I yhink they will try to blockade Russian arm supply to Assad through Mediterranean sea and that will dry up the armament
Ok. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What would you or I do if we were in charge. Let me think, I would assure folks that Assad has used these weapons on citizens and kids. Get the people behind the government. set up blockades. Back up others that want to hit the ground. We are in debt. So I may ask for a fund raising to assist in war efforts from congress. Use long range military missiles to hit key parts. Like missile batteries. Keep Russia from getting in the mix, Period! They are for Syria. Pull in China, an UK, and some other KEY allies. And send in aid as in food, water, vehicles, and medical help. Let them fight it with there government. But U.S. needs to stay out of it politically. And we don't need to add structure. And we don't need ground fighting going on..
NO!! Haven't we intervened enough? When are we going to return to being non-interventionist at least from a war perspective.
Hey G would you like everyone to stay out of it period if your area was attacked by chemical weapons? I would want some assurance someone would be on my side. Help me to fight against wrong cruelty.
Given that this is a civil war, yes. I do understand there is some politics to consider, but this is one that we should probably refrain from taking action. Although I am only answering for the US, someone should probably be ready to step in. Wjy does it always have to be us?
Personally i think its because syria and iran do not want american underground bases in there country, this is what this is all about. The nwo is a fact, and its everywhere except a few countries today that america are targeting. Just look how japan and germany never got back independence since ww2. I would suggest this is really what all these wars are about, and they pretend its for oil, when there is loads of oil everywhere. They are building there nwo system, but the countries that nato has gone after are ones that would not allow that underground nato presence. So what syria and iran do to stop it, who knows.
Not saying it always has to be the USA but others seem "skerd"(scared), with out the USA either in front of or behind. And some help needs to be given, and weapons like what has been used should never be used against women and kids and men that were helpless citizens.
Just a thought and I realize that this will sound very controversial. But if fighting only happened to millitary installations and other soldiers (or sailors), then why have them? If it were that simple, then why not dismantle them?
How is that they killed 1400 Syrian with gas , No let us go in and kill 2800 Syrian with our bombs so the current causality is 1400 but after we teach them a lesson we will have additional 2800 or a total 4200 killed . Isn't that stupid lesson just more death human.
The time before ww2 was when America could still be non-interventionist. We should at least give the rebels as much support as Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah have given Assad. Suppose we were to at the least pick a few military assets, inform syria ahead of time those targets so they can evacuate them, and then strike those targets with missiles.
I'm not suggesting we bomb there people. I suggest we make a limit on wiping out some key installations, and maybe roads in and out of military bases, and nearby bridges, some certain government buildings, missile sights, and airstrips. And if some soldiers we taken in those strikes they were not some helpless women and kids sleeping (non combatants)... I am also wanting more proof these gas strikes were not done or made by rouge government people or terrorists. I would really like the USA staying out of it to a degree. Let the UN do most of the work.
Sorry but China is not with the attack force on Syria. And to whom is aid going? to the Al-Quida terrorist groups in Syria?
The USA has started this whole Free-Syrian-people-from-Assad charade. They have supplied the terrorist groups within Syria with arms. Now they have instigated a use of anthrax weapons against the citizens to make it look like the Syrian government did it. UN has tested the use of chemical weapons before in Syria, in case you missed they have ruled that it was not the government forces that used them but the terrorists. It would be simply IDIOTIC for the Syrian government to use the chemical weapon on its citizens now. Want UN to do most of the work? They are the ones keeping peace, currently, but US has decided that independent assessment from UN on who used the chemical weapons is not good for them, so they made their own assessment. I have a question to you R1D2, are you thinking logically or are you just a blind patriot for your country?
That's right. The US employs mind control to make Assad and his followers do this to his political opponents. Thanks for pointing this out, you great upstanding citizen of the free world who wouldn't get us all slaughtered if we took your advice. What sorts of arms? M16 rifles, Javelin missiles and F-16 fighters? Give me a damn break. Is there anyone saying this who doesn't already have their tongue up Assad's ass? Source, please? No more baseless bullshit. The Syrian government and its supporters are more than idiotic enough to do precisely such a thing. They've already done far worse, amortized over 2.5 years of fighting. After all, they know they have stooges like you who will cover for them at any expense. Thanks to Russia and China the UN is doing next to nothing in Syria, and its present chemical weapons investigations aren't even mandated to determine the perpetrators. I think you're the one who needs to do some soul-searching and figure out what it is you want to believe and why you feel the need to twist the facts to support those beliefs.
My comment was more theoretical concerning the use of force. That does not cut it, so let me see if I can clarify. What I was referring to was the statement that civilians had been targeted? So I was saying, if force was only used on military installations and personnel, why not simply dismantle them. At that point, there would be no need for a military. By dismantle (probably a bad word choice) I mean politically remove militaries not forcefully. So I was saying that some countries would choose to target civilians as a manner of conducting war, or at least not be particurly concerned with civilian causalities. The bottom line is that my point was irrelevant because both military and civilians are targets in conflicts As I thought more about it after postng, it did occur to me that simply targeting installations and personnel could prove superiority. Hence why I never commented afterwards. My post had nothing to do with making a moral statement or to display any moral outrage.
