So...it looks like we will attack Syria

[Rich]

If we attack Syria I hope to hell we know for certain that the government were the ones using chemical weapons. What if the weapons were used by the rebels to draw us into action. After Iraq I am really skeptical about this stuff. And what is the estimated cost to the taxpayers? I hate that innocent people are dying in such a horrific manner. But we cannot afford to police the entire world. What you take?

[scott9050]

I guess Russia gets to have a free glimpse of their air defense systems in action against the U.S.

[allingeneral]

I think that every time we pick sides, we end up either picking wrong from the get-go, or we end up with a pick that eventually turns against us anyway. (Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, etc...)

I believe that as long as they're concentrating on killing themselves, they're not so much looking at us to attack. The more involvement we have with "these people", the more animosity they hold against us. Just let them do their thing...let their government sway whichever way it's going to sway. Keep our money and our troops at home and take care of our own problems inside our own borders.

[NovaHunter]

Agree that it's a absolute tragedy that innocent people died especially in this way, but is the answer that we are the World Police???

[WFarm]

Given the Presidents vast pre-inaugural experience in foreign affairs as well as the tremendous respect and cooperation he deservedly receives from other world leaders, I'm confident he knows what he's doing and will have the support of others as he leads the way.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Snakester]

These people have been fighting for thousands of years. It's all most of them know. Us getting involved will not solve anything. They hate us and nothing we do will ever change it. We need to set on the side line for this one and just let it play out. I'm sure we will fund most of it anyway , but enough American Blood has already been spilled !

[Rich]

I just have a real hard time caring about what happens anywhere in the middle east. If they did not have oil we would be no more concerned than we have been with the civil wars in Africa. Not saying we should be concerned with civil wars anywhere. Just using Africa as an example because where is the outrage over the atrocities there. So lets just sit this one and all the future ones out.

[AppleaDay]

Well, at least the White House press agent was kind enough to tell them so they can move and disperse their assets so that any attack we make will be tactically and strategically pointless.

So, just think of it as another stimulus package.

[skeeterss0]

from my understanding we have the muslim brotherhood(gov) vs hasbalah (rebels), both terrorist organizations. Who we gonna back?
I agree the use of WMD (chemical weapons) is attrocious but I don't think we are sure of who used them.

Its a mess already and if we get involved its gonna be a bigger mess with USA written all over it.

[FiremanBob]

It's no surprise to see Obama's Dems do exactly what they wrongly accused GWB of doing. They say history rhymes - this is the second major time that Kerry lies and people die. The first was his Winter Soldier testimony, which was used by the NVA as psych torture on our POWs in Hanoi.

I wonder if anyone at all in this country, outside of the highest levels of Obama's cabal, supports Obama's plan on Syria. Talk about a dictator defying the will of the people...

We have a government run by cowards and traitors. Times are very dange...

[sounds of helicopter just above house and MRAPS in the driveway]

[graybeard321]

There is nothing good that come from us getting involved in Syria. We bomb them , Iran attacks Israel the rest of the middle east attacks Israel the price of gas goes up and Comrade Obama risks starting world war 3 and American military members die for something we have no business getting involved in. The rebels in Syria are far worst then the Syria government .

[ShotgunBlast]

Reason Magazine asks why chemical weapons should be a red line in any situation.

There have been an estimated 100,000 people killed in Syria’s civil war, almost all by conventional bombs and weapons. If that isn’t enough to mandate a U.S. intervention, then why is the alleged use of chemical weapons, killing a mere fraction of the total, enough to make intervention obligatory?

For some reason we associate chemical weapons as the boogyman of warfare when in fact they cause far fewer fatalities than traditional weapons and when they are used they tend to actually kill instead of just leaving everyone with missing limbs.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/26/why-s ... -a-red-lin

Why we're even getting in the middle of this I have no idea. We just can't seem to mind our own business for a change.

[FiremanBob]

What you mean "we", kemosabe?

This is not an American effort. It is wholly confined to Obama and his top political aides. The American people are nearly unanimously against it.

So any time that someone says "we" are attacking Syria, or that "we" backed down and cowered to Irani or North Korean provocations, be sure to correct them. The people in charge of our government no longer represent us.

[ShotgunBlast]

What you mean "we", kemosabe?

This is not an American effort. It is wholly confined to Obama and his top political aides. The American people are nearly unanimously against it.

So any time that someone says "we" are attacking Syria, or that "we" backed down and cowered to Irani or North Korean provocations, be sure to correct them. The people in charge of our government no longer represent us.

I stand corrected. Good catch!

[GeneFrenkle]

> The people in charge of our government no longer represent us.

If "we" didn't elect "them" as our representatives, how'd "they" get into those positions? Just because their decisions are not popular does not mean they are no longer duly elected representatives. It just means their popularity (or popularity of their decisions) is low.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mamabearCali]

How did they get where they are? A combination of clever deception of a few key demographics, voting malfeasance, and out and out voter fraud.

Leave the Syrians alone. There is no picking a good side here. Best to simply condemn the violence on both sides wholesale.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[GeneFrenkle]

Clearly not enough happened to invalidate the election(s). Congress has a say in it, too.

Though, I agree that our finger should not be in that pot.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

This year is going to be a strange 9/11 anniversary. Here we are about to help the very people responsible for killing almost 3,000 Americans on our own soil. What a not so long, strange trip it's been.

So much for never forgetting.

If we're lucky, one day we'll sit our grandkids on our knees and tell them what WWIII was like.

[Swampman]

I think that every time we pick sides, we end up either picking wrong from the get-go, or we end up with a pick that eventually turns against us anyway. (Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, etc...)

I believe that as long as they're concentrating on killing themselves, they're not so much looking at us to attack. The more involvement we have with "these people", the more animosity they hold against us. Just let them do their thing...let their government sway whichever way it's going to sway. Keep our money and our troops at home and take care of our own problems inside our own borders.

I guess these dopes learned nothing from Egypt.

[sgedicks]

The US chose sides when we armed Syrian rebels. Its not just a proxy war with Iran but with Russia too!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4