Just heard Bo and Jo exclaim the need to strike Syria NOW!

But how come if the killing of innocent babies,women, etc warrants us striking with deadly force, then how come us killing, babies, women, etc, is justified?  

I'm with Bo and Jo.  I don't want to rehash all the reasons we ought to - and I've read all the reasons why not. While the reasons why not are certainly valid, I think the reasons why we should inflict some damage on  Syria's military outweigh the reasons we should not

As for civilian casualties - if that was the only reason that mattered then we'd never use force to protect our citizens or national interests.  I don't believe there is any military in the world that is more concerned - and more capable of limiting - civilian casualties than the USA's.  

For the Syrian military, I offer some a few bits of sensible advice to limit civilian casualties. Don't locate civilians at likely military targets - and don't shot at cruise missles as they fly overhead. If you don't damage the cruise missle, it will hit it's intended target. A military target. If you damage it - it will go boom wherever it lands.

I do hate when I have to assume. So I'lll have to ask.  By George do you mean the younger George Bush and Dickie Richard Nixon?

Keep in mind that George Bush (Sr) was president during the first Deserst Storm war against Iraq and it Eisehower that sent the first American military into Vietnam.  The war in Vietnam drastically escalated, slowly under Kennedy and then drastically under Johnson. "Dickie" if you refer to Nixon is the president that actually got us OUT of Vietnam.

I was opposed to the war in Vietnam for two reasons: I never believed in the "domino theory" and the military objectives were never defined. We weren't fighting a war to win, it was some sort of drawn out "police action"

I supported the first Gulf war, opposed to the second.

The case for intervention is simple and it is by all statements limited. the US president drew a red line, Assad crossed it. The use of WMD is not allowed. Period. Having said there will be consequences - there must be.

Syria's chemical arsenal is of particular concern to us in this conflicty. The US is going to want to make sure they are locked down. Syria has the WORLD's third largest stockpile of chemical weapons. The last thing the USA wants is for members of the smaller, but better organized muslim rebels to get their hands on such.  Which is why someone's suggestion on the boards here that the USA military gave the rebels chemical weapons - which the mishandled and blew up in their faces - is so ludicrous. We are not giving WMD's to anybody - particularly groups that are affliated with muslim extremists.  Nor do we want Syria's military rolling these weapons out of storage for use. And potential capture. If we were arming the rebels we'd be giving them shoulder fired anti aircraft and anti tank weapons.

A barrage of cruise missles, a few air strikes. Assad's nose gets bloodied and he hopefully locks down the chemical weapons and fights the rebels the hard way, block by block, town by town. If you gas entire neighborhoods - the world is watching and will respond.


Last, but not least: It is America's best interest to encourage democracies. Name a war we fought against a democracy.  

I will point out again that a lot of prominent Republicans have been calling on Obama to help the rebels in Syria for over a year.  

Obama is even doing this "right" - asking for Congress to approve. If you don't want them to do so, write your congressman.  I intend to talk to mine.

I do hate when I have to assume. So I'lll have to ask.  By George do you mean the younger George Bush and Dickie Richard Nixon?

No, I am talking about B2 and Chenney, and the same reasons they gave for going after a mad dictator too. But I see you already said you were against it, can you share with me the difference to why you support one and not the other?

There was never any WMD's in Iraq. The case was always weak

Sat what?!  The case was always weak? How can you say that? The US, UN, The Brits,The French and on and on listed their evidence during our slow crawl to to war in Iraq. Did you have evidence back then all these intelligence agencies did not? Did you know something Colin Powell did not?

Iraq's water under the bridge and I'm not suggesting we use 20/20 hindsight and revisit our months long rush to war, but at the very least you can't say weak.

Hopey-changes is tripping over his own red-line because he had zero political experience until he anointed himself king. Say what you want about politicians, but the game they play teaches them that frustrating ability to talk a lot without backing theirselves into a corner.  Hopey opened his dumb mouth with the redline thing and now he's dragged Russia into this.

Ive changed my tune on this lately. originally, i was of the opinion, screw this, someone else's turn to be the neighborhood policeman, but no ones stepping up. i don't think the French will follow through. They are scared of their Muslim population like the Brits are.

Target and kill Assad. Support who rises to take his place as long as they squash the Muslim brotherhood. Or, tell Israel to do it, and we'll support them with cruise missiles if it gets out of hand. One way or another, Assad's gotta go now and we're involved.

I sick of supporting regime change in these Middle Eastern and other Muslim countries, Iraq included.
Back when the dictators were in power in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Egypt and Syria, and nobody messed with the other, things were fine - stable, that it.
Libya learned its lesson from Reagan, and all was quiet until two years ago. Sadam was quiet at 1991 until GWB decided to throw him out.  Iran was quiet until Carter chickened out, wouldn't let Israel kill Khomeini while he was still in Paris and thereby keep the Shah in power, then we sit back and let Egypt go nuts.
Those people can't handle self rule - Muslims want theocracies, not democracies.  I say, protect the strongmen - at least they bring stability to the region and keep the crazies under control.

You have the right to go deal with a neighbor who you believe mistreats his family? Wearent the worlds Daddy. AND. even tho Syria HAs chem weapons, that doesnt mean they used them. Ignore the obvious all you want tho,

This is a democracy, it's in the hands of Congress for now. We might assume they will get better intel than us and make their decision accordingly. I say again a significant number of conservative republicans have wanted action for a long time.

But ray and webster justin - you keep talking about we don't "know" who did the chemical attack. Seriously?  Where did the rebels get chemical weapons? In sufficient quanity to cause over a thousand deaths? And the delivery systems?

So I live next door to you. I raise chickens. I have thousands of chickens - the third largest supply of chickens in the entire world. As far as anyone can tell, you don't own a single chicken. One day you come home and find chicken crap all over your yard.  

The neighbors think you have a few chickens hidden in basement, got them out and they crapped all over your place? REALLY

Your neighbors are non too bright

As for Desert storm 2. We had UN inspectors on the ground. They couldn't find anything in the way of WMD. As I recall, they eventually canned a few people for the "bad intel" provide.