Mulva;1497664 wrote:Correct.

Good thing you weren't in charge 73 or so years ago.

We must respond to anyone violating such agreements of use of these heinous weapons.

I don't care if the response was immediately or in 12 months. It really doesn't matter. The world should know if you use chemical weapons you will see the force of the U.S. military.

Con_Alma;1497732 wrote:We must respond to anyone violating such agreements of use of these heinous weapons.

I don't care if the response was immediately or in 12 months. It really doesn't matter. The world should know if you use chemical weapons you will see the force of the U.S. military.

No, they should know the UN will respond. We are not the world's police.

WebFire;1497741 wrote:No, they should know the UN will respond. We are not the world's police.

LOL, we are the UN's police force.

bases_loaded;1497752 wrote:LOL, we are the UN's police force.

But we don't act against their wishes.

WebFire;1497741 wrote:No, they should know the UN will respond. We are not the world's police.

If the UN responds that great but the United States should not wait nor expect them to do so. I know I will support any President that doesn't.

Con_Alma;1497761 wrote:If the UN responds that great but the United States should not wait nor expect them to do so. I know I will support any President that doesn't.

So fuck the UN is your feeling?

WebFire;1497765 wrote:So **** the UN is your feeling?

No, but I certainly wouldn't base my entire decision based on the Security Council's position in the UN. Such actions simply cannot be tolerated. The world needs to know that the US won't permit it...whether the UN does or not.

Con_Alma;1497732 wrote:We must respond to anyone violating such agreements of use of these heinous weapons.

I don't care if the response was immediately or in 12 months. It really doesn't matter. The world should know if you use chemical weapons you will see the force of the U.S. military.

Why haven't we attacked Israel then? Back in 2008-2009, They used White Phosphorus Gas in attacks against Palestine in Civilian areas which they have admitted too. Not too mention we did the same thing in Iraq in 2004. The US claimed WP to be a chemical weapon back in 97-98 when Sadaam used it against the Kurds. Not too mention Agent Orange back in Vietnam. Hell, we even sold Sadaam his chemical weapons to use against Iran and providing intelligence to him on how and when to use it.

This attack is meaningless and will not do anything other than be the first step into another War.

Why indeed. It's disappointing.

An attack against Syria is far from meaningless. The world is watching. Is it really OK to use banned tactics in war? I hope the US says no.

Con_Alma;1497788 wrote:Why indeed. It's disappointing.

An attack against Syria is far from meaningless. The world is watching. Is it really OK to use banned tactics in war? I hope the US says no.

I just don't think the US should solely decide if action is necessary. Especially when everyone is telling you not to.

WebFire;1497808 wrote:I just don't think the US should solely decide if action is necessary. Especially when everyone is telling you not to.

I think you are very clear in that opinion. I hope I am as clear in mine. The events in Syria are not O.K. and we must be sure that all know that if you do such things then you will feel to additional impact of a military strike.

Con_Alma;1497811 wrote:I think you are very clear in that opinion. I hope I am as clear in mine. The events in Syria are not O.K. and we must be sure that all know that if you do such things then you will feel to additional impact of a military strike.

Which is cool (well at least more cool) if everyone else is on board. Otherwise, why even be a part of the UN. Just make up your own rules and enforce them how you see fit.

It's not us making up our own rules as much as the UN not enforcing their own.

Con_Alma;1497822 wrote:It's not us making up our own rules as much as the UN not enforcing their own.

So we do whatever we want. Good policy.

Not necessarily. We abide by enforcing the agreement to not use such weapons.

Con_Alma;1497826 wrote:Not necessarily. We abide by enforcing the agreement to not use such weapons.

It's not our agreement to decide on. I don't understand why you think it's ok to act on something that isn't ours to enforce. An organization made the agreement, and they are against the strike. We are part of that organization.

If we act otherwise, we are doing it on our own, and giving the middle finger to the UN and everyone else that is against it.

WebFire;1497837 wrote:It's not our agreement to decide on. I don't understand why you think it's ok to act on something that isn't ours to enforce. An organization made the agreement, and they are against the strike. We are part of that organization.

If we act otherwise, we are doing it on our own, and giving the middle finger to the UN and everyone else that is against it.

Why you think it's not our to enforce is something I don't understand.

It impacts all of our Sailors and soldiers across the world including those troops currently positioned 5 miles from the Syrian border.

It's for any and all countries to enforce. It's a ruthless act on humanity. I don't see it as giving the middle finger to anyone but rather as yet another service to all people who shouldn't have to live on a planet with such heinous activity.

Con_Alma;1497851 wrote:Why you think it's not our to enforce is something I don't understand.

It impacts all of our Sailors and soldiers across the world including those troops currently positioned 5 miles from the Syrian border.

It's for any and all countries to enforce. It's a ruthless act on humanity. I don't see it as giving the middle finger to anyone but rather as yet another service to all people who shouldn't have to live on a planet with such heinous activity.

So you think we are the world's police?

WebFire;1497871 wrote:So you think we are the world's police?

We are, have been since 1945. That is the reality of the world we live in.

Why do you think the Navy slogan is, "The global force for good."?

So the logic is to bomb the Syrians to show Syrians... that there are only certain ways that you're allowed to kill Syrians?

Blow them up, sure. But don't you even think about using gas. That's inhumane.

ptown_trojans_1;1497875 wrote:We are, have been since 1945. That is the reality of the world we live in.

Why do you think the Navy slogan is, "The global force for good."?

And why we have the mess of endless wars we do. Great plan!

Kerry pushes attack as 'unbelievably small'...


This from the Vietnam era anti-American appointed by obama as U.S. Secretary of State.

The state of complete disarray envelopes us.

Change we can believe in ...

No worries. Albania, Estonia and Honduras are all on our side.

sigh...can we just stop groveling and trying to justify an 'unbelievably small' operation...just smack Syria's hand and be done with it. You don't need to build a consensus for an 'unbelievably small' operation. You are not going to get the security council to hand you a formal okie dokey....not with China and Russia blocking anything even close to that. You are not going to get a compelling okie dokey from Congress or the American people. Act like a president...act like a superpower...quit asking everybody's permission...just do what you feel has to be done in the interest of the American people, take responsibility and move on. All this dithering is humiliating and sends mixed signals.


The problem, I suspect, is the 'take responsibility' part. This administration doesn't take ownership for anything.