[Wildcatk23]

Should the US use military action against Syria?

Yes Or No?

Give your Reason.

[LWC]

No. At some point we must stop being the world's police. If we grow back into a strong country again, possibly. We cannot financially climb into another war. Ask Germany about the success they had fighting a war on two fronts, or in this case two wars.

If we look at Just War criteria, we cannot in good faith jump into another war. However, that does not mean the lives of the men and women that were lost were in vain. I pray every day for God to work His will in the lives of our Armed Services men and women, veterans, POW's, MIA's, etc... and also thanking God for fighting to defend our freedom. May God bless America and may America begin blessing God.

If we do go into another war, may it be quick and with as few casualties as possible. I am tired of our government using our soldiers as pawns of politics. These are people that have willingly enlisted or commissioned and suit up every day to do whatever job is necessary. May our government begin thinking about them as people wjth lives as opposed to pawns with legs. Every life matters!

[vundy33]

Gotta say yes. For me, the negatives of not doing anything far outweigh the short sighted objective of doing nothing. Also, it is a mistake to make this political like so many are. Watch and see, we will pay for doing nothing more than we would from doing something.

Like I've mentioned though, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[LWC]

^Should we still be fighting both wars?

[vundy33]

Both wars? We're only actively engaged in one at the moment (not counting the multiple other areas where we're fighting on a much smaller scale, like in Africa). Of course we shouldn't still be in Afghanistan but we are. I don't believe an attack on Syria will escalate, I don't believe we will be helping Al Qaeda at all and I have to laugh when I hear that honestly.

We're in a bad spot due to the incompetence of the White House and the State Department, and that's not me playing politics, it's just the truth. But I don't think we can fold. I'm thinking multiple moves ahead, mainly with Russia and China. The Russians have already spit in our faces multiple times this year and are showing that the balance of power has changed. The Chinese responded to our recent excercise with Japan, which saw the first amphibious Japenese troops since WW2 (they had always said that they didn't need amphibous troops to defend Japan before), to rolling out their own amphibious training exercise with the Russians showing that they're far ahead of one of our best allies in the area.

I don't think we can afford to look so weak in front of the entire world, including Russia, China, and the dozens of terrorist groups we're fighting all over the world right now. Any military planner knows that an enemy that is afraid to commit forces, due to any reason whether it's political or logistical, is an enemy that is weakened and open for attack. I don't want this to happen. I feel for the Syrian people, but they're not even close to the reason I think we should hit Syria obviously.

This has been jacked up from the start though. Personally I would rather be able to hit rewind and do it over again, but we can't. I definitely understand being afraid to get ourselves into another foreign conflict more than most, I just think it opens us up to unneeded risk if we don't backup our talk. We've backed ourselves into a corner where we're forced to do something or risk looking unbelievably incompetent, that was the biggest mistake of all, tying a hand behind our back.

[vundy33]

I've heard of the orders we intercepted coming from the head of Iran's Quds Force to Shiite groups in Iraq, calling for them to attack if we strike Syria. They can attack if they like, but they'll get absolutely slaughtered. I think they're smarter than that, these groups can't afford to lose as many people as they would attacking a target as badass as the U.S Embassy in Iraq.

[vundy33]

I also gotta say I've looked at our options if we do nothing as much and probably more than if we do do something. I've heard a lot of arguments, like retribution towards Israel in the form of Hezbollah. I can't buy that for the simple fact that the Hezbollah leadership knows how bad they got beaten in the past conflicts vs Israel. Not only would that pull much needed Hezbollah troops off of the front line in Syria where they're needed, the citizens of Lebanon want no part of any aggression toward Israel.

The main threat from a strike I think is retaliation on any U.S. or Israeli interests the attackers feel they can either win against or at least do some damage to justify the amount of troops they'd lose. But, I don't think an American strike would be big enough to warrant a response on that scale.

But, if we can find a way out of military action without showing such weakness, I'm for it.

[MustangSally]

NO! But we should be providing refugee aid. We should be oraganizing help for the million displaced people of the area. No to military attack where were we when the other 100000 people were killed in this civil war? What side should we be fighting on? This is a classic no win situation that we should stay out of.

[vundy33]

We're about to have a nuclear Iran to deal with. Of course, none of this will matter after that point.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

If the pansy president decides to make a token attack on Syria for "moral reasons" because of the poison gas that has allegedly killed around 400 children, I believe he is merely adding further proof that he is a hypocrite of the first degree. It is difficult for me to see how the United States, by and through its pansy president, can claim the "high ground" when it supports the killing of hundreds of thousands of children through legal abortion each year. Facts are facts. The truth is that this country has no moral authority and the pansy president is the worst offender to ever occupy the office.

[RunItUpTheGut]

No.

[Hoot Gibson]

We're about to have a nuclear Iran to deal with. Of course, none of this will matter after that point.

Our Perpetual Campaigner wants no part of Iran. If he can avoid dealing with Iran for the rest of his term, he will do so. The weakness that he projects will probably prompt Iran or Israel into taking action to force Obama to act. Obama is both incompetent and cowardly, and Americans will pay the price just as we paid dearly for electing Jimmy Carter president.

The Obama administration does not learn from its mistakes. A sensible person would not repeat the mistakes that were made in Libya and Egypt but Obama is not a rational human being. As bad as Obama has been for our economy, he has made an even bigger mess of our foreign policy. Attacking Syria would be a huge mistake and Russia will spare no expense to humiliate Obama if he decides to strike and he will have the support of most of the world, including some of our former allies.

[TheRealThing]

If the pansy president decides to make a token attack on Syria for "moral reasons" because of the poison gas that has allegedly killed around 400 children, I believe he is merely adding further proof that he is a hypocrite of the first degree. It is difficult for me to see how the United States, by and through its pansy president, can claim the "high ground" when it supports the killing of hundreds of thousands of children through legal abortion each year. Facts are facts. The truth is that this country has no moral authority and the pansy president is the worst offender to ever occupy the office.

Touch'e. Of course you are exactly correct and as is typically the case, folks tend to over look the glaringly obvious in matters such as this one. Truly, if Obama gave a flip about children, he'd at least try to slow the cog rate of rotation all awhirl inside the abortion 'Millions-O-Meter' which, I guarantee you clicks off considerably more than 400 each and every day. As a matter of fact, that daily head swirling number is 3,500 every darn day. Obama is totally tore up about those 400 in Syria though. :lame:

Hence, Vundy's observation about how ridiculous American values have become in the eyes of the world is further validated.

[insideinfo]

No. At some point we must stop being the world's police. If we grow back into a strong country again, possibly. We cannot financially climb into another war. Ask Germany about the success they had fighting a war on two fronts, or in this case two wars.

If we look at Just War criteria, we cannot in good faith jump into another war. However, that does not mean the lives of the men and women that were lost were in vain. I pray every day for God to work His will in the lives of our Armed Services men and women, veterans, POW's, MIA's, etc... and also thanking God for fighting to defend our freedom. May God bless America and may America begin blessing God.

If we do go into another war, may it be quick and with as few casualties as possible. I am tired of our government using our soldiers as pawns of politics. These are people that have willingly enlisted or commissioned and suit up every day to do whatever job is necessary. May our government begin thinking about them as people wjth lives as opposed to pawns with legs. Every life matters!

I agree 100% we have got to stop being the world police. We have got to develop strategies where lf we have to intervene it is only short term say 30 days or less, and when we intervene we bring the house. No one fears us anymore we can not just go in and bluff anymore, we have got to show we are the biggest baddest thing going and if we come it is your worst nightmare.

[vundy33]

Our Perpetual Campaigner wants no part of Iran. If he can avoid dealing with Iran for the rest of his term, he will do so. The weakness that he projects will probably prompt Iran or Israel into taking action to force Obama to act. Obama is both incompetent and cowardly, and Americans will pay the price just as we paid dearly for electing Jimmy Carter president.

The Obama administration does not learn from its mistakes. A sensible person would not repeat the mistakes that were made in Libya and Egypt but Obama is not a rational human being. As bad as Obama has been for our economy, he has made an even bigger mess of our foreign policy. Attacking Syria would be a huge mistake and Russia will spare no expense to humiliate Obama if he decides to strike and he will have the support of most of the world, including some of our former allies.

I'm more worried about dealing with them after his term to be honest. They'll be very, very close to nuclear by then...complicating matters quite a bit.

I don't think the saying "between a rock and a hard place" has fit so well into an American foreign policy situation in a long time, lol.

Failing to learn from your mistakes is one of the absolute killers of any leader. We've shown that the White House and State Dept are unbelievably incompetent...

[Wildcatk23]

OK So Iraq Supporters Disapprove of Syria.

[nky]

I don't see what we gain with doing anything in Syria

[Hoot Gibson]

OK So Iraq Supporters Disapprove of Syria.

That is obviously not true. McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor, and many other establishment Republicans who supported the Iraq War also support Obama's plan to strike Syria. Some of the Democrats who voted in support of the resolution giving Bush the authority to use force against Iraq seem to have lost their voice on this issue.

You are so eager to pin the hypocrisy label on Obama's critics that you are ignoring the fact that Obama has not persuaded many in his own party to support him on this issue. If people like me are opposed to a punitive strike on Syria because Obama proposed it, what is the excuse for so many of Obama's supporters opposing the plan?

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't see what we gain with doing anything in Syria

At this point, I don't think that Obama really wants Congress to approve action against Iraq. Obama and Hillary have made a shamble of our foreign policy and Democrats would like to blame Republicans in the 2014 and 2016 elections for their own blunders. Republicans will be doing Obama a favor by refusing to endorse his plan, but it is the right thing to do.

[Wildcatk23]

That is obviously not true. McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor, and many other establishment Republicans who supported the Iraq War also support Obama's plan to strike Syria. Some of the Democrats who voted in support of the resolution giving Bush the authority to use force against Iraq seem to have lost their voice on this issue.

You are so eager to pin the hypocrisy label on Obama's critics that you are ignoring the fact that Obama has not persuaded many in his own party to support him on this issue. If people like me are opposed to a punitive strike on Syria because Obama proposed it, what is the excuse for so many of Obama's supporters opposing the plan?

I meant people in this board.

But I remember you being very supportive of the Iraq war and disagree with this one . Why Is that?

[Hoot Gibson]

I meant people in this board.

But I remember you being very supportive of the Iraq war and disagree with this one . Why Is that?

I have already explained why I oppose a strike on Syria and I have explained at great length in the past why I supported to Iraq War. You just want to believe the worst about people who oppose Obama based on their core beliefs.

There is no logical reason to support a limited strike on Syria. Both the Syrian government and the rebels have used chemical weapons on Syrians and the Al Qaeda is supporting the rebels. Diminishing the Syrian government's military capability will improve the chance that Al Qaeda will take power in Syria or that a new government in Syria would be beholden to Al Qaeda.

Bush spent 18 months successfully lobbying the U.N. to support resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein for not meeting his obligations to account for and destroy his chemical weapons. Bush also won overwhelming support in Congress prior to going to war in Iraq, and in doing so he gave the Iraqi government ample time to move its WMD. If Hussein did not have WMD, he had convinced most Iraqis in his inner circle and his enemies like Iran that he was concealing chemical weapons. Conspiracy nuts who argue that Bush simply made up intelligence that strongly suggested that Iraq had concealed part of its chemical weapons stash are just not interested in the truth.

Meanwhile, Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against the U.S. and Israel. The Iranian government has openly encouraged extremists in Iraq to attack the American embassy in Baghdad if we attack Syria. Yet, Obama has done virtually nothing to derail the Iranian government from developing weapons that Iran will almost undoubtedly deploy through terrorist groups that it is already financing and arming. What Obama wants to do in Syria is the equivalent of kicking a bully's lap dog and then hiding behind his mother's apron.

If the real threat to America's national security is Iran, and it is a real threat, then Obama, McCain, and the other war hawks need to be addressing that threat directly. Instead, Obama's blundering foreign policy is costing this country many allies and it is making our enemies stronger. At the same time, good full time jobs are being transformed into part time jobs at home and the labor participation rate has reached a 35-year old low.

Obama has been an absolute disaster in the White House and people like you cannot understand why people like me have been opposed to almost everything that he has done since he has taken office. Look at the consequences of supporting a left wing nutcase for president and the reasons for opposing his policies should be obvious to you. Surely, you must suspect that you have been wrong in casting vote (s?) for Obama by now. If not, someday you will realize the magnitude of your mistake.

[vundy33]

Where do you get the information that the rebels have used CW?

[Hoot Gibson]

Where do you get the information that the rebels have used CW?

I should have said that I believe that it is likely that both sides have used chemical weapons. None of us can know for sure. On one side, we have President Obama, perpetrator of the hokey Benghazi cover-up, blaming Assad for a chemical attack and on the other side we have Putin, former KGB agent providing evidence that the rebels were responsible for the use of chemical weapons. I find neither source credible. Putin is clearly a superior propagandist. Obama's attempt to blame a video for the Benghazi attacks on our diplomats was one of the most transparent series of lies that I have ever seen a politician tell.

To me, it doesn't matter which side used chemical weapons, neither side is worthy of U.S. support. IMO, Obama is just using this phony crisis to distract the country's attention away from the NSA's massive invasion of Americans' privacy, the IRS scandal, and all of the other scandals that remain to be properly investigated. I have no reason to trust Obama on this issue and neither does any other American citizen. He has lied repeatedly in the past and he will continue to lie to us until the day that he dies.

Aside from Putin's 100-page report, videos have been circulating on the web that purport to show rebel leaders claiming to have access to chemical weapons and threatening to use them on women and children. It is not hard for me to believe that the rebels may have captured some of Syria's chemical weapons, even if they have not manufactured their own.

[TheRealThing]

I have already explained why I oppose a strike on Syria and I have explained at great length in the past why I supported to Iraq War. You just want to believe the worst about people who oppose Obama based on their core beliefs.

There is no logical reason to support a limited strike on Syria. Both the Syrian government and the rebels have used chemical weapons on Syrians and the Al Qaeda is supporting the rebels. Diminishing the Syrian government's military capability will improve the chance that Al Qaeda will take power in Syria or that a new government in Syria would be beholden to Al Qaeda.

Bush spent 18 months successfully lobbying the U.N. to support resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein for not meeting his obligations to account for and destroy his chemical weapons. Bush also won overwhelming support in Congress prior to going to war in Iraq, and in doing so he gave the Iraqi government ample time to move its WMD. If Hussein did not have WMD, he had convinced most Iraqis in his inner circle and his enemies like Iran that he was concealing chemical weapons. Conspiracy nuts who argue that Bush simply made up intelligence that strongly suggested that Iraq had concealed part of its chemical weapons stash are just not interested in the truth.

Meanwhile, Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against the U.S. and Israel. The Iranian government has openly encouraged extremists in Iraq to attack the American embassy in Baghdad if we attack Syria. Yet, Obama has done virtually nothing to derail the Iranian government from developing weapons that Iran will almost undoubtedly deploy through terrorist groups that it is already financing and arming. What Obama wants to do in Syria is the equivalent of kicking a bully's lap dog and then hiding behind his mother's apron.

If the real threat to America's national security is Iran, and it is a real threat, then Obama, McCain, and the other war hawks need to be addressing that threat directly. Instead, Obama's blundering foreign policy is costing this country many allies and it is making our enemies stronger. At the same time, good full time jobs are being transformed into part time jobs at home and the labor participation rate has reached a 35-year old low.

Obama has been an absolute disaster in the White House and people like you cannot understand why people like me have been opposed to almost everything that he has done since he has taken office. Look at the consequences of supporting a left wing nutcase for president and the reasons for opposing his policies should be obvious to you. Surely, you must suspect that you have been wrong in casting vote (s?) for Obama by now. If not, someday you will realize the magnitude of your mistake.

If the middle eastern thugs of Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Syria, Iran and a host of others had wanted to see the US paralyzed for nearly a decade in order to allow them to operate in the clear, they could scarcely have dreamed up a better secret weapon than Barack. By the end of his second term, Iran will have had eight years to freely pursue a cash of operational nuclear weapons. The tried and true common sense measures used in the very recent past to protect our land, have been discarded for the global community approach. This in my mind was the motivation for our state department to expose our flanks in Benghazi, by failing to defend the compound where our ambassador and others were attacked and killed. Meanwhile, the propaganda emanating out of this white house continually props up the very Islamic extremism which, poses so great a threat to world peace. They're so sure they know the better tack, they're totally willing to risk the lives, freedom and substance of every man woman and child of our country, going all-in, to make America vulnerable by sort of dropping her guard before her sworn enemies.

Democrats (and RINO's) have managed to divert the concerns generated by every day common sense and make it seem as if anyone who speaks out against terror is just another racially biased conservative. Likewise, since the fall of the USSR, the left insists that all threat from without has just magically evaporated somehow. You may recall my observation that the prerequisite to being liberal is the ability to mislead one's self in spite of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I believe one would be remiss if he failed to mention the effects of the liberal mindset when it comes to US foreign policy. Terms such as the global community and the brotherhood of man signify the fanciful notions of the incurable gullibility of the terminally liberal among us. They called for us to capitulate in the days leading up to WW2, even suggesting that we should give Japan anything they wanted after the attack at Pearl Harbor. Not being able to face up to reality, whether that be the unfortunate but necessary consequences of war, or recognizing the immorality of the millions or abortions, legalizing gay rights, or even the seemingly innocuous practice of feeding and housing the listless, has been the hallmark of the liberal.

[Wildcatk23]

I have already explained why I oppose a strike on Syria and I have explained at great length in the past why I supported to Iraq War. You just want to believe the worst about people who oppose Obama based on their core beliefs.

There is no logical reason to support a limited strike on Syria. Both the Syrian government and the rebels have used chemical weapons on Syrians and the Al Qaeda is supporting the rebels. Diminishing the Syrian government's military capability will improve the chance that Al Qaeda will take power in Syria or that a new government in Syria would be beholden to Al Qaeda.

Bush spent 18 months successfully lobbying the U.N. to support resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein for not meeting his obligations to account for and destroy his chemical weapons. Bush also won overwhelming support in Congress prior to going to war in Iraq, and in doing so he gave the Iraqi government ample time to move its WMD. If Hussein did not have WMD, he had convinced most Iraqis in his inner circle and his enemies like Iran that he was concealing chemical weapons. Conspiracy nuts who argue that Bush simply made up intelligence that strongly suggested that Iraq had concealed part of its chemical weapons stash are just not interested in the truth.

Meanwhile, Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against the U.S. and Israel. The Iranian government has openly encouraged extremists in Iraq to attack the American embassy in Baghdad if we attack Syria. Yet, Obama has done virtually nothing to derail the Iranian government from developing weapons that Iran will almost undoubtedly deploy through terrorist groups that it is already financing and arming. What Obama wants to do in Syria is the equivalent of kicking a bully's lap dog and then hiding behind his mother's apron.

If the real threat to America's national security is Iran, and it is a real threat, then Obama, McCain, and the other war hawks need to be addressing that threat directly. Instead, Obama's blundering foreign policy is costing this country many allies and it is making our enemies stronger. At the same time, good full time jobs are being transformed into part time jobs at home and the labor participation rate has reached a 35-year old low.

Obama has been an absolute disaster in the White House and people like you cannot understand why people like me have been opposed to almost everything that he has done since he has taken office. Look at the consequences of supporting a left wing nutcase for president and the reasons for opposing his policies should be obvious to you. Surely, you must suspect that you have been wrong in casting vote (s?) for Obama by now. If not, someday you will realize the magnitude of your mistake.

The magnitude of voting for Obama? Look where bush led us and you refuse to blame anything on him. He led the country to the ground . Yet you guys want to blame the democrats that was in congress but blame Obama for everything? The buck only stops with certain people?

We have more of a reason to attack syria then we did iraq. You do not support this war because its Obama's war and have thrown every republican that supports it under the bus. Myself disapprove of both wars.

Where is this info that the Rebels used Chemical weapons?

[Wildcatk23]

[Image: https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...0835_n.jpg]

[TheRealThing]

The magnitude of voting for Obama? Look where bush led us and you refuse to blame anything on him. He led the country to the ground . Yet you guys want to blame the democrats that was in congress but blame Obama for everything? The buck only stops with certain people?

We have more of a reason to attack syria then we did iraq. You do not support this war because its Obama's war and have thrown every republican that supports it under the bus. Myself disapprove of both wars.

Where is this info that the Rebels used Chemical weapons?

Fixing blame is not the intent, that's a game for people who don't understand the true nature of the problem. The self same democrats who are now calling for us to bomb Syria, voted for and spoke out the strongest to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Then only months later they BLAMED, George W for supposedly tricking them to get their vote of support. Some people accepted that ridiculous ruse though most of us did not.

Nobody from the Oblame-a camp can articulate what the direct threat is that Syrian chemical weapons pose to America. I'm sure folks will listen if only someone can step up and clarify the situation for us. No, if there is a threat according to Israeli UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman, it is the Iranian nuclear threat hanging over the US and her ally Israel. Both of our lands have been duly warned by Iran that we can expect to get blasted if they should ever gain that capability. Now, if he wants to fly in 150 cruise missiles to knock out Iran's nuclear capability, then I for one would vote yes.

[Hoot Gibson]

The magnitude of voting for Obama? Look where bush led us and you refuse to blame anything on him. He led the country to the ground . Yet you guys want to blame the democrats that was in congress but blame Obama for everything? The buck only stops with certain people?

We have more of a reason to attack syria then we did iraq. You do not support this war because its Obama's war and have thrown every republican that supports it under the bus. Myself disapprove of both wars.

Where is this info that the Rebels used Chemical weapons?

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I have never been a big Bush supporter and I have often criticized him and other moderate Republicans. I support the war against radical Islam. Period. I don't care who is in office, if they want to fight Islamic terrorists, I will support them in that effort. I don't see how siding with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Al Qaeda supported rebels in Syria moves us any closer to ridding the world of barbaric Islamists who would kill us all if they had the opportunity.

There is no reason for us to attack Iraq under the limited plan that Obama has outlined. You are either being dishonest or willfully ignorant when you accuse me of opposing Obama's disastrous foreign policy because he is a Democrat or because he is black, or for whatever reason you think that conservatives oppose his incompetent performance in office.

Why do you think the U.S. has found itself on the same side as radical Islamists in Egypt and Syria? Why do you think that is such a good position to support. All I have read from you are insults aimed at people who have laid out in detail the reasons why they are opposed to Obama's plan to bomb Syria. You have said that you oppose the bombing too. Why is your opposition to Obama's plan good and our opposition to Obama's plan bad? Does that really make any sense to you? If so, then I question your sanity.

In case you have forgotten how you voted, please refresh your memory - the votes were made public. Your attacks on people for agreeing with you is bizarre.

[vector]

I should have said that I believe that it is likely that both sides have used chemical weapons. None of us can know for sure. On one side, we have President Obama, perpetrator of the hokey Benghazi cover-up, blaming Assad for a chemical attack and on the other side we have Putin, former KGB agent providing evidence that the rebels were responsible for the use of chemical weapons. I find neither source credible. Putin is clearly a superior propagandist. Obama's attempt to blame a video for the Benghazi attacks on our diplomats was one of the most transparent series of lies that I have ever seen a politician tell.

To me, it doesn't matter which side used chemical weapons, neither side is worthy of U.S. support. IMO, Obama is just using this phony crisis to distract the country's attention away from the NSA's massive invasion of Americans' privacy, the IRS scandal, and all of the other scandals that remain to be properly investigated. I have no reason to trust Obama on this issue and neither does any other American citizen. He has lied repeatedly in the past and he will continue to lie to us until the day that he dies.

Aside from Putin's 100-page report, videos have been circulating on the web that purport to show rebel leaders claiming to have access to chemical weapons and threatening to use them on women and children. It is not hard for me to believe that the rebels may have captured some of Syria's chemical weapons, even if they have not manufactured their own.

NOW HE BELIEVES THE RUSSIANS :biglmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

NOW HE BELIEVES THE RUSSIANS :biglmao:

Liar. I said that Putin has as much credibility as Obama. It takes a moron to take anything either man says as truth but Putin is a much better liar. With TheRealVille's departure from the forum, have you become WC23's comic relief man? nicker: