Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

I'm not sure where Miller gets her information, but Americans are war-weary, and don't want another Iraq-Vietnam on our hands.

From NBC News.

Quote:

By M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News
Demonstrators gathered in cities and towns across America on Friday to protest a possible U.S. military attack on Syria, with more demonstrations planned Saturday.

0 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

Quote:

All Americans should be grateful for Obama because if the Republican Romney had gotten into power, there would be no sensitive, empathetic soul in the White House.

Guess you need a little update on the History of healthcare in the USA. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had the first version of "affordable and mandatory" healthcare, when Romney was the Gov of Massachusetts.

Obama merely copied the Romney plan.

Has Obama ever done anything "orginal" in his life? Without his pal Valerie telling him what to do, Obama wouldn't even know when it was time for him to pee.

1 Reply

@Miller,

Are you just stupid? We're talking about "action to Syria."

These are the facts.

Quote:

Half of Americans oppose broad military action in Syria, poll finds
By Scott Clement, Published: August 30 at 9:22 amE-mail the writer
By 50 to 42 percent, more Americans say the United States should not take broad military action against the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons, according to an NBC News poll released Friday.
The public is more open to President Obama’s proposed limited airstrikes to undermine Syria’s chemical weapons capability, but nearly eight in 10 believe he should be required to win congressional approval before using military force.

That doesn't answer many questions some of us have about the "limited airstrikes." How about killing of innocent civilians? What is the end game of these strikes if it doesn't stop the chemical warfare? How long will it take? What will be the total cost to US taxpayers?

2 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

... Monica Lewinsky...pretty young women wanting to rise, to touch the high and mighty.

You're saying...a good blow job under the President's desk was Monica's attempt to "touch" the mighty?

0 Replies

@Miller,

Quote:

. Many Americans are for it.

Many Brits are for it as well. Including the elected government.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

That doesn't answer many questions some of us have about the "limited airstrikes." How about killing of innocent civilians? What is the end game of these strikes if it doesn't stop the chemical warfare? How long will it take? What will be the total cost to US taxpayers?

You missed out how it will affect house prices ci.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

A limited airstrike could make Assad look stronger, able to face down the US and could encourage Iran and Russia to increase military aid. If just one Syrian missile manages to hit an American warship he'll be able to claim victory.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

If you allow that one warship could be hit you have to assume there's a chance they all will be.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

And the larger question is why must the US attack Syria when they pose no threat to US security? We can't be going willy-nilly to every crisis around the world when the rest of the developed countries do nothing.

It's idiocy to do so.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It's idiocy to do so.

You are saying that both our governments are composed of idiots. They were talking about "in the next few hours" not that many hours ago.

0 Replies

@spendius,

They don't know exactly what Russian technology has got through or how much of it. People have been talking 60+ v. sophisticated missiles being fired in one go. They're not as sophisticated as American weaponry, but they're a lot more sophisticated than anything Saddam had. The Serbians were able to bring down a stealth bomber during the Kosovo campaign.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Orallie Wrote

Quote:

I'd be more worried if they sent SS-N-27 Sizzlers.
But we can conduct the bombing via submarine if necessary. We've converted four of our Ohio-class submarines into platforms for rapid-firing huge volleys of Tomahawk missiles from underwater.
We could also have heavy bombers fly a few loads of JASSMs out of bases in Greece or Italy.

Yes General Orallie.... LMAO... and which one are you going into battle on?, the sub or the bomber.
Or... in a perfect world.. strapped to a Tomahawk missile.

Where do you bury your dead, orallie?

0 Replies

Congressional briefings have resulting in many being skeptical.

Quote:

A classified briefing for US legislators who must soon decide whether to authorise military strikes against Syria left many sceptical, according to numerous members of Congress.

The briefing, provided by Obama administration officials in the Capitol basement, focused on laying out evidence in support of its case that forces loyal to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, used sarin gas on 12 neighbourhoods in suburban Damascus.

Several legislators in attendance on Sunday afternoon said they were persuaded that Assad was culpable for the attack, but that they were still grappling with what a US response should be.

"I think members of Congress were divided on what does that mean, is this a reason to go to war, what [are] the objectives of going to war," said Rep Janice Hahn of California, who said she would vote no on authorising a military strike.

"I don't know if every member of Congress is there yet," she said.

"The room was sceptical," said Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat.
Guadian

0 Replies

And, the mission will be more limited in scope.

Quote:

Leahy: Syria resolution 'too open ended'
By Kasie Hunt, NBC News
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, the most senior member of the Senate, said Sunday that the resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria that the administration sent to Congress Saturday night will be changed in the Senate in part because it is too open ended.
"I know it will be amended in the Senate," Leahy told reporters after a classified briefing in the Capitol.

Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he is concerned that the resolution isn't limited enough. "I'm concerned at this point it's too open ended," he said.

The White House sent Congress a two-page resolution Saturday night that would authorize the use of force in Syria to "prevent or deter the use or proliferation" of weapons of mass destruction -- "including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non state actors." NBC

1 Reply

@JPB,

The words Obama used were "limited," but that's a subjective word that can mean almost anything.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Quote:

I had quite the crush on Bill Clinton......

Slick Clinton is a psychopathic pervert; only another psycho-pervert should have any sort of a "crush" on him.

http://reason.com/archives/1994/11/01/can-the-president-think

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/unifiedclinton.html

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Just saw this tweet:

Quote:

May be stroke of genius drafting super-broad Syria resolution. Gives lawmakers something to be against and room to vote yes on final product

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Just saw this tweet:

Quote:
May be stroke of genius drafting super-broad Syria resolution. Gives lawmakers something to be against and room to vote yes on final product

slick wording which evades meaning so that the laws can be used for what ever they are currently wanted for has gone far to extend government power at the expense of justice....why stop now?

0 Replies

On my first trip to Israel, we were only 36 miles away from Damascus.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/PICT0196.jpg

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I know; keep those stupid sayings coming. I'll continue to attack them as stupid.

Yes big guy; you "attack." You are showing that you may not be posting in a manner that reflects the argument of a debater. You are much scarier in cyberspace, I can see.

0 Replies

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know