So I was on CNN last night and found out that President Obama was deciding wether or not to attack Syria.

The reason is because apperently theSyria Military launched a chemical weapon against some rebels and citizens got attacked as well. What do you guys think is it wise to attack another Country; bercause in my opinion wouldnt an air strike on them also cause civilian casuelties?

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

it depends entirely whether or not the military is in outposts, or posted in civilian areas. in any case, it is always inevitable that civilians will be hurt. That is the case in all conflicts. Civilians will ALWAYS be hurt. As for the question of whether or not it is a good idea, I feel like we should probably get our act together in all other areas we're currently involved in before we throw more of our soldiers into a new area. That is just my opinion, though.

Well there's a lot of factors and variables to consider. For example, do we want to risk the onset of conflict costs on a declining economy. Are our investments in Syria really worth the cost (in lives as well as in financial assets). The republican party wants the government to default so they can get rid of Obama care (great plan GOP, let's just screw everyone who doesn't have a six figure savings account over). We can't afford a large conflict. Hell, we shouldn't even be involved in the Korean crisis because we can't afford it. Now that's just in financial terms. You have to also consider the political repercussions that will ripple if we become involved. America was once an individualistic nation, and damn were we prosperous. Where has the "helping hand" gotten us? What we should do is participate in a equal global investment for a "world"army, under the direct command of the United nations council. At least you'll have a multilateral vote/decision. But the UN are a bunch of over pampered wimps anyways. Honestly, there's no good outcome whether we participate or not. .. there's only the lesser of two evils.

My first reaction was that it sounds a lot like what Sadam did to the people of Iraq. That event was used as a pretext to invade as well. Having this in mind, I believe that the true reason for this operation is being withheld from the public. If the purpose for the attack is something that has to be hidden from the masses, then it is probably unjust and unnecessary.

It's the third world's war :/ , I hope they can do something better than wars !! This world really sucks !!

The world doesn't suck. Just the people who run it. Never lose hope!

the news is just plain wrong, the ships off the coast of Syria are just there for standby if we are to attack, Obama can't use missiles unless there is evidence of a chemical agent being used by the Syrian government.
g0atse is right as well, the true reason why are ships are on the coast is being held from the public, because Obama is getting ready to invade Syria, just like Iraq and Afghanistan.

(TT_TT) I hope that nothing bad happens! I have someone important to me living in a nearby country to Syria! I don't want them (or anyone else!) to get hurt :'(

>>7 Keep in mind that the Marines are the only branch of the military that the president can deploy without congressional approval. An invasion could start and evidence could be planted in support of the movement or explanations could be fabricated during an attack.

Although it is unlikely considering the amount of data leaks that could come from this, it's always a good idea to be keen on all of the situations for these kinds of things.

I want to post this here because judging from the comments, people don't understand why Obama would want to go through with an air strike, why Syria is such a mess in the first place, and what options are available at this point in time.

Spoiler though: there aren't really any good viable ones.

So yeah, hopefully this helps.

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! SAVIN' THE WORLD AND THE MOTHER FUCKIN' DAY!

If you ask me, it's none of our gad damned business. The U.S. is not the world fucking police. It's a civil war, and we have no reason to be there.

Okay, first of all, this is a really bad thing. Secondly, I hope to dear god we can make this alright. I'm not one for war, and consider myself a hippie, but still. The whole chemical issue is just.... I know of no way I can express my thoughts on this subject correctly, but to any Dollars: e-mail Congress and tell them no. It may help our economy, but it would kill a lot of people. If you're all up for blood, imagine oone of your own family dying. That should make you realize that war is horrible.

Please read up on the issues before you go saying things like that. Foreign relations have a lot to do with war. France wants to go to war, but has said they only will if the US goes with them. This makes sense, they are a small country. If we don't follow up on this, our standing will be poorer with them, and we barely just repaired it. More of our allies want to go as well. Then there's also the matter that China and Russia are kind of creeping up on Syria's back. They already hate us as is, and there's a good chance that if we don't strike first, they will. If our allies end up going to war with out us, well fuck. Open up your doors to Iran, cause guess who's going to attack us then?

Obama going to Congress with this is a last minuet resort to /beg/ them /not/ to have America go to war. He's being pressured by so many other countries though, and if he didn't acknowledge it somehow, we'd loose a lot of them as our friends.

Then, there's the simple fact of what America stands for. x'D You can say we're not the world police or whatever you like, but you know, we kind of are. Ever since WW1 and WW2, we've been major world leaders. That image might seem like just that, but it's not. For a lot of countries that hate our guts, that title and all the power attached to it are the only things keeping them from going to war against us.

Oh, and does anyone remember North Korea? Cause, I'm willing to get they'd jump right in against America, too. After that, good luck continuing to have a democracy South Korea.

Really, the question isn't if we're going to war, it's what war are we willing to fight??? Cause whatever happens, the chances of us getting out of this are not very good.

Don't get me wrong, I am /not/ pro war. I just want people to understand that simply avoiding it...? Well, it's not that simple. From what I know, those are the basic facts. Do with them what you will, but most importantly, /please/ tell others. The best thing we can do right now is to spread the word. If you can, e-mail the white house. Make sure they know you don't approve of this.

That's all.

>>14 No, we aren't the world police. That's the UN's job, not solely ours (we simply hold a lot of power in the UN), and until the UN decides to make a move, we should stay out of it. Avoiding this war avoids further unnecessary conflict with Syria, Russia, China, and South Korea, as well as other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Pakistan. Yes foreign relations have a lot to do with war, but that's another reason to avoid going to war. The Most important, however, is that seemingly the majority of the population wants to stay out of their civil war.

I hope people realize how much of a shit president Obama is because of this. He has absolutely NO reason to attack another country. And why does he even want to? Because they used chemical weapons? That's NOT a valid reason to kill innocent people, let alone put us at risk to war. And don't forget all those other countries already annoyed with us. Imagine if they now have a reason to attack us? This could literally be the start to WWIII, for absolutely no reason we should care about, and I'm NOT happy with my country right now.
U.S. needs to stop being so arrogant and STOP messing in other countries affairs. We aren't even in Afghanistan for a valid reason; and it makes me want to punch people when they say we're in there "to protect our country". From what? What are we protecting ourselves from by going to war? We aren't. We're literally in there because we feel like we can "help" those people, just like this issue with Syria almost. People in the U.S. government have been doing a shit job, and all they want to do is kill more people and ignore the fact we're facing another Great Depression. And please, please do not argue against me unless you know actual facts because I'm dead SICK of talking to people about politics who know nothing, just that "yay, Obama's the greatest he's for gay rights," even though he actually isn't.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/no-war-syria/QcTV4m0F

No To War In Syria petition...

>>16 Did you not read the information, or are you just a poor reader? Obama is trying to /stop/ us from going to war. Honestly, read the information two times and make sure you know the facts, before you start ranting.

>>19 No, over a year ago Obama said if Syria used chemicals in their civil war we would attack them. Obama is the one threatening Syria and trying to get congress on his side

Or around a year ago. Idk the exact time

Just a little check here. Are you people under the impression that the US is the only country talking about attacking Syria because of this event?

>>22 No. The Arab States are actually asking the US to attack, too. But I don't care what other countries do, after all, I'm not their citizen. I am, however, a citizen of the US, I enlisted in the military at one point (sent back for medical), and don't want my country killing it's soldiers in a war that doesn't concern us.

>>22 Yep, there are quite a few countries backing Obama on the decision. Everybody wants somebody to intervene, but nobody wants to put themselves in danger. "It is easy to propose impossible remedies." In this case, though, it is possible, only because they can politically force it on the US, whose past presidents have already made them seem like the world fuckin' police.

I honestly don't think we can blame Obama here, though I personally think that it should be up to mama Russia to deal with this one.

When I saw this on CNN it really pissed me off because The Obama and Bush Administration are responsible for over a half a million civilian deaths in Iraq. A lot of them were between the ages of 3 and 17. Now he wants to wage a war on Syria because they killed civilians in a chemical attack. He's a fucking hypocrite!

I can tell a majority of the posters in this thread have not read what I linked in >>10.

You should all do so.

Dude I read it and I have to say, what a load of propaganda. It's basically painting a bad picture on the Syrian Government and then portraying the the rebel forces as a people in need. It's battlecry if you ask me. Huh.. it's happening all over again just like in Iraq and just about every other American War.

It's even sugar coating our role if we were to fight. "Imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria"

In other words were really gonna fuck that country over and then private corporations will be able to exploit this new third world country. It's how economy thrives; Human death and suffering.

Well, this is one hell of a bad situation for the U.S. As I understand it:

At first, a couple years ago when the conflict started, we only got involved at an incredibly superficial level when Obama made his red-line statement about direct U.S. military intervention only in the event that Assad used chemical weapons. This was strategic, and based on the thinking that Assad wouldn't use chemical weapons because he'd be shooting himself in the foot. By that, I mean that direct U.S. military involvement would be a sure-fire way to dethrone him. Assad may be kinda nuts, but he likes being in power. He wouldn't use chemical weapons, since that meant the U.S. would intervene, which would very likely result in his dethronement (and possibly worse).

Fast forward a couple years, and chemical weapons have supposedly been used (I say "supposedly" because I know that there were U.N. investigators in Syria who took samples for testing, but I don't know if they've conducted the tests and have results yet). It's unclear whether they were knowingly used by Assad, used by some of his people without his knowledge or consent, used by the rebels to try to get the U.S. involved, or some other scenario. At this point, that doesn't really matter, and I doubt we'll ever know the truth.

There are several complicating factors. First (and this is on hearsay), I've read that Russia said they would retaliate if the U.S. intervenes militarily in Syria. How and when, I don't know. Seeing as how so much of politics is verbal maneuvering in the attempt to ensure that physical maneuvering (military involvement and confrontation) is unnecessary (nobody really WANTS to go to war), should this be considered as just talk to try to discourage the U.S. from becoming involved? Even if it is just talk, I think it should also be considered as though it's not just talk, simply for preparedness' sake.

Second, none of the possible outcomes are good for the U.S. If Assad stays in power, I'm sure he won't be any kinder to the rebels than he already is. If the rebels gain power, it's not like they're going to set up a democracy just because we want them to. Apparently, the strongest rebel faction has ties to Al Qaida, so if they come into power, Syria could have--in the worst-case scenario--a radical Islamist, jihadist government that is vehemently (maybe violently so) anti-Western. That is bad not just for the U.S., but for our Western allies as well. A third possibility (which sounds incredibly unlikely and would pacify no one) is that Assad steps down, but his regime stays in power. I think a situation like that would just prolong Syria's civil war. So, as far as outcomes go, the U.S. is screwed.

A third complicating factor is that fewer and fewer of our allies are willing to fight along with the U.S. in the event of military involvement. At present, I believe only France is still willing to get involved militarily. In the event of involvement in Syria, the U.S. doesn't want to go it alone.

Factor 3.5 (which ties in to both Factor 3 and what will be Factor 4) is that Obama is (as well as so many American citizens are) hesitant to get involved militarily. The U.S. wasn't even the first country to declare its intent to intervene militarily in Syria (I believe that distinction would go to France, Turkey, and Britain). We came in a little later on, and then most of our allies dropped out. Based on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some in our government's foreign policy sector have begun to realize that intervention for humanitarian reasons alone is often not worth the cost, especially considering that what replaces a tyrannical regime is not always better, and can be worse. I suppose none of this would be an issue if Obama hadn't made his statement about the red line. However, I think that's a moot point now because: 1) It's (likely) been crossed; and 2) What was he supposed to do? I have to wonder, since the U.S. is THE world power at this point in time, would a weaker condemnation and threat have been the way to go? Would it have been considered enough?

Factor 4 is Obama's decision to request approval from Congress before engaging in military action in Syria. Regardless of what he has or hasn't done mostly or solely on executive authority alone in the past, I think it's a good decision to try to do this through the proper channels.

Factor 5 is the myriad of possible consequences of getting or not getting involved. On the side of getting involved, we may have to deal with armed conflict with Russia, in addition to armed conflict with Assad's forces in Syria.

The one upside to military involvement is the precedent it would set in regard to the U.S. backing up its words with actions. If we threaten action upon Syria's crossing of the red line, and they cross it and we do nothing, it can be seen as weakness and hesitation. It creates doubt that the U.S. will act on threats it makes. This doubt may lead other nations, such as Iran or North Korea, to be willing to risk taking actions they wouldn't have taken otherwise. Taking those actions may involve the U.S. in something larger and/or worse than it may have become involved in if it had acted on its threat to Syria, thus dispelling doubts about its willingness to act on its threats. I realize this is purely hypothetical, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

The downsides to military involvement include: 1) The possibility that the removal of Assad's regime will lead to a worse government, or one that is as bad as Assad. In addition, it will likely be much more chaotic. 2) The condemnation of the U.S. by other nations and by people at home for getting involved. However, they already do this with regard to past involvement in the Middle East, so I don't think this point has much weight. Such sentiments might increase in intensity, but they won't be adding anything that's not already present. 3) As I've said before, the possibility of military conflict with Russia if the U.S. gets involved exists, although I'm unsure of how likely that actually is.

I'm sure there are other possible consequences, but I can't think of them right now, and I'm feeling mentally drained from compiling and clarifying my thoughts and opinions for the purpose of typing this post, so my motivation is starting to lessen.

I would mention backlash at home, but that will happen whether we end up getting involved in Syria or not. And frankly, so much of it is so mindlessly partisan (and mindless in general, mainly from people who don't think before they speak and don't bother trying to go beyond knee-jerk reactions) that I don't give it any weight.

Personally, I'm very much unsure of what I think would be the better option (there is no *best* option).

In summary, the situation regarding Syria is complicated and there are many, many things to consider. It's a sticky, tricky mess that currently appears to have no good outcome.

Here are links to a couple articles that, in addition to what Yatahaze posted in >>10, have helped form and inform my thoughts on this whole mess:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/obamas-bluff?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130827&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c8689739f06a41be992fdfa679a51e44

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/obamas-tightrope-walk?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130903&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=def9088d16314113bbcdc8facf3971d8

I thought we elected the current president as a peacemaker, not a war starter...

>>29 First, if peace talks were a viable option (and I find it very unfortunate that they're not), that's what we'd be hearing about and discussing. I think the aggression between Assad's regime and the rebels has gone past the point of being willing to try to open up a dialogue.

Second, whether or not the U.S. gets involved militarily in Syria, the civil war there is something that's already happening. This isn't about peace vs. war. War is already happening there, whether we like it or not (being strongly pacifistic, I really, really don't like it; but at the same time, I can't deny the reality that's staring me in the face).

The issue now is whether or not the U.S. should get involved militarily and to what extent it should get involved, taking into consideration the various complicating factors surrounding the situation. For an idea of what some of those factors are, I suggest you read all of the previous posts in this thread, as well as the links given in some of those posts, especially >>10 if you're unfamiliar with this issue.

My dad brought this up earlier today when he saw it on the news, even though he hates Obama with every fiber of his being (and being a Militaristic man) he believes that if Chemical weapons were used he'd rather our Government take them out now instead of one day seeing the same use of weapons being in a subway train, or in a building in our country.

While he makes it a point to normally stay out of conversations like this, he is a very wise man when it comes to the Military and over all Government. We might HAVE to get involved.

This subject attracts way too many "THSI SIIS WROGN MSAN" or "STOPFSI HAITNG DEMCOY MAN", style people. Shut the fuck up and read about the situation.
(not aimed at anybody here, just venting)

I wish this world can become a peace.

>>33 not until you learn how to make a sentence.

Its good to see people are taking an interest into the situation I wasnt sure whether to post it up or not, nut I thought it was neccesarry.

>>24 I definitely blame Obama for at least a few things. Like for example, he positioned warships near Syria's border. Had Syria decided to attack one, then men would have died, and we would have actively engaged another country in an act of war, and he doesn't have the power to declare war. It's Congress's job to declare war, not his. Then he goes on to say that his reputation isn't on the line, but it's the reputation of Congress and the US, trying to push all blame off of him.

>>36 I saw this article today, which talks about some of the stuff you mentioned:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-reserves-right-to-buck-congress-on-syria-strike-140227751.html

Now, I have to wonder what the intent behind the statements Obama made was. Should we take it at face value? Should we interpret it as more verbal maneuvering to try to postpone or avoid getting militarily involved in Syria? Does anyone have any other thoughts as to what the intent behind Obama's statements was?

With how easy it is to poke holes in the reasoning and wordplay apparent in Obama's statements if you take them at face value, I have a hard time believing that that's all there is to them.

>>37 IT seems to me he's trying to push the blame on everyone else saying that "congress signed this treaty" (wherin we agreed not to use chemical weapons. However, punishment for violation of this isn't our job). The way he's saying things, it sounds like he's trying to make it seem like his hands are tied and he has no choice except to go to war.

Even though what's going on in Syria is terrible, and the use of chemical weapons is outlawed by the U.N., I don't think we should strike Syria. The way I see it, there really isn't a "good" side in this conflict, and the last time we helped out a rebel group, it didn't go so well. Personally, we should stay out of it. Maybe we'll let our allies do the fighting, if they choose to.

>>39 That's a fair point. But, what happens if the U.S. does nothing (and I'm talking about limited military strikes for the purpose of showing that we won't abide by violations of the chemical weapons treaty) and our allies do nothing? What happens when the realization sets in that everyone who opposes the use of chemical weapons is too hesitant or war-weary to do anything? Will people like Assad, or the leaders of North Korea or Iran or any of the various other countries that are antagonistic to the U.S. and/or our allies feel like they can take bigger risks? What could happen as a result of those risks being taken?

I don't like the thought of military action being the thing that resolves this (the chemical weapons violation, not the civil war in Syria), and as has been said multiple times on this thread, there really is no good outcome. I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion. I also tend to think a lot in terms of potentialities and possibilities. So, my questions in the first paragraph of this post aren't meant as challenges (I see how they could be read that way, so I want to preempt any possible misunderstandings).

phew, why won't the world just full of peace and not this 'war' bs -_-

>>41
Because history and human nature.

So basically we're screwed either way. As far as the whole chemical weapon violation thing, there's the fact that there's no definite way to make sure that no one uses them. The fact that they're being made and sold in first place proves this. Not unless we somehow manage to completely eliminate them from the face of the earth. And that isn't going to happen. And even if we do, there's no guarantee that someone won't continue to make them again. There's just no point in putting civilian lives in danger for something that we just can't fix.
--Keep in mind that this is just in chemical weapon standpoint. Even if Obama's threat DID work, there's still be no guarantee that someone else wouldn't use them eventually.

>>43 The reason chemical weapons aren't used is 1) because they're made to target civilians, which is a bit no-no unless you're in all-out war, which should be a last resort and 2) everyone is scared to shit that the UN is going to band together and beat the shit out of them for disobeying the rules about using them.

If it turns out that nobody is going to respond aggressively to the use of it, do you think that groups which didn't have strict morals already aren't going to use it? Of course they are. Do you want nerve gas to be set off in your home town? Do you want to die a slow and excruciatingly painful death?

If not, then I suggest you rethink your stance on whether or not we should just ignore the use of chemical weapons.

Not doing anything about the situation at hand because there's a chance it might happen again is ridiculous, imo. Let's say this. You're an able man out jogging one day. You see a man grab a woman's purse. Are you going to chase him to take the purse back, and if you could, scare the shit out of him in the process so he hopefully won't try it again? Or would you just let him go since there's a chance somebody in another place at another time might steal someone else's purse?

And while it may seem better to ban the creation of them all together... what if a country makes it privately? What if nobody knows they have it untl they use it? Then how are you going to fight back?

The reason everyone has them but nobody uses them is so they're all on an equal playing field. Everyone has the same pieces, even if they're pieces which are kept to the side unless someone else pulls their own out. It's too dangerous to pretend those pieces don't exist and are against the rules of the game when they can be easily made and stored behind the players' back. It's best that everyone has the same public chips and admit to their existence but promise to not use them unless they want the same thing or worse thrown back.

hmm... a week earlier then I predicted.. American is more blood hungry then I thought.

>>44 I'm not saying nothing should be done. I'm saying the US as an independent nation shouldn't be the one to do it. The UN should be going in. But no, US troops who volunteer to defend the US shouldn't go in and die fighting for rebels who have ties to a terrorist organization that's targeted the US.

>>47 This.

>>44>>45 Yes I realize that it's used against civilians but it seems kind of counter productive to send missiles that would just kill MORE civilians. On the other hand, I can see why would want to make sure that it doesn't happen with anyone else. (And there's still no definite guarantee that someone might not use them later wether or not we send them) But like >>47 said it isn't necessarily our job to do this. That responsibility lies within the UN itself. But it seems like it would start sh*t either way. As it has been mentioned before, we'll just have see which argument gets more leverage.

Everybody is relying way too heavily on the UN in a lot of the scenarios put forwards. Has nobody noticed their legacy of being pretty much rendered inefficient by Bureaucracy? They always have been and most likely always will be more symbolic than anything practical. For them to go into Syria would require both Russia and China to consent, anyway.

I also want to direct attention towards this article, due to many of the facts that it brings to the table. Personally, I believe this is an article everybody with interest in the Syrian conflict should read.

>>47 I wasn't replying to you. Frankly, however, I'm not saying we should be fighting for the rebels specifically. I'm saying that there should be airstrikes against Syria as a warning about their use of chemical weapons.

>>48 Who says the missiles are going to specifically target civilians? :L They'd only be doing Syria a favor if that was the intention, which I'm fairly sure it's not. You can target specific areas from the air using missiles; I doubt they're just going to let them down in any town to press a mute point.

Maybe it's not the US's job itself, but we're the ones who the job is being pushed onto whether we like it or not. We can't just sit back and let nothing be done. The US is too big of a power to stubbornly go, "Well I'm not gonna do it unless someone else does it first!" Obama was probably either pressed into it or was under the impression that others from the UN were also going to step forward back when he made his previous statements. Now as a country, we're stuck.

Maybe Obama shouldn't have said what he said. But that's said and done and isn't worth complaining about. What we need to look at right now is the situation at hand and think realistically about what's going on. We have to take world politics into consideration ahead of our moral and personal problems with the idea. The US is weak and unstable enough as it is; the last thing we need is for to not be taken seriously militarily right now.

>>49 This, as well. The UN only has as much power as the leaders of the countries under it will give it. Nothing can be done either way until Russia and China step off their high horses, which probably won't happen until other countries also get involved on the US's side.

Ugh, this is ridiculous. I sometimes wish this kind of weaponry was never invented in the first place.

>>50 I know, but I just wanted to throw out my two cents. But my biggest fear with coordinated airstrikes is that they'll be seen as an act of war, and retaliation will follow. If Russia and China go in against us and strike us back for our airstrikes against Syria, war breaks out anyways, which I'd like to avoid.

Honestly, I think war (which as I've stated is the likely outcome) is the last thing we need. I wouldn't put it above Iran or China to strike US soil and put civilian lives at risk. Being in a war puts US citizens in harm's way, and should be avided if at all possible.

>>52 China is not going to start a war with the US any time soon. These days war has completely changed. It would be incredibly rare in this day and age for a major power to go up against a major power, they would just destroy each other. Countries like China and Russia aren't some stupid warmongering barbarians, they will also know the cost of an aggressive conflict with the US. Large parts of China's economy still depends on the US as well. People say war never changes, but modern war has completely changed. The population, although it doesn't seem like it, has become much more powerful in the past few decades. For a major power to wage a war, they at least need some level of public support, whether it be national or international. It is going to take massive amounts of conflicting goals and high tension for anything more than a minor cold war to break out between any of the main players at this point in time.

>>53 China and Russia have already stated they'll defend Syria.

>>54 This is more of a Mexican diplomatic stand off than anything. Everybody is taking part in this weird game of international chicken in a try to assert their countries power and position. Do you seriously think either Russia or China would be stupid enough to actually go up against the US in a war? They would annihilate each other.

>>55 Yes I do. And honestly, it's not something I'd want to test put the lives of American citizens at stake because of.

China and Russian won't do anything

I pray that China and Russia stand with Syria.

>>57 Provide hard evidence.

>>59 The evidence should be common sense.

>>60 which >>57 lacks, theyre just being a cocky bitch, like how everyone n their mother acted when kim jon un first was coming into power

The thing is, both pro and anti Syrian air-strikes have perfectly valid, intelligent points. As Sleep said though, we both also have >>57's.

I THINK THEY SHOULD STOP THE WAR! WHATS USE OF FIGHTING! IN THE END ONE COUNTRY BECOMES HAPPY AND THE OTHER DONT! I DONT LIKE FIGHTS! THEY SHOULD STOP NONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WIN! BOTH OF THEM SHOULD BE A TIE! IM HAVING ENOUGH OF MY COUNTRY SYRIA AND MY FRIENDS COUNTRY UNITED STATES! WE SEE THE ARMY FIGHTING AND IT MAKES ME FEEL SAD! MY FRIEND IS FROM UNITED STATES AND IM FROM SYRIA! WE'VE BEEN SOO AWESOME FRIENDS! I DONT WANNA GO AGAINST HER BUT I DONT WANNA GO FOR UNITED STATES BUT I THINK BOTH OF THEM SHOULD STOP! ITS ANNOYING I DONT LIKE FIGHTS!!!

>>63 go away

Bump

>>63 "Howdoievenpolitickz?"

This is a very strange situation. On one hand, Syria did use chemical weapons, which has been established by the U.N. as illegal. So we should act but on the other hand, the Syrian rebels aren't so friendly themselves, plus Syria is allied with Russia. Honestly, any decision we make, whether to act or not, carries risks. We want to set an example to the world and show other countries why they shouldn't use chemical weapons, but we're also not the world police, and the majority of americans want to stay out of the conflict altogether.

Apparently when American secretary of state was touring he said something along the lines of "If there are no chemical weapons in Syria, we will not provide any military action", and Russia jumped on that opportunity. Now they have got on the line to Syria and are running to prove the lack of chemical weapons there. Soon it looks like they might have an out.

The story was actually quite different to how I originally heard it.

Here is the link to a Guardian article on the subject, incredibly interesting.

if obama dose then im screwed because im in alaska and ya....

onnah, are you persephone?

>>70
Stop samefagging.

----

----

I feel like the U.S. needs to worry about ourselves more then any others. I understand that what happened is terrible, and trust me I'd like to kick some ass myself. Honestly though, we have enough problems here. We DO NOT need to fight other country's battles.

Basically, what >>74 wrote.

>>75 >>74 That's an incredibly simplified world view.

----

sdf

adf

^

After more than a thousand wars and only two world wars; you'd think that everyone would know what happens when a war takes place. Many starve; because most resources go towards soldiers, many are broke and homeless, and many families are torn apart; all from one war. In extreme cases first world countries can easily sink down to a third-world country.
Mostly wars happen because of religion. If there was no such thing as religion, there'd hardly be any wars.
I say stop being so blind and just get along with each other; no need to involve fighting and such - we're only on this earth for so long that it's just a waste of time to involve bombs and guns.

>>81 With regard to ideological wars, I disagree that wars mostly happen because of religion. There have been many, many religious wars in the past, but the religions themselves aren't the root cause. The root cause is more likely to be related to the in-group vs. out-group mentality of those involved in the war.

I don't think that religion is the root cause because there are people in every religion who are moderate. If a religion was made up entirely of people on the extreme ends of the spectrum I could see how that religion could more likely be a root cause of war, because extremists seem to have a stronger in-group bias. Pretty much everything that can be included in a worldview has a full spectrum of how intensely people feel about that particular aspect of their worldview.

If you boil it down, I think that most ideological wars happen because various groups of people have an incredibly strong in-group vs. out-group bias, which distorts their thinking. This can lead to them being much less able to tolerate things or people that/who are different from what they know or understand, or things or people that/who they don't like. This can lead to violent thoughts directed at those things or people, which can lead to violent actions directed at those things or people. It can keep intensifying until you have war.

asdf