Let the UN deal with it!! That joke of an organization wants total world control anyways. Oh wait a second...we pay over 60% of the UNs annual budget anyways right? Maybe we should help the situation!! It's a tough call for an administration just as it was a tough call to invade Iraq. Let's see how the current President handles the situation.
I am surprised at the number of people who want to take military action..After what has happened in the last two wars that anyone one would want to tie up more US money and US lives and in the end have the people who we try to help hate us makes no sense....I thought we had a Dept of Defense not a Dept of Offense....Unless these weapons are used on us,then stay out of it.....
I understand that we can no longer be the world's policeman, (oops - policeperson) but should we sit by as a despot murders hundreds of thousands seeking a better life?
The UN? Yeah, right. Can anyone name anything of substance that "organization" has accomplished in the last 20 years other than denigrate the US? Other than the wholesale corruption that has allowed some of its leaders very, very, rich? (Remember that 60%).
We have lost respect throughout the world when it comes to our military might due to our now PC government and its attempts to please everybody all of the time. Why should any rogue nation or "leader" give second thought to taking ANY action they want due to possible repercussions inflicted by us or the UN.
I know I'm going to get a lot of "thumbs down" for my stance that "peace through strength" was better than "can't we all just get along". I'm wondering how many negative votes will be matched by constructive debate.
Bob, Speaking of tough ones, I somewhat agree with you, but I think that strength should stay within our own borders.Having our military spread out all over the world is costly, as well as dangerous.
We need to let the next rogue leader know we mean business,you mess with the US,its interests,or its people,
make them pay a huge price, not a police action, but an all out assault on their country. Bomb their asses
back into the stone ages, and stop worrying about collateral damage.
Wipe their asses off the face of the earth, and send a message to the next jackass who thinks we are weak.
Last but not least, throw the UN out of our country.
I find the use of chemical weapons to be abhorrent, and if Syria is proven to have used them it should be isolated diplomatically and economically. But I don't think that a nation that also possesses chemical weapons should be first in line for military action against Syria (in case you didn't know, that would be the United States).
And then, of course, there's the question of whose children are you willing to send to Syria for military engagement? Yours? Mine? Or maybe you yourself feel the call to serve? Everyone who voted "yes" in the poll, who are you planning to send?
And then the question of how much you are willing to pay for military action. Did you see the article this week that describes how the Pentagon is still paying out Civil War survivor benefits? Yes, that's only a couple of people (elderly children of young spouses of elderly veterans), but it makes the point that every one of these wars costs us a lot of money for a long time.
At the very least let's agree that military action against Syria would lead to ambiguous results at a very high cost.
Sure, why not. We have a few able bodied soldiers left don't we? What's another 4 or 5 thousand casualties. Wives without husbands, husbands without wives, kids without mothers or fathers. Mothers and fathers that nurtured their children to young adulthood, only to have them shipped home in a metal container. Siblings that have to spend the rest of their lives without their brothers or sisters.
Sure, why not. We can bomb them for a couple of days, then Obama can borrow Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner. Hang that, everybody will feel so proud, then sit back for another ten years and listen to all the bullshit as to why we can't just pull out. They need us...what....to supply them with American flags to burn? The world hates us, why should we care? Let them kill each other, God will sort them out.
As a Nation, we got to learn
As a Nation, we got to learn to keep our noses out of other people's business.
If this is true, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention, and such be handled in the United Nations.
Let the UN deal with it!!
Let the UN deal with it!! That joke of an organization wants total world control anyways. Oh wait a second...we pay over 60% of the UNs annual budget anyways right? Maybe we should help the situation!! It's a tough call for an administration just as it was a tough call to invade Iraq. Let's see how the current President handles the situation.
We aren't the world's police
We aren't the world's police force. Let the UN deal with it.
I agree 100%. We should not
I agree 100%. We should not take unilateral action, let the UN deal with it, even though we certainly would be part of the UN action.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/13/277815/us-seeks-to-install-pupp…
http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/western-powers-or-turkey-…
I am surprised at the number
I am surprised at the number of people who want to take military action..After what has happened in the last two wars that anyone one would want to tie up more US money and US lives and in the end have the people who we try to help hate us makes no sense....I thought we had a Dept of Defense not a Dept of Offense....Unless these weapons are used on us,then stay out of it.....
Americans LOVE spending money
Americans LOVE spending money on war. It's healthcare, food and housing that they dislike paying for.
I love how no one asked for
I love how no one asked for real proof! I mean, I've heard the whole WMD argument before.
Tough one. I understand that
Tough one.
I understand that we can no longer be the world's policeman, (oops - policeperson) but should we sit by as a despot murders hundreds of thousands seeking a better life?
The UN? Yeah, right. Can anyone name anything of substance that "organization" has accomplished in the last 20 years other than denigrate the US? Other than the wholesale corruption that has allowed some of its leaders very, very, rich? (Remember that 60%).
We have lost respect throughout the world when it comes to our military might due to our now PC government and its attempts to please everybody all of the time. Why should any rogue nation or "leader" give second thought to taking ANY action they want due to possible repercussions inflicted by us or the UN.
I know I'm going to get a lot of "thumbs down" for my stance that "peace through strength" was better than "can't we all just get along". I'm wondering how many negative votes will be matched by constructive debate.
Bob, Speaking of tough ones,
Bob, Speaking of tough ones, I somewhat agree with you, but I think that strength should stay within our own borders.Having our military spread out all over the world is costly, as well as dangerous.
We need to let the next rogue leader know we mean business,you mess with the US,its interests,or its people,
make them pay a huge price, not a police action, but an all out assault on their country. Bomb their asses
back into the stone ages, and stop worrying about collateral damage.
Wipe their asses off the face of the earth, and send a message to the next jackass who thinks we are weak.
Last but not least, throw the UN out of our country.
I find the use of chemical
I find the use of chemical weapons to be abhorrent, and if Syria is proven to have used them it should be isolated diplomatically and economically. But I don't think that a nation that also possesses chemical weapons should be first in line for military action against Syria (in case you didn't know, that would be the United States).
And then, of course, there's the question of whose children are you willing to send to Syria for military engagement? Yours? Mine? Or maybe you yourself feel the call to serve? Everyone who voted "yes" in the poll, who are you planning to send?
And then the question of how much you are willing to pay for military action. Did you see the article this week that describes how the Pentagon is still paying out Civil War survivor benefits? Yes, that's only a couple of people (elderly children of young spouses of elderly veterans), but it makes the point that every one of these wars costs us a lot of money for a long time.
At the very least let's agree that military action against Syria would lead to ambiguous results at a very high cost.
Sure, why not. We have a few
Sure, why not. We have a few able bodied soldiers left don't we? What's another 4 or 5 thousand casualties. Wives without husbands, husbands without wives, kids without mothers or fathers. Mothers and fathers that nurtured their children to young adulthood, only to have them shipped home in a metal container. Siblings that have to spend the rest of their lives without their brothers or sisters.
Sure, why not. We can bomb them for a couple of days, then Obama can borrow Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner. Hang that, everybody will feel so proud, then sit back for another ten years and listen to all the bullshit as to why we can't just pull out. They need us...what....to supply them with American flags to burn? The world hates us, why should we care? Let them kill each other, God will sort them out.
Sure, why not.
Excellent comments, Mr
Excellent comments, Mr Renfrew and Mr. Hale.