[cucubelu]

But if he does that he is going against the un and russia. Bombing syria will never end well. The us' reputation is already fked up as it is.

UN is a mirage and the highest possible time wasting political bullshit at its highest level. Just look at the past thirty years of conflicts, and the death tolls they stood by before "acting".

[Ghosty]

How much of taxpayer's money will they spend to attack Syria ? lol

[cucubelu]

How much of taxpayer's money will they spend to attack Syria ? lol

How much is a human life worth? Now and in the future when we allow chemical warfare to be used and think about tax money more than the future.

Intervention would impact the oil price while it's already high enough and make negative changes to the world economy.
I'd be gonna ride a bicycle to 3,5km school.

[cucubelu]

Intervention would impact the oil price while it's already high enough and make negative changes to the world economy.
I'd be gonna ride a bicycle to 3,5km school.

I do 5k bike ride to Uni every day in 30 C Sun. Babes love the calves, better get on that bike! Bring on them high price oil barrels, maybe the Western world can get back into shape! :eek:

The president of the US wasn't elected to stop atrocities, nor is the US military
or the National Security Council there to do that. Their job is to protect the
interests of America. You might be willing to go to war, but you only get to go to war
when they order you.


The US was and is supporting the rebels to counter Iran's influence. And the
current talked about limited attack is about US credibility and sending a
message to certain countries. The attack is probably not gonna affect the war
significantly. If that was the purpose of an attack, Obama wouldn't wait for
Congressional approval.

A sudden fall of Assad might be very bad for the US and Israel.
They've watched them closely, bombed a nuclear reactor of Syria a few
years ago to keep them from having a nuclear program. But all in all
Syria was kept in check. Now there's a need to counter the growing
influence of Iran in that region, but a regime fall could be a major problem.


Assad is not a madman, the Syrian regime is just trying to exert every
option to stay into power. Chemical weapons are just another bullet
in the chamber.

There are precedents already when it comes to chemical warfare.
America used and allowed it. They've used Agent Orange in the
Vietnam war and they've allowed and indirectly supported Iraqi use
of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. It would be a different story
if Syria were to use chemical weapons against the US or US allies.
But they won't. (Well, they would be wise not to)


And the UN is run by the permanent members of the Security Council.
So if you want to blame the UN, blame them. What's in the interest
of one country can be totally opposed to the interest of another country,
so obviously you're getting stalemates there. The country who blocked
the most UN resolutions since the 60's (by far) is actually the US.

Its not as if the "Assad and his regime" are the bad guys, and the "rebels" are the good guys. Thus, eliminating Assad does not solve the problem. The rebels have massacred the innocents as much as the regime has.

Rebels suspected of using chemical warfare
Rebels executing a child as a joke.
Islamist Rebels Attack Christian Village, Kill Priest Trying To Defend Nuns Inside Convent

This isn't a case of an "evil regime" narrative.Its a civil war. There's no good guys except probably the innocent civilians who die.

While it's true that it's a civil war by now, it needs to be said that it started
with the regime coming down hard on demonstrations. It has evolved into
a civil war by now for sure, but there's no doubt that the biggest factor
in this conflict is Assad and the regime doing everything they can to
keep into power.

The president of the US wasn't elected to stop atrocities, nor is the US military
or the National Security Council there to do that. Their job is to protect the
interests of America. You might be willing to go to war, but you only get to go to war
when they order you.

Same line of thinking circa 1930s, 1990s, now. You think allowing the use of chemical weapons protect the interests of the US? Imagine a world without US intervention.

The attack is probably not gonna affect the war
significantly. If that was the purpose of an attack, Obama wouldn't wait for
Congressional approval.

The reason I am able to type this message is illustrating that the President is waiting for congressional approval. I would pay attention to what initiatives that this White house has taken to limit the powers of the Executive Branch.

I would quote and respond to rest of your posts if I had time or if thought it would actually effect your opinion. The biggest threat to US security is a rogue cell getting WMDs. Syria is collapsing with WMDs. Our intervention would be an attempt to prevent terrorist groups/sympathizers from getting access to chemical weapons.

[JayCat]

In my opinion, I think that the main objective of striking Syria is to show other countries like Iran and North Korea what will happen should they continue their ambitions of obtaining and or using WMD.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...Putin.html

[Ghosty]

Russian President Vladimir Putin called allegations that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad attacked rebel forces with chemical weapons "ludicrous" Tuesday, and acknowledged that Moscow has provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria, but has frozen further shipments.

In a interview with The Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television, Putin suggested that Russia may sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without U.N. Security Council backing.

"From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," Putin said regarding the allegations against Assad, a staunch ally of Russia.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/04/...z2eFzv1ouS


Conspiracy theories , Israel is behind all this ? The chemical weapon attack was staged ? Israel wants all the surrounding Islamic countries to be weak ? Israel wants to fully take the Gaza strip ?