U.S. Launches Millitary Strike Against Syria (merged)

Do you agree with Trump's decision to strike Syria?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#28
#28
JFreak said:
You see a woman being a suffocated by a man on the street as you walk by. What do you do?
Click to expand...

You could make this same type of argument for every senseless war we've joined since WWII. Did you support every instance of military aggression in US history since then?
 
#30
#30
MercyPercy said:
You could make this same type of argument for every senseless war we've joined since WWII. Did you support every instance of military aggression in US history since then?
Click to expand...
I support limited, effective strikes, against military targets used to launch planes and deploy chemical weapons against innocent civilians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#31
#31
volinbham said:
I understand the sentiment but what should we have done? Anything at all?
Click to expand...

Aren't you tired of fighting everyone's battles? Tired of meddling in the affairs of a chaotic region on the other side if the world? Aren't you tired of sending our own to war because we have somehow mustered some magical compassion out of thin air for Syrians when a good portion of the population would fight tooth and nail to keep refugees from coming here to escape that hell hole? Now we suddenly have compassion?

It's the same thing over and over. Trump is no different than Hillary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#32
#32
JFreak said:
I support limited, effective strikes, against military targets used to launch planes and deploy chemical weapons against innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

You obviously did not understand my previous post if this is your response.
 
#33
#33
MercyPercy said:
Aren't you tired of fighting everyone's battles? Tired of meddling in the affairs of a chaotic region on the other side if the world? Aren't you tired of sending our own to war because we have somehow mustered some magical compassion out of thin air for Syrians when a good portion of the population would fight tooth and nail to keep refugees from coming here to escape that hell hole? Now we suddenly have compassion?

It's the same thing over and over. Trump is no different than Hillary.
Click to expand...

Yes but what would you do if in charge. Nothing? A sternly worded statement? Is there any value in reacting when a country uses chemical weapons?
 
#34
#34
MercyPercy said:
Aren't you tired of fighting everyone's battles? Tired of meddling in the affairs of a chaotic region on the other side if the world? Aren't you tired of sending our own to war because we have somehow mustered some magical compassion out of thin air for Syrians when a good portion of the population would fight tooth and nail to keep refugees from coming here to escape that hell hole? Now we suddenly have compassion?

It's the same thing over and over. Trump is no different than Hillary.
Click to expand...
How many chemical attacks would you be willing to let happen against innocent civilians before you were willing to attack the airfields from which the planes were launched? Give me a number please.
 
#35
#35
volinbham said:
Yes but what would you do if in charge. Nothing? A sternly worded statement? Is there any value in reacted when a country uses chemical weapons?
Click to expand...

We're aren't striking every homicidal, evil dictator/war criminal around the world. This is political.

I would not get involved. If you feel doing "nothing" automatically has some negative connotation, then you already believe more in Team America World Police than I would have guessed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#36
#36
MercyPercy said:
We're aren't striking every homicidal, evil dictator/war criminal around the world. This is political.

I would not get involved. If you feel doing "nothing" automatically has some negative connotation, then you already believe more in Team America World Police than I would have guessed.
Click to expand...

When any of those other dictators use chemical weapons against their own innocent civilians, the US will step in again. And yes, doing nothing absolutely does have a negative connotation as it should. Stepping in to prevent atrocities doesn't make you "Team America World Police", it makes you a decent and moral human being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
MercyPercy said:
We're aren't striking every homicidal, evil dictator/war criminal around the world. This is political.

I would not get involved. If you feel doing "nothing" automatically has some negative connotation, then you already believe more in Team America World Police than I would have guessed.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the answer.

So far as I can tell no one else is using chemical weapons which have been determined to be a different situation by the international community so the "why aren't we striking everyone" is an exaggerated point no?
 
#38
#38
JFreak said:
How many chemical attacks would you be willing to let happen against innocent civilians before you were willing to attack the airfields from which the planes were launched? Give me a number please.
Click to expand...

How many people are you willing to let starve and be abused by the North Korean government? You are personally letting this happen, apparently, since I am personally letting Assad gas his own people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#40
#40
MercyPercy said:
How many people are you willing to let starve and be abused by the North Korean government? You are personally letting this happen, apparently, since I am personally letting Assad gas his own people.
Click to expand...
This thread is about Syria. But if Kim Jong Un uses chemical weapons against his people, I will be for a strike there as well.
 
#41
#41
MercyPercy said:
How many people are you willing to let starve and be abused by the North Korean government? You are personally letting this happen, apparently, since I am personally letting Assad gas his own people.
Click to expand...

We'll find out more about that as Xi is visiting.
 
#42
#42
JFreak said:
This thread is about Syria. But if Kim Jong Un uses chemical weapons against his people, I will be for a strike there as well.
Click to expand...

He has a stated goal of being able to fire missiles at us. I'm all for a strike there as opposed to Syria. Chemical weapons are horrendous, but in the end, an issue for NATO to address, imo.
 
#43
#43
Weezer said:
He has a stated goal of being able to fire missiles at us. I'm all for a strike there as opposed to Syria. Chemical weapons are horrendous, but in the end, an issue for NATO to address, imo.
Click to expand...

Hence why NATO should get the bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
This strike makes sense. Proportional and against the military structures responsible for Tuesday's Sarin attack.

Questions of aftermath:

(1) Russians. Probably pissed at Assad for use of nerve gas, but their military equipment may have been hit by our missiles. Reaction? EDIT: Russia freezes agreement to coordinate air operations over Syria.
(2) Syrian Forces. To date, they have not targeted our aircraft engaging ISIS, as they are a mutual enemy. Now what? Will Syrian air defense systems 'light up' our planes and potentially engage? Would that targeting include Russia's more sophisticated systems? EDIT: Russia will "help strengthen Syrian air defenses to 'protect the most sensitive Syrian infrastructure facilities.'”
(3) Assad. Stops using gas or steps it up?
(4) Alt-Right. Infowars and Wikileaks claiming 'false flag' set-up, and that Asad was actually framed by rebels. Our military seemingly doesn't buy it. EDIT: Russia maintains Syria had no chemical weapons.
(5) Shiite Nutballs. Given our defense of Sunnis here, will Iran and others green-light attacks on our troops in Iraq?

Let's hope that Assad crawls back in his hole, and recognizes that his challenge to Trump was a bad idea. Ideally, Russia will peel back its staunch support of Assad's regime and not let this escalate. And, lastly, Trump could finally declare a 'win' for his administration.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#46
#46
Weezer said:
He has a stated goal of being able to fire missiles at us. I'm all for a strike there as opposed to Syria. Chemical weapons are horrendous, but in the end, an issue for NATO to address, imo.
Click to expand...
Understand where you're coming from Weezer. Even though that's his stated goal, Kim Jong Un is at least a couple years away from reaching that objective. And what is going on in North Korea has no bearing on Syria nor should it.
 
#48
#48
Not a fan of this action. Clintonesque in a way. I hope it all pans out too our side.

God bless our troops and America!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top