Syria? Should We or Shouldn't We?

For my part I dont want any British troops or assets to be used in Syria but I know damn well if the US gets involved then we will follow suit as will the French in this case, they are more vocal on the subject than your President

 

I was watching the debate in British Parliament today. Interesting stuff...for a few minutes anyway lol

 

Cameron wants his moment of glory, he cuts defense and troop numbers but expects them to do all he wants

 

This thread had me reminiscing...

When Reagan drew a "line in the sand" nobody dared cross it...Clinton, Bush I & II? Pretty much the same. With BO it's like a Monty Python skit. He's powerless. No one respects him.

 

Secretary of State John Kerry made it quite clear that Obama blames the Assad government of using chemical weapons. He said this on August 26, 2013:

"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear. The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity."​

​

"There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm [the use of chemical weapons] cannot be violated without consequences. And there is a reason why no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again."​

Obama is not blaming the rebels for using chemical weapons; he's blaming Assad for the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians including women and children.​

​

But, you were in favor of the attack on Libya when Obama bombed them for "humanitarian reasons". Do you recall what you said in this conversation (about Yemen) when you spoke about the attack on Libya?​

​

​

http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/do-you-think-obama-will-send-military-forces-into-yemen.3917/​

​

So, please tell me what difference there is between what happened in Libya (you referred to as "prevent(ing) the massacre") and what John Kerry says is the "indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders" in Syria. I'm trying to understand your reasoning for agreeing with the bombing of Libya for humanitarian reasons, but your unwillingness to intervene in Syria based on the same circumstances.​

​

​

 

David they respect the US armed forces and that is all they need to respect. Most people took Reagan as a holliwood joke when he became President in the same way they took Thatcher because she was female

 

Especially not Blanket Statements, right?

I mean everyone knows Blanket Statements hates Obama.

 

IQLess1, will you tell us why you supported the bombing of Libya for humanitarian reasons, but not an attack on Syria for the same reasons?

 

And I though you and Teddy LOVED Obama.

 

It seems IQLess1 is just parroting what Little Joe said...

 

This is what Obama said in an interview on PBS on Wednesday, August 28, 2013:

"We have looked at all the evidence, and we do not believe the opposition possessed nuclear weapons on – or chemical weapons of that sort. We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences."​

​

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec13/obama_08-28.html

Does that change your view? Based on what Obama said, do you now think it's proper to intervene in Syria?​

​

​

 

You seem surprised?

 

No, but I am surprised he's not giving us his opinion.

 

For the diseased republican mind:



Swallow it, or be retarded your whole life, crackas!

 

Oh, come on IQLess1, do you not feel like discussing this topic? Obama has said that Assad used chemical weapons. Does that change your opinion on whether or not we should attack Syria?

 

Tell Gaddafi that. Oh wait, you can't, he's dead. Then go tell Bin Laden that. Oh wait, you can't, he's dead. Tell the Somali pirates that, oh wait, you can't, they are dead. Tell Anwar al-Awlaki that, oh wait, he's dead too. I bet those people didn't like the Obama Monty Python skit.

BTW Reagan tucked and ran from Lebanon after 256 American deaths. Some line in the sand that was. He also sold weapons to Iran. Bush II gave up even looking for Bin Laden after he masterminded 3,000 American civilian deaths. That's some line in the sand. Yeah, that is some respect those folks earned this country.

 

Do you guys really need to parrot each other while accusing others of parroting each other??

 

Please give IQLessThan1 permission to speak. I'd really like to hear his opinion on whether or not we should attack Syria based on the fact that we now know Obama is blaming Assad of using chemical weapons.

 

View attachment 1953

 

OK.

Anyway... back to the topic.

Has anyone's views on Syria evolved since Obama has confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons? To simplify, should Obama attack Syria for "humanitarian reasons" (which was the excuse he used to attack Libya)?