Striking Syria

[Greenman1]

What do you think of the current situation with Syria?

Do you think we are going to have a "new Iraq", or this is going to be different?

Please avoid any racist or inappropriate comments.

 

[bravesfan10]

I say leave Syria alone....( ill paste me post from thevother topic)


First we know that chemical weapons were used...but do we really know who used them. 2nd....if we attack assad(sp?) then it makes it look like we are helping the same people who we have been fighting against...3. we also got to look at the long term effects...will Iran attack Israel? will we be hit with another 9/11? How many innocent will be killed?( not necessarily by us) but also in what they will see as a retalitory attack. Will Russia defend Syria? could an attack on Syria lead to WWIII?

 

[Greenman1]

I agree with you Bravesfan10.

They should leave Syria alone, and they should try and find a peaceful political solution to the problem.

 

[Atrox]

Since when would a nation like Syria agree to a peaceful political solution?

 

[CM30]

I'm not opposed to a military strike against the country, at least in the 'attack from the air but don't send in troops' way.

But I have to say I'm kind of worried about the US and Obama's plan to attack the country at this point. Because as you mentioned in post 1, the chance of it becoming a 'new Iraq' is just too high, and I really don't want to see the US turn this thing into yet another drawn out 'ground war' that lasts for months on end and gets yet more soldiers pointlessly killed.

Oh, and I'm rather happy now that the government over here in the UK decided to wait for actual evidence and and didn't just rush over to support the US with this sort of thing. Makes me hopeful that if something does go wrong, we'll stay out of it.

 

[bravesfan10]

I think there is still to many questions...one is who really used them? after the Iraq crap we should be very careful.

 

[Atrox]

I'm not opposed to a military strike against the country, at least in the 'attack from the air but don't send in troops' way.

But I have to say I'm kind of worried about the US and Obama's plan to attack the country at this point. Because as you mentioned in post 1, the chance of it becoming a 'new Iraq' is just too high, and I really don't want to see the US turn this thing into yet another drawn out 'ground war' that lasts for months on end and gets yet more soldiers pointlessly killed.

Oh, and I'm rather happy now that the government over here in the UK decided to wait for actual evidence and and didn't just rush over to support the US with this sort of thing. Makes me hopeful that if something does go wrong, we'll stay out of it.

And if they took down the jet's that were attacking them, millions down the drain right there. If you wanted to just bomb the s**t out of them just send a B-2 Stealth.

 

[iSuit21]

I am just going to throw in a libertarian view and a few facts:

[youtube]J-NIOthWsjk[/youtube]

 

[Naiwen]

I think it's going to be exactly like Iraq-Iran or even Afghanistan. So no to war in Syria. & Didn't Russia already propose a "diplomatic" solution for this?

& Yes, we've don't know "who attacked the US?" & Actually, it doesn't matter who did this, it's just as bad for US citizens.

 

[coolframe]

To be honest I could not care what is going on in Syria, tough crap if chemical weapons have been used but, nowadays, thousands are killed every year by their own governments for some reasons, religion, politics etc etc but we all have our own problems to deal with in our own countries and I think our forces will be a better use to defend our country not to attack others.

Why some countries out there are having civil wars for years if not decades and none of the g8 have made a move, why should we be bothered by Syria? Because they used chemical weapons? Are we not, g8 countries, people who used weapons that can be more destructive than chemical weapons? Our nations devellop all kinds of weird weapons, most are not even known as only god knows what kind of damages they can made.

Chemical weapons should not be used and I completly agree, however particle-beam wepons can be as horrific as chemicals. Just read this and you will see that even though our leaders say that it's for defence only, yeah rigth, we all know what weapon industry is about right?

A particle-beam weapon uses a high-energy beam of atomic or subatomic particles to damage the target by disrupting its atomic and/or molecular structure. A particle-beam weapon is a type of directed-energy weapon, which directs energy in a particular and focussed direction using particles with negligible mass

 

[Atrox]

To be honest I could not care what is going on in Syria, tough crap if chemical weapons have been used but, nowadays, thousands are killed every year by their own governments for some reasons, religion, politics etc etc but we all have our own problems to deal with in our own countries and I think our forces will be a better use to defend our country not to attack others.

Why some countries out there are having civil wars for years if not decades and none of the g8 have made a move, why should we be bothered by Syria? Because they used chemical weapons? Are we not, g8 countries, people who used weapons that can be more destructive than chemical weapons? Our nations devellop all kinds of weird weapons, most are not even known as only god knows what kind of damages they can made.

Chemical weapons should not be used and I completly agree, however particle-beam wepons can be as horrific as chemicals. Just read this and you will see that even though our leaders say that it's for defence only, yeah rigth, we all know what weapon industry is about right?

A particle-beam weapon uses a high-energy beam of atomic or subatomic particles to damage the target by disrupting its atomic and/or molecular structure. A particle-beam weapon is a type of directed-energy weapon, which directs energy in a particular and focussed direction using particles with negligible mass

Anyone realize that Syria has agree'd to push aside all chemical weapons, now that they've done that they should allow Syria to do whatever they wish, we shouldn't mess with the politics and who leads the country, I agree with this post above apart from the bit about the fact that he/she doesn't care if chemical weapons are being used. They wouldn't help us if we were in a civil war would they?

 

[coolframe]

I didn't mean to be rude by saying I don't care, of course I do, my point was more about, going onto another war in a country I won't even put a fingertoe in it, but right on the other side in the world, in birma for exemple, they killed people just for the sake of it, raping and cutting body parts etc etc, isn't it as much atrocious as using chemicals? It doesn't matter how you are trying to exterminate people.

Anyway, Syria is said to hand up all their chemicals weapons, wait and see

 

[Atrox]

Well, Russia are sort of leaning onto the US's side with Syria giving up their chemical weapons so they'll probably have to because if not they'll lose a very big ally; Russia.

 

[Naiwen]

I don't think he/she was saying he/she didn't care about the radioactive weapons being used on humans, (she/he said about "what's going in Syria"). & US is going to lose Russia as an ally, you meant. Many times, Russia demonstrated that they could care less about America (in the Snowden affair, US's calling to wars in Afghanistan, Iran, & etc) .

 

[Shawn Gossman]

I think Obama could of handled things differently. He basically embarrassed himself with what went down. It is almost as if America needed to call their mommy Russia to help them out of a bad situation...and to think, Russia used to call us Mother 😛