-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;520659]Well, we're going to do it anyways. Now or later. Those Chemical Weapons cannot be left unchecked.
When will it be OK......when we have a few 100,000 dead in New York from a subway gas attack. I'm sorry, but the world has changed and changed a LOT in the past couple decades.
We simply cannot sit around and think if we "leave them be" they will crawl in a hole a go away. THEY will not.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
Agree...the best defense is a strong offense. It's best to attack the roaches while they are outside, rather than in the basement.
-
[QUOTE=Devils Horse;520673]There is no way, and I mean NO WAY this country will sit still for more of our soldiers deployed anywhere in the middle east...even if Barack Obama had the inclination or backbone to do it. The middle east is a hopeless situation. Unfixable. Their entire culture has become too steeped in ignorance, hate, and bloodshed.
With the gutless political animals that run this country, and the bleeding heart media who empower them, we absolutely cannot win any kind of military campaign there, so I'm dead set against more of our soldiers dying in that god forsaken pit.
All the ranking politicians seem to be content to launch a couple of billion dollars worth of missiles into the Syrian desert to "save face" for America and Mr. Obama. A purely a symbolic gesture which will accomplish nothing, so I'm dead set against that too
I see only 2 ways to win.
1. Eliminate the Arab species and most sub species from the planet earth and just take whatever oil we need. Obviously not doable, even if we wanted to.
2. Allow no middle easterners, their culture or religions into our country for any reason period. If they're here already, close down the Islamic worship centers and deport them. Drill for our own oil. Ignore them completely and maybe they'd kill each other down to the last one. Once again not humane or feasible, even though a many people wouldn't mind seeing that happen.[/QUOTE]
Exactly how I feel this post is spot on. I for one would stop allowing Arabs or any Middle eastern people in this country. Call me a racist I really don't give a crap, I trust NONE OF THEM ANYMORE. They hate and it can not be fixed. Us going in to so called straighten them out is a joke.
Listen to Rand Paul, Well it's just a little war, not a big war, We'll be out in no time, it shouldn't take long...
Step away from the crack pipe people, you can't fix this, nobody can. Now if you want to carpet bomb them into the Jurassic period I'll probably join your camp.
-
[QUOTE=HURRICANEBOB;520701]If not us....then who?
If not now, then when?
No boots on the ground needed. Not a war, a series of air strikes. Cruise missiles don't require anyone on the ground when a drone and do the targeting.
I agree the only thing that being passive in teh face of agression gets you is more aggression. Dead bad guys pose no threat, but they do serve the purpose of being a strong example of what happens when you decide to take that role.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. A series of air strikes on what? They've had plenty of notice and time to react. How much stuff that matters will still be where we think it is? How many civilians will be moved to facilities they know we'll hit? The world, Americans included will see the dead women and children, our press will make sure of it.
The idea of surgical strikes doesn't wash.
Dead middle eastern bad guys do little except inspire other middle eastern guys. Setting an example for those folks doesn't work, the bad guys have a truckload of virgins waiting for them in the 7th heaven...long as they kill infidels.
We constantly try to filter the middle east mindset through our value system and it simply doesn't apply. What's worse is we are encouraged by liberals to embrace and tolerate the Islamic/Muslim religion which is the at the very root of the problem.
-
I really want an answer from the naysayers here.
WHEN is it OK to use force. WHAT is the "red line".
Personally I think chemical weapons in the hands of bad guys is evidence enough. When the WRONG bad guys get them, people we know MAY be killed with them,
People I KNEW personally were killed in 9/11. I have great interest in never allowing that to occur again.
Complacency is what gave us 9/11 in the first place.
Later,
Geo
-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;520724]I really want an answer from the naysayers here.
WHEN is it OK to use force. WHAT is the "red line".
Personally I think chemical weapons in the hands of bad guys is evidence enough. When the WRONG bad guys get them, people we know MAY be killed with them,
People I KNEW personally were killed in 9/11. I have great interest in never allowing that to occur again.
Complacency is what gave us 9/11 in the first place.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
--
That is a question that most of us have a tough time with, to me it would be best explained by the actions of Iraq in the early 90's... I believe we had to respond with their invasion into Kuwait, we can't let a cancer like Saddam expand.... It seems to me Pakastan has nukes, should we attempt to relieve them of those also?
-
[QUOTE=Hlleonard;520725]--
That is a question that most of us have a tough time with, to me it would be best explained by the actions of Iraq in the early 90's... I believe we had to respond with their invasion into Kuwait, we can't let a cancer like Saddam expand.... It seems to me Pakastan has nukes, should we attempt to relieve them of those also?[/QUOTE]
Tough question.
* the Paks have Nukes but don't seem to be crazy.......YET.
* the North Koreans have Nukes, but only posture because they need food.
* Saddam was a mad man. And taking care of him was necessary.
ole Momar was a madman too......and taking care of him was necessary.
* Mubarrak. He was OUR dictator, I wish the brotherhood was never elected, and Morrasie was never put in power. The PEOPLE have spoken there, and the Brotherhood is gone.
Obama is in a pickle. He is such a weak leader, and it is beginning to show. WHY do you think dictators around the world did what they did. BECAUSE they knew the Nobel prize winning chump of a leader in America would not do jack.
We are now faced with doing something in Syria because of Obama and his positions of being WEAK. Assad was in a box, he was never going to use chemical weapons.........not until Obama became the leader of the free world. Why do you suppose they were never used on our troops in any of the conflicts we've had. BECAUSE Bush and even to a certain extent Clinton would have pummeled any regime trying to use them.
THE second we knew that Syria had gassed her own people, AFTER the president said there would be consequences to those actions, Bush or Reagan, maybe Clinton would have initiated a strike package. Hell they would have had the strike package and plan already drawn up. HELL they would have drawn it up the day after they were elected, because that is what REAL LEADERS DO. All Obama drew up was a golf plan.
Bush 1 and Bush 2 would have FLEW the freakin first strike package themselves......
OBAMA is a light weight. Always as been. Now, he's painted in a corner, and the world knows it.
Take a look at the AP photo of Putin and Obama. Putin KNOWS he has Obama in a headlock. Putin came out and called Kerry a LIAR. Are you freakin kidding me. Had that been Reagan or Bush, they would have went all cowboy on that russian *******.
Pisses me off that Obama is such ...........kitty cat.
Edit:
And for the record, the reason there is no allied coalition is because not a single one of our allies trusts Obama at all. He is WEAK. The minute things get scary he pulls out. Look at the MESS he left in IRAQ and Afghanistan.
WEAK ASS FOOL.
Later,
Geo
-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;520724]I really want an answer from the naysayers here.
WHEN is it OK to use force. WHAT is the "red line".
Personally I think chemical weapons in the hands of bad guys is evidence enough. When the WRONG bad guys get them, people we know MAY be killed with them,
People I KNEW personally were killed in 9/11. I have great interest in never allowing that to occur again.
Complacency is what gave us 9/11 in the first place.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
We have answered you. We don't feel that doing what you suggest will accomplish anything in fact I think it will make it much worse with even a hightened retaliation factor enhanced.
George they hate us now, they will forever. Invading another country will only inflame the situation much worse.
I don't know any other ways to explain my where abouts on this. Jim, aka Devils Horse has a better way with words than I, but I feel exactly as he is expressing. We can not evade the danger from these hate mongers either with action or no action.
Muslims hate.......... all of them and I will never be sold otherwise.
-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;520724]I really want an answer from the naysayers here.
WHEN is it OK to use force. WHAT is the "red line".
Personally I think chemical weapons in the hands of bad guys is evidence enough. When the WRONG bad guys get them, people we know MAY be killed with them,
People I KNEW personally were killed in 9/11. I have great interest in never allowing that to occur again.
Complacency is what gave us 9/11 in the first place.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
Can't tell you when, that one is going to move around, but using force should make sense. Seems to me there should be a clearly defined goal when we do. It also seems there should be clear proof it's necessary.
None of these conditions are met in this case.
First off, have you seen proof that the Syrian military gassed people? Sure all signs point to it, but the rebels aren't exactly boy scouts, is it not possible they're responsible? Hell, we don't even know what happened at our own Benghazi embassy after all this time, and you expect me to to trust this administration on this one?
What exactly is a few Tomahawk missile strikes going to accomplish? What has the administration said our goal is? There appears to be no tactical, let alone strategic goal, we just want to make some kind of statement. Set an example for the other thugs in the region. Waste of time, the region isn't populated by people smart enough to take an example.
Or is it we just want to tip the balance in favor of the rebels? Who are the rebels? By most accounts they're hard line Muslim Brotherhood types. Do we really want to help them? Really?
I'm not complacent. Nobody was, and is still is more pissed about 9/11 than I am. But in this situation, launching missiles into Syria just to save face for a President who made some stupid ass remarks about a red line flat out makes no sense. Make no mistake about it, his red line rhetoric is the ONLY reason Mr. Obama wants to do this. If he really cared about innocent civilians over there, he would've done something long before now.
Nope, I ain't buying off on it and I can't believe you are either.
Mr. Obama better throw a tarp over that Nobel Peace Prize he's got sitting on the mantel.
-
Why should we trust this administration's intelligence gathering in Syria?
Not one person can get in front of a microphone and speak without telling a lie.
A great game plan from the rebels would be to gas the Syrian people, just because Obama drew the line.
They are baiting our government into finishing their fight.
BB1
-
Devils Horse hit the nail on the HEAD!!!!
-
[QUOTE=Devils Horse;520721]I disagree. A series of air strikes on what? They've had plenty of notice and time to react. How much stuff that matters will still be where we think it is? How many civilians will be moved to facilities they know we'll hit? The world, Americans included will see the dead women and children, our press will make sure of it.
The idea of surgical strikes doesn't wash.
Dead middle eastern bad guys do little except inspire other middle eastern guys. Setting an example for those folks doesn't work, the bad guys have a truckload of virgins waiting for them in the 7th heaven...long as they kill infidels.
We constantly try to filter the middle east mindset through our value system and it simply doesn't apply. What's worse is we are encouraged by liberals to embrace and tolerate the Islamic/Muslim religion which is the at the very root of the problem.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to explain it to you, but you don't have a clearance.
-
[QUOTE=HURRICANEBOB;520786]I'd love to explain it to you, but you don't have a clearance.[/QUOTE]
Too bad my classification is too low. I'd love to hear it and provide a low level uninformed peon's opinion.
May be a moot point. Considering it's unpopularity, I don't think Mr Obama has the spine to go through with it anyway.
Him running to congress for cover is a pretty good indicator that his politics come before his personal convictions or concern over chemical attacks on 'innocent' civilians.
Mr. Obama has attacked George Bush on everything from the economy to exactly what he himself wants to do right now. I wonder how the President feels about that.
