- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
we fail to recognize the effect of all that Arab inbreeding.
So, you're saying it's a bit like Norfolk or Alabama.
we fail to recognize the effect of all that Arab inbreeding.
Well Obama's red line has been crossed and we went into Libya for far less so what do you think? "Residents of Damascus suburbs recount massive assault by Assad army; videos show small children convulsing on the floor, foaming at the nose and mouth. Doctor: Injuries correspond with sarin gas "
"The men, women and children lying undisturbed in their beds had looked so peaceful they might have been just sleeping, Abu Nidal thought, as he and other rescuers dragged their bodies into the street."
"His was one of many accounts of a massive assault on the eastern suburbs of Damascus that activists say killed more than 500 people on Wednesday morning. They say some of the bombs were loaded with chemical agent, which would make it the worst chemical attack since the conflict began"
Syrians retrieve 'sleeping' dead after alleged chemical attack - Israel News, Ynetnews
Russia and China say no to intervention. especially Russia with it's only Mediterranean port there
To answer the question, "Should we (USA) go into Syria?" Only if it can be proven that chemical weapons were used AND sanctioned by the Syrian government AND ONLY as part of an international military force with the U.N. leading the charge. America is NOT the police force for the world!
So you require the approval of others to do the right thing?
What do you think the likelihood of a government currently engaged in eliminating large portions of its' populace sanctioning others coming in to stop it is?
Hey cpwill, I have an article I'd like you to check out on the other Syria thread if you wouldn't mind. I'm interested in your opinion.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...es-wipe-each-other-out-27.html#post1062231460
No we should not go into Syria. Any civil war that reduces the number of our enemies is a good thing. Send the Sunnis nerve gas to use against the Assad regime. Wouldn't it be great if the Saudis and Iranians wiped each other out with chemical weapons too. Let them exterminate each other so we don't have to get involved.
As I said before .... I don't want one set of our boots on the ground either. I want us to rain down the horror of all living hell on the users of poison gas, and let the Red Cross or the French clean up the mess. Not one from either side of this conflict is worth one US life. No Americans need die.
So you require the approval of others to do the right thing?
What do you think the likelihood of a government currently engaged in eliminating large portions of its' populace sanctioning others coming in to stop it is?
Work insists I leave this place and go there instead, I apologize but you'll have to suffer a delay before I can reply as it deserves
USA should stop spending moneys for nothing.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya gave no benefits in return. Just loses. In moneys, credibility, lives.
They should go back and start developing their Navy,Army further more because like this way in 2020 the difference with Russian's Navy will change sides.
91% against. Good to see that theres something we all can agree on. I think we should let the UN handle this one.
I'm not sure what the second part means, but I like the first part.
Russia is spending lot of money in army, especially in Navy.
If no one see them at close they will become a big machine from nowhere, like Nazi did.
I don't believe they are weak, and I doubt a lot their silence for so long.
As I hope the graph makes clear, it’s just not possible to say that the Kremlin’s conventional forces are “declining.” Even in a system like Russia’s, where corruption eats deeply into the budget, a tripling of real spending will have some impact on the actual readiness and capability of the armed forces. And so it would seem obvious the 2013 version of the Russian military is better than the 2000 version.
Does that mean that Russia’s conventional forces are formidable or that they’ve regained their Soviet-era peak? No. In comparison to the United States,’ and to those of other leading NATO members, Russia’s armed forces are still unwieldy, poorly trained, and obsolete. But they’re more maneuverable, better trained, and marginally more technologically advanced than they were 13 years ago. That’s not an exacting standard, back in 2000 Russia’s armed forces were as dangerous to their own personnel as they were to any enemy, but it’s yet another example of the weird trajectory/level confusion that afflicts a lot of Western scholarship on Russia. Russia’s armed forces are still weak but they’re quite a bit stronger than they used to be, just like Russia is not particularly wealthy but is wealthier than it was in the recent past.
Well Obama's red line has been crossed and we went into Libya for far less so what do you think? "Residents of Damascus suburbs recount massive assault by Assad army; videos show small children convulsing on the floor, foaming at the nose and mouth. Doctor: Injuries correspond with sarin gas "
"The men, women and children lying undisturbed in their beds had looked so peaceful they might have been just sleeping, Abu Nidal thought, as he and other rescuers dragged their bodies into the street."
"His was one of many accounts of a massive assault on the eastern suburbs of Damascus that activists say killed more than 500 people on Wednesday morning. They say some of the bombs were loaded with chemical agent, which would make it the worst chemical attack since the conflict began"
Syrians retrieve 'sleeping' dead after alleged chemical attack - Israel News, Ynetnews
The phrasing of the poll is indicative of the biggest problem when discussing Syria. The public and far too many people on this board are under the impression that intervention in Syria means sending troops. This could not be further from possible contemplation nor is it anywhere close to whats necessary.
Should we invade Syria? No. Should we bomb Assad and support those rebels whom we choose to patronize? Yes.
I guess Obama is not reading our poll... sigh
Should we invade Syria? No. Should we bomb Assad and support those rebels whom we choose to patronize? Yes.
Im having a hard time understanding this....... Are you saying we SHOULD go into Syria?