Guest Butero Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 I don't believe we have any strategic reason to go to war with Syria, so in my opinion, we should stay out of it. I hate the fact Obama drew a line in the sand, and it will make us look bad if he fails to act, but I feel like taking on Syria will only lead to a mess, far bigger than anything we have gotten ourselves into in the past. I hate that they used chemical weapons, but we can't go to war with every country that does things we find wrong. We don't have the resources, and we aren't setting out with the objective of conquering the entire world. We just get involved in one nation's civil matters, and then leave. We can't keep doing that. If we had a national interest, I might feel different, but we don't. This is all about Obama and his line in the sand, and I am not going to support wasting American lives and money to defend an incompetent President. I don't believe we should do anything in Syria either but, don't forget, it's John McCain who is really pushing to take action against them. Good thing HE didn't get elected; the first words out of his mouth whenever anything happens anywhere is 'we must act!' Why not let all these stupid countries fight EACH OTHER, elect their own leaders and make their own money? Americans are sick of wars. You are right about McCain. I am sick of Republicans that seem like they want to get involved in a war every chance they get, whether it is a Republican President in power or a Democrat. I don't think intervention in Syria will end well, and I hope common sense prevails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 I don't believe we have any strategic reason to go to war with Syria, so in my opinion, we should stay out of it. I hate the fact Obama drew a line in the sand, and it will make us look bad if he fails to act, but I feel like taking on Syria will only lead to a mess, far bigger than anything we have gotten ourselves into in the past. I hate that they used chemical weapons, but we can't go to war with every country that does things we find wrong. We don't have the resources, and we aren't setting out with the objective of conquering the entire world. We just get involved in one nation's civil matters, and then leave. We can't keep doing that. If we had a national interest, I might feel different, but we don't. This is all about Obama and his line in the sand, and I am not going to support wasting American lives and money to defend an incompetent President. I agree. What's more, the opposition isn't any better, morally, and I don't think they'd be better for the populace in power. They are both killing innocents. And, honestly, the US providing weapons to the opposition, particularly since the Russians are supplying the state, just drags this out longer and means more people dying. It's very frustrating. Republicans and Democrats are guilty of getting us entangled in unnecessary wars. If it wasn't for our need for oil, I would have opposed the first gulf war. We could solve that problem by drilling for our own oil, and building that pipe line to Canada. If we have no strategic interest in something, we need to learn to stay out of it. I could see intervention in Syria leading to a world war if Russia and China decide to defend them against the U.S.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted August 31, 2013 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2013 I don't believe we have any strategic reason to go to war with Syria, so in my opinion, we should stay out of it. I hate the fact Obama drew a line in the sand, and it will make us look bad if he fails to act, but I feel like taking on Syria will only lead to a mess, far bigger than anything we have gotten ourselves into in the past. I hate that they used chemical weapons, but we can't go to war with every country that does things we find wrong. We don't have the resources, and we aren't setting out with the objective of conquering the entire world. We just get involved in one nation's civil matters, and then leave. We can't keep doing that. If we had a national interest, I might feel different, but we don't. This is all about Obama and his line in the sand, and I am not going to support wasting American lives and money to defend an incompetent President. I agree. What's more, the opposition isn't any better, morally, and I don't think they'd be better for the populace in power. They are both killing innocents. And, honestly, the US providing weapons to the opposition, particularly since the Russians are supplying the state, just drags this out longer and means more people dying. It's very frustrating. Republicans and Democrats are guilty of getting us entangled in unnecessary wars. If it wasn't for our need for oil, I would have opposed the first gulf war. We could solve that problem by drilling for our own oil, and building that pipe line to Canada. If we have no strategic interest in something, we need to learn to stay out of it. I could see intervention in Syria leading to a world war if Russia and China decide to defend them against the U.S.? I don't think China is going to get involved at all here. Russia, however, concerns me. They have a naval base in Syria (which consequently means that they do have strategic national interests there, where the United States really doesn't) so they have a pretty big stake in this. I don't think Russia wants to go to war with the United States or vice versa, but this sort of thing could lead to a Guns of August type situation. That's what mainly concerns me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Westin Posted August 31, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 616 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 96 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/07/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2013 MorningGlory is right, chemical weapons are worst then conventional weapons. Conventional weapons will have collateral damage (killing of noncombatants), but nothing like chemical weapons. The Geneva Convention outlawed such weapons, not that our enemies really care. Even nuclear weapons (which are as MorningGlory said, are non conventional) are being designed to be more strategical in their attacks then in the past, when they made giant parking lots. There are pros and cons to strategical nuclear weapons , being more strategical, a country could be more likely to use them. (which isn't good) Oldzimm yes car bombs and and planes flown into buildings are much more strategic in not killing innocent lives, would America be so ready to attack if a bomb blew up a cruise ship and all the people drowned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted August 31, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,262 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,991 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2013 MorningGlory is right, chemical weapons are worst then conventional weapons. Conventional weapons will have collateral damage (killing of noncombatants), but nothing like chemical weapons. The Geneva Convention outlawed such weapons, not that our enemies really care. Even nuclear weapons (which are as MorningGlory said, are non conventional) are being designed to be more strategical in their attacks then in the past, when they made giant parking lots. There are pros and cons to strategical nuclear weapons , being more strategical, a country could be more likely to use them. (which isn't good) Oldzimm yes car bombs and and planes flown into buildings are much more strategic in not killing innocent lives, would America be so ready to attack if a bomb blew up a cruise ship and all the people drowned some of us "cruisers" would. I personally would... yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted September 2, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 2, 2013 I heard the other day on a Christian News radio station that Saudi Arabia contacted Russia and promised them oil and other deals if they backed off because they wanted to move into Syria after the dust settles. I have not thought about what this means, but it is a new twist in the game of upper hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted September 2, 2013 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 2, 2013 I don't believe we have any strategic reason to go to war with Syria, so in my opinion, we should stay out of it. I hate the fact Obama drew a line in the sand, and it will make us look bad if he fails to act, but I feel like taking on Syria will only lead to a mess, far bigger than anything we have gotten ourselves into in the past. I hate that they used chemical weapons, but we can't go to war with every country that does things we find wrong. We don't have the resources, and we aren't setting out with the objective of conquering the entire world. We just get involved in one nation's civil matters, and then leave. We can't keep doing that. If we had a national interest, I might feel different, but we don't. This is all about Obama and his line in the sand, and I am not going to support wasting American lives and money to defend an incompetent President. I agree. What's more, the opposition isn't any better, morally, and I don't think they'd be better for the populace in power. They are both killing innocents. And, honestly, the US providing weapons to the opposition, particularly since the Russians are supplying the state, just drags this out longer and means more people dying. It's very frustrating. Republicans and Democrats are guilty of getting us entangled in unnecessary wars. If it wasn't for our need for oil, I would have opposed the first gulf war. We could solve that problem by drilling for our own oil, and building that pipe line to Canada. If we have no strategic interest in something, we need to learn to stay out of it. I could see intervention in Syria leading to a world war if Russia and China decide to defend them against the U.S.? I don't think China is going to get involved at all here. Russia, however, concerns me. They have a naval base in Syria (which consequently means that they do have strategic national interests there, where the United States really doesn't) so they have a pretty big stake in this. I don't think Russia wants to go to war with the United States or vice versa, but this sort of thing could lead to a Guns of August type situation. That's what mainly concerns me. I just don't think we have any national interest? Obama claims we do, but failed to explain one? He explained one from the mindset of a globalist, but not the interest of America. The United States has no strategic interest in the situation in syria, no. If anything, assad winning would tactily be in our long term interest, just because stable regimes in the mideast are preferable to what you see going on in egypt right now, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncn Posted September 2, 2013 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 6 Topic Count: 406 Topics Per Day: 0.09 Content Count: 5,248 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 1,337 Days Won: 67 Joined: 08/07/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted September 2, 2013 This is spot on. Thanks George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldzimm Posted September 2, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 85 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,874 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 348 Days Won: 12 Joined: 03/10/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/08/1955 Share Posted September 2, 2013 MorningGlory is right, chemical weapons are worst then conventional weapons. Conventional weapons will have collateral damage (killing of noncombatants), but nothing like chemical weapons. The Geneva Convention outlawed such weapons, not that our enemies really care. Even nuclear weapons (which are as MorningGlory said, are non conventional) are being designed to be more strategical in their attacks then in the past, when they made giant parking lots. There are pros and cons to strategical nuclear weapons , being more strategical, a country could be more likely to use them. (which isn't good) Oldzimm yes car bombs and and planes flown into buildings are much more strategic in not killing innocent lives, would America be so ready to attack if a bomb blew up a cruise ship and all the people drowned Oh yes, car bombs and planes are strategic weapons, but it is depending on your target if it is the killing of innocent life or not. I can't see how anybody could say 9-11 was not the killing of innocent life, it was nothing but the killing of innocent life. These types of weapons are the weapons of cowards (terrorist) and a bullet in the head should be their demise. (If it is the will of God) I'm also 100% sure that if a cruise ship is hit by terrorist or another country, there would be hell to pay. Any airplane or ship is considered territory of the country they belong to and it would be considered an attack on that country. The reason I know this is because when my company got on the plane to leave Iraq, the stewardess welcomed us home and said since we are on an American plane, we are on US soil. Oldzimm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted September 3, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted September 3, 2013 This is spot on. Thanks George. That explains a lot. Obama is personally tied to Saudi Arabia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts