Created by Chickenmen
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Should the USA launch a missile strike on Syria?
1179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/31/13 , edited 8/31/13
See the other topic, "Attack on Syria Announcement by President Obama" for the details. I'm especially interested in the opinions of non-USA Crunchyroll users.

</forumtopic-819315/attack-on-syria-announcement-by-president-obama#44244513>

Just to provide some info, President Obama announced that he would put the decision to a vote by Congress. The missile strike is described as "little" and wouldn't include an actual boots-on-the-ground invasion by American troops.
24397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / usa
Offline
Posted 8/31/13 , edited 8/31/13
Iam American and I think there should be a swift response to show dictators that chemical weapons wont be tolerated and there will be consequences for using them the one problem I have is why the united nations agrees chemical weapons shouldn't be used but everyone expects the usa to police the world wheres the united nations backing the usa..... I don't support solders on the ground but I support tomahawk strikes,a no flyzone and bombing key strong holds to make a statement
6607 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/31/13 , edited 10/13/14
Let them blow each other up until there's nothing left. I could care less about Syria.
17068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Everywhere and no...
Offline
Posted 8/31/13 , edited 8/31/13
What should be happening is missile strikes against the terrori....rebels before they destroy the country anymore then they already have. Because if they topple the Syrian government they will slaughter everyone who is not a fanatic, like they already have in the regions they control. The rebels already have gotten a hold of and used chemical weapons if they win those weapons will be turned against their next target.
25269 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Suffolk, VA Unite...
Offline
Posted 8/31/13
Everyone knows America's real goal is to take more oil from the middle east
17873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 8/31/13

Reaveres wrote:

Everyone knows America's real goal is to take more oil from the middle east


that would be true if it weren't for two things

One there is no oil in syria
and it's not just use france is attacking too
25269 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Suffolk, VA Unite...
Offline
Posted 8/31/13

uncletim wrote:


Reaveres wrote:

Everyone knows America's real goal is to take more oil from the middle east


that would be true if it weren't for two things

One there is no oil in syria
and it's not just use france is attacking too


Yeah I was just saying since America seems to be getting rather aggressive with things
16095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 8/31/13 , edited 8/31/13
Missile strikes sometimes hit innocent people, so Maybe they should invade instead but I heard they don't want to bring a regime change. They just want to teach Syria a lesson, even if the U.S. gets critized like the Iraq bombings...

Maybe we should call the experts...

17873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 8/31/13
I sure don't remember people marching in the streets when syria was lobing shells at israeli school childern so pardon moi if I don't fucking shead a tear that they get a few missles tossed at them
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Australia
Offline
Posted 8/31/13 , edited 8/31/13
No. While I am beginning to think some sort of outside intervention may be necessary in Syria, seeing as things continue to worsen there and in a globalised world it's difficult for a country to deal with its issues by itself when the world is watching, I don't think a US military intervention is the way to go... While such action may re-unite the Syrian nation by the US becoming a common enemy, I doubt it will end the conflict. It just might flare up to an international extent.

In saying that, however, I don't know if other solutions are possible either...
29109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/31/13 , edited 8/31/13
As a military personnel of United States, NO. So many U.S. citizens are so blind to what is really going on. They don't realize that attack on Syria could get us into World War III. The big boys (Russia, Iran, China, U.S., U.K., Israel) are playing their cards. Do you really believe everything that the Main Stream Media or our government tells us? If you do, you need to learn U.S. history better. You want to support the troops? Get us the hell out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places. Those 'wars' we fought in were illegal to begin with. Obama is no friend of U.S. citizens.
17873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 8/31/13

beefymint wrote:

As a military personnel of United States, NO. So many U.S. citizens are so blind to what is really going on. They don't realize that attack on Syria could get us into World War III. The big boys (Russia, Iran, China, U.S., U.K., Israel) are playing their cards. Do you really believe everything that the Main Stream Media or our government tells us? If you do, you need to learn U.S. history better. You want to support the troops? Get us the hell out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places. Those 'wars' we fought in were illegal to begin with. Obama is no friend of U.S. citizens.


you forgot France they are kind of a world player

45098 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/1/13
I don't think they should.

Several reasons:

- We don't really want a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan. If missile strikes come, it could quickly unintentionally escalate elsewhere, such as Russia attacking a US-friendly country, which would then force the US to respond to that. Before you know it, WW3 hits. This is admittedly remote, but with the way much of the world is viewing the US as a warmonger right now, I wouldn't rule it out.

- We don't need more debt. Wars are expensive, both in terms of money and manpower, and the last thing many people want now is to owe even more money. Congress can't even agree on what to spend its money on, so why authorize another war? Why not spend that money towards American citizens instead of throwing it away on another country that's not going to appreciate our help anyway? I don't want to send more US men and women into harms way for a cause that's not entirely clear. It's not like we're fighting Nazi Germany here.

- Both sides of the conflict kind of suck. On one hand, you have the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad. who's a pretty brutal dictator. But on the other hand, you have some rebel groups with known affiliation to terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, the same group the US was fighting in Iraq, and are currently dealing with in Afghanistan. Why are we helping them in one area, and fighting them in another? Also, if Assad is really unpopular in his own country, don't you think his people would've risen up against him by now? But he's still in power, and the rebels haven't made much gains in the past 2 years either.

- On a related note to the previous reason, suppose the rebels win, and Assad is overthrown. What next? They may hold elections, but if Libya and Egypt are anything to go by, an even worse government could come into power, and one that's friendly to Al-Qaeda. They'll suppress even more rights than Assad did, and probably brutally murder or kick out anyone who doesn't subscribe to their twisted ideology. I'm sure nobody besides the terrorists want to happen.

- If we truly were going to intervene based solely on humanitarian reasons, then we should have done it about a year ago, before 100,000 people died from conventional warfare. Better yet, why not have the UN ask a multi-national group of military members to go in there and restore peace? Send soldiers from the countries representing the UN Security Council, as well as other nations, and have them force the two to stop fighting. Oh yeah, except no one really wants to send their troops in there, even if for a peacekeeping mission, which may not stop the fighting entirely anyway.

- Regarding the chemical weapons, how do we know Assad released it? Maybe the rebels got a hold of it, and some of them decided to put up a false flag operation. Meaning they release the chemicals on their own people (or rather foreign nationals doing it to Syrians, who they probably have no affiliation to anyway), just so they can cry foul and blame Assad. Since the terrorists have shown they are willing to kill innocent people to further their agenda elsewhere (i.e. suicide bombers), it wouldn't surprise me if they did this in an attempt to get the West to knock Assad out for them.
55915 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 9/1/13
No, use calculated drone strikes instead.
Posted 9/2/13
USA should become like Switzerland and mind their own business instead! just leave all that people there with their own problems, they don't appreciate help either way and USA is not in position to play the universal hero.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.