Originally posted by truejedi
I'm kinda of the opinion we don't have the money to do anything here. Any money we spend on that, could be better spent on our homeless and hungry here at home.
That would be a extreme waste of money.
Is everyone in favor of action here,on this, also a supporter of action in Iraq back when we got ready to finish off Saddam?
I don't see why we should send our young men to fight some random war were NETHER side benifits us. Assad is a complete evil **** but their are TONS of rulers worse then him. Look at Iraq it ended badly, if we go to Syria it will end the same way.
I think there is a case to be made for a surgical demolition of the capacity to wage chemical warfare, but that it is the UN's job. Not ours. Launching a plane costs an exorbitant amount of money and if we are the only nation with the capability to accomplish this strike then we should be commissioned by the UN.
We are a mercenary military, maybe our brass should start acting like it.
(This is only mostly tongue in cheek.)
Originally posted by truejedi
Is everyone in favor of action here,on this, also a supporter of action in Iraq back when we got ready to finish off Saddam?
I don't think that analogy works here. Firstly, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911, and, contrary to Bush's masturbatory fantasies concocted in his deepest Dick wankings, had no WMDs. Secondly, so far we have no plans, to my knowledge, to actually send in ground troops.