And you want to know what will get more civilians killed? The US getting involved, and that is a fact.
I'm honestly sick of us being involved in these things. If they want a war then have your war. When you're done killing each other give us a call
If USA just tell the world: If there is any sarin gas attack or nuclear bomb attack, no matter from which side, USA or UN will send the troops in. I think I am going to vote yes . The problem is : why did USA have to choose a side to root? especially that side is poor, dangerous, uncertain and as barbarian as any dictator........very low IQ move, unless what USA really wanted is the chaos of that country and then the occupation of that country.
As Syria Attack Seems Imminent, Al-Qaeda and the U.S. Eye The Same Enemy USA, Al-Qaeda, Russia ..... now I kind of understand why USA choose to root for Al-Qaeda. It is stupid that cold war crap is still playing a role.
Russia is popped up to me immediately when I saw USA and Al-Qaeda are working together. ... Russia is on Assad's side. USA have to be on Al-Qaeda's side. I think that is the case.
Just because you're enemies with someone doesn't mean you won't use them to your benefit when it's convenient against another enemy.
Politics usually has political connotations. Anyways. I am really hoping the US doesn't get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.
Thanks, George W. Bush. That stupid, unnecessary conflict you led this country into in Iraq is still having spillover. A British PM can't win a vote in Parliament to punish a regime using weapons akin to those unleashed against untold numbers of British and allied soldiers in WWI. Something viewed with horror ever since. If this type of weapon is seen as an acceptable and viable means of waging war, where will it end? Even Hitler and the Japanese Empire stepped back from the widespread use of poison gas by their militaries. If we let this go unpunished, we essentially condone its use, and that would be idiocy personified. Blow the hell out of something Assad values. If he continues down this path, then ramp up the response until he screams. So what are the members of Pariament afraid of? Another Iraq.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Unacceptable: <a href="http://t.co/woN4vSjEpE" title="http://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/373095973527900160/photo/1">pic.twitter.com/woN4vSjEpE</a></p>— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/373095973527900160" data-datetime="2013-08-29T14:53:06+00:00">August 29, 2013</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That's funny because that's the same picture that was showing before the Iraq invasion, the UK in debate and the US Congress nowhere to be found.
They passed the authorization and stopped debate six months before the war started. The UK debated it right up to the war. I watched it live on television myself. Do you want some dates to refresh your memory?
I remember back in the 80's when Reagan sent US troops into the streets of Lebanon to stop the bloody civil war going on there. Within months, a Hezbollah suicide bomber blew up the barracks in Beirut, killing 241 US marines. I don't want to see the same quagmire happen again. It's their backyard, their religious conflict, and we don't know who the good or bad guys are to bomb.
I don't think anyone is advocating putting boots on the ground in Syria, only air strikes. I'm against any strikes. Let the Arab League figure it out, it's their backyard. Handle it.
