Does anyone else not care about what happens in Syria?

[armedindy]

i made a comment, that while Chemical weapons react with the body to kill...plenty of "ok" weapons have chemical reactions that either sedn shrapnel through ppls soft tissue, use a massive pressure wave to destroy ppls innards, or send out intense heat to incinerate ppl...and all of these are indiscriminate in their own ways.....if we looked at how many children we kiilled iwht conventional bombs in recent history, ppl might not care so much about the ones that assad killed with nerve agent....just cause it wasnt a chemical bomb doesnt mean that their death wasnt agonizing, long, and horrible

 

[hondatech2k2]

Pretty much sums it up...

View attachment 21207

 

[Turtle]

This country had its civil war. We need to let them have there war and stop being nosey.

 

[JasonB]

As painful as it is to say... I have to actually agree with Obama's decision to let congress vote prior to taking action... Regardless of political stance it at least shows that he sees that the American People don't want to be involved in another half baked conflict in the Middle East like his predecessor rushed the US into by not working for both Domestic and International Support.

You usually have to take most News with several grains of salt then pick main points from Left and Right to get any kind of muddy picture of the actual situation, but all are at basic conclusion that any impact was to under 1,500 people in the middle of a Civil War that's claimed over 100,000 lives... If this becomes the new Standard which the US launches Military Attacks going forward we will be on a very slippery slope toward being the World's Police Force.

Plus how long does the US really think they will get to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs before a rogue or directed attack is finally launched against Isreal which lands us in the middle of a much larger conflict that the US will be buried in for decades to come.

Where is the United Nations in all of this? UK has already voted down military actions and they've been our closest ally for the past 60+ years, That alone should be a very good indicator of International Support (Or in this case lack of it...) The US needs to avoid this conflict at all costs.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As painful as it is to say... I have to actually agree with Obama's decision to let congress vote prior to taking action... Regardless of political stance it at least shows that he sees that the American People don't want to be involved in another half baked conflict in the Middle East like his predecessor rushed the US into by not working for both Domestic and International Support.

You usually have to take most News with several grains of salt then pick main points from Left and Right to get any kind of muddy picture of the actual situation, but all are at basic conclusion that any impact was to under 1,500 people in the middle of a Civil War that's claimed over 100,000 lives... If this becomes the new Standard which the US launches Military Attacks going forward we will be on a very slippery slope toward being the World's Police Force.

Plus how long does the US really think they will get to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs before a rogue or directed attack is finally launched against Isreal which lands us in the middle of a much larger conflict that the US will be buried in for decades to come.

Where is the United Nations in all of this? UK has already voted down military actions and they've been our closest ally for the past 60+ years, That alone should be a very good indicator of International Support (Or in this case lack of it...) The US needs to avoid this conflict at all costs.

You are giving the Kenyan too much credit. He didn't make a decision to wait for congress until after getting lots of pushback against his blather about not having to do so. Being forced into the right position is far different from voluntarily choosing it.

 

[jamil]

You are giving the Kenyan too much credit. He didn't make a decision to wait for congress until after getting lots of pushback against his blather about not having to do so. Being forced into the right position is far different from voluntarily choosing it.

(vertual rep)

 

[BogWalker]

i made a comment, that while Chemical weapons react with the body to kill...plenty of "ok" weapons have chemical reactions that either sedn shrapnel through ppls soft tissue, use a massive pressure wave to destroy ppls innards, or send out intense heat to incinerate ppl...and all of these are indiscriminate in their own ways.....if we looked at how many children we kiilled iwht conventional bombs in recent history, ppl might not care so much about the ones that assad killed with nerve agent....just cause it wasnt a chemical bomb doesnt mean that their death wasnt agonizing, long, and horrible

I do believe we've killed more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan than Assad has killed in Syria.

 

[Dean C.]

It is their own civil war let them fight it out. Think of it this way how pissed would you be if lets say the british or the french got involved in our civil war? My guess is pretty mad.

 

[Hotdoger]

bogwalker you got any numbers on that statement. I have seen 100,000 for Assad.

 

[armedindy]

bogwalker you got any numbers on that statement. I have seen 100,000 for Assad.

I would hope most of those would have been members of the "rebel group" that is opposing assad....but going by the number that the media is giving us (400 childred killed by assad's chemical weapons) i would wonder how many innocent children have died due to bombs dropped by the us in recent years......and to claim that our bombs are "surgical" and dont cause the kind of harm, terror, and agonizing slow death that is the cause for ppl to not like chem weapons seems kinda naive to me......no doubt there have been children in the street who bleed out slowly in their mothers arms because our president loves to authorize tons of drone strikes

(emotional appeal much ...i know...but i really mean it, and im truly curious)

 

[BogWalker]

bogwalker you got any numbers on that statement. I have seen 100,000 for Assad.

I went and looked and civilian casualties for the entire Iraq war comes out to ~100,000. I believe this includes all civilian casualties regardless of who caused them though. At the same time that 100,000 in Syria includes all deaths, civilian and not, I do believe. I'll see if there's a better break down. I imagine a lot of the civilian casualties in Iraq were non-US caused though.

We're still in no way innocent of causing civilian casualties. We do, question is how many?

 

[jbombelli]

I don't know how many civilians we've killed. But I do know we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing weapon systems that are intended to mitigate collateral damage, as it's called, as much as possible.

But when your enemy hides behind women and kids, what can you do?

An example of how they fight:

Are civilian casualties really surprising in that context?

 

[111NMC]

Syria is a TRAP. I feel bad for those getting killed, but we dont even know for sure who is killing them. I certainly dont trust anyone in the current administration, or the assorted willing mouthpieces that are advocating action. Russia, Iran and China want us to get drawn in just so we can drain even more cash and blood. Its a bad idea all around, IMO

 

[Win52C]

We should mind our own business and everyone in the world wouldn't hate us so much. IMHO

 

[halfmileharry]

We should mind our own business and everyone in the world wouldn't hate us so much. IMHO

I agree for the most part BUT sometimes we're just hated for who and what we are (or aren't)

 

[Kedric]

I think it is long past time for the U.S. to stop interfering any- and every- where the govt feels like it is entitled to do so without invite or sensible reason. We have more than enough problems here at home that need to be addressed, rather than throwing up a series of continual wars to distract the people with.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Sell both sides lots of American made arms and munitions.

Let them kill each other and let Allah sort it out.

The big problem I have with this is: historically, when we sell/give arms to these bastards, they end up getting used on us. Let's avoid that embarrassment this time around, huh?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

The big problem I have with this is: historically, when we sell/give arms to these bastards, they end up getting used on us. Let's avoid that embarrassment this time around, huh?

Don't go sticking your nose where it doesn't belong and you won't get it broke is an easy way to prevent embarrassment .

 

[citrigin]

Don't go sticking your nose where it doesn't belong and you won't get it broke is an easy way to prevent embarrassment .

Exactly.

 

[hntrroy]

I do believe we've killed more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan than Assad has killed in Syria.

BogWalker- you may be correct but it is important to make note that we did not and will not target civilians. The fact that innocent people die in wars is not a new issue. Im not sure if you have ever spent any time in the military or not, but the Law of Armed Conflict forbids U.S. military personnel from engaging non-military targets. When the enemy fires on our troops from a school building, hospital, or a mosque, they place those innocent civilians in harms way, and those buildings loose the protected status. They (the enemy) understand that and use it for their advantage. Our troops have a right and a responsability to protect themselves and those around them, and when the enemy attacks from these normally non military facilities and hide behind civilians, it is a calculated risk that they take purely for the PR benefiet. Im not too sure what you really meant by your comment but I just wanted make sure that this was said.