Syrian Government Ready To Use Chemical Weapons

[TheGravemind]

Why shouldn't the US help out?

We should help out and we will. Just watch.

[Spectral]

Why shouldn't the US help out?

It costs substantial amounts of money to militarily intervene. At a time when we're sufficiently strapped for cash that we're arguing about whether poor Americans should receive less assistance with food subsidies, I'm disinclined to spend money empowering an Islamist government in a country of very little geopolitical relevance.

[TheGravemind]

It costs substantial amounts of money to militarily intervene. At a time when we're sufficiently strapped for cash that we're arguing about whether poor Americans should receive less assistance with food subsidies, I'm disinclined to spend money empowering an Islamist government in a country of very little geopolitical relevance.

You view the situation with a highly biased lens rather than an objective one. We would not be empowering an Islamist government, and I refuse to accept the notion that you can put a price tag on a life (especially when it wouldn't cost that much to save countless lives.)

[Sunseeker]

We should help out and we will. Just watch.

Do we even know who we're helping? Do we know what their goals are? Their supporters? Their reasons? Or are they just "those guys who don't like that guy we don't like?" That's not real good grounds to start a war on.

[Spectral]

You view the situation with a highly biased lens rather than an objective one.

Can you point out how?

We would not be empowering an Islamist government

I don't think you're well informed about the Syrian rebels.

I refuse to accept the notion that you can put a price tag on a life

Then it's completely impossible for you to evaluate policy decisions. You might not like that there's a price on life, but without one, objective analysis is impossible.

[Xalzel]

As an American, I'm tired of being shit on while we solve everyone's issues. I vote we pull out and let other countries deal with it, I'm not worried about ANY other 1st world country attacking us. Let other people deal with it. I'm tired of us fighting useless war.

[anveena]

Why shouldn't the US help out?

Because helping the Syrian rebels out entails going to war with another nation, which costs lots money and more importantly lives(sometimes). If we're going to spend god knows how many millions/billions helping people out, why not spend that money on Americans that need help instead. I really don't see what the US has to gain by putting Islamic extremist in power in Syria.

Turkey seems so gung-ho on fixing Syria's problem's, why not just let them ride in there and save the day.

[shise]

Don't believe this crap, really.

The truth going on there is really far from the crap they are telling us on tv every day.

[Hughes]

It costs substantial amounts of money to militarily intervene. At a time when we're sufficiently strapped for cash that we're arguing about whether poor Americans should receive less assistance with food subsidies, I'm disinclined to spend money empowering an Islamist government in a country of very little geopolitical relevance.

While I am completely against WMD being used, and personally think the Syria dictator needs to be ousted, I am inclined to agree with you.

Right now we have enough problems of our own, not including the world holding their hand out to us for help. I've always noticed the trend of helping other countries, and celebrities manning call centers to aid to needy countries, but you don't see too many of them crying for our own citizens. Hell, I saw more celebrity support for disasters in foreign countries over our own.

Gotta get our priorities straight.

On top of that, not a fan of throwing one government out, just to let another take over that is probably going to lead it into another mess that is similar to what it is now.

[smelltheglove]

We should help out and we will. Just watch.

to what purpose? neither assad nor the rebels want us involved. if we get involved we will be once again vilified, still have a country hostile to us, and it would cost us billions of dollars and most likely another few thousand american lives. if we are going to put our soldiers in harm's way it shouldnt be on behalf of a group that is just as happy to shoot us as the people we go to stop

[Zavri]

The US and Israel will do a joint mission in securing those weapon sites so they can't be used. We won't let them use those chemical weapons, rightly so.

[TheGravemind]

to what purpose? neither assad nor the rebels want us involved. if we get involved we will be once again vilified, still have a country hostile to us, and it would cost us billions of dollars and most likely another few thousand american lives. if we are going to put our soldiers in harm's way it shouldnt be on behalf of a group that is just as happy to shoot us as the people we go to stop

Are you serious right now? The Rebels are practically begging us to lend a helping hand.

[Mormolyce]

Pretty serious escalation. If Assad uses these weapons, all bets are off. I'd personally be fine with a strong unilateral response.

Not much appetite for playing cowboys in the Middle East these days.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

You view the situation with a highly biased lens rather than an objective one. We would not be empowering an Islamist government, and I refuse to accept the notion that you can put a price tag on a life (especially when it wouldn't cost that much to save countless lives.)

Money is objective, the value of life is not.

[kharyll]

These news are made not because Syria has chemical weapons. It is to gauge the americans' reception and to see if there is any chance of convincing the society.

If Assad really had WMDs and the intention of using them, he would do it before the election, not now. The news is fabricated with a purpose in mind.

[Deadvolcanoes]

These news are made not because Syria has chemical weapons. It is to gauge the americans' reception and to see if there is any chance of convincing the society.

If Assad really had WMDs and the intention of using them, he would do it before the election, not now. The news is fabricated with a purpose in mind.

This might be the least convincing and most laughable of all tin-foil theories on this subject, and that's saying something.

[Grizzly Willy]

These news are made not because Syria has chemical weapons. It is to gauge the americans' reception and to see if there is any chance of convincing the society.

If Assad really had WMDs and the intention of using them, he would do it before the election, not now. The news is fabricated with a purpose in mind.

Going to have to slap an E.C.R.E.E. on this.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Going to have to slap an E.C.R.E.E. on this.

rip stanton bison

[Kivimetsan]

This thread sucks, its full of realistic people arguing against war-hawks willing to send there own countrymen to die in another war which will not be won, just like every other American war since Korea.
America is on the brink of collapse and you people want to go fight another war? Sure its sad people are dying, but its not just Assad and the military doing the killing. There are Al Quaida elements active in Syria, even Hillary Clinton admits that. What next? We topple a government and replace it with an ultra Islamic government who will just oppress the people more?

Let the people sort it out. Eventually they will win.
Remember, every so often the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots.

[Deadvolcanoes]

This thread sucks, its full of realistic people arguing against war-hawks willing to send there own countrymen to die in another war which will not be won, just like every other American war since Korea.
America is on the brink of collapse and you people want to go fight another war? Sure its sad people are dying, but its not just Assad and the military doing the killing. There are Al Quaida elements active in Syria, even Hillary Clinton admits that. What next? We topple a government and replace it with an ultra Islamic government who will just oppress the people more?

Let the people sort it out. Eventually they will win.
Remember, every so often the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots.

A. America is not on the brink of collapse. Not even close.

B. No one here is advocating a 10 year war with thousands of American lives lost. We are advocating the removal of a brutal dictator by force if he uses chemical weapons on the civilian population. That requires airstrikes at most.

C. The tree of liberty does not need to be watered with the blood of patriots. It just needs carbon dioxide, sunlight, water, and soil. No blood required.