Thread: Strike against Syria

Honestly I am all for a strike,

BUT

With clearly defined targets and timing that would have been to our advantage, screwing around all this time for over 2 years and over 100k dead a strike is pretty much useless..
This is the problem of asking the UN once we do we lose the full effectiveness of the strike...

ie: If the world is going to complain about the US being the big stick anyway, regardless of what course we take, then the US should just either step away (Isolationism) or we should be the big stick at OUR discretion and to OUR advantage..

Looks like a tie between fat "capitalists" and "we the people". I hope we aren't in competition to see who can be the most "peaceful" minded.

The person with the most responsibilty in this mess is Jimmy Carter. If we used the full military might of the US to wage war in retaliation for taking Americans hostage in Iran and invading sovereign territory (an embassy is sovereign territory) the world would know we mean business and dont do it. Sorry for you doves out there but some things cant be solved with a gun amd some cant be solved without one......

I might be okay with a strike, but only under the conditions above and also under the conditions that we get in, do the job, and get out. No war machine, no cashing in, just stop the oppression and slaughter through whatever means necessary and go home.

I remember in Iraq, there was some cleric who had holed up in a mosque with several of his buds. The newly formed Iraqi forces couldn't get the guy out, and the US had basically taken on an advisory role. The back and forth firefights lasted for several days. One of our high ranking Generals was being interviewed about it, and in not so many words said that the US was afraid to go in after the guy, since he was in a mosque and the rest of the world was watching. The inference there was that if we would basically quit giving a crap about what the rest of the world thought and acted like the big stick we're perceived as anyway, the guy would have been taken out in less than 24 hours.

The whole ordeal ended in the cleric surrendering under the conditions that all his men be allowed to go peacefully and he become part of one of the new government's branches. The Iraqi's accepted.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Honestly I am all for a strike,

BUT

With clearly defined targets and timing that would have been to our advantage, screwing around all this time for over 2 years and over 100k dead a strike is pretty much useless..
This is the problem of asking the UN once we do we lose the full effectiveness of the strike...

ie: If the world is going to complain about the US being the big stick anyway, regardless of what course we take, then the US should just either step away (Isolationism) or we should be the big stick at OUR discretion and to OUR advantage..

I'm ok with a strike if someone can explain what our national interest is and how the strike will achieve those ends. RIght now I feel we should do everything we can to have both sides kill each other. Neither side is worth helping as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Honestly I am all for a strike,

BUT

With clearly defined targets and timing that would have been to our advantage, screwing around all this time for over 2 years and over 100k dead a strike is pretty much useless..
This is the problem of asking the UN once we do we lose the full effectiveness of the strike...

+1

Originally Posted by gssixgun

ie: If the world is going to complain about the US being the big stick anyway, regardless of what course we take, then the US should just either step away (Isolationism) or we should be the big stick at OUR discretion and to OUR advantage..

I guess that there are several 'western' (and not only US) rebuilding companies, infrastructure planning agencies, military subcontractors, consults, arms industry salesmen etc etc already making huge profit in a places like Iraq and Afganistan. Would also like to know who's to gain most from the future mining and oil/gas industries as well as taking advantage of the future safe routes between say Middle east and Caspian Sea. Or securing open Suez. I guess 'the west' has some economical & political interests in the whole region that is not actually our back yard. Only to mention a few.
Guess it's for our advantage

why can't we all get along? I had an uncle get killed in WW2,a nobel war.
I had an uncle get killed in the Korean war,(a war we lost) My Dad went thru both and his head was never right again.
I did some time in Nam,my head is almost right but not all the time.
My best friend stepped on a bouncing betty in nam,lost both his legs at the hips,when he came home finally, he put a 12 ga. in his mouth and blew is head off.
The rest of my friends who did time in Nam? almost all have died of either suicides or drug overdoses.
My brother came back from the desert storm thing,his head was really not right,he died from drugs and alcohol.
I do not read about all this syria crap anymore,as it makes my head not right.
Am 66 yrs old,I just want everyone to just get along.

Originally Posted by Sailor

+1



I guess that there are several 'western' (and not only US) rebuilding companies, infrastructure planning agencies, military subcontractors, consults, arms industry salesmen etc etc already making huge profit in a places like Iraq and Afganistan. Would also like to know who's to gain most from the future mining and oil/gas industries as well as taking advantage of the future safe routes between say Middle east and Caspian Sea. Or securing open Suez. I guess 'the west' has some economical & political interests in the whole region that is not actually our back yard. Only to mention a few.
Guess it's for our advantage

Ahhhhhh Now wait a sec, if we pop off a couple of Billion "fixing" it, we get that back, or the UN and it's Member nations PAY the US to be the Police

Fair is fair, why should we do anything about it when no other countries want to ????? or should the US bear that burden just because ????

Now it might not sound right but I honestly don't care, if American lives are used to take it, then we OWN that territory in Glen's world,, pray that I never become President


(Or any other country that spills blood to right the world's wrongs)


So far not one country that believes that Sarin was used by Assad believes that it is ok, but very few want to use their Military... ie: I do not believe Obummer was wrong in WHAT he did, I just think he messed up on the timing and planning..

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

why can't we all get along? .

Because it is not in Man's nature, never has been in the past, and doesn't seem to be in our future, perhaps a few 1000 more years of evolution, if we last that long

But we seem to forget history and the lessons from it way too fast

Originally Posted by crouton976

The United States isn't a Democracy, but rather a Federal Republic, and a Constitutional Representative Democracy . Most citizens of the US wouldn't be able to tell you this, so if you didn't know before, don't feel bad. This basically means we have a large central Government, a Constitution and through a Democratic process elect officials to handle legislation, which is the only democratic part of our nation. The sad part is that while sometimes legislative matters may come to a vote the citizens can take part in, it is only to show the elected officials for their area the general consensus the people have. If the elected official doesn't agree with the majority vote of his or her constituents, they can certainly vote the opposite direction. That is not Democracy.

Truly, so many of the citizens in the US are ignorant to the realities of what our nation really is and how it works. The fact that they can think that we are a Democracy and then turn around and during our Pledge of Allegiance recite " I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." is absolutely astounding. There have been changes to the wording over time, but one thing that has remained constant is "...and to the Republic for which it stands..."

Our Constitution was instituted to limit just how powerful the Federal Government can be, and to enumerate and protect what our founding fathers believed were "natural rights" or "God given rights". The whole system, as it was originally designed, was a beautiful, beautiful thing. Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, we as a nation have become ignorant and complacent and lazy and allowed our Government to have too much power and control. Strictly speaking, the only real control they have is defined in our Constitution or if not explicitly stated there determined by our Supreme Court. All other power and control they have is given to them because the general populous perceives the Government to have it, either through ignorance, laziness, apathy or cowardice.

Vegita182 was correct in saying that should the President overstep what the Constitution enumerates he is allowed to do, he would be acting in a tyrannical and dictatorial manner.

Well, you live and learn! Ta!