Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

I have no strong feeling about whether to go or not go. I'd be fine either way. However, as a matter of principle, if a dictator is using a chemical weapon to kill thousands of his own people, men, women, and children, I see nothing wrong at all with using the military to stop or to punish him.

1 Reply

The situation will not get any better by us going in there in any capacity. I don't know everything and nobody else does. My belief is that the region is already destabilized and our actions are likely to make it worse. If the US and all other nations publicly disposed of their own chemical weapons the outrage would be somewhat believable, but would not change how I feel about intervention.

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

All three governments are as sure as they can be that Assad was the one who used them.

Which, for some people, isn't as sure as they need to be before killing more people. My Rep posted a FB statement yesterday that indicated he was planning on looking at the evidence presented to Congress before voting. The comments ran 10-1 against taking action. There were many comments from people in and from the middle east, both for and against intervention. This is not a slam-dunk decision and needs to be made very carefully and cautiously. I have no doubt that both of my Senators (one D, one R) will both vote for the attack. The R is a defense hawk and has publicly called for strikes, the D is an Obama puppet and has already voted yes in committee.

I think it will pass out of the Senate. What happens in the House is a huge question mark. What the President decides to do in the event of a "no" vote is a decision I don't envy him.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgar, You have it spot on! NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE END GAME IS. If we go in, we buy it lock, stock, and barrell.

Has anybody told us what the goal is? Punishment? That's an oxymoron.

0 Replies

@revelette,

If you check the news the good peoples Islamic solders just took a christian village and immediatly began to convert christians to Islam at the end of a bayonet. They killed those who refused and while they were not converting people took the time to burn down a christian church. So tell me which side should we support? A repressive government, or a repressive rebel organization. We should stay out of this thing and let them fight it out. I am sorry for the people there but the only way to end this thing is for the U N to take over. That should happen just before our sun goes nova in a couple of billion years.

1 Reply

Quote:

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told Meet The Press that a prospective U.S. attack on Syria would send a message to Iranian leaders that they should not feel free to develop nuclear weapons.

Quote:

“This is an opportunity to be bold with the Iranians,” McDonough said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

So.... the point of killing more Syrians is to send a message to Iran not to "feel free to develop nuclear weapons". Whoa.

3 Replies

I guess the point would be to show Assad that he's not free to commit whatever atrocity he can dream up. He has, after all, apparently killed thousands of men women and children, not as an unavoidable accident while aiming at purely military targets, but as the actual intended targets. On the other hand, we're not the police, so, as I said, I would be fine either way. The question is what you do when you see the most appalling atrocities committed in front of you and you have the power to stop it or discourage it.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Their brain seems to be in recess when simple logic will do.
Sending any message by killing more innocent people only backfires with more contempt and hatred of the "savior."

Logic 101.

0 Replies

What's really amazing to me is just how easy this problem is to deal with by people who don't actually have to deal with it.

What we ought to do is to take all the people who actually have to make decisions of this sort out of power...and put into power all the people who don't have the power to make these decisions...

...because for them, the problems are relatively easy to solve.

Right?

2 Replies

We don't have vested interests breathing down our necks and bribing people. Very Happy

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The only solution is to require that the children and siblings of those making the decision act out what they deem as necessary for "our" security.

How often will they vote to approve such a dastardly deed?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

We don't have vested interests breathing down our necks and bribing people.

That is true, Edgar.

MY BET: Put you into power...and you will...IMMEDIATELY.

But you guys, unlike all those other people, will have no trouble at all staying on the up-and-up.

Right?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I've yet to hear from anyone who thinks this is an easy problem, hence the conflict. I don't know anyone who isn't somewhat conflicted on the best way to proceed. In the end it will come down to the US House and President Obama, ultimately resting with the President. I don't envy him his decision.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I can't speak to the weakness of their minds, just my own.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The only solution is to require that the children and siblings of those making the decision act out what they deem as necessary for "our" security.

How often will they vote to approve such a dastardly deed?

Once again...a very wise way of dealing with these kinds of things, ci.

That is what I mean. The people who do not have power come up with these gems all the time.

We gotta get rid of the people in power...and put the people who can come up with these gems into power.

Right?

0 Replies

@JPB,

Obama has already drawn his red line. It's now up to congress.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Not really. He still has the option of going forward even without the backing of congress.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I've yet to hear from anyone who thinks this is an easy problem, hence the conflict. I don't know anyone who isn't somewhat conflicted on the best way to proceed. In the end it will come down to the US House and President Obama, ultimately resting with the President. I don't envy him his decision.

Well...in a way you are correct, JPB.

But will you agree with me that there are MANY people here who are able to see that the decisions being made ARE THE WRONG DECISIONS.

And that is sort of the same thing.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I can't speak to the weakness of their minds, just my own.

Hey...my mind is a lot weaker than yours, Edgar!

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

And, how do you think central and south america became primarily christian?

2 Replies

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know