Will there be American invasion in Syria?

[Deleted member 365]

Hahaha. Go read the thread before you single people out.

Sorry, I'm too busy worried about the Ruskies overthrowing the dollar to read through this thread. Or was it china that was going to do that? If its anything like the garbage you and your paranoid friends have spewed, I'm not missing out on anything.

 

[Deleted member 365]

What part of my post made you think i care if others are "free and democratic"? I encourage other countries to find what's best for them.

The use of chemical weapons is something else entirely, and must be stopped. In my opinion, more so than nukes. Nothing is going to stop him from obtaining more. But this isn't a car of every time someone steps out of line chemical weapons are being used. There's not quite the track record to denote that there's 0 chance he's sincere about giving up his weapons.

We should not be policing the world, only ourselves.

Sent from your moms room.... While she was sleeping.

The rebels aren't any better.

Helping out either side on this matter is illegal and against what the world stands for. In this case, you're either aiding a dictator or terrorists. Nothin is to be gained here. It's that simple.

 

[Gameface]

Obama is saying it's cool because no American boots on the ground. Personally I think killing people from a distance and having no skin in the game is pretty disgusting. In no way do I want a single U.S. soldier to die in Syria, but if it isn't worth sending troops, if the mission is not vitally important for the security of the U.S., then it's a situation we should stay out of completely. This idea that it's okay as long as we're killing by remote control and not in person is terrible.

Here's a little summary of my position, Thriller...

 

[♪alt13]

But I was trying to found conservative because conservatives love the FF and Constitution. Except when it's against something they want.

Yeah I can see that, but it's disingenuous. Our FF wore ribbon on their hair for Christs sake. Who the hell does that.

"Mr. Jefferson are you ready for your portrait sitting."

"Hold on I have to redo the bow in my ponytail, it's all crooked"

 

[Stoked]

Sorry, I'm too busy worried about the Ruskies overthrowing the dollar to read through this thread. Or was it china that was going to do that? If its anything like the garbage you and your paranoid friends have spewed, I'm not missing out on anything.

Haha. Wrong again.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Haha. Wrong again.

Right

 

[Stoked]

I agree with the message that no matter who you are we will come for you if we need to. I just think that message is already sent. To the point that it is almost a joke. I do not think we need to engage Syria.

Right

I'm sorry, you were saying?

 

[Harambe]

This is your stance. Not what you would do.

And theres kind of a little difference between child labor and chemical warfare. Don't get me wrong, both are awful, but chemical warfare has higher stakes

Sent from your moms room.... While she was sleeping.

 

[Harambe]

No. Were not helping a side. That's not what were after.

We're after getting rid of chemical warfare. Helping one side or the other is the byproduct of what we ARE after.

Sent from your moms room.... While she was sleeping.

 

[Deleted member 365]

No. Were not helping a side. That's not what were after.

We're after getting rid of chemical warfare. Helping one side or the other is the byproduct of what we ARE after.

Sent from your moms room.... While she was sleeping.

What's the difference between a few thousand killed in Syria by chem chems and the millions slaughtered in Rwanda by machetes? Are people any less or more dead by chemical weapons?

It seems to me if the "world" cares about moralty, they wouldn't have just sat on their hands as they knew that horrible genocide was happening in Africa. Many Eurotrash officiala cut and ran just as millions needed them the most.

If the USA cared about "sending a message" then they maybe should have out a stop to the genocide in Rwanda. This would have demonstrated that we don't care who or what you are, mass killings will not be tolerated.

 

[Deleted member 365]

No. Were not helping a side. That's not what were after.

We're after getting rid of chemical warfare. Helping one side or the other is the byproduct of what we ARE after.

Sent from your moms room.... While she was sleeping.

So what's preventing Asswad from obtaining chem chems here in a few months? Hell, this could be kinda fun! Much like March Madness or the Super Bowl! Every few months we could bomb Assad's newest chemical weapons!

And as far as Onama's claim that Asswad might give some chem chems to terrorists... Ummmm... What's stopping terrorists from obtaining WMDs from any other source? *cough* Iran *cough*

I think there's a mistaken notion that American intervention makes things better. In reality, it oftentimes makes it worse. Again, see our last 2 Eagle Scout projects. We will all be paying them off for the rest of our living lives. And thousands of adults will never see their families again. Yet, both countries are just as bad if not worse. So hell, why not make it 3? 3 nations to rebuild in just 13 years! Yipee! Murika!

It's funny to see the same folks bash our government over health care and virtually everything else yet desire for our government to intervene in other countries. If our government is so incompetent and corrupt then why do we want to spread it into other countries so much? If it can't handle health care here in the USA then how the hell will it handle rebuilding another nation of such different culture and history?

s far as credibility goes, we have credibility to lose still? Wow! I'm impressed! I thought we lost all credibility when we told the world that we would stand with S. Vietnam against Communism! Or that we weren't doing contras. Or that Saddam had WMDs!

Now, all of a sudden, Syria will sink our credibility ship?!

Folks, im sure the world will give us another chance to test our credibility. Lets just use it on a war that we actually support and on one that we can actually win.

I'm a ****ing maverick man. Tigers blood. I spit out the truth, don't care if I piss off libtards or consermorons. Someone try and dispute my posts. I dare you. I don't let petty political games cloud my judgment. You may not like my style but you folks really can't disagree with a word that I'm saying. I'm right. You know I am.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I'm sorry, you were saying?

The issue here isn't whether or not Syria has WMDs. If we were to attack every country who has WMDs then we'd be off to war against Russia, China, and many of our most closest allies. Hell, we would have to bomb ourselves since we are one of the world's leaders in WMDs!

The issue is Asswad using them. Now what proof do we have that he even used them? Has the UN report proven that yet or does it have yet to come in? Now why would Asswad even need to use them? How do we know that Al-Queda didn't obtain them and use them in some Syrians? Or framed Asswad? How do we know for sure that they were even used?

To me, lets call their bluff. If we do nothing, then their plan to have us do their fighting against Asswad for them will have backfired. If we do nothing but it really was Asswad? Meh. Who cares? As long as he doesn't do it again who cares? Ultimately, our message was sent and received. If we do nothing and he does it again, then we will have a surety that he really is a jerk face and maybe just maybe someone closer to the situation will fix him for us. Does Putin really want to be seen by the international community as a supporter of a serial gasser?