precisely. If International Law has been violated let the international community deal with it. Nobody else seems to be interested in stepping up to the plate.

Why did you feel otherwise during the years 2001-2008?  I find that curious.

[a guest]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

1.  Syria has WMDs and links to Al Qaeda

2.  Syria has used the WMDs on their own people

3. This is part of the war on terrorism.  After all, Al Qaeda is there.

4.  Iran is Sponsoring Terrorism in Syria

5.  A chance at nation building with our (lost) allies.  France has already stated they they are on board, and given how they ran Al Qaeda out of Mali recently, with boots on the ground, we shouldn't scoff too much at how much help they could be.

1. Who in Syria has links to AQ? The regime in charge OR one of he many factions fighting the regime?

2. Who in Syria has done that?  President Assad? A rouge general? A faction within those fighting Assad?

3. So, who are we going to attack with the missiles?  Have we pin pointed which factions are AQ and which are not? Plus, I thought were going forward because we thought Assad launched the chemical attack, not AQ.

4. I thought Irn was backing Assad.

[ViseGrip]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

How about-

It is against international law (and a war crime) to use chemical weapons.  The commander in chief has repeatedly stated that using chemical weapons would lead to consequences. 

If the US does not act against the regime in Syria, what will deter another despot from doing the same  (to their own people or against people in another country)?

The government has no right to take our money and use it in an attempt to deter evil on a global scale in perpetuity. It's a ridiculous notion.

Its not a ridiculous notion to say that there are some acts that the US is not going to let go unpunished. For instance a nuclear strike. Do we really want to set the precedent that someone can go nuke a neighbor or one of our allies without fear of retaliation from the US? That is a very dangerous policy.

Now do gas attacks in one nation between two bad actors rise to that level of national resolve and emergency for the US at this time? Given who they are and what our financial situation is I dont think so in this case.... but it is NOT a ridiculous notion.

We've been attacking countries and destroying lives and cultures for decades. It's not a secret that we will attack anyone. Yet, evil persists doesn't it? Perhaps it's because everyone else recognizes how ridiculous that notion is.

They may not say it publically, but let there be no doubt, privately the vast majority of civilized nations thank whatever God they worship that the US does step in now and then. Just ask South Korea, Kuwait, Western Europe, and probably dozens of other nations we have saved from attacking neighbors over the last 100 years.

[ban basketball]

Id honestly like to hear the pro side of the debate from the yes voter, not really to debate but just to hear their viewpoint.

1.  Syria has WMDs and links to Al Qaeda

2.  Syria has used the WMDs on their own people

3. This is part of the war on terrorism.  After all, Al Qaeda is there.

4.  Iran is Sponsoring Terrorism in Syria

5.  A chance at nation building with our (lost) allies.  France has already stated they they are on board, and given how they ran Al Qaeda out of Mali recently, with boots on the ground, we shouldn't scoff too much at how much help they could be.

1. Who in Syria has links to AQ? The regime in charge OR one of he many factions fighting the regime?

2. Who in Syria has done that?  President Assad? A rouge general? A faction within those fighting Assad?

3. So, who are we going to attack with the missiles?  Have we pin pointed which factions are AQ and which are not? Plus, I thought were going forward because we thought Assad launched the chemical attack, not AQ.

4. I thought Irn was backing Assad.

1.  The same links to AQ that Iraq had in 2001, with one difference:  AQ is KNOWN to be in Syria.

2.  They've been used, haven't they?  Were we as certain who used them in Iraq in 2001?

3.  Did we state who we were going to attack and where in 2001?  Assad, AQ, doesn't matter:  all part of the war on terrorism, which needs no justification, explanation, or end game stated.

4.  Yes, Iran is backing terrorism, just as Saddam Hussein was.

So, why did you support the war in Iraq, when I just stated the EXACT same reasons that we invaded Iraq?

[fuhr]

No. For the love of god man stop with the wars.

This.  100% this.

[ban basketball]

Wow!  What changed in January of 2009? 

Prior to that time, the more the wars, the merrier and prouder that we are-regardless of cost-and even Sean McVeigh Hannity and Liz Cheney, until our President Obama stated the he wanted to strike Syria, were all gung ho and critical of our President for NOT attacking Syria.

What changed with them too? 

[SVV]

No. For the love of god man stop with the wars.

This.  100% this.

Make that three.

[ban basketball]

Looks like some folks seem to have forgotten 2001-2008.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU

[ban basketball]

Keep in mind that it's our military that gives you the "right" to embolden our enemies and undermine our troops, folks. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E

[ban basketball]

Let's let ol' glory fly, eh,folks?

[Brew]

I say if we start another war lets take out canada...lots of natural resources up there.  Im sick of their secure borders and Frenchie talk...and the fact thet can vacation in Cuba.

[fuhr]

I say if we start another war lets take out canada...lots of natural resources up there.  Im sick of their secure borders and Frenchie talk...and the fact thet can vacation in Cuba.

So long as we get Poutine out of the deal.