View Poll Results: If Syria uses WMD's on it's own people

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • the USofA should get involved militarily. Immediately.

    7 14.89%
  • the USofA should continue to stay out of it completely.

    16 34.04%
  • it's proof the USofA should have gotten involved militarily sooner.

    2 4.26%
  • it would be the UN's problem, not ours.

    11 23.40%
  • let some other coalition of countries deal with it. The US should stay out.

    6 12.77%
  • other - please explain

    5 10.64%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 78

Thread: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

  1. #51
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Any kind of successful attack by NK would disrupt SK and Japan and have a giant impact on the world economy, including the US.
    That is true, but if we're talking about in terms of threat, NK is way more of a threat then Iraq was. If we got rid of Saddam because he was a huge threat, that's basically crap considering who we left alone.

    The Iraq war was as much or more about making money for MIC contractors as it was oil. (just an opinion)
    Perhaps, but to pretend oil wasn't at all related is pretty delusional. Again, if the region didn't have oil, we wouldn't have invaded to free Kuwait back in the 90s.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #52
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    I think we are agreeing about NK. They pose a terrible threat and they are pretty much nuts.

    The first Iraq war was surely about oil. We went in, did what we had to do and left. The second war seemed to be more about profits, than about oil. But maybe I'm wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    That is true, but if we're talking about in terms of threat, NK is way more of a threat then Iraq was. If we got rid of Saddam because he was a huge threat, that's basically crap considering who we left alone.



    Perhaps, but to pretend oil wasn't at all related is pretty delusional. Again, if the region didn't have oil, we wouldn't have invaded to free Kuwait back in the 90s.

  3. #53
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    I think we are agreeing about NK. They pose a terrible threat and they are pretty much nuts.
    Nah, North Korea ain't nuts. Neither is Iran. Who is nuts are those who have nothing to lose. Stateless actors without any means of deterrence are essentially nuts as we cannot do anything to prevent their actions short of killing them. With Iran and North Korea, the desire to stay in power is a big negotiating chip. Both nations know that we can remove their regimes if we really wanted to.

    The first Iraq war was surely about oil. We went in, did what we had to do and left. The second war seemed to be more about profits, than about oil. But maybe I'm wrong.
    That's one way of looking at it. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why. But I seriously gotta question the mental capacity of anyone who thinks oil is irrelevant.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #54
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    How do we know they have them? They've never used them on their own people and no evidence has been produced that they have them at all.
    Exactly dude. We even had proof of Iraq using them on their own citizens yet our intel epically failed on that one.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  5. #55
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    We need to leave this alone. Period. It would be another 10 year war that is unsustainable. I can't believe that our gov't is even considering doing anything there.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  6. #56
    Is Idiot Supreme
    Davo The Mavo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    11-08-17 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,999

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    I remember when "WMD" was just plain old "NBC" and we expected every country to have them. Then Iraq 2003, came along and the same old became the most dangerous stuff on the block. Boy we were one pussified nation back in the early 2000's. Yeah, and no one thought Iraq was a Paper Tiger after kicking his arse and then having No-Fly Zones for the next decade. He rebuilt his "WMD" by what? Osmosis?

  7. #57
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Exactly dude. We even had proof of Iraq using them on their own citizens yet our intel epically failed on that one.
    Well, Syrian officials openly admitted they have them and did so in the last month. That's quite different from Iraq.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #58
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiavoTheMiavo View Post
    I remember when "WMD" was just plain old "NBC" and we expected every country to have them. Then Iraq 2003, came along and the same old became the most dangerous stuff on the block. Boy we were one pussified nation back in the early 2000's. Yeah, and no thought Iraq was a Paper Tiger after kicking his arse and then having No-Fly Zones for the next decade. He rebuilt his "WMD" by what? Osmosis?
    Magic. Both Curveball and Chalabi openly lied to us about the alleged weapons programs. Curveball openly declared he made the whole thing up to get the West to remove Saddam.

    Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war | World news | The Guardian
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #59
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Well, Syrian officials openly admitted they have them and did so in the last month. That's quite different from Iraq.
    Not very. Saddam allowed the "misconception" that he had WMD's to run rampant. I will agree he never actually said he had them. I still believe that he had them and somehow got rid of them. He did say later that he didn't want to appear weak to Iran, however, if he sold them he wouldn't dime out his buyers IMO. We found numerous warehouses that looked to have had very recent heavy traffic and that appeared to have no real strategic use. They were not near any barracks, were not near any sort of motor pool or tank depot, they were not close to an air field, and were heavily camoflauged and secured.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  10. #60
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Not very. Saddam allowed the "misconception" that he had WMD's to run rampant. I will agree he never actually said he had them. I still believe that he had them and somehow got rid of them.
    The lack of storage and production facilities rules that out. It's kind of hard to have a chemical or biological weapons program without the means to build and store them. Not to mention last I checked, we never found any soldiers that had chemical or biological weapons training. What exactly was Saddam going to do with weapons he couldn't build, store or use?

    He did say later that he didn't want to appear weak to Iran, however, if he sold them he wouldn't dime out his buyers IMO. We found numerous warehouses that looked to have had very recent heavy traffic and that appeared to have no real strategic use. They were not near any barracks, were not near any sort of motor pool or tank depot, they were not close to an air field, and were heavily camoflauged and secured.
    True, but did they have residue of chemical weapons? Was the soil contaminated? Even America and Russia's programs, arguably the two countries that had the more resources to build them left huge amounts of contamination in their storage and production facilities. It's a dead giveaway that you were building and storing chemical weapons by simply sampling the soil around the facilities. Heck, we are still spending billions on clean up. I find is super hard to believe that Iraq was able to build and store such weapons in a far cleaner manner then we were able to.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •