Mah nigga colbert up in dis bitch. . HIE ' I' EII Swamis MS Ito [} E MIT h' SYRIA BEMUSE Barret' rott MSM IS o, HIS [Will cumin. okay... i want to clear a few things up here (and i am on neither side). it isn't just the USA who wants to attack Syria. it is against the geniva convention to Mah nigga colbert up in dis bitch HIE ' I' EII Swamis MS Ito [} E MIT h' SYRIA BEMUSE Barret' rott MSM IS o HIS [Will cumin okay i want to clear a few things here (and am on neither side) it isn't just the USA who wants attack Syria is against geniva convention
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (230)
[ 230 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #2 - actinglead
Reply +79 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
okay... i want to clear a few things up here (and i am on neither side).
it isn't just the USA who wants to attack Syria.
it is against the geniva convention to use chemical whepons (so the un kinda wants to find out if its true or not then go to war)
this is not about going to war. it is about saving thousands and thousands of lives.
but
war will cost the world a lot of money
we just got out of one unnecessary war.
and people need to realize how little power the president has. he cannot officially declare war...
#9 to #2 - anon id: 3a1d279d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Guys lets all go back to that part of the world that hates us and give them more reason

I don't know how many of you remember the 90's but the reason we have all these problems with "terrorists" is because we went there in the first place, i wish we could just leave it the **** alone already.
#33 to #9 - hopskotch
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
While I agree that I feel we need to take a break from warmongering, I felt that facing the middle-east after 9/11 was necessary.

You burnt ants with a magnifying glass as a kid, ya? Why? Because they were ants. You wouldn't try to burn a wasp, now would you?
User avatar #96 to #33 - imofcnotharveydent
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I think that's utter ********, war was necessary? That's utter ********, The whole war game is just one big scam where some terrorists killed a few of you, and so what?

You where richer, stronger, but got to cocky.

because of one group of terrorists vs a whole nation you mortgaged yourself to death to kill a few people who will continue anyway? You can't scare them, they kill themselves as a part of it, and bombing the countries will only make it easier for them to recruit more.
User avatar #99 to #96 - imofcnotharveydent
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
and now the rich gets even more filthy rich and the poor gets it worse
User avatar #158 to #96 - nandaaz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I think that war was to send a message to the world that terrorists won't get away easily after bombing america.
It was just poorly executed, as it only served to make more people in the middle-east angry at america (and waste tons of human lifes and money)
User avatar #176 to #158 - imofcnotharveydent
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
still, if you only taxed the rich more, you could do so much good.
#221 to #176 - zendir
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
They already pay more in taxes and it still is not enough to pay for everything
#240 to #221 - hopskotch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/08/2013) [-]
Mmmmm.....a lot of CEO's get around paying a majority of their taxes because they donate to charity, which they then get to write-off, and often times comp as a business expense.
#233 to #221 - soycabron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/08/2013) [-]
im just wishing more people would actually think bout what some of these laws and bill actually do going out a supporting them.
#118 to #33 - hopskotch
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
From a psychological standpoint it's called "Negative Reinforcement"

If you don't properly address negative behavior it occurs more frequently. That's why the United States "Doesn't negotiate with terrorists."

Don't be ignorant.
#14 to #2 - anon id: aec795d5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
actually amarica econamy thrives on the war effort.
#15 to #2 - anon id: 3a593141
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Actually, the president has the power to mobilize troops for i think 90 days without consent of congress. After those 90 days, he has to pull back unless congress sanctions it.
#18 to #15 - draxdiesel
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
60 days then a 30 day withdrawal period i believe
#36 to #18 - anon id: 976ee444
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Isn't that only if there is an imminent attack?
#108 to #36 - anon id: fe332299
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Nope. He is commander-in-chief. President could wage unrestricted warfare before the war powers act.
User avatar #111 to #15 - sadawedsa **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
#38 to #2 - anon id: c8952a83
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Too bad it isn't even official that it was Assad using the chemical weapons because there's no real evidence. Even Putin calls ******** and Russia and China have been warning the U.S. not to bomb Syria. And i also think its stupid how we invade a country for its gov. supposedly using chemical weapons yet the syrian rebels supported by the U.S. brutally execute children and other innocent people and are basically Al Qaeda and Monsanto is putting GMOs and other poisons in the American people's food. No one wants this war, even the Syrian people who are supposedly suffering under Assad's "brutal" leadership don't want the U.S. to bomb Syria, and hate the Rebels much more than Assad.
User avatar #84 to #38 - erpetrich
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
What makes Putin a more reliable source of information than the US government?
User avatar #160 to #84 - nandaaz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Everything. Putin actually gets **** done
#89 to #38 - anon id: f9ac0ef3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
"Even Putin calls ********"
Really now. So Putin always has the best interest of other people at heart right? It has already been stated that we will not be sending troops in. The people in Syria actually have asked for US intervention. Someone doesn't pay attention at all.
#46 to #2 - anon id: 522c28b4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Yes, but he has the power to declare a strike on Syria if he wanted Going to congress isn't necessary.
#67 to #2 - anon id: 00bd38a5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
You are so stupid it hurts.
If you really think anything any government does has as a target saving lives then you should get down of your cloud of happiness and watch the world as it really is.
#181 to #2 - anon id: 28a0f247
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I agree, and am fairly impartial in this because I really don't give a ****. But honestly, we do not care about people being massacred by guns and knives. We distribute that **** around the world for funding. I must say, gas attacks regardless of who's doing it make some people.. especially in government directly think of terrible things from WW2 and how no one in the world believed of or even really wanted to look into that type of death on people and the amount of misplaced individuals being herded around their own country. So yeah.. think about that.
#214 to #2 - lufieh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Deal is, Assad never used  chemical weapons. Not back in March (official UN report blamed the rebels) and not now, the exact same day UN chemical weapons inspectors were on a visit in Damascus.   
   
Interesting watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgxzpQrqSkg
Deal is, Assad never used chemical weapons. Not back in March (official UN report blamed the rebels) and not now, the exact same day UN chemical weapons inspectors were on a visit in Damascus.

Interesting watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgxzpQrqSkg
#223 to #2 - anon id: 05f5962c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I just don't understand how military strikes will save lives, because both sides have used chemical weapons in the civl war. As far as we know, no nation has ever attacked another to punish it for the use of chemical weapons, so Obama’s request is unprecedented. But, there is an even more striking instance of the United States ignoring use of the chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of people -- during the grinding Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. As documented in 2002 by Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons.
#7 to #2 - stave
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I agree in general, but I'm not sure on the president power thing. As far as I know, the president is able to officially declare war with Congress support. It is just better that he has it. That is why it is such a problem for Obama if he doesn't get support from Congress now that he asked for it because if he does go through with war, then it would be seen as a breach of democracy.
User avatar #19 to #2 - carnivora
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
"it is about saving thousands and thousands of lives."

Tell it to Iraq and Lybia ... and read something about how these states are destabilizated now ...
User avatar #20 to #2 - nervaaurelius
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I hear this argument but why was nothing done about North Korea then when it was developing it's nuclear program. Unlike the nations in the middle east, North Korea is actually a threat against two major allies and has done small attacks killing North Koreans several times.
User avatar #74 to #2 - Fgner
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Actually the president does have the power. Believe it's a 60 day strike, 30 day recall. However, he can easily cause a war in those 60 days, and then he has the ability to issue executive orders in the time of war. Bam - ultimate power.
User avatar #94 to #2 - didactus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Just one thing, Syria hasn't signed the ban on chemical weapons in the geneve convention. Still I agree I don't take any side on this.
User avatar #13 to #2 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
The Geniva convention states that a state shall not use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, when at war with another state. Syria is in revolt, Assad using chemical weapons on it's self isn't an act of war, it's an act of full retardation.

Other than the U.K., nobody wants to go to war with Syria, because Russia has stated that any attack upon Syria, shall be met with the full force of the Russian military.

This isn't about saving lives, or going to war. If the former was true, NATO would have intervened at the beginning of the revolution, when Assad started killing protesters.

It will cost a **** ton of money to go to war with Syria

And there is something you should know, the president can declare war without the house or senate, he can either A. Invade, and claim it was a policing action, as long as the forces leave within 31 days. Want proof, that's how Korea started. Or B. He can just call it an Executive Order, and give the Senate and House the big ******* middle finger, you know, like what he has been doing for the past 2 years.

User avatar #26 to #13 - Ruspanic
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
The UK actually voted against intervention, even though it believes Assad used chemical weapons. However, France is still siding with the US.
#49 - wizardbaker
Reply +36 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
"Stop trying to be the world police, America!"

"America, what the ****? Why didn't you try stopping Syria sooner?"

What do you people want?!
User avatar #230 to #49 - imabeagoodguy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Someone to blame
#24 - golbot
Reply +32 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
We have a history of watching bad things happen to people and not acting.

In the 1990s when Serbians were killing Bosnians we said "let Europe handle Europe" and as a result 200,000 people died before we helped.

In ww2 when we had intel that Germans were killing Jews, we waited to get attacked before doing anything. meanwhile 6 million died.

Rawanda we said "let the UN handle it" and 800,000 dead civilians later, nothing has been done.

So when people say "let someone else handle Syria" I say "look what happens when we stand by and let the world 'handle' genocide"

You can all have your own opinions on whether or not we should go to Syria but dont pretend its not our problem and that the world will fix it if we dont.
User avatar #29 to #24 - sanguinesolitude
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
over 110k already dead in syria. I still dont think we should join. If the world doesnt want to do anything, i don't think we need to be the ones to get embroiled in a war that in no way benefits us. I mean it is very sad, but why do we need to be the world police?

Pulling down the Assad regime wouldnt be hard, but somehow making the country function effectively seems impossible in under a decade or two.
#32 to #29 - golbot
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I love how the Go-to phrase for isolationists is "world police". Involvement in Syria isnt policing, its humanity. We should get involved for the simple fact that no one else will. We've asked, and the only people who want to help are the french, and only if we join in. so long story short, unless the united states gets involved, no one else will.

So with that being said, you think we should just stand by and let dictators use illegal weapons on civilians despite having the capabilities to stop them, simply because there's nothing in it for us?
User avatar #85 to #32 - skaffanl
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Though I totally agree with you (being the humane thing and all) I do not believe that countries interfere because it's humanity. There has to be something that those who decide whether we should go want. I mean, it's not necessary oil, it could very well be the approval of your populace or other countries or a stronger position within the world order, but I do not believe any country would help because it's the humane thing to do.

Also, countries can also choose to refrain from doing the humane thing because it could lead to disapproval of your populace or whatever. I mean, it would be very humane to do everything humanly possible to end Kony's reign or to feed all those starving children in Africa, but it would not bring in enough positive approval for any country to actually undertake such a money-draining activity.

Well, the point I am trying to make is that countries are not charities, they are businesses. Whenever a country/government/leader has to make a decision about anything they will always ask themselves: "Will it benefit us/me?"
User avatar #146 to #32 - bongobongo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
It isn't that there's nothing in it for us, it's that as a country we can't afford another war. We have enough problems/deficit without throwing our time and money and lives at countries that we can never truly fix.
#133 to #32 - notafunnyguy
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
humanity : bombing a country for 3 days straight and killing innocents alongside hostiles to show hostiles killing innocents is wrong

american logic
User avatar #41 to #32 - sanguinesolitude
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I mean sure attrocities are horrible, nobody is doubting that. But while i approve of some intervention, the role of the world police, while a noble goal, has created a ton of problems for us. We have gone deeply in debt waging wars that in no way benefit us, and have fairly unimpressive results. The countries end up war torn with hundreds of thousands of deaths whether we "liberate" them or not. And who seizes power? Sure we would like to assume that the easygoing peaceful people seize control, but they rarely do. Usually it is extremists of one form or the other. There are many groups fighting in Syria for many different reasons, and the main thing keeping them from fighting eachother currently is the brutal government.

If it was an easy question of yay lets go in and take out Assad and then everything will be peaceful and wonderful, sure we could go. The real world is much messier than this. World War II was the last war that benefitted us to participate in. Every other one has cost us in money and lives with virtually no perceivable gains.

If we want to prevent deaths we should focus on clean water and food for refugees, hatians, africans, etc. And less on blowing people up. Its easier, costs less, and doesnt breed terrorists.
#106 to #41 - asftrooper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
So what you're saying is, we shouldn't help people in need unless we will get paid for it? We don't stop murders unless we know we'll get paid for it? That's your logic?
User avatar #110 to #106 - sanguinesolitude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
not exactly. What i am saying is we need to pick our battles. Going to war because we dont like what someone is doing,

heres an analogy, your neighbor is beating his wife regularly. You have 3 basic options.
1. You can either ignore it and hope he stops. This would be complete isolationism.
2. You can try to reason with him and be diplomatic, tell him to stop, tell her to leave him, call the police to report it, etc. This would be the general U.N. approach
3. Or you can go over there and shoot him. Which is going to war

The first solution means she just keeps getting beaten.
The third, going over and killing him, will likely end up with you facing murder charges, which you might beat but will get bogged down with huge legal expenses for the foreseeable future.

The middle ground is the best approach. We can encourage and support factions there, enforce sanctions. Maybe do a no fly zone and some mild libya style intervention.

I am saying we shouldn't sacrifice american lives every time there is a problem in the world. It doesn't endanger us, it doesnt affect us, it doesnt benefit us. Doing something on principle is great for a person, for a massive nation being an idealist isn't always so easy. look at Iraq, we toppled the brutal regime there within 5 months, and by may 2003 the majority of US vs Iraqi hostilities were finished. And then were stuck fighting insurgents for the next 10 years, with most peoples lives more inconvenienced and unpleasant than they ever had been under Saddam. I mean no doubt taking him out, who also used chemical weapons, was a good thing, but boy we sure devastated the entire region and turned thousands of people against us. Most of the deaths came after the government fell. I don't see any reason that Syria will be any different. We go in, take out their government and then get stuck in a long and bloody war as insurgents pour in from all over the region.

As George Washington said "Avoid costly and unnecessary wars." This is both.
#127 to #110 - asftrooper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
The U.S. signed the Geneva Convention. By that alone, we are mandated to intervene. No excuses. Gasing people, even soldiers, is a war crime, there is no negotiation.
User avatar #134 to #127 - sanguinesolitude
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Well everyone else signed it and they all manage to avoid doing so.

I am not black and white here. I want the war crimes to stop, but i dont want US soldiers to die and for us to go into another war that ends up costing us trillions of dollars and destroying our economy further.
#136 to #134 - asftrooper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Life doesn't have a price tag. Remember that.
User avatar #157 to #136 - sanguinesolitude
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
so why dont you go donate everything to charity. Literally everything. surely the wellbeing of yourself is meaningless compared to that of others.
#164 to #157 - asftrooper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
No, you have a choice. Difference is whether you want to because you rather have something for yourself, or because it's the right thing to do. I don't mean give everything, but something that will help others. Your argument is expressing only greed and selfishness.
User avatar #168 to #164 - sanguinesolitude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
My point is that donating to charity but bankrupting yourself just means you are now in need of charity.

Maybe i dont know how to argue it properly. I dont want to ignore Syria, I also dont want us to invade and get embroiled in a war that helps noone. I think sanctions and working with the international community, instead of going in solo guns blazing is the responsible thing to do. We have barely recovered from the strain of the recession and the iraq war. We havent even started to pay off the trillions of dollars that war started, And i dont think we should get involved with another expensive war.

It seems callous, but sometimes you need to ignore starving children in the street in order to provide for your own children. This is how the world works. Once you can take care of your own, you can try to help others. But irresponsibly intervening in other countries hasnt worked well for us historically, and i dont see it going well this time.

If we want some limited drone and missile strikes and enforcing a no fly zone I am all for that, but boots on the ground is where i draw the line. its their revolution, let them die for their freedom. Us dying for other peoples freedom seems silly.

p.s. unless you are willing to join the armed forces, don't you dare argue for sending our troops into harms way unnecessarily.

being a nice guy is giving aid to people in need, not killing their enemies. War is never about being a nice guy.
#172 to #168 - asftrooper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I don't think we'll have a choice. Obama wants to go in, awful I know, chemical weapons were used so the rest of the world has to get involved whether we like it or not, getting tired of people complaining that we do nothing but delaying all help to Syria, and by no means should this have happened in the first place. I don't want war either, but I can't believe you would say that "Us dying for other peoples freedom seems silly." You might as well told France that saving our asses was a waste of time for them. Forget it, you insulted every country that had an ally help gain them freedom from oppression.
User avatar #183 to #172 - sanguinesolitude
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Do you honestly think King Louis XVIth of France, a despotic dictator who would be overthrown and beheaded later in the french revolution, helped us against their longtime enemy England out of the goodness of his heart? Are you insane? He did it for financial and strategic benefit. By aiding us he could strike at England while they were waging a costly and long distance war. With us independent this both cost England a valuable trading partner and their main foothold in North America, but gave France a loyal trading partner and increased their access to North America. If there was one reason they did not help us, it was because the kind thought the common people should be able to stand up to monarchs. If that is the view you hold, you are very naive.

An alliance isnt a love affair where you do everything and anything for the other, it is a working business partnership. Grow up.

I agree we have little choice, Obama wants to go in and so we likely are in for a long protracted war. All recent Presidents have followed similarly hawkish trends. My worry is if we keep allowing our economy to suffer and our people to become more and more divided at home, soon it will be europe intervening in a civil war on American soil.
#184 to #183 - asftrooper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
So, all in all, no one is willing to change for the better. It's a ****** up world.
User avatar #207 to #184 - sanguinesolitude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I just dont think its so simple as far as how to change the world for the better.

Iraq on the surface seemed simple. Bad dictator, take him out and everything will be great right? No way. Took out the government and all military in 5 months. This is what you are suggesting. Which is great. What i am suggesting is the 10 year fallout from this "nice" act of removing the dictator. It isnt clean, people turn on eachother, water and electricty goes out, supply lines break down, enemy combatants flood the country trying to set up their preferred flavor of rule, ethnic groups vie for power, etc.

Iraq took 10 years to get even kind of stable, and it is still far from normal. This has multiple rebel forces already in place, and they arent all peace loving people just fighting for their freedom. There are Taliban forces, al qaeda, and numerous other terrorists and militant groups. Some not even terrorist, just not having the same interests as us. Once the government falls, the country will become a war-zone. You obviously wont want us to leave them to kill each-other, so we have to stay there until some semblance on normalcy is established. Which is going to take years. My point is i really really dont want to get stuck for another 10 years in a bloody war that leaves us wondering whether it was worth it at all. With tens of thousands of dead

So sure as long as it stays missiles and no fly zone and drone strikes sure, but the Syrian people need to shoulder this burden. We cant give them their country.
#235 to #207 - soycabron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/08/2013) [-]
i agree with you, like we should take a slower approach like having drones and no fly zone and all and if **** gets worse then yea it does call in for some troop to go and get the us to push the UN to get involved as well. Being the nice guy is nice and all but if your already in deep **** you got to take care of that first and then be the nice guy when you got everything in order
#43 to #24 - anon id: 257d0995
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
"Herp derp Merica is needed to help everyone" "Herp derp Merica won ww2 on her own"

****.......Off.
#70 to #43 - anon id: f4ef56b6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
it worked out pretty ******* well in the balkans when the rest europe wanted to sit with their thumbs up their asses while people died.
you know what the european solution to yugoslavia was? sending peacekeeping forces that were strictly forbidden from shooting at anyone under virtually any circumstances. that wound up with dutch soldiers surrendering to genocidal terrorists who put on their uniforms, took their HQ, decorated it like a refugee camp and slaughtered people who were looking to avoid bloodshed. men, women, and children were massacred because the US decided to let europe handle it and europe simply did not care. the US only got involved after it got fed up with europe not doing jack **** and the yugoslavian people begging for US intervention.

thats the thing people like you love to forget, the US is asked, even begged, to intervene in these situations because nobody else cares enough or has the balls to step up to the plate, and syria isn't very different.
#155 to #24 - anon id: bae1f224
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
US interference always led to the overthrow of the target country's government and creation of a puppet state that would satisfy US interests ,which are very clear in this particular region. As for the use of chemical weapons, it is arguable which side used them (first) and so are the motives of the whole uprising.
#8 - kingpongthedon
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Yeah, the thing about chemical warfare is that it's indiscriminate. When those 1400 people were killed, they weren't necessarily willing combatants, 426 were children. When two sides meet on a battlefield, it's assumed that they're there on their own free will. They know the risk and they've accepted it. The problem isn't that 1400 people died, it's that many of them were civilians. It's the same thing with gang violence. It's tragic when anybody dies, but for the most part, the people involved knew the risk associated with that lifestyle and they lost out. It's not until an innocent bystander gets caught in a drive-by that anybody cares.

TLDR: It's not the killing that's the problem, it's who's being killed.
User avatar #12 to #8 - fgtometer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Drones, Dresden, Japan, Agent Orange. Indiscriminate murder is key to US foreign policy.
#16 to #12 - kingpongthedon
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Your point being? It's still wrong. Just because we haven't always been the paragon of virtue doesn't mean we shouldn't step in to help when we can.

As an aside, I fail to see how drones are considered indiscriminate killing machines. They're still controlled by a pilot, only now he's able to get a much better understanding of what's going on in the field and can better direct where the bombs hit. It's light years ahead of the precision of previous generation bombers.
User avatar #17 to #16 - fgtometer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Because of the numbers of civilians (in countries which the US is not officially at war with) that have been killed, compared to the number of strikes.

Just because you're not the paragon of virtue doesn't mean you shouldn't try to help. This is true. However, if your military has a history of destabilising countries for private interests, perhaps it is reasonable to avoid intervening whenever possible.

I appreciate that this is a complex situation, and yes it is really horrendous that so many people have died. But foreign intervention in a civil war is always incredibly risky.
#40 - miltorky
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
everyone's being an armchair politician and I'm just sitting here masturbating,
pic unrelated
User avatar #45 to #40 - navadae
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
pic very related... *zip*
#97 - beisenherg
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
User avatar #117 to #97 - yuukoku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
If we don't go to Syria, then... ugh, I've ******* given up. I like to think that it's to keep the Chinese from spreading ideals into the Middle East and Northern Africa, but I'm starting to fall back on that idea as the idea of invading Syria sounds worse and worse. Besides the fact that the President is being a hypocrite, it's just going to rack up the money we're spending and what are we going to do with them when we're done with Syria?
User avatar #148 - PVTDickStryker
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
The US doesnt give a free-flying **** about the citizens, what it DOES care about is the possibility of having those chemical weapons used against it. The government is just using the "we have to save the people!" rant as an excuse to not have the bleeding heart liberals start being buttfrustrated.
#159 to #148 - thegamegestapo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Funny how the government is using chemical weapons in such close proximity to its own troops. Especially considering that it has numerical, technological, and tactical supremacy so long as no one intervenes.

Also did we ever find out what happened to that supply of Sarin that the Saudis were selling to rebel groups in Syria after Assad's government refused to allow them to build an oil pipeline into Europe?

It's almost as if one rebel group carried out a chemical attack on a rival rebel group in order to give the US and its puppet states an excuse to invade, establish the Saudi pipeline and end European dependency on Russia for oil.

So once again we're going to get involved in a nice long war that kills thousands, increases extremist anti-western sentiment, and drives us deeper into the war debt we've already accumulated over the last illegal war we were in.

I'm starting to think ol' Vlad Putin has the right idea.
User avatar #161 to #159 - PVTDickStryker
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Sad thing is this is probably never going to end; for some reason, theres always some excuse to cause conflict between western and middle-eastern states.
User avatar #162 to #161 - thegamegestapo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Until all the oil runs out. Then we'll suddenly discover that Africa is swarming with nuclear-armed terrorist child soldiers or some such nonsense.

User avatar #163 to #159 - byposted
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Don't forget that a reserve of Natural Gas was discovered in Syria not too long ago.

I wouldn't discount completely the idea that chemical weapons were used by government forces. You must know that Assad really has limited control of his generals on the ground due to the scope of the war. This discounts, though, any possibility that Assad personally ordered chemical weapons to be used.

Putin is working for his interest and Obommer is working for his. Nobody is right or wrong although you may sympathize more with one than the other.
User avatar #234 to #148 - latinotornado
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/08/2013) [-]
No, no the bleeding heart liberals are buttfrustrated because Obama is walking the line of war. Bleeding heart liberals HATE war, and here, our Democratic president Obama is battle hungry. And the US isn't worried about chemical weapons being used on us. We laugh at the idea considering how powerful we are. We're worried about Israel. Not ourselves.
User avatar #177 to #148 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
the US isnt worried about chemical weapons used against the US
the government is worried that they will be used against Israel eventually
User avatar #44 - navadae
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
i`m not really sure why.. but political crap on FJ just annoys me, not the people or anything (and i`m not doing any mass downthumbing or whatnot) it's just... "oh hey i go here to get away from some of this crap" and then BITCHSLAP OF POLITICS

...that is all
#10 - bitchplzzz
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
well to be honest, it IS a warcrime to use chemicals... but I see the point




War is stupid.
#77 - ronyx
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
LoL, if the US doesn't launch any offensive against Syria, then all the other dicators in the world who already don't give a **** about their people, but don't risk using methods like chemical weapons because the US might get involved will know that the UN can't do **** and the US won't do **** either. So they'll go ahead and do whatever they want. Then if the US doesn't attack Syria, Israel will go ahead and doit. Since Syria already sank a submarine from Israel and it is possible that the tactical nuke used on Syria was from Israel. Of course if Israel attacks Syria, Turkey will get involved since they want a piece of the land. If Turkey gets involved, Russia will cross Georgia and attack Turkey to protect Russia's interests. Funny how everyone claims "hurr durr the US wants to attack Syria for their own interests" but in reality no action through the UN could be taken because Russia has a lot of interests in Syria, hell they even got a base there and for those who don't know, Russia can veto any action through the UN against Syria. So for those that cry, "omg let's doit through the UN or don't do anything" are plain uninformed, because Putin sucks Assad's cock and vise versa.
#129 to #77 - turdofdoom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
well...
if the us attacks they will probably bomb a lot of buildings too
and they will get a reason to bomb iran
and probably some random other countries
then putin will also join and usa and russia goes swosh with nuclear weapons and then the world goes poow with a swoosh :c