Protesting

Originally posted by muse7
Israel has a pretty good Missile defense system, any missile launched from Iran will most likely be intercepted and shot down

...
...
...

Just because you are wearing a bullet proof vest doesn't mean you go looking to get shot.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by whyamIhere
100,000 are dead in Syria.

Roughly 1400 by chemical weapons.

I wonder if any of the dead give a crap about the method?

Our logic seems to be the Regime must be punished. What is the punishment?

We are going to kill some of your people to protest you killing your people.

If I have it wrong....Let me know.

You do have it wrong

They're not carpet bombing the place, this wont turn into another Nurnberg

They're launching Tomahawk missiles with specific targets programmed into their system. These targets might include weapons cache's, missiles, and other type of weaponry.

We all know that this stuff is hidden in urban areas, where there will be collateral damage.

What is the amount of civvy casualties after we do our thing? What is the cost of our damages that we will do?

I don't yet see a reason to intervene in their matters.

This is just for Obama to say he acted in the defense of human lives. This is just to make Obama look better after his 20+ broken campaign promises.

They might very well be hidden in urban areas, and I don't believe the U.S. military commanders are stupid enough to launch a barrage of missiles at densely populated areas.

The point right now is to send a strong message to Assad, that the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians will not be tolerated.

Originally posted by benrl


Just because you are wearing a bullet proof vest doesn't mean you go looking to get shot.

I dont know many that have to wear a bulletproof vest to sleep though...........

Originally posted by muse7

The point right now is to send a strong message to Assad, that the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians will not be tolerated.

But WHY does America have to do it?

Why cant someone else?

reply to post by muse7


Well threatening to launch cruise missiles at them is not the answer. Look an north Korea, they aren't a problem because of international sanctions. We have forced them to play ball and on our terms.

Its what we need to do, cut off their imports so they are forced to play on our terms.

Threatening and enraging an already unstable region makes about as much sense as me inserting parts of myself into a bee hive.

reply to post by sonnny1


America, WORLD POLICE......

Originally posted by shaneslaughta


Its what we need to do, cut off their imports so they are forced to play on our terms.

Not buying that as an answer. Cause Iran, China and Russia are not playing by those rules.

Syria will get what it needs from those Countries. The World is not unified in stopping the bloodshed. Many Countries are unified in making money off of weapons, and keeping their sphere of influence in that region.

If the U.S does go ahead and attack, I don't think we'll be alone. I think France will also participate as it has a lot of interests in Syria and it once ruled over it.

Just because the British are not coming along, does not mean we should not take action.

reply to post by sonnny1


Your point is valid.

I think Russia isn't with us because they are international arms dealers....one by one we are cutting off Russia business partners.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Your point is valid.

I think Russia isn't with us because they are international arms dealers....one by one we are cutting off Russia business partners.

You under stand they are our competitors in arm sales right? The US is one of the biggest arms dealers in the world...

We sold arms to Iraq pre-iraq war..

muse7
If the U.S does go ahead and attack, I don't think we'll be alone. I think France will also participate as it has a lot of interests in Syria and it once ruled over it.

Just because the British are not coming along, does not mean we should not take action.

edit on 8/31/2013 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

you seem overly confident
[your "Sanity" is unquestionable of course]

would I Be correct in concluding you'll be nowhere near Syria once the hostilities commence?

still at your terminal [or stock ticker more likely ] cheering the violence on...



but feel free to disregard my words, as I Am quite "Insane".

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Your point is valid.

I think Russia isn't with us because they are international arms dealers....one by one we are cutting off Russia business partners.

You under stand they are our competitors in arm sales right? The US is one of the biggest arms dealers in the world...

We sold arms to Iraq pre-iraq war..

Yup, just as we sold arms to the Taliban in the 80's.

Originally posted by TheMagus

muse7
If the U.S does go ahead and attack, I don't think we'll be alone. I think France will also participate as it has a lot of interests in Syria and it once ruled over it.

Just because the British are not coming along, does not mean we should not take action.

edit on 8/31/2013 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

you seem overly confident
[your "Sanity" is unquestionable of course]

would I Be correct in concluding you'll be nowhere near Syria once the hostilities commence?

still at your terminal [or stock ticker more likely ] cheering the violence on...

but feel free to disregard my words, as I Am quite "Insane".

No I'm not cheering on the violence, I'm cheering for the destruction of those Chemical weapons used to kill over a thousand innocent people though.

You on the other hand seem perfectly comfortable with letting rogue lunatics like Assad commit mass murder against innocent people with Chemical weapons, so really who is "cheering" on the violence?

muse7

Originally posted by TheMagus

muse7
If the U.S does go ahead and attack, I don't think we'll be alone. I think France will also participate as it has a lot of interests in Syria and it once ruled over it.

Just because the British are not coming along, does not mean we should not take action.

edit on 8/31/2013 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

you seem overly confident
[your "Sanity" is unquestionable of course]

would I Be correct in concluding you'll be nowhere near Syria once the hostilities commence?

still at your terminal [or stock ticker more likely ] cheering the violence on...

but feel free to disregard my words, as I Am quite "Insane".

No I'm not cheering on the violence, I'm cheering for the destruction of those Chemical weapons used to kill over a thousand innocent people though.

You on the other hand seem perfectly comfortable with letting rogue lunatics like Assad commit mass murder against innocent people with Chemical weapons, so really who is "cheering" on the violence?

You on the other hand seem perfectly comfortable with letting rogue lunatics like obama, kerry, cameron,nato, western [anglo-american] oil and arms cartels commit mass murder against innocent people via their proxies the canibalban with Chemical weapons, and make a profit doing so.so really, who is it "cheering" on the violence again?


if you truly want to get rid of chem-weapons and those who employ them it should be d.c. you should be demanding get the dresden treatment.

so get your head out youngster [or arrested adolescent, as the case may be].

reply to post by sonnny1


The only help the people of the Middle East ever asked of America was of her people. For us who supposedly control our government to reign them in. They don't want our military intervention, even if we say it's to promote peace.

reply to post by muse7


Gotta disagree with you here Muse, there's no proof either way on who used those chemical weapons and the stance America has always... well at least our public face, is that we do not interfere with civil wars. If Assad took his war outside of Syria or threatened to, that might be a red line worth talking about.

War is a crime. Not one country can justify war, as we understand it. All warfare is immoral, with its destruction of civil infrastructure, devastation of innocent lives, crippling of women and children, permanent displacement of refugees, theft of material resources, and scorched earth policies.

It is a crime against humanity, it is a spiritual crime, for any individual to impose their will on another.

Those who attempt to warrant warfare, most importantly any political leader, corporate officer, military commander, holy man, or mercenary -- are the sole enemy, and the only justifiable quarry in a theatre of war.

This all seems very familiar. It feels like that one guy who went in to another country because he said he had proof of WMDs. And people believed him.

We don't need to do anything with Syria. They pose no direct threat to us or an ally. If we were so damn worried about a tyrant taking inhumane action against the people, there are many other countries we would have taken military action against.

This is the same BS pulled by the last guy, but people don't see it.

Bush : Iraq : : Obama : Syria

"War- what is it good for- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! "

America lobbing missles into Syria would be the same as getting in between two rottweilers fighting over a steak after being starved for 3 weeks while on vacation in the sahara desert.

No thanks.

Let the Owners of the dogs deal with them. Not worth any of my limbs or vital organs.

Originally posted by muse7
Sorry but the only ones waging war are Assad and his thugs launching chemical weapons into the neighborhoods of Damascus, killing over a thousand people and killing 400+ innocent children.

Launching strikes to destroy these Chemical weapons is the right thing to do in my opinion and I'm glad Obama is taking it to Congress to seek approval. The U.N is basically useless as Russia and China are on the security council and will not allow any resolution that does not include Assad getting away with murder.

We have the means necessary to prevent more mass killings of civilians in this fashion.

The ability to stop evil but not willing is malevolent.

edit on 8/31/2013 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

The US has broken international laws invading Iraq. They will break international law if they attack syria. They use depleted uranium for gods sake...total hypocrisy., they drone innocent people including kids (many more than were killed in the chemical attack). We have NO proof who used the chemical weapons. The only side to benefit from chemical weapon use is the rebels (assad is winning the war - wee all know that much, the same rebels that have beheaded people in the streets, thrown people out of office block windows, whose leaders have eaten the hearts of syrian soldiers and posted footage on the internet., the same ones that execute anyone who remotely supports Assad. You really want to help these people? Really????

You really believe the garbage the media is spouting?

This total hypocracy on the part of Obama. The US govt (along with other western govts) are responsible for more death and destruction than anyone else in the 21 century. This needs to stop now.

Turn off your TV's. Its all bull.