If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Poll finds that attacking Syria is even less popular with Americans than Congress   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 143
    More: Obvious, congresses, Americans, security studies, Foreign relations of the United States, Real Clear Politics, chemical weapons  
•       •       •

2523 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2013 at 7:10 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-27 01:18:39 AM
FTA: "Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; ...Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country's most hated political body almost twice as popular."


So OF COURSE we're totally going to intervene. Fark off, citizen. The plutocracy has money to make.
 
2013-08-27 01:38:30 AM
I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.
 
2013-08-27 02:04:51 AM

violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why.



I have a reason why. The Syrian rebels are made up of a bunch of different groups, some secular and others extremists like Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I was in favor of distributing arms to some of the rebels because A) it would quiet down the usual hawks in the US government who are owned by the military industrial complex and who want us engaged in perpetual war, but most importantly because B) there was some control over who got those arms, so we could choose which part of the rebels we helped the most.

The problem with airstrikes is that it helps the Islamic extremist rebels just as much as it helps the secularists. So if it leads to Assad losing, you've just given the Islamists as much of a shot of taking over as you have the secularists. And democracy doesn't have a real great track record in the aftermath of the uprisings in other countries in the region so far.

I think mainly Americans don't support it because they don't give a shiat. Or maybe they're tired of us spending trillions of dollars sending other countries into a chaotic death spiral of never-ending civil war.
 
2013-08-27 02:18:33 AM

shower_in_my_socks: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why.


I have a reason why. The Syrian rebels are made up of a bunch of different groups, some secular and others extremists like Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I was in favor of distributing arms to some of the rebels because A) it would quiet down the usual hawks in the US government who are owned by the military industrial complex and who want us engaged in perpetual war, but most importantly because B) there was some control over who got those arms, so we could choose which part of the rebels we helped the most.

The problem with airstrikes is that it helps the Islamic extremist rebels just as much as it helps the secularists. So if it leads to Assad losing, you've just given the Islamists as much of a shot of taking over as you have the secularists. And democracy doesn't have a real great track record in the aftermath of the uprisings in other countries in the region so far.

I think mainly Americans don't support it because they don't give a shiat. Or maybe they're tired of us spending trillions of dollars sending other countries into a chaotic death spiral of never-ending civil war.


I share those same concerns. But if chemical weapons are being used, which I think it is safe to say they have been used, those weapons kill even more indiscriminately than Al Qaeda.

I don't really know what we as Americans have to gain by intervening. Other than maybe, morally, it could be better than the alternative.

But I don't really know.
 
2013-08-27 02:21:17 AM

shower_in_my_socks: Or maybe they're tired of us spending trillions of dollars sending other countries into a chaotic death spiral of never-ending civil war.


This plus the obvious need for attention on the US's own problems that are being ignored.  Maybe America could get some other country to intervene here on behalf of our poor.
 
2013-08-27 02:43:17 AM
We should wait while the U.N. argues endlessly about who did what to whom and if so what should be done.

/could take years
 
2013-08-27 03:04:59 AM

violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.


I'm for it if it's limited to air and missile strikes.  I'm vehemently against putting in ground troops and turning this into another Iraq or Afghanistan.  If we can handle it like we did Yugoslavia under Clinton, then go for it, otherwise let's stay out.

Ideally we wouldn't need to take on the full brunt ourselves, with NATO members and Israel also stepping in to provide support for bombing raids and missile strikes.
 
2013-08-27 03:14:49 AM
A large share of people who answered that the United States should intervene if Assad uses chemical weapons are apparently unaware that this line has already been crossed.

Hey guys did you hear about Miley Cyrus twerking???? It was on CNN and everything!
 
2013-08-27 03:25:21 AM

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.

I'm for it if it's limited to air and missile strikes.  I'm vehemently against putting in ground troops and turning this into another Iraq or Afghanistan.  If we can handle it like we did Yugoslavia under Clinton, then go for it, otherwise let's stay out.

Ideally we wouldn't need to take on the full brunt ourselves, with NATO members and Israel also stepping in to provide support for bombing raids and missile strikes.


I'm really apprehensive about it, but I'm not opposed to it either. I don't want us to butt into civil wars, and we've had enough of war, but the chemical weapons really change things.

I think we are all unanimous with no boots on the ground.

I don't think Israel is crazy enough to touch this right now.
 
2013-08-27 03:34:16 AM

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.

I'm for it if it's limited to air and missile strikes.  I'm vehemently against putting in ground troops and turning this into another Iraq or Afghanistan.  If we can handle it like we did Yugoslavia under Clinton, then go for it, otherwise let's stay out.

Ideally we wouldn't need to take on the full brunt ourselves, with NATO members and Israel also stepping in to provide support for bombing raids and missile strikes.


Eisenhower once said every aircraft carrier represents schools that Americans have to go without (paraphrasing).  It isnt much different when talking about the aircraft themselves.


Are you ok with spending tax dollars on war instead of education?
 
2013-08-27 03:43:42 AM

Frederick: Eisenhower once said every aircraft carrier represents schools that Americans have to go without (paraphrasing).  It isnt much different when talking about the aircraft themselves.


Are you ok with spending tax dollars on war instead of education?


false dilemma is false
 
2013-08-27 03:44:36 AM

Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.

I'm for it if it's limited to air and missile strikes.  I'm vehemently against putting in ground troops and turning this into another Iraq or Afghanistan.  If we can handle it like we did Yugoslavia under Clinton, then go for it, otherwise let's stay out.

Ideally we wouldn't need to take on the full brunt ourselves, with NATO members and Israel also stepping in to provide support for bombing raids and missile strikes.

Eisenhower once said every aircraft carrier represents schools that Americans have to go without (paraphrasing).  It isnt much different when talking about the aircraft themselves.


Are you ok with spending tax dollars on war instead of education?


Unfortunately Ike's warnings went unheeded. Like it or not, we are the world's policemen.
 
2013-08-27 03:44:38 AM

Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.

I'm for it if it's limited to air and missile strikes.  I'm vehemently against putting in ground troops and turning this into another Iraq or Afghanistan.  If we can handle it like we did Yugoslavia under Clinton, then go for it, otherwise let's stay out.

Ideally we wouldn't need to take on the full brunt ourselves, with NATO members and Israel also stepping in to provide support for bombing raids and missile strikes.

Eisenhower once said every aircraft carrier represents schools that Americans have to go without (paraphrasing).  It isnt much different when talking about the aircraft themselves.


Are you ok with spending tax dollars on war instead of education?


My view is that we already have it so we might as well use it.  The defense budget is apparently sacrosanct and can't be cut, so as long as we're already spending the money, we might as well do something with it.

We have enough naval and air power to match the rest of the world combined.  Some targeted missile and air strikes aren't going to strain or cost us much in the grand scheme of things.
 
2013-08-27 03:47:54 AM

log_jammin: Frederick: Eisenhower once said every aircraft carrier represents schools that Americans have to go without (paraphrasing).  It isnt much different when talking about the aircraft themselves.


Are you ok with spending tax dollars on war instead of education?

false dilemma is false


Nothing false about it.  Money spent on the military offense is diverted from domestic use.
 
2013-08-27 03:52:25 AM

TuteTibiImperes: My view is that we already have it so we might as well use it.


How can the MIC spending ever be reduced if we dont take a stand against it?  Your attitude seems apathetic to me at best.  The US is continually falling behind the rest of the world in education and the pace is quickening.
 
2013-08-27 04:10:13 AM

Frederick: Nothing false about it.  Money spent on the military offense is diverted from domestic use.


the US budget is not like your checkbook.

be against intervention in Syria all you want, as I am, but don't be dishonest about it.
 
2013-08-27 04:16:25 AM

Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: My view is that we already have it so we might as well use it.

How can the MIC spending ever be reduced if we dont take a stand against it?  Your attitude seems apathetic to me at best.  The US is continually falling behind the rest of the world in education and the pace is quickening.


I'm not sure throwing more money on education will lead to a dramatic improvement.  We need to address the root causes of student failure, which are mainly due to economic and societal factors.  Of course, it's money we could spend there, sure.
 
2013-08-27 04:45:53 AM

log_jammin: Frederick: Nothing false about it.  Money spent on the military offense is diverted from domestic use.

the US budget is not like your checkbook.

be against intervention in Syria all you want, as I am, but don't be dishonest about it.


I dont have a checkbook.

There is nothing dishonest about what Eisenhower or I said.  Tax dollars pay for the military budget.  Tax dollars pay for our public education.  Different "buckets" from the same pool.  It's not complicated.

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not sure throwing more money on education will lead to a dramatic improvement. We need to address the root causes of student failure, which are mainly due to economic and societal factors. Of course, it's money we could spend there, sure.


I'm not sure of that either, but I'd like to sincerely try and see if it works.  I definitely agree with economic and societal factors being root causes of student failure.  Perhaps an obvious commitment from our government representatives to education would do for our country's education what that same commitment did for our military supremacy.
 
2013-08-27 04:51:27 AM
Watch this and it may change your mind. Explore all the Frontline material on this
 
2013-08-27 04:52:17 AM

Frederick: I dont have a checkbook.


ok...

Frederick: There is nothing dishonest about what Eisenhower or I said.


I didn't say there was anything dishonest about what Eisenhower said.

Frederick: Tax dollars pay for the military budget.  Tax dollars pay for our public education.  Different "buckets" from the same pool.  It's not complicated.


It's actually very very complicated, which is why I said the US budget is not like your checkbook. But it seems you're mixing up overall military spending with one possible military operation. Why lowering the military budget end up providing money for education? possibly. Will intervening in Syria take away money form education? no.
 
2013-08-27 06:04:20 AM
I'm for it if we strap Kerry, Obama and Biden to a drone to check things out.
 
2013-08-27 06:49:48 AM
No matter what we do all sides involved will end up hating us.
 
2013-08-27 07:13:00 AM

shower_in_my_socks: FTA: "Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; ...Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country's most hated political body almost twice as popular."


So OF COURSE we're totally going to intervene. Fark off, citizen. The plutocracy has money to make.


I don't think the "plutocracy" really wants this either, other than a few defense contractors.  Had they really wanted it, we would have been there a long time ago.
 
2013-08-27 07:16:49 AM
The basic problem is, We said "here is a red line don't cross it"

There was no clear idea of what would happen if they did.

Ok, so they crossed the red line.
Now what?
We're angry.
So What? What are we gonna do?
What action can we take that will make a bit of a difference.

Are we saying: "Stop killing each other in a way we don't approve of or we will start killing you?"

Somebody please point out a positive way forward in this situation. I'm stumped.
 
2013-08-27 07:19:27 AM

log_jammin: It's actually very very complicated, which is why I said the US budget is not like your checkbook. But it seems you're mixing up overall military spending with one possible military operation. Why lowering the military budget end up providing money for education? possibly. Will intervening in Syria take away money form education? no.


To continue the metaphor, isn't that like saying that since you have already budgeted for gas, insurance, and routine maintenance for your car, you won't need to spend any extra money if you get in an accident?
 
2013-08-27 07:21:36 AM

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not sure throwing more money on education will lead to a dramatic improvement.


When and where has it ever been tried?
 
2013-08-27 07:22:01 AM
You mean protecting us from the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam moved to Syria?  It's OK to attack them now that they used them three times?  Need a picture of White House Tough Guy Bore-oma writing a strongly worded letter to the UN!! That'll show them!!
 
2013-08-27 07:22:16 AM
I'm amused by all this discussion. Where was it before we invaded Iraq?
 
2013-08-27 07:22:37 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: No matter what we do all sides involved will end up hating us.

 
2013-08-27 07:23:28 AM
If this was a situation like Libya, where we had regional support, UN support and a clearly defined rebel leadership that we can hand-hold through this, then I suspect support would be higher for intervening.

But that's not the case and no one can blame the American people for being hesitant about being draw into another ME fight.  Libya was an amazingly well done foreign policy slam dunk, but this is not Libya.

There 'are' no good guys in this, at least, none in any position of authority that can shepherd the rebel forces and take control once Assad's government breaks and runs.

There's no unified regional support.  There's no unified UN support.

We would be better off simply letting them duke it out until there's a clear winner and 'then' sending in droves of UN forces to determine if war crimes and/or atrocities were committed and by whom.  If that means indicting a surviving Assad on war crimes violations after finishing off the rebels, then so be it.  If that means arresting rebel leaders after they've finished off Assad, so be it.

But sticking our faces into the middle of it without massive support for doing so is political suicide and I think the President knows that.
 
2013-08-27 07:23:55 AM

violentsalvation: Unfortunately Ike's warnings went unheeded. Like it or not, we are the world's policemen.


Ok - I will ask the nery niave question...Why is this considered a totally US problem?  (Russia?  Israel?  Iran?  Anybody?)
 
2013-08-27 07:24:29 AM

AirForceVet: I'm amused by all this discussion. Where was it before we invaded Iraq?


Lost in the "THEY DID 9/11!!!!" hysteria. And the general post 9/11 "Kill everything brown!" frenzy.
 
2013-08-27 07:25:56 AM
Time for the CIA to warm up their cancer gun to Chavez" setting and aim it at Assad.
 
2013-08-27 07:27:16 AM
The real fun begins with Iran declares war on the U.S. for attacking Syria
 
2013-08-27 07:27:42 AM

TheMaskedArmadillo: violentsalvation: Unfortunately Ike's warnings went unheeded. Like it or not, we are the world's policemen.

Ok - I will ask the nery niave question...Why is this considered a totally US problem?  (Russia?  Israel?  Iran?  Anybody?)


It's really not.  Russia wishes we'd all shut up and go away.  Israel wishes everyone would shut up and let us blow Syria off the map.  Iran wishes we'd all shut up so Assad could blow the rebels away.

There's a lot of conflicting interests in what happens to Syria, which is why so many people are quietly pouring money into different aspects of the conflict.  Russian arms sales, Iranian forces undoubtedly working in the Syrian military, Israeli covert efforts to help the rebels.  Our own covert efforts to aid the rebels.  Money from all sides being dumped on the conflict...
 
2013-08-27 07:27:47 AM
Why are you all so sure it was Assad who used chemical weapons and not the rebels? Assad is winning, after all...the government has no need to use them.

As Aum Shinrikyo demonstrated, all you need are plastic bags of sarin gas and sharp things to make a "chemical weapon." And the rebels can certainly do that.
 
2013-08-27 07:28:28 AM

Cubicle Jockey: To continue the metaphor, isn't that like saying that since you have already budgeted for gas, insurance, and routine maintenance for your car, you won't need to spend any extra money if you get in an accident?


are you wrecking hundreds of cars a year for practice just in case you get into a real wreck?
 
2013-08-27 07:28:50 AM
I am fine with the idea of a no-fly zone and targeted air strikes, provided they are backed up by a treaty requiring humanitarian aid when the war is over (roads, schools, hospitals, two years of food, etc) and the aid comes with conditions like surrendering remaining chemical weapons to the UN for destruction. No soldiers on the ground, as it's pretty tough to figure out who is a friend and who is not (especially in the aftermath).
No weapons being sent (that worked out swimmingly with the Iraqis).

Crossing a line means that consequences have to occur or Assad will cross the line again. But sending political buddies to protect oil ministries and establish a stock exchange instead of securing the cities is a terrible idea. Any action needs to be worked through the UN, because the US is the big gun in the world, but we have to respect the area.
 
2013-08-27 07:29:23 AM

violentsalvation: Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.

I'm for it if it's limited to air and missile strikes.  I'm vehemently against putting in ground troops and turning this into another Iraq or Afghanistan.  If we can handle it like we did Yugoslavia under Clinton, then go for it, otherwise let's stay out.

Ideally we wouldn't need to take on the full brunt ourselves, with NATO members and Israel also stepping in to provide support for bombing raids and missile strikes.

Eisenhower once said every aircraft carrier represents schools that Americans have to go without (paraphrasing).  It isnt much different when talking about the aircraft themselves.


Are you ok with spending tax dollars on war instead of education?

Unfortunately Ike's warnings went unheeded. Like it or not, we are the world's policemen.


You know how even the policemen don't go to the ghettos? This is like that. Let's stay the fark out.

Let's not be involved perpetually in war. We have be in war for what seems like my whole life already. Forts desert storm, the kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. When will it end.
 
2013-08-27 07:29:29 AM

Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.

I'm for it if it's limited to air and missile strikes.  I'm vehemently against putting in ground troops and turning this into another Iraq or Afghanistan.  If we can handle it like we did Yugoslavia under Clinton, then go for it, otherwise let's stay out.

Ideally we wouldn't need to take on the full brunt ourselves, with NATO members and Israel also stepping in to provide support for bombing raids and missile strikes.

Eisenhower once said every aircraft carrier represents schools that Americans have to go without (paraphrasing).  It isnt much different when talking about the aircraft themselves.


Are you ok with spending tax dollars on war instead of education?


Education funding should be left to the states. The federal govt should have nothing to do with spending tax money on education. Educational guidelines from the feds is fine so no state becomes a pile of toothless knuckle-draggers.

Enough wars. Enough taxes. Maybe the anarchists and fanatic libertarians were right.
 
2013-08-27 07:29:44 AM
How the hell are they going to keep Raytheon and General Dynamics afloat if you don't have a war every 2 to 4 years??
 
2013-08-27 07:30:30 AM

Oakenhelm: Why are you all so sure it was Assad who used chemical weapons and not the rebels? Assad is winning, after all...the government has no need to use them.

As Aum Shinrikyo demonstrated, all you need are plastic bags of sarin gas and sharp things to make a "chemical weapon." And the rebels can certainly do that.


Well, there's the thing.  Pointing the finger at the Syrian government and saying "We know you did it" on the political stage...well, if you do that, and we did, then you'd better have proof.

I'm betting they've traced the CWs in question back to an unraided facility.  As for why, well, the fight is far far far from over and Assad's been fighting from day one to get the rebels labeled as terrorists.  I wouldn't put it past him to use CWs on rebel forces and then try and set up a situation where the rebels take the blame for it.
 
2013-08-27 07:31:11 AM

shower_in_my_socks: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why.


I have a reason why. The Syrian rebels are made up of a bunch of different groups, some secular and others extremists like Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I was in favor of distributing arms to some of the rebels because A) it would quiet down the usual hawks in the US government who are owned by the military industrial complex and who want us engaged in perpetual war, but most importantly because B) there was some control over who got those arms, so we could choose which part of the rebels we helped the most.

The problem with airstrikes is that it helps the Islamic extremist rebels just as much as it helps the secularists. So if it leads to Assad losing, you've just given the Islamists as much of a shot of taking over as you have the secularists. And democracy doesn't have a real great track record in the aftermath of the uprisings in other countries in the region so far.

I think mainly Americans don't support it because they don't give a shiat. Or maybe they're tired of us spending trillions of dollars sending other countries into a chaotic death spiral of never-ending civil war.


I think we're so used to defining military intervention as picking sides in a war that we sometimes don't consider the alternative: BSAB.

I'm still a fan of a Berlin Wall sectioning off Syria. Something that reduces the violent conflict until the energy is burned out (20 years or so).
 
2013-08-27 07:31:50 AM

styckx: The real fun begins with Iran declares war on the U.S. for attacking Syria


Ummm, I'm not sure what you are implying.

a) that Iran is a threat to the US that could last more than the week Iraq did?
b) that the whole mid-east would follow suit resulting in a war that would last a month?
c) that the UN would ???

I really don't see why Iran matters in this equation.
 
2013-08-27 07:32:12 AM
If Syria is found to have used chemical weapons, I think NATO needs to go in.
 
2013-08-27 07:34:58 AM
Myself, I'm just going to wait and see what happens. I certainly want a response for the repeated use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, especially since Syria borders Turkey and Israel, one a NATO ally and the latter a major ally. I'll let the President and the US military figure it out.
 
2013-08-27 07:35:27 AM
It's polls like this one that will bring about a so-called 'limited strike' to 'demonstrate the resolve of the United States and it's allies' against the use of WMD in the 21st century.  But it won't stay 'limited'.  It's also the polls about Obamacare that will make missile-strike headlines very useful in the coming weeks and months, because they drown out everything else.

The state-media will make certain of that!

As the new budget battle heats up, resistance to Obamacare mounts, the economy keeps getting worse, and the investigations into Benghazi, the IRS and the NSA develop further, expect the bombings to continue so that Americans will be lectured to 'abandon partisan bickering' and 'stand with the president while our troops are in harm's way'.


/it's going to happen, watch.
 
2013-08-27 07:35:29 AM

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.

I'm for it if it's limited to air and missile strikes.  I'm vehemently against putting in ground troops and turning this into another Iraq or Afghanistan.  If we can handle it like we did Yugoslavia under Clinton, then go for it, otherwise let's stay out.

Ideally we wouldn't need to take on the full brunt ourselves, with NATO members and Israel also stepping in to provide support for bombing raids and missile strikes.

I'm really apprehensive about it, but I'm not opposed to it either. I don't want us to butt into civil wars, and we've had enough of war, but the chemical weapons really change things.

I think we are all unanimous with no boots on the ground.

I don't think Israel is crazy enough to touch this right now.


I can't imagine this civil war ending in anything but a genocide. Can you?
 
2013-08-27 07:36:06 AM

Sgygus: We should wait while the U.N. argues endlessly about who did what to whom and if so what should be done.

/could take years


Beats doing something stupid, like invading Iraq.
 
2013-08-27 07:36:23 AM

Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: I understand why, but I also don't understand why. I think it would be pretty easy to establish a no-fly zone and cripple the regime's military with targeted strikes. I don't know what good that would do, other than level the playing field, but when chemical weapons are in play, perhaps it should be leveled. This is the second anti-intervention article by Max Fisher I've seen today.

I'm for it if it's limited to air and missile strikes.  I'm vehemently against putting in ground troops and turning this into another Iraq or Afghanistan.  If we can handle it like we did Yugoslavia under Clinton, then go for it, otherwise let's stay out.

Ideally we wouldn't need to take on the full brunt ourselves, with NATO members and Israel also stepping in to provide support for bombing raids and missile strikes.

Eisenhower once said every aircraft carrier represents schools that Americans have to go without (paraphrasing).  It isnt much different when talking about the aircraft themselves.


Are you ok with spending tax dollars on war instead of education?


We already do this.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report