• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US plans for '3 days of attack' on Syria

I will ask USA, Please stop disturbing other country. Think about your country's issues, which concerns me more than interfering to other countries political which obliviously make situation worse than before.
We agree. It's our president and secretary of state you need to be telling this to, not us.
 
As soon as we have AlQ and AlN in charge of Syria, our plan (dividing up Turkey) will be put into action.

unfortunately it is true

l know you know that famous map which shows turkey divided
 
We agree. It's our president and secretary of state you need to be telling this to, not us.

I totally agree with you. But dont forgot, its you people who elected your president. So you people have power to change the fate of your country. am I wrong :)
 
I totally agree with you. But dont forgot, its you people who elected your president. So you people have power to change the fate of your country. am I wrong :)
We agree, but you need to tell that to them too - because they're not listening to us.
 
I totally agree with you. But dont forgot, its you people who elected your president. So you people have power to change the fate of your country. am I wrong :)

We couldn't stop Bush from attacking Iraq. What makes you think we can stop Obama from attacking Syria?
 
I totally agree with you. But dont forgot, its you people who elected your president. So you people have power to change the fate of your country. am I wrong :)


Yeah, unfortunately!
 
We agree, but you need to tell that to them too - because they're not listening to us.

Actually don't agree. We may agree that the timing of Obama is terrible and he's made the situation worse, but we should "disturb" other countries if it's in our national interest.
 
Actually don't agree. We may agree that the timing of Obama is terrible and he's made the situation worse, but we should "disturb" other countries if it's in our national interest.

What is the national interest, and what is the endgame of any attack? What defines success?
 
What is the national interest, and what is the endgame of any attack? What defines success?

I didn't say I'm for an attack, but I'm not going to agree with someone that says we should not disturb other countries generally. That's ridiculous.
 
I didn't say I'm for an attack, but I'm not going to agree with someone that says we should not disturb other countries generally. That's ridiculous.

I just asked some simple questions as what would be accomplished...
 
I didn't say I'm for an attack, but I'm not going to agree with someone that says we should not disturb other countries generally. That's ridiculous.

Why is it "ridiculous" to suggest the USofA should stay out of other countries business????

What "right" do we have to stick our noses in their stuff?
 
I just asked some simple questions as what would be accomplished...

You quoted me and asked irrelevant questions to my post. And I don't care to answer your questions when we probably agree on not attacking...waste of my time.
 
Why is it "ridiculous" to suggest the USofA should stay out of other countries business????

What "right" do we have to stick our noses in their stuff?

Because to do that is isolationist and when we do that the world actually gets less safe. Take the last few years for example. Right? What are you talking about? What doesn't give us that right?
 
You quoted me and asked irrelevant questions to my post. And I don't care to answer your questions when we probably agree on not attacking...waste of my time.

They were not irrelevant or you would have attempted to answer rather than deflect...
 
Western values are not shared by ME countries. If there is no gain to be had, I see no purpose other than galvanizing those who would already to see the west fail, which is what would happen. You should know better than anyone that the current leadership doesn't have the gonads to be effective in a strike.

Good evening 2m...

Good evening, AP.:2wave:

I have no comment on anyone's gonads. I think The Economist gets it about right.
 
Good evening, AP.:2wave:

I have no comment on anyone's gonads. I think The Economist gets it about right.

That was the gist of the article and it climaxed at the end...
 
Does anyone think that once we start, we'll not become involved in a much bigger way?

No, of course not. Why would anyone ever think that?

mission_accomplished.jpg
 
No, of course not. Why would anyone ever think that?

mission_accomplished.jpg

Well, we did dismiss Assad's retaliation threat.

The White House on Monday shrugged off Syrian President Bashar Assad’s thinly veiled threat of retaliation if the United States goes ahead with military strikes against his country.

Assad told CBS news that there will be “repercussions” for any American attack, ominously warning “you should expect everything.”

We’re prepared for every contingency,” Rhodes replied, before repeating: “It’s not in his interest to escalate. That would only invite greater risk for him.”.....snip~

White House dismisses Assad retaliation threat

According to our Deputy NSA under Susan Rice.....were prepared for everything. :roll:
 
US plans for '3 days of attack' on Syria




I do not support this kind of action in any way, shape, or form.

Does anyone think that once we start, we'll not become involved in a much bigger way?

I see a domino effect happening here, and I don't like it one bit.






[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

I don't get how anyone could support this kind of action. seriously, how many people actually believe that a sovereign nation woukd just allow themselves to be attacked without bringing about some sort of retribution.

that is unlesd the intention is to have Syria retaliate and use that retaliation as justification for an all out invasion. that woukd then open the door to a regiobal war that woukd engulfe iran and all surroundibg natiins as a minimum.
 
I don't get how anyone could support this kind of action. seriously, how many people actually believe that a sovereign nation woukd just allow themselves to be attacked without bringing about some sort of retribution.

that is unlesd the intention is to have Syria retaliate and use that retaliation as justification for an all out invasion. that woukd then open the door to a regiobal war that woukd engulfe iran and all surroundibg natiins as a minimum.

Really, we're the biggest bully in the schoolyard and fighting back is not an option. For which we should be grateful. As long as we pick on small countries, we're unlikely to have any retribution.
 
Stay classy.

Yea let's go bomb brown people in the ME

That's classy. Supporting the murderers of Christians is "classy"

Obama! Obama!

Bomb Bomb for Jihad!
 
Back
Top Bottom