What Say You? Should The US Strike Syria?

[oldguy]

What will (should) you be telling your congressperson how they should vote.

Go Blazers

 

[MarAzul]

What will (should) you be telling your congressperson how they should vote.

Go Blazers

Holy crap! Not now. The schedule is way too long! I have never seen a war scheduled to start after congress comes back off vacation. Dang, it would be a bitch serving on those Destroyers trolling about off Syria. Assad has plenty of time now to buy some ship killer missiles, install them and test them on the US fleet at his leisure. About 50 fire at the 5 destroyers would most likely overwhelm their defensive systems.
This is shear tactical brilliance on the part of a unique Commander in Chief, send the troops in to harms way and let them sit there until enemy come up with a way to kill them. No congressional approval required then!

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

A strike is warranted.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Holy crap! Not now. The schedule is way too long! I have never seen a war scheduled to start after congress comes back off vacation. Dang, it would be a bitch serving on those Destroyers trolling about off Syria. Assad has plenty of time now to buy some ship killer missiles, install them and test them on the US fleet at his leisure. About 50 fire at the 5 destroyers would most likely overwhelm their defensive systems.
This is shear tactical brilliance on the part of a unique Commander in Chief, send the troops in to harms way and let them sit there until enemy come up with a way to kill them. No congressional approval required then!

The Aegis ships could go to "semi-automatic" mode and deal with a lot more than 50. It's just a matter of how many rounds you have left in the CIWS. And I'm going to go on a limb and say that if a ship's been sent into a potential combat zone, ammo is the one thing they're probably pretty ok on.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Holy crap! Not now. The schedule is way too long! I have never seen a war scheduled to start after congress comes back off vacation. Dang, it would be a bitch serving on those Destroyers trolling about off Syria. Assad has plenty of time now to buy some ship killer missiles, install them and test them on the US fleet at his leisure. About 50 fire at the 5 destroyers would most likely overwhelm their defensive systems.
This is shear tactical brilliance on the part of a unique Commander in Chief, send the troops in to harms way and let them sit there until enemy come up with a way to kill them. No congressional approval required then!

If it were that easy we wouldn't have a Navy.

The individual or country that sold those missiles and Assad would very quickly be very very very dead.

 

[Further]

The Aegis ships could go to "semi-automatic" mode and deal with a lot more than 50. It's just a matter of how many rounds you have left in the CIWS. And I'm going to go on a limb and say that if a ship's been sent into a potential combat zone, ammo is the one thing they're probably pretty ok on.

I voted 'not sure' but would like to hear your take. Personally, I think it's warranted, but I just don't want to get involved. I'm really torn.

 

[Haakzilla]

...still no PROOF! Anyone voting to attack is just plain ignorant, period.

 

[ABM]

A strike is warranted.

I'm sure Zags would agree.

 

[BigGameDamian]

I'm sure Zags would agree.

What everyone needs to understand is it could only take one strike to start World War III.

 

[RoyToy]

Stay out

It's been encouraging reading that Obama will go to Congress instead of just foolishly striking Syria with no vote and basically no support, which is what looked like was going to happen. Give him a lot of credit for staying cool.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Nuke mecca.

hoop fam

 

[jlprk]

The vote is 4-7-2, when 9% of Americans want to go to war. Four-elevenths is 36%. What a right-wing board.

Time for national polls to discover a "sudden change" in American opinion and start war fever.

 

[MarAzul]

If it were that easy we wouldn't have a Navy.

The individual or country that sold those missiles and Assad would very quickly be very very very dead.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'm sure Zags would agree.

I saw what you did there.

 

[Haakzilla]

 

[oldguy]

repped.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

The vote is 4-7-2, when 9% of Americans want to go to war. Four-elevenths is 36%. What a right-wing board.

Time for national polls to discover a "sudden change" in American opinion and start war fever.

4-12-2

 

[MarAzul]

These do good Progressive "Leaders" tugging on heart strings are sickening!

All pumped an righteous to send American men and women to war over gasing a few kids in Syria.

But every damn one of them will support butchering more babies everyday in every City in this country.

Based on Principles? No that is political correctness run amok Appearances matter not Principles.

Following Principles would have the US President and Congress adhering to the Constitution of this nation in which you would find no authority or guidance to Police the World nor mandated butchering children in this country. NATO or the UN or perhaps some other International Collision of States might police a the World or a part of it in which the US might participate. While at the same time the States of our nation might be left with the responsibility to look out for our children as you might deduce would be proper under the authority of the 10th amendment.

 

[MickZagger]

These do good Progressive "Leaders" tugging on heart strings are sickening!

All pumped an righteous to send American men and women to war over gasing a few kids in Syria.

But every damn one of them will support butchering more babies everyday in every City in this country.

Based on Principles? No that is political correctness run amok Appearances matter not Principles.

Following Principles would have the US President and Congress adhering to the Constitution of this nation in which you would find no authority or guidance to Police the World nor mandated butchering children in this country. NATO or the UN or perhaps some other International Collision of States might police a the World or a part of it in which the US might participate. While at the same time the States of our nation might be left with the responsibility to look out for our children as you might deduce would be proper under the authority of the 10th amendment.

Shut your trapper, NOW!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MarAzul]

Shut your trapper, NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Nice to see you read it.

 

[Further]

Nice to see you read it.

Lots of people read your (I'll be kind) poetic musings, but few come away understanding more than a phrase or two.

 

[MarAzul]

Lots of people read your (I'll be kind) poetic musings, but few come away understanding more than a phrase or two.

Nice to see you try.

 

[oldguy]

There is a high likelyhood that we will be drawn into a lenghty war if we strike Syria.

There are no good guys in this war. If we are drawn in, we will end up arming terrorists.

Our economy is in the shitter. We can't afford another war.

I'd ask a hypothetical question of the folks that think we should get involved:

If Russia or China were to use WMDs to put down an uprising/revolution, would you support sending them a message with missile strikes?

Go Blazers

 

[DaLincolnJones]

There is a high likelyhood that we will be drawn into a lenghty war if we strike Syria.

There are no good guys in this war. If we are drawn in, we will end up arming terrorists.

Our economy is in the shitter. We can't afford another war.

I'd ask a hypothetical question of the folks that think we should get involved:

If Russia or China were to use WMDs to put down an uprising/revolution, would you support sending them a message with missile strikes?

Go Blazers

repped

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If Russia or China were to use WMDs to put down an uprising/revolution, would you support sending them a message with missile strikes?

Go Blazers

Sanctions would be a very effective weapon against those countries.

 

[oldguy]

Sanctions would be a very effective weapon against those countries.

That wasn't exactly the question. Sanctions might work on those two countries but, what, we would stand by while they might use gas dozens of times to put down the insurrection before sanctions had any effect?

If the goal is to send a message that using WMDs on civilians is absolutely unacceptable, why would we treat them differently?

Go Blazers

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That wasn't exactly the question. Sanctions might work on those two countries but, what, we would stand by while they might use gas dozens of times to put down the insurrection before sanctions had any effect?

If the goal is to send a message that using WMDs on civilians is absolutely unacceptable, why would we treat them differently?

Go Blazers

So your argument is if we can't stop Russia or China from doing it we shouldn't stop Syria?

The honest answer to your question would be to use sanctions if either of those two countries were do start gassing their own people. If we were to attack either country it could very quickly lead to a nuclear war so we would not attack them.

 

[MarAzul]

Sanctions would be a very effective weapon against those countries.

Ha! Do you think the President would ask congress to debate the question oldguy ask?

If he did, my guess is congress would debate an entirely different question.

 

[MarAzul]

Actually I thought Sly ask the question about supporting a strike against Russia or China instead of
oldguy.

 

[oldguy]

So your argument is if we can't stop Russia or China from doing it we shouldn't stop Syria?

The honest answer to your question would be to use sanctions if either of those two countries were do start gassing their own people. If we were to attack either country it could very quickly lead to a nuclear war so we would not attack them.

Is your argument that that it is only a military-strike-worthy atrocity if a weaker country does it?

If we strike Syria, it could lead to a nuclear war, too.

Go Blazers