WN: Senators craft Syria compromise - Politico

[Guest shiloh357]

It doesn't have to be dirty bombs.  They can do a lot of damage with conventional terrorist tactics on our soil.  We are woefully unprepared for all it.  Terrorism is all about terror.  One sniper terrorized the eastern seaboard for weeks.  Imagine what 50 snipers all around the US could do.  Imagine the damage a few suicide bombers could do before anyone had the presence of mind to act.

[JDavis]

to me not doing an action out of fear of the possible actions by the terrorist means the terrorist have already won

[Guest shiloh357]

to me not doing an action out of fear of the possible actions by the terrorist means the terrorist have already won

I would hate to see you explain that to a mother holding the shredded body of her child if a suicide bomber strikes in retaliation.

 

If there was a direct threat to our nation, if we had been hit by terrorist act, then your statement would make sense.  Wanting to not incite a terrorist act is an act of responsible self-preservation.  Why invite unecessary trouble by striking a nation that poses no strategic threat and is engaged in a civl war that doesn't effect us?

 

I think not wanting to get hit by a terrorist attack is a pretty good reason not strike Syria.  Let's think about our people for a change.  The purpose of the US military is to protect the American people, not to protect the Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans or anyone else.

[JDavis]

to me not doing an action out of fear of the possible actions by the terrorist means the terrorist have already won

I would hate to see you explain that to a mother holding the shredded body of her child if a suicide bomber strikes in retaliation.

If there was a direct threat to our nation, if we had been hit by terrorist act, then your statement would make sense. Wanting to not incite a terrorist act is an act of responsible self-preservation. Why invite unecessary trouble by striking a nation that poses no strategic threat and is engaged in a civl war that doesn't effect us?

I think not wanting to get hit by a terrorist attack is a pretty good reason not strike Syria. Let's think about our people for a change. The purpose of the US military is to protect the American people, not to protect the Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans or anyone else.

As I have stated I am against any action in Syria, just feel fear is the wrong reason not to do something.

[nebula]

to me not doing an action out of fear of the possible actions by the terrorist means the terrorist have already won

 

No, but as Jesus said, before a king goes to battle he needs to count the cost. And this truly ought to be considered amidst the mix of costs.

 

 

As I have stated I am against any action in Syria, just feel fear is the wrong reason not to do something.

 

But no one is holding this as the reason not to take action against Syria. It is one of many factors to calculate into the equation that attacking Syria will not be a simple excursion.

[Matthitjah]

The problem with any action on Syria is that there is no defined objective. What are we trying to accomplish?

 

The next main problem in my mind is the people involved in the leading of the attack. This President and his cabinet of incompetents will likely hit a stash of chemical weapons. Leading Generals past and present have expressed this sentiment. It takes 3,500 degree's F to disintegrate these weapons and leave them harmless. The average Crusie Missle won't come anywhere near that temperature. Like in Vietnam, when you have War based on Politics and not a very clear goal, there will be disasterous results. This incompetent President and his Staff could cause the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands if not millions and result in the fulfillment of Prophecy regarding a city like Damascus.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0828/Why-Syria-s-chemical-weapons-would-be-difficult-target-for-US-strike-video

 

As stated in the article, "the weapons could fall into the hands of Islamic extremist's" as well.

 

Then there's this;

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/05/russia-warns-of-nuclear-disaster-if-syria-is-hit/

 

 

There are also numerous reporst that the chemicals might actually have been used by Islamic Extremist rebels and then pinned on Assad.

 

Those three facts alone should keep us out of an Islamic Civil War if not in outright support of Assad.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

to me not doing an action out of fear of the possible actions by the terrorist means the terrorist have already won

I would hate to see you explain that to a mother holding the shredded body of her child if a suicide bomber strikes in retaliation.

If there was a direct threat to our nation, if we had been hit by terrorist act, then your statement would make sense. Wanting to not incite a terrorist act is an act of responsible self-preservation. Why invite unecessary trouble by striking a nation that poses no strategic threat and is engaged in a civl war that doesn't effect us?

I think not wanting to get hit by a terrorist attack is a pretty good reason not strike Syria. Let's think about our people for a change. The purpose of the US military is to protect the American people, not to protect the Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans or anyone else.

As I have stated I am against any action in Syria, just feel fear is the wrong reason not to do something.

 

You are mistaking responsible and sober considerations for fear.  Not wanting to incite a violent response isn't fear.  But it is a legitimate concern and before this nation runs headlong into something we might regret, it behooves us to consider all possible consequences including terrorist activity on our soil.  It can happen.  It is not an irrational paranoia or unwarranted concern.   One of the first rules of combat is to never underestimate the enemy.

[MorningGlory]

this is not just a civil war within Syria,

it's between Shia and Sunni and it's been going on for about 1400 years. It's not our fight.  Our society is not prepared or willing to fight these people and to get involved in their fight is total folly.

 

I agree, O.O.  This is a tribal, totally incomprehensible war between religious factions.   None of them Christian and none of them remotely connected to the U.S. or other civilized countries. 

[MorningGlory]

I think not wanting to get hit by a terrorist attack is a pretty good reason not strike Syria.  Let's think about our people for a change.  The purpose of the US military is to protect the American people, not to protect the Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans or anyone else.

 

 

Amen to that. 

[Matthitjah]

Nawwwww! The Iranians retaliating isn't a threat at all. PeeShaw!

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-intercepts-iranian-reprisal-plot/

 

 

OOOOOOPS!