Syria

[Kevin]

I remember when human rights were being violated in Somalia. That ended well for us, right Scott?

[Scott34]

I remember when human rights were being violated in Somalia. That ended well for us, right Scott?

 

I am not suggesting boots on the ground

Edited August 26, 2013 by Scott34

[Kevin]

Fair enough. Still can't think of a good reason to get involved. Intelligence may have information but how accurate is it? Accurate enough to risk lives and throw more money at problems that might not be able to be fixed? Why is the U.S. responsible to fix it?

[Scott34]

Fair enough. Still can't think of a good reason to get involved. Intelligence may have information but how accurate is it? Accurate enough to risk lives and throw more money at problems that might not be able to be fixed? Why is the U.S. responsible to fix it?

 

American lives won't be at risk.

 

Just curious, have you seen the videos from the CW attack?

[Kevin]

I have seen videos. People convulsing, having trouble breathing, the nervous system shutting down or being attacked. Not fun stuff, I agree.

Why is it our obligation? Can't another country intervene? Why us?

[Kevin]

No doubt that there's bad people on each side.

However, what credibility does the government possess for you to say it wasn't them? The U.S. has clearly said that they know that the government is in control of all of the chemical weapons. 1+1=2.

As Americans, with the most elite military in the world, we have an obligation to intervene when human rights atrocities are being committed.

Also, **** Russia.

You say American lives won't be at risk but you just stated that with our vast military it's our obligation. How will Americans not be at risk if you use the military? Or if it's drones being used, will more innocent people be killed along with our targets? And just because we have an awesome military, again I ask, why our obligation?

[Scott34]

You say American lives won't be at risk but you just stated that with our vast military it's our obligation. How will Americans not be at risk if you use the military? Or if it's drones being used, will more innocent people be killed along with our targets? And just because we have an awesome military, again I ask, why our obligation?

 

It's our obligation to lead the way because we have the power and means to do so efficiently and purposefully.  We wouldn't strike alone, Britain and France would likely be by our side.

 

Cruise missiles should get the job done.  Our destroyers are virtually untouchable.

[arch stanton]

“I don’t think our strike ought to be something that tries to alter that dynamic. I think it should be surgical. It should be proportional. It should be in response to what’s happened with the chemicals,” he said. “But the fact is, I don’t want us to get involved in such a way that we change that dynamic on the ground.”

By this quote our objective is to force them to kill their civilians and destroy their cities without the use of chemicals. Nothing more, nothing less. This is an ugly mess where all the permanent members of the UN Security Council jockey for postwar position while the population gets decimated.

[HaloMagic]

As Americans, with the most elite military in the world, we have an obligation to intervene when human rights atrocities are being committed.

LOL. Does the neighbor with the biggest house have an obligation to throw all the holiday parties? Or maybe, since they bought the house, they can do what they want with it.

[Hollyw00d]

Actually, we're renting our house.  China is the landlord

[Hollyw00d]

 

As Americans, with the most elite military in the world, we have an obligation to intervene when human rights atrocities are being committed.

 

BS, America is not the world police.   Also, look at how well all the intervening we did in the cold war has worked out.   America now has enemies all over the globe from the meddling that the military/intelligence forces have done over the past century.   America has been directly responsible for putting dictators and psychopaths in power to "protect" itself and "preserve human rights."

 

This country has enough problems within its own borders, let alone trying to put on the superhero cape and save the rest of the world from evil

[mtangelsfan]

Especially considering we, many times, are the evil.  Or at least were part of it.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Agreed with Hollywood and mt. The belief that we have an obligation or duty is what's had us going into crap situations and costing lives where many times we aren't wanted. Lets get our own house in order and let someone else step up which would probably happen if we stay out of it.

[Adam]

Agreed with Hollywood and mt. The belief that we have an obligation or duty is what's had us going into crap situations and costing lives where many times we aren't wanted. Lets get our own house in order and let someone else step up which would probably happen if we stay out of it.

 

Agreed. Our "leadership" and our allies have ZERO credibility. How can anyone believe anything that comes from their mouths?

[Scott34]

And again as I asked before, are France, Israel, UK, Turkey, UAE, UN, Arab League not credible either? That's insane to think.

Also, American lives won't be at risk, as I've also said before.

[Adam]

I don't trust any world leaders to be credible. Even still, the world has changed. We simply cannot police it. The goings-on are very sad, but intervening isn't going to solve anything in the long run.

[Bruce Nye]

I don't believe any of you putzes, so I PMd Hillary Clinton and she said, "What does it matter?"

[arch stanton]

Syria is adjacent to middle east oil fields and to Israel. It's got the potential to become another conduit for Iranian meddling in the region. The U. S. has plenty at stake with the outcome of this war. The problem is we don't have a credible or competent leader so things got way out of hand. 100,000 dead and many many more displaced into refugee sites and 350 chemical deaths is the line to cross?

[HaloCory22]

Its horrible whats going on in Syria and someone needs to intervene, but I don't think it should be us. Time after time we're always the first to provide aid to countries after a natural disaster or some type of bad event. We have enough on our plate as it is. There are other "super powers" in the world. China has the tech and funds to provide assistance.

[TobiasFunke]

I'm praying to the God I don't believe in that we don't get involved in Syria

[Gavin]

So Scott, we should send troops to any countries (say Africa) or other parts of the world where genocide is occurring? Sounds like we're gonna need more troops.

[mtangelsfan]

That is another good point.  Is Syria more important than the countries in Africa?

[Scott34]

So Scott, we should send troops to any countries (say Africa) or other parts of the world where genocide is occurring? Sounds like we're gonna need more troops.

 

How many times do I have to say no boots on the ground?

[mtangelsfan]

So you are talking bombing.

 

Chances of innocent civilians getting killed 100%

[Gavin]

How many times do I have to say no boots on the ground?

 

OK, then we launch rockets with "precise accuracy" that kill innocent civilians.  It's lose, lose.  

 

And sending troops really wasn't my point.  Why don't we send cruisers and destroyers to Africa, then?