Posted on 08/31/2013 8:42:57 AM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles
Also, Napalm and Agent Orange were pretty destructive. The idea of weapons is to be destructive.
ans: from what i can tell, amnesty and something that will pop around oct 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJiQkKoIeFw
Nope. Not our fight. Very dangerous move. Consequences could be severe. Not good for Israel. And we don’t belong on the same side as AQ and MB.
I say if we do it, have McCain lead the mission.
I think it was even a New Yorker article that pointed out that this was the strategic equivalent of a “drive by shooting.” as we have no sensible target, the issues are mainly our face-saving, and the collateral damage will be more than what is achieved.
Find the Christian minority and take the other side is what we are doing.
Al Queda’s Air Force is what we will become.
Machettes and bullets are both WMDs, and we've allowed people to use them. The "W" in WMD that matters is "will", not the means. Do you know what artillery does to people? Very gruesome.
How do you justifiy trying to police the violence in Syria, while allowing NK to even exist? The entire Islamic world is a hell hole for women, what of that?
When we get a handle on Detroit, Philly, and the Southside of Chicago, then we can start on the rest of the world.
“Ok, my feeing is if they used Chem Weapons on their own people, or on any other people for that matter they need to be hit hard. The chips fall where they may.”
OMG!
We still have people on FR stupid enough to even consider this train of thought?!
You talk about needing to be “hit hard” - sounds like you need a serious wake up call across the cheek?!
No.
All these years, the UN has been held up as the body that
should deal with this sort of situation.
Now it’s time for them to deal with it.
NO.
After a year we still don’t know what happened in Benghazi
so after a week, we can decide who used chemical weapons
in a third country?
NO.
We should ask ourselves, if CWII came to pass here, would we want Syria to intervene? My intuition says that would be a resounding “no”.
NO! I love my country, I fear my Government. Ill check you tube, musta been the video.
What Reagan would have already done is clean out the festering sore which is islam. Including Obama’s people.
If you want Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, you don’t attack Syria, you attack IRAN in a surgical strike on their nuclear facilities.
This Syria debacle is Obama’s Ego War.
Stay away from other countries’ civil wars.
Atrocities happen every day and we are not the policemen of the world, especially with Obama’s sequester drastically cutting the military budget.
As the ole saying goes, ‘we don’t have a dog in that fight’.
Only if bombing them led to his immediate impeachment and removal from office under the 25th Amendment.
Other than that no. And while I’m at it, allow me to state ten good reasons NOT to bomb anyone:
1) No imminent threat to our national security, this requiring Congressional authorization.
2) Attacking a sovereign nation that host military bases of two nuclear powers (Russian and Iran), and would only give aid and comfort to our sworn enemies.
3) No allied support.
4) Open threats from 3 nuclear powers against attacking (Russia China, Iran)
5) Low military morale
6) Lack of any reasonable public support among Americans
7) Lack of a financial stability for a sustained military effort (which would be needed a soon as the first missle frigate is sank in the Med)
8) gutting military budgeting due to sequestering
9) Many of those against the attack hold much of our foreign debt.
10) Most important: There is a clear lack of trust for the Command-in-Chief from the military, the people and our allies.
That’s just 10 off the top of my head. I’m sure the others can come up with more.
Again: No, and HELL NO.
You can’t look at this situation in a vacuum. It is part and parcel of Obama’s total f*** up in the Middle East, and the World.
So I don’t support anything Obama does, I only hope his arrogance has finally caught up with him.
I will support a future, more qualified, leader’s efforts to deal with the problems in the ME through a combination of diplomacy and force.
Man, this next election us going to have great consequences for the World.
For all his kookiness, old Dennis Kucinich was absolutely right.
No.
I was going to answer in affirmative, and write a snarky explanation that make clear that it was a sarcastic response.
Bottom line: The doctrine of R2P requires the US to be in a condition of permanent war because there will always be violent injustice in the world. Permanent war is an undesirable condition. Any way, the US should only consider R2P only after it attains a state of perfect justice in the US. In other words, never.
GWB was a fool to think that the US could eradicate evil in the world. Samantha Powers is a fool to say assert a doctrine of global R2P.
And you are completely wrong.
Ronald Reagan accomplished the dissolution of the Soviet Union by pledging to shield America from missile attack, and offering the same shield to Russia for free.
Reagan won everything by being resolute and TRUSTWORTHY.
So the new standard is we allow use of WNDs?
we did when the Kurds and the Iranians got the gas... we didn’t do squat.
remember that Saddam used them against the Kurds and the other oppositions at the end of the Iraq war and also used them against Iranians..... but the Leftist quisling, lying POSs Democrats/MSM all said. “nope, he doesn’t have any”.
I hope those ships have chem gear on because if they get close enough I’ll bet the Syrians have a surprise for the young Kenyan. Then when or if he bombs the syrians will trot out all the dead kids that were killed by the drones or tomahawks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.