Syrian Strike Vote

[nazz]

Is there even a point in trying?

I don't know. That is not really why I would support the strike as I've explained. I am thinking of it only in humanitarian terms. But if that were the outcome so much the better.

 

[England my lionheart]

Do we strike Syria?

An interesting vote tally can be found here ...

• U.S. Senate
• U.S. House

How do you vote? Yes, I know the options provided are terse, but so is the reality ...

I voted no,for the USA they will be wrong whatever they do,even if they succeeded in scaring Assad from using chemical weapons or even toppling him what would replace that regime shows little to suggest they will be any better.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes.

Chemical weapons on civilians crosses a red line. We can damage their ability for future slaughter with strategic strikes that should result in very little or no loss of civilian lives. How can that be bad?

We're talking about a Libya-type involvement, not an Iraq-type involvement. I think the Libyan people are overjoyed by our involvement against their dictator's regime.

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes.Np

Chemical weapons on civilians crosses a red line. We can damage their ability for future slaughter with strategic strikes that should result in very little or no loss of civilian lives. How can that be bad?

Civilians will die on both sides and the killing will continue unabated whatever the US do,if there should be action it should be the UN IMO.

 

[Aquitaine]

Yes.

Chemical weapons on civilians crosses a red line. We can damage their ability for future slaughter with strategic strikes that should result in very little or no loss of civilian lives. How can that be bad?

We're talking about a Libya-type involvement, not an Iraq-type involvement. I think the Libyan people are overjoyed by our involvement against their dictator's regime.

Pffft. Like it's ever going to be as "surgical" and "clean" like that, where "only the bad guys get hit" and then the "liberated" population are so overjoyed and love the USA for freeing them - lol!

Sounds like an American war movie from the 80's or something. :biglaugh:

 

[Assad91]

Yes.

Chemical weapons on civilians crosses a red line. We can damage their ability for future slaughter with strategic strikes that should result in very little or no loss of civilian lives. How can that be bad?

For all who agree with this sentiment.

What do you say about the involvment of US giving Sadam chemical weapons to use against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war?

Or was it okay because it was the US who gave the green light?

What about how UK sold Assad the chemicals?

 

[Assad91]

But it isn't just him. He has to also consider the Alawite community whereas he's considered their leader, and their fear of being wiped out by Sunnis, Wahhabist militants, and even fellow Shi'i. He well knows he cannot give up.

Most Shia are allied with Bashar because of the wahhabist wish to slaughter all chistians,shia and sunnis who don't agree, and take their wives and daughters as sex slaves.

He can't give up. And neither can Hezbollah. Or else when these wahhabist win, the shrines and the people will be slaughtered

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do we strike Syria?

An interesting vote tally can be found here ...

• U.S. Senate
• U.S. House

How do you vote? Yes, I know the options provided are terse, but so is the reality ...

I would be glad to see cruise missiles, drones, and air strikes. No troops. And only if the US is part of an attack supported by the UN. Before the US interferes, other nations need to support the justification enough to do their part.

I would be absolutely against any kind of interference that the US takes unilaterally.

 

[George-ananda]

Pffft. Like it's ever going to be as "surgical" and "clean" like that, where "only the bad guys get hit" and then the"liberated" population are so overjoyed and love the USA for freeing them - lol!

Sounds like an American war movie from the 80's or something. :biglaugh:

No, sounds like Libya from the 2010's.

 

[George-ananda]

For all who agree with this sentiment.

What do you say about the involvment of US giving Sadam chemical weapons to use against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war?

Or was it okay because it was the US who gave the green light?

What about how UK sold Assad the chemicals?

Irrelevant to this current situation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Irrelevant to this current situation.

Is it? And will (or shall) it be perceived as such?

 

[Aquitaine]

For all who agree with this sentiment.

What do you say about the involvment of US giving Sadam chemical weapons to use against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war?

Or was it okay because it was the US who gave the green light?

What about how UK sold Assad the chemicals?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Quick - we need moar 'murican flags n' shizz!

 

[Aquitaine]

Irrelevant to this current situation.

LOLWUT!?

Kinda reminds me of this image:

 

[nazz]

For all who agree with this sentiment.

What do you say about the involvment of US giving Sadam chemical weapons to use against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war?

Or was it okay because it was the US who gave the green light?

What about how UK sold Assad the chemicals?

It's wrong no matter who does it. Of course.

 

[Assad91]

Irrelevant to this current situation.

Nonsense. Its relevant because it shows the hypocrisy as US wants to punish for chemical weapons being used that were supplied by UK (who also wants to punish Bashar) in the same way US directed Saddam to use against Iranians.

How you can't see the relevance means you just don't want to.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nonsense. Its relevant because it shows the hypocrisy as US wants to punish for chemical weapons being used that were supplied by UK (who also wants to punish Bashar) in the same way US directed Saddam to use against Iranians.

How you can't see the relevance means you just don't want to.

I don't detect hypocrisy here, at least as you've stated it. If and only if the UK sold the chemical weapons with the knowledge that it would be used for genocide and then the UK and its allies responded with military aggression, that would be hypocrisy.

That's not to say that hypocrites abound. We all know that it's almost impossible to find a perfectly honest politician or diplomat or head of state, yet these people are they ones discussing the problem and "trying" to solve it, at least in as much as it benefits them.

Comparing all of this to the Nazis or the American Indian oppression (which continues to this day) is a bit small minded.

 

[Assad91]

Why should the USA interfere at all in the matter of Syria? On humanitarian grounds? There are no humanitarian grounds or logic in the ways of living by the Peaceful and particularly the Arabs that follow Peace as their faith and the tenet of No God but God and Muhammad as God's true last messenger on earth and the Lectures of God that had descended on him for the Peaceful to follow and the rejecters to loathe!

Inspired by those Lectures, Muhammad and his Peaceful followers uprooted tribes and villages of Jews and Christians during Muhammad's life in the Arabian peninsula and rampaged Syria, Byzantium (Constantinople), and the Persian Zoroastrian empire that held Iraq and Iran. The clear message from the Lectures went out to the rejecters. "Accept Peace and Muhammad's God as your master and the Lectures and pay the Peaceful Government at Medina your taxes as Zakaat or accept the shelter (read blackmail of peaceful living by paying Medina the Jaziyyeh as tax by the sheltered infidels or Zimmies) or fight the Peaceful tooth and nail and if defeated, be ready to be butchered and leave your women and children to be slaves to the Peaceful! Your enslaved women and children even after accepting Peace and being called Peaceful, still would have to continue In slavery by generations until freed or being able to purchase freedom! Now it is said that those that live by the sword (to loot and rampage as freebooters) often perish by the sword! Muhammad's bosom pal and companion Omar Al Farooq the second Caliph was stabbed to death in an early morning prayer congregation at the Medina mosque by an Iranian slave who saw no respite from the torture from his Peaceful master and Omar's pal despite his lodging an appeal in the name of humanity to the 2nd Enlightened Caliph! Muhammad's elder son in law Uthman, the third in the line of the Enlightened Caliphs was hacked to death while sitting and reading the Lectures of God in his house by the Peaceful! Later his companions butchered each other in the battle ensuing between his second son in law Ali and the the nephew of his murdered elder son in law Muaviyeh only within 80 years of his demise. His young issueless widow Aaisheh got injured in that battle against That enmity continued and the second son in law was stabbed to death by a Peaceful Arab that saw Ali deviating from the norms of the Lectures! Muhammad's grandson Hassan was poisoned to death by his own wife and his beloved second grandson Hussain along with his brothers, and children was tormented by thirst and butchered at Karbala by the Peaceful soldiers of Syria at the command of Muaviyeh's son Yazeed! Those that butchered Hussain and his children were the same Peaceful Arabs that used to pray five times a day to Muhammad's God beseeching his bliss and protection on Muhammad and his progeny in the very same way that had been accorded to Abraham and his line in the past! They did not even bury Hussain and his slain children and followers in the tradition of the Peaceful but tore the shreds of the corpses apart under steel shod hooves of their horses as feast meal for vultures and bore the head of Hussain on a spear from Karbala to Medina! Believe me very clearly that the merciful Muhammad's (Mercy in human form from his God to the worlds!) entire progeny was mercilessly put to death by his Peaceful followers! No Christian or Jew had the honor to do those merciful and peaceful deeds!

Its now about 2000 years from Muhammad's advent on the world as the last messenger of God to teach death and destruction to the refuters of his claim to God's Messenger hood and promulgation of the Lectures! There was no live and let live in peace for his infidels in his time. His legacy of bitter hatred between the ever warring two sects of the Peaceful namely the Ahl Assunnah Wal Jamaa'h better known as Sunnis and the Shias (Ithna Ash'ari, Jaafari, Ismaaili etc.) continues today in Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere where Peace is the state religion! Bashar Al Assad is a Shia bent on butchering the Sunnis as the Sunnis are resolved to butcher Shias of Syria. The Infidel people of the past, the Ahl Al Kitaab, the Jews and The Christians, though still being commanded by the Lectures to be fought with, have become mighty strong and lick the Peaceful whenever attacked by the Peaceful! Be it Yom Kippur or Aswan or in the recent Iraq and Afghanistan platforms! No sense in getting butchered by the Jews and Christians today! Kill and get killed by the hands of the Peaceful themselves is a far better option!

The USA must not waste its might and money in waging a war with the Peaceful at Syria! Let the Peaceful Syrians do that work amongst themselves and leave the world at large in peace!:yes:

I love it when people talk out their ***

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I love it when people talk out their ***

From the man who baselessle proclaimed ...

You seem pretty pro-war now.

 

[Assad91]

From the man who baselessle proclaimed ...

It wasn't baseless when you have defended intervention before in baselessly claiming Bashar used chemical weapons

 

[George-ananda]

Is it? And will (or shall) it be perceived as such?

Anti-American conspiracy theorists will go on either way. Iraq was really all about oil and George Bush. This time what's the conspiracy? They get more excited about criticizing America than criticizing chemical weapons used by an anti-American.

Libyan people are sure happier now.

Luis, I doubt your one of the hard-cores but I'm venting at others.