Modded Mustang Forums banner

61 - 80 of 279 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
This isn't the situation, but what if a country unleashed a small scale nuclear device on their people. Would we stand by?

Countries shouldn't use certain weapons, such as chemical, against their own people. I'm not saying we should go to war, or we even have anything to gain, but there has to be some sort of line we don't let people cross without repercussion.
Here is my problem with the "But we have to do SOMETHING!" mentality...

War is all about strategy. We can't just send a handful of missiles over there to "make a point" because it doesn't work. It didn't work for Bush I in the 90's, as Saddam Hussein didn't go, "Aw ****, I suppose I shouldn't massacre my own people!", he just went right back to doing what he did.
The endgame in Syria is much much worse. Syria is in bed with Russia. Putin is a very agressive old school KGB man, he wants Russia to be feared like it was in the 70's and early 80's, and he won't pussy out either. Iran and Israel are going to start shooting at each other when this goes down, Russia will step in on Syria's behalf, and we have the starting of WWIII right there and caused by the USA and it's narcissistic President.

We don't even have tangible proof that Syria is the one using the chemical weapons. Remember... We went to war with Iraq based on the intelligence that they had WMDs. We gave them all kinds of time to hide the WMDs, and they did (by taking them to Syria) and now everyone wants Bush II's head for going to war over lies because no one knows where the WMDs went. So we're using this info against Syria now, and Britain figured out that this is a bad idea, so they've backed out. Last I heard France is backing out, so we're standing alone.

Nothing good will come from this. It's a bad idea. While it's horrible that the chemical weapons are being used, we cannot prove it is coming from Syria's government and isn't a fake out by the Muslim Underground to gain power. Oh yeah, don't you know about them? They did such a great job in Egypt that they're revolting to get them back out and want Mubrack back. Who jumps into power in Syria? Yup, Muslim Underground.

We should not do it. It is a bad move tactically, politically, and will cause way more problems than it solves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,462 Posts
Here is my problem with the "But we have to do SOMETHING!" mentality...

War is all about strategy. We can't just send a handful of missiles over there to "make a point" because it doesn't work. It didn't work for Bush I in the 90's, as Saddam Hussein didn't go, "Aw ****, I suppose I shouldn't massacre my own people!", he just went right back to doing what he did.
The endgame in Syria is much much worse. Syria is in bed with Russia. Putin is a very agressive old school KGB man, he wants Russia to be feared like it was in the 70's and early 80's, and he won't pussy out either. Iran and Israel are going to start shooting at each other when this goes down, Russia will step in on Syria's behalf, and we have the starting of WWIII right there and caused by the USA and it's narcissistic President.

We don't even have tangible proof that Syria is the one using the chemical weapons. Remember... We went to war with Iraq based on the intelligence that they had WMDs. We gave them all kinds of time to hide the WMDs, and they did (by taking them to Syria) and now everyone wants Bush II's head for going to war over lies because no one knows where the WMDs went. So we're using this info against Syria now, and Britain figured out that this is a bad idea, so they've backed out. Last I heard France is backing out, so we're standing alone.

Nothing good will come from this. It's a bad idea. While it's horrible that the chemical weapons are being used, we cannot prove it is coming from Syria's government and isn't a fake out by the Muslim Underground to gain power. Oh yeah, don't you know about them? They did such a great job in Egypt that they're revolting to get them back out and want Mubrack back. Who jumps into power in Syria? Yup, Muslim Underground.

We should not do it. It is a bad move tactically, politically, and will cause way more problems than it solves.
Your post makes a lot of sense. I agree, and we can't solve all of the worlds problems. We can be feared and respected without having to play big brother to everybody else. The only time I think action needs to be swift and quick is when we are attacked on our soil or there is a real threat of an attack. I would also back our allies, but allies change as quickly as a man with explosive diarrhea changes his underpants.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
It did appear that way at the start of the speech but it looks like it's going to a vote in Congress! Then we will see what happens from there. Some people talk about "the constitution and congressional approval" and it seems as if in away this is the route this he going to take for now. I guess we will all see what happens after the debate in congress, the vote.
 

·
dirt/street Motorsports
Joined
·
683 Posts
Discussion Starter #67
looks like Obama may be cooling down a bit and checking him self.......good that **** was getting scary for a moment!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
This isn't the situation, but what if a country unleashed a small scale nuclear device on their people. Would we stand by?

Countries shouldn't use certain weapons, such as chemical, against their own people. I'm not saying we should go to war, or we even have anything to gain, but there has to be some sort of line we don't let people cross without repercussion.
Use of unconventional weapons such as nuclear, chemical, or biological calls for swift and emidaite action. We cannot stand by while another government is researching and developing unconventional weaponry. We cannot risk them harboring those kind of weapons, it needs to be stop before the can mass a serious arsenal, and stage future attacks.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
Use of unconventional weapons such as nuclear, chemical, or biological calls for swift and emidaite action. We cannot stand by while another government is researching and developing unconventional weaponry. We cannot risk them harboring those kind of weapons, it needs to be stop before the can mass a serious arsenal, and stage future attacks.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
While I obviously have no proof, I can pretty much guarantee that nearly every government that has the money to do so is researching all of these. Why? Same reason as the cold war, nobody wants to have less stuff to kill the world with than the other guy. Who gave us the Planet Earth Sheriffs badge? If nobody else wants to help then why should we stick our necks out alone?
 

·
dirt/street Motorsports
Joined
·
683 Posts
Discussion Starter #70
SYRIA claming victory over the U.S ,And claim the U.S is a joke. those stupid ****ers are so damn crazy.
 

·
The Boss is in
Joined
·
23,756 Posts
Here is my problem with the "But we have to do SOMETHING!" mentality...

War is all about strategy. We can't just send a handful of missiles over there to "make a point" because it doesn't work. It didn't work for Bush I in the 90's, as Saddam Hussein didn't go, "Aw ****, I suppose I shouldn't massacre my own people!", he just went right back to doing what he did.
The endgame in Syria is much much worse. Syria is in bed with Russia. Putin is a very agressive old school KGB man, he wants Russia to be feared like it was in the 70's and early 80's, and he won't pussy out either. Iran and Israel are going to start shooting at each other when this goes down, Russia will step in on Syria's behalf, and we have the starting of WWIII right there and caused by the USA and it's narcissistic President.

We don't even have tangible proof that Syria is the one using the chemical weapons. Remember... We went to war with Iraq based on the intelligence that they had WMDs. We gave them all kinds of time to hide the WMDs, and they did (by taking them to Syria) and now everyone wants Bush II's head for going to war over lies because no one knows where the WMDs went. So we're using this info against Syria now, and Britain figured out that this is a bad idea, so they've backed out. Last I heard France is backing out, so we're standing alone.

Nothing good will come from this. It's a bad idea. While it's horrible that the chemical weapons are being used, we cannot prove it is coming from Syria's government and isn't a fake out by the Muslim Underground to gain power. Oh yeah, don't you know about them? They did such a great job in Egypt that they're revolting to get them back out and want Mubrack back. Who jumps into power in Syria? Yup, Muslim Underground.

We should not do it. It is a bad move tactically, politically, and will cause way more problems than it solves.
Reps. I completely agree
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
Here is my problem with the "But we have to do SOMETHING!" mentality...

War is all about strategy. We can't just send a handful of missiles over there to "make a point" because it doesn't work. It didn't work for Bush I in the 90's, as Saddam Hussein didn't go, "Aw ****, I suppose I shouldn't massacre my own people!", he just went right back to doing what he did.
The endgame in Syria is much much worse. Syria is in bed with Russia. Putin is a very agressive old school KGB man, he wants Russia to be feared like it was in the 70's and early 80's, and he won't pussy out either. Iran and Israel are going to start shooting at each other when this goes down, Russia will step in on Syria's behalf, and we have the starting of WWIII right there and caused by the USA and it's narcissistic President.

We don't even have tangible proof that Syria is the one using the chemical weapons. Remember... We went to war with Iraq based on the intelligence that they had WMDs. We gave them all kinds of time to hide the WMDs, and they did (by taking them to Syria) and now everyone wants Bush II's head for going to war over lies because no one knows where the WMDs went. So we're using this info against Syria now, and Britain figured out that this is a bad idea, so they've backed out. Last I heard France is backing out, so we're standing alone.

Nothing good will come from this. It's a bad idea. While it's horrible that the chemical weapons are being used, we cannot prove it is coming from Syria's government and isn't a fake out by the Muslim Underground to gain power. Oh yeah, don't you know about them? They did such a great job in Egypt that they're revolting to get them back out and want Mubrack back. Who jumps into power in Syria? Yup, Muslim Underground.

We should not do it. It is a bad move tactically, politically, and will cause way more problems than it solves.
From the looks of things now it looks like Congress will have to take all of that into heavy consideration before they debate about it and make the vote and send that decision to the President. He seems to somewhat have his mind made up based off that speech he made today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,489 Posts
I like what is happening now. Looks like it go's to vote the way it should be. Let the representatives we voted in represent our feeling on this. WRITE TO THEM before the vote.

Im not seeing this get passed now. Time is on the side of the US.
 

·
dirt/street Motorsports
Joined
·
683 Posts
Discussion Starter #78
yea but i think Obama is REALLY PISSED OFF from the sound of his speech yesterday ,and dont give a damn about what congress has to say.And is going to bomb Syria. He is in a such a hard spot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,489 Posts
I like when the President says that he will allow for a vote. but the truth is, he doesnt have to. Even if they vote no, he still can place the order right? Is this all about giving an impression that he will allow the American people decide?

My entire opinion as this started was based on the fact that Syria broke international law by using chemical weapons. I felt that they should be "spanked" for their bad behavior and maybe to make them rethink using them again. But the more I learn, the more my opinion changes. We did this some many time in the past and whoever was in charge of the stupid country that did it, didnt learn **** and did it again. So whats the point of doing it knowing historically, it never taught anyone a lesson or changed their ways?

Maybe cruise missles isnt the answer. When the only countries that are siding with us are turkey and France, maybe we need to rethink everything.

Isnt there something we can do like lock up their money internationally or something? Is there anything else that can be done to punish them besides bombing?

I know this, Im glad its taking time. Every satellite in the sky and intel on the ground is watching everything. He cant hide ****. Also, it isnt like he can move a command center or fixed radar site which would be the best targets anyway. They are in a nasty civil war and dont have the resources, abiity or time to hide anything. I think its good that we are waiting and taking it slow. Any military action will not be to help one side or the other anyway, its to punish. I think the worse thing now (I can see it happening) is in the next week the dumb ass uses chemicals yet again basically thumbing his nose at us and our legal processes. If that happens, everything may go out the window.

As far as Russia...I can't believe Im saying it but Putin knows too that he has very little interest in anything in Syria. He is only chest thumping. I dont think Russia will retaliate in anyway. Russia needs the US right now more than Syria.
 
61 - 80 of 279 Posts
Top