I vote just nuke them baster, and drink a cold one

Next we can stop the slaughter in rowanda and the Congo and everywhere else but of course no one says that because those people aren't fighting on top of oil.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Take the media out of it and kill who you thank needs killing !!! And clam it as US land. Not this we going to just help you out crap. We did that in the 80 in Afrikaans and they turned on us!!!!!!!

Honestly:

I threw away the first link because it talked about Miley Cyrus. I know who runs the World and it isn't God.

The second video I simply throw away. Atrocities happen in war on both sides. In my opinion we shouldn't cite one/two individuals actions to take sides. I am not excusing his actions, but we have no idea what has happened to this man. Has his family been killed by the gas explosions? Is he martyring them? Was he tortured? In Vietnam our guys did some detestable things. Should another country have taken the North Vietnamese side because of that?....Things happened at Gitmo recently..Is that reason to be against the U.S...The Kansas redlegs and Missouri bushwackers cut the heads off of victims and put them on sticks...Both sides..Which side to take?..Prisoners of war were routinely killed on both sides during WWII, should we have decided sides by who killed more? Both Germany and Britain participated in carpet bombing campaigns that set whole cities on fire and indiscriminately killed thousands of women, children and helpless...The whole city of Dresden caught fire in WWII..... No no, too many isolated instances of barbarism will take place during war to pick sides based off of that......Mistake.

War is awful on all fronts though. Veterans go and hide during thunderclaps, cry at night, don't talk about things, have lucid flashbacks, are on mind altering medication for life. Most are not fit for society and/or have tremendous trouble coping. Do we want our guys to go into this?

The only wars worth fighting in my mind are the ones where innocent women and children and the elderly are in danger or maybe where genocide is taking place, or when we would be forced to defend ourselves.

Times that the US should have intervened or didn't intervene enough and there are probably more that are not as publicized:
Rwanda- genocide
Bosnia/Herzegovina - genocide

There isn't a lot of information out on this one yet. I think we should stay clear until we know more. But absolutely we should do all that we can in the meantime. It is worth bankrupting the country to do good for the rest of the world. War should be the last option because of the atrocities that come from it.

As an informed citizen I wouldn't want to pick sides based off of a Glenn Beck video.

No matter how much I don't trust the government there is waaaaayyyyyyyy too much that goes on that I don't know about. Classified information that even Glenn Beck can't get to. I will trust/support whatever the Government's Supreme Commander in Chief decides.

Obama loves muslims

People are appalled at the sight of dead children and want revenge. We, the U.S. ,killed thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and were dancing in the streets. As a Vietnam helicopter pilot, I saw the worst humanity has to offer! We need to keep our *** at home and take care of our own !

I agree with this 100%, if it were possible, but unfortunately our country is run by a bunch of p u s sies, and that will never change

I just think about how the last 10 years of the Afgan war has affected not only our country as a whole, but specifically the middle class citizens, and I worry about another war, and what we will look like in 10 years ... as its said earlier, we are out policing the world, and that really is a good thing, but we have alot GOOD people in our own country that are barely surviving

Syria IS NOT OUR PROBLEM OR OUR RESPONSIBILITY

:work:

Where have u been?? Everything is our problem!!


We will always have war and as long as we keep our foot on the enemy'
s throat we will not have to worry about having a war on our land


But Jessie Jackson and Brother Al are really trying to start one

Are you considering folks who say we stay out of it a bunch of p u s s I e s?

Also, can you tell me how the person you quoted came up with "roughly a month" for a valid timeline to his plan? Is that how long it would take to slaughter Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Russia, South Korea, Iran, CHINA, etc...??? Then just plant a flag and call it our right?

Maybe I misunderstood something, or maybe neither of you have a clue what the implications are.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Let's see..

A country that a majority of us give ZERO f*cks about just killed a bunch of muslims (without a single American killed or a single tax payer dollar used in that process).

Without google, show me on a map where Syria is.

But here we are, trillions in debt and about to go deeper. Most of all, China will most likely ally itself with Russia. Russia will side with Syria.

Not to mention the media played up the tensions already with Russia regarding the Snowden deal.

So Waltrip in case you are missing my point, we are by-passing the U.N. to go help some damn country where they hate us. And involvement will be like this...


Attack Syria
Russia joins Syria
G.B. and France join U.S.
China joins Iran, Russia and Syria.


You're still of Draft age, right?

We don't have wars, we have occupations. We sit and police places and hold their hand for decades.

We are just squatters borrowing ammo money from china.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/upload...action-Gif.gif


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Goooh, I would've quoted you but I haven't figured out how to quote on tapatalk since the upgrade lol .. I'm not calling the ones who are against getting involved p u s sies, Im one of the ones who don't think we should get involved

What I meant was I agree with the way purple back said it should be handled, but I know it will never happen as long as politicians are calling the shots on the battlefield (that's who I was referring to) therefore I think we should stay out of it

Syria
 

Also, I know exactly what the implications are that's why I think we should stay out if it .. I think it would be one of the worst things for our country right now

It's my fault, I said agree 100%, and after rereading, I don't agree 100% .. I agreed to another part of the post, but I don't agree that it would take a month to slaughter all terrorism and I don't agree that we should take over other countries and call it ours

Sorry for the confusion

Jeez man i was giving you a ration of Shizz because you were advocating us starting another world war. Based on what your saying above you sound halfway reasonable. Can you make up your mind... :) lol

I think i do get what your saying though, basically it seems to me like your saying that we should stop with these BS political wars, yet if there is ever call for a real conflict we should get it on like donkey kong. (or however you want to put it)

I don't remember actually seeing an answer from you on this or not... Do you think we should be involved or not.

And do you actually believe we should have continual war? or are you just saying that's the way it is?

I would love to hear from some of the 8 who voted "go to war" i am curious to understand their reasoning for intervening, Is it purely for humanitarian reasons or are other factors involved.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/73562ee3b...wsl8o1_500.gif

Hold onto your butts!

Attachment 55158


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I agree at least partially with pretty much everyone. No I didnt have time to read every single line of every post but this is my take on it. We get all of our guys and girls home. Our president (when we have one) makes a world wide news brief that we will stay out of every country militarily and monetarialy as long as we are left alone but if we are attacked in any way the country that is responsible will no longer exist on planet earth within 24 hours. If you attack us you all die. No questions asked.

I think we should air strike them hard for a week and just stop!!!


WWRD????


What would Regan Do

One good thing about Obama and bush.... They have worked together to make libertarianism a very attractive option to a whole mess of people that dismissed it in the past.

LMAO

GUBMENT RIGHT AIN'T MUCH DIFFERENT THAN GUBMENT LEFT


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

True that Gooh. There arent many things I dont have a Libertarian on but there are some things. Drugs being about the only one

X2

Libertarian view point on. Dang screen is too small on my phone.lol

Finally an intelligent comment :spineyes:

...http://24.media.tumblr.com/e2d90fa84...c21no1_400.gif

and then he goes and pulls out a meme... lol...

we should stay out of it all together. no way to verify which side actually did use the chems. Actually, assad would not benefit from using chems on civilians KNOWING that a potential smackdown would follow..not saying he didnt..Im sure it would never come to it but do not under estimate the Russian military, if they were so much of a pushover we would have hit Iran a LONG time ago..that is the ONLY reason we didnt hit Iran..imo. Bottom line is it's not our fight.

“If Damascus is attacked, Tel Aviv will become a target and a full-scale war against Syria will essentially justify an attack against Israel,” a senior Syrian army official told Fars News Agency on Tuesday.

“If Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria’s neighbors,” the source added.

The source also warned the US and other western states that if Syria “becomes weak,” certain “irresponsible” groups will be formed which will endanger Israel’s security.

“Thus, a US attack on Syria will herald frequent strikes and attacks on Israel, not just by Damascus and its allies in retaliation, but by extremist groups who will find a ground for staging their aspirations,” he said.

Russia has also moved warships into the Mediterranean.

--Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was among the first to voice his opposition to a possible missile strike in the region.

"The United States armed forces doesn't exist to be a policeman of the world," Cruz told Fox News Monday, "I certainly hope the reaction isn't simply lobbing some cruise missiles in to disagree with (Assad's murderous actions."

The statement gives important insight into what kind of foreign policy approach the potential 2016 presidential candidate subscribes to and a clue into how the GOP may be evolving its approach on foreign policy.

His libertarian, anti-interventionist viewpoint is yet another voice among the younger generation of Republicans in the U.S. Senate and in direct conflict with the older longer-serving defense hawks serving there such as John McCain, R-Ariz.

And he's not alone. Another potential Republican candidate for the presidency in 2016 also strays from GOP party leadership on foreign policy.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has long been a thorn in the sides of old guard Republicans, crusading against foreign aid to Egypt and for cuts to the Defense Department. And up until now, he has carried many of his campaigns against the old-guard GOP foreign policy, alone.

Paul has also been an outspoken advocate against military intervention in Syria, blasting

President Barack Obama for his decision to arm Syrian rebels this summer without a vote of approval by Congress.--





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Somehow this is Bush's fault.

Glad to see the Brits still have the Nard's to say no.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

From my pov, stay the hell out of each others business...

This is true. Saw 3 destroyers "shadowing" us on deployment. They pulled alongside when we were running flight ops. Wish I coulda got a picture of that.

We DO NOT NEED THIS!!!!

Graphic!

It seems from the information being given to the public that it shouldn't be that hard to figure out. There are too many factions that will be forced to play their hand out of necessity if serious military action is taken against Syria by the U.S. The a limited air strike against infrastructure targets will not cripple the Syrian government completely, but will only validate future retaliation against U.S. assets and our allies. Anything short of a complete, full scale demolition of their forces will only serve as a provocation. In that case it will most likely cause the president to feel obligated to finish pi$$ ing on the ant pile and put boots on the ground. It's never in the best interest of our nation to put Private Joe Snuffy on the ground to kill bad guys when ultimately the conflict cannot by any conceivable means be put to a swift resolution and the U.S. will have nothing more to show for it than when they started.

Decisive strike and clear message, not some wimpy two day affair, or better yet just keep saying how dissapointed you are with them using those nasty chemical weapons and leave it at that!

U.N. should be taking care of this not the US

There has been an attack on a school compound by a plane said to have belonged to the assad regime. The bomb was of a napalm / incendary type. It would be amazing to me if the Assad regime were actually stupid enough to attack a school with children having no military value less than 24 hours after america stated it would retaliate, knowing that there was enourmous support for america to not intervene.

I cannot decide if the assad regime has legit gone insane, if the rebels are inciting the violence to garner public support of a strike, if we are watching a real live dog being wagged, or if their is a third party attempting to escalate the situation.

On a side note the UN has stated that it's experts have finished their collection of materiels from the chem weapon sites. And will present a full report on the subject within no more than 2 weeks.

I think there may be a whole lot more to this whole ball of wax than we will ever know.

Anyone who would eat the organs of their opponent would surely stage attacks on their own side of the fight, and sacrifice a few hundred innocent lives to expedite outside aid (i.e. U.S./Allies/UN)and further their agenda to overthrow the govt...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I really have no words as to what is going on right now. I hate to see what other BS they pull in the next couple years.

I don't disagree Gooooh... It's particularly troubling that it's these same "cannibals" who have been identified as terrorists who we as a country are sending weapons to.

I think this just heightens the need to let the dust settle before we or other countries jump in with guns blazing.

I wonder why Libtards think its cool to kill folks with guns, bombs, and crappy policy, but if you use chemicals its bad? I also wonder when the Democrats are going to tell G.W. he was right about those weapons of mass destruction. And when they find those weapons you know who's finger prints are going to be all over them.....Saddam Hussein. I do think it is ironic that either side in this thing would happily execute any woman in the world who used birth control or wore a bikini to the beach. Lovely culture they have over there. If we really want the bad guys dead, just give Israel a green light and twenty four hours...........lots and lots of dead bad guys. Better yet we could just drill our own oil and let them all starve to death? Hmmmm.........?

Now that's a plan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free