Syria under the Gun

[BlackListedB]

Chemical Weapons and US response in yet another bloody war, I tend to think along the lines that John McCain does, we've sat idly by for too long, but others say they'll also retaliate, and there's the most concern shown over response of whatever action we take from Russia and Iran. I still say, strategic assault on where chemical weapons can be located reasonable well off, without inflicting too much casualty, the main thing, but what if Assad were eliminated? Thoughts??

Edited August 27, 2013 by BlackListedB

[Scott.]

Probably be a good thing if Assad was elimated, evil fucker. Although wouldnt be good for USA-Russian relations!

[NSanityHD]

All wars need to stop, period. Countries need to stop fighting each other...especially with nuclear weapons. At this rate there's not going to be an "Earth" to live on in the next 6 years if it all continues, because (I wouldn't be surprised) it'll all be radioactive.

Edited August 27, 2013 by KyleIce45

[Scott.]

I've always said the human race would probably end up destroying itself - talk about intelligent spiecies eh! Wars wont ever stop as you have countries completley dominated by religion, people fighting over who believes in the true religion, all this bloodshed over some bullshit

[NSanityHD]

I've always said the human race would probably end up destroying itself - talk about intelligent spiecies eh! Wars wont ever stop as you have countries completley dominated by religion, people fighting over who believes in the true religion, all this bloodshed over some bullshit

True...it's pitiful.

[Trevor_Philips]

Countries need to stop fighting each other...especially with nuclear weapons. At this rate there's not going to be an "Earth" to live on in the next 6 years if it all continues, because (I wouldn't be surprised) it'll all be radioactive.

 

At what rate? Only two nuclear warheads have ever been used in anger and that was 68 years ago earlier this month. It'll take a hell of a lot longer than 6 years to radiate the entire planet out of habitability at that rate. No one is randomly slinging nukes around just for lulz.

 

Way to be melodramatic.

[NSanityHD]

 

Countries need to stop fighting each other...especially with nuclear weapons. At this rate there's not going to be an "Earth" to live on in the next 6 years if it all continues, because (I wouldn't be surprised) it'll all be radioactive.

 

At what rate? Only two nuclear warheads have ever been used in anger and that was 68 years ago earlier this month. It'll take a hell of a lot longer than 6 years to radiate the entire planet out of habitability at that rate. No one is randomly slinging nukes around just for lulz.

 

Way to be melodramatic.

 

Still, no offense toward the US or anything Spartan, but the US military seem to think nuclear warheads solve everything.

Edited August 29, 2013 by KyleIce45

[Sherman]

It's getting heated. Plus Russia and China are complicating things with the U.N. and the U.S. .. I'm not too sure what to think. It's still unclear who or why the chemicals were set off, huh?

[BlackListedB]

Truly, if everyone who supposedly worships a deity representing all that's good, love, caring, compassion, then go out and kill and wage endless campaigns of hatred, your doctrine is fundamentally FLAWED. Get A Life, wage your combats and contests in video games, as we do, no one need die or get hurt in the real world, the whole point of these games me thinks!

[Scott.]

If it isnt handled delicately by both sides, something will kick off pretty soon. Putin isnt being the most diplomatic at the moment which doesnt help.

[Sherman]

I like his idea.. Syria giving up the chemicals to international law and having them properly destroyed. But really, who knows if it's a time ploy or the real deal.

[NSanityHD]

In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if WW3 starts up in the next couple of years. :L

[BlackListedB]

In large part I'm checking in with CNN more then other sources for updates on this debate, but it really seems to be moving in REAL motion not involving force, that that threat is debatable and in question as a needed reinforcement.

 

According to 'talking heads', Americans don't want any action without an end-game spelled out, what is the ultimate outcome and desired effect, I see it purely as eliminating chemical weapons, and people in their right mind still lose sight of this simple answer.

 

It's somewhat maddening to see them argue so adamantly that there should be a 'hands off' policy, but the US is involved in World Affairs, not so far as being the World's Police man, but it's something that's not going to revert to isolationism. If people were on board for that idea, Ron Paul would have been in the contest to be our President as he seemed to adopt that, and people called out his foreign policy lack-thereof

Edited September 13, 2013 by BlackListedB