Ha yea, I don't think it woulda of mattered anyway. We would of had to pick sides and got involved before long.
I do not agree with this authors opinions but posting it for the historical content. http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/30936 Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Idk I just think it will happen eventually simply for things like this. And for the fact your not gonna be on top forever, really with everything goin on from the outside looking in I dont think we're as strong as in past. I mean look at how split we were when Obama got re-elected, how many states claimed they would succeed. I know just blowing smoke but it made us seem pretty divided as a country. More recently gun control has had thst effect.
I agree that we're not as strong as we once were and that just shows me even more how weak obama is as a leader. Damn we need reagan or someone like him at this point in time. I just don't know who that would be. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I was thinking that, what if Russia thought the people of Mexico were being slaughtered by narco terrorists(they are) and decided the government of Mexico was not doing enough. How would the us feel if they sent bombers over to destroy the narcos positions. They would technically be helping. At last count over 60000 innocents have died maybe twice that in reality. Do other countries have the right to step in with every atrocity. Worse wars have occurred in Africa and we do t help. What's the agenda here? We should stay the hell out.
When the government is the one committing the attrocities, then yes, other countries should be stepping in. Hopefully in a unified effort. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
We should also help when asked to help when the government isn't capable of stopping attrocities. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
No answers here, but here are a few facts to consider: 1. A substantial portion of fighters on both sides are foreign military-aged me with extreme religious views and a gut full of hate for Christians and Jews. The opposition fighters find it sporting to burn down churches. 2. Assad is basically a secular tin pot dictator who has protected the Christians living in Syria. 3. If Assad wins the foreign Sunni opposition will be eliminated and or expelled....who then would they focus their hatred on: most likely Russia for supporting Assad. 4. What good can come from a series of surgical air strikes that tip the scales in favor of the opposition? If Assad is ousted, ethier another civil war will ensue, or the Sunni nutburger's will gain the upper hand and establish a base of operations to...you guessed it, kill Christians and Jews. 5. The principal of divide and conquer has been a staple of military strategy since the dawn of man. By and large most of the dead are military aged men with extremist views...what's the problem? 6. The polls bare out the fact that we Americans have no stomach for a military adventure in Syria. Some posters mentioned a divide amongst the populace. True that it may be, opposition to intervention is pegged at 70-80%. 7. There is no evidence that Russia or China is supplying Assad with chemical or biological weapons. 8. The President has failed to explain the consequences of failing to act. 9. While there is no doubt Shiite extremists hate us, it was Sunni extremists who attacked us on 911.
There is no question this is an extremely complicated matter. This is why I say we need to be sure we're on the right side of the conflict and im not sure about that. Al quaeda and hezbolla are both factors that are very much in our interest. Obama is not eguipped to handle this from what I have seen historically from him. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Also this one Spare us the hypocrisy over chemical weapons, America. What about Agent Orange? ? Telegraph Blogs
Agent orange was used to kill foliage. But it did have a horrible side effect but not the intended use. We have since signed a no chemical weapons treaty. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I think the authors definition of "chemical" is different than that of which is defined by the treaty. Not to mention, attacking your enemy with a bomb is quite different than spreading poison gas on your own people killing all in it's path for the sole purpose of total anialation. All weapons are chemical when you get down to it. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
My point was simply the hypocrisy with regards to taking such a hard "red line" stance to the situation. I believe this whole situation shows the whole world the incompetence of the U.S. government. Sad really.
Too right Tfox...the article was obviously written by a member of the "hate America first crowd" who has no idea of the contents of treaties banning the use of chemical and biological weapons.
