President Obama About to Declare War With Syria
Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.
Readers of this topic also read:
"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing "
Check out our No Deposit Casino and No Deposit Bingo lists.
A definite no. President Obama was the one who was against war in Iraq ( before he was elected ) , he was for pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq, he even got the Nobel's prize for peace ( and now speaks of war which is an ultimate irony imo ).
- Replied by
- at August 31, 2013, 10:23:34
- last active 1 hour ago
I'm pretty positive he would declare war on Syria though.. The war machinery is already started up, there is currently 6 + war ships near Cyprus , so it is only a matter of time when the first strikes will be launched.
The main issue here is the alleged chemical weapon use by Syrian Gov. The fact is that someone did use those weapons and the US Gov's stand is that only Syrian Gov. had the means and ability to conduct such illegal acts against their own people and opposition.
However there is no explicit proof that they did it. Few days ago a senior UN official Carla Del Ponte has announced that it could be the Syrian opposition who used sarin gas against local residents.
So without having sufficient proof going to war would be wrong ( well any war is wrong ) .
Not to mention that going against the United Nations who has the mandate to approve any military actions against sovereign nations would be an illegal act and violation of international law. Also UK Parliament voted against any military intervention and NATO is not supporting it either.
Currently only France and Turkey will aid support if USA is to strike.
I think it is a "no win" situation in any decision the US makes. While countries are strictly opposed to the US declaring war on Syria the public is behind closed door wondering when someone will step in after thousands of people have been killed already.
- Replied by
- at August 31, 2013, 12:03:52
The Intelligence department has claimed they have analyzed thoroughly the information from sources repeatedly in an attempt to not make the same mistakes as the Iraq War.
When the majority of the human race is against chemical warfare the question is how long are we to sit back and watch it happen?
President Bashar al-Assad adminstration claims the jihadists fighting with the rebels carried out the chemical weapons attacks.
So the second question is who is really responsible for the chemical weapons? Should NATO turn the other cheek by claiming there is not enough evidence. Chemical weapons are a serious problem and while no one wants war and i for one certainly don't especially initiated by the country i live in, what is the resolution?
All I can say is that there is always a lot more going on than the general public knows about. Based on past experiences, the media loves to pick and choose which points to focus on and get people worked up. I agree lips that the fact of the matter is that chemical weapons are serious, very serious. Let's focus on how dangerous and earth shattering they have the potential to be then we'll talk about whether or not it's necessary to stop Syria or any other country.
- Replied by
- Feelin froggy
- at August 31, 2013, 12:24:22
as a twenty year U.S. veteran i strongly feel we should NOT have anything to do with the civil war in Syria. the proposed "plan" that the current administration is leaning towards is moronic as it would do nothing to weaken anyone, not intended to oust Assad, and is strictly political because the commander in chief was dumb enough to talk the talk and never intending to walk the walk. the US has been weakened in the eyes of the world since the great middle east "apology tour" . Arab spring my ass. Reagan is rolling in his grave right now.
- Replied by
- at August 31, 2013, 13:15:11
- last active 4 months ago
- Replied by
- at August 31, 2013, 21:53:07
- last active about 1 month ago
- War is wrong, regardless of the reasons.
However, I think that the US should do something to help the Syrian people get rid of Bashar al-Assad and his criminal regime. His family has been ruling Syria for decades now and they are directly responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people. So if the US can do something to give the Syrian people their freedom they should do it.
You know, I've been living under a dictatorship until the age of 10, in the communist Romania ruled by Nicolae Ceausescu. Freedom is the most precious thing we can have and I'm sure that Romanians would have been grateful if the US would have deposed the Ceausescu regime. In fact, most Romanians were waiting for an US intervention since the 1950's... That never happened unfortunately and the regime ended in a bloodbath, we got our freedom back on Christmas day in 1989.
P.S.: What's going on in Syria is not a civil war in my view, we don't have two factions of the population fighting each other. What we do have is a regime that uses its army and weapons against its own people.
- once assad is removed from power, the government could actually be WORSE, so we (USA) are dealing with religious lunatics no matter who is in power....it boils down to who is the greater evil. this is not our fight, it is based on fanatical believes and religious views.....terrorism will actually get worse once assad loses power.....really messed up deal......they can figure it out on their own
lcb activities in the last 24 hours
Join the club
- new members
- members online
- guests online
- new posts
- free games played