Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Are we really "going to war" with them, or are we just going to pulverize them with a bunch of remote control airplanes?
I think there are issues with the food in this country and there is a legitimate debate on that subject. It is is when you try to compare it chemical warfare that I see a disconnect. Also, I don't think there are that many Americans up in arms over the chemical weapons in Syria.
One could make an argument that the higher oil prices go, the more profit incentive there is for businesses to invest in alternative energy R&D.
It isn't going to be drone strikes. This isn't picking off a couple guys in a 4x4 in the desert. Would we pulverize Syria? Yes. Does Syria have support from Iran and Russia? Yes. Would one or both them do something crazy like attack Israel? Maybe? If that happens, you could end up with something pretty nasty. Best case scenario, Russia and Iran say "f Syria", make a backdoor deal with Saudi Arabia and the West and let Syria crumble....worst case scenario World War 3. It will likely be much closer to the former than the latter, but this is not a situation to lightly dismiss.
There are three Syria threads on the first two pages with a combined 7700 views. Also, how are views counted? If I refresh and click into the thread ten times, is that ten separate views?
Not really... to me, this indicates what a huge gap there is between the public's perception of the President's responsibilities, and what his actual responsibilities - and limitations - are once he assumes office. Things aren't as simple as most people would like to believe... just read this thread, where we go from hitting Syria to having complications with Iran and Russia to the President losing face and power worldwide because he cannot back up the perception of what he said a year ago. And if shutting down Gitmo were as easy as that, I have no doubt the 0 would have done it... I just don't think, as a candidate, he fully realized the domino effect involved in doing that... and neither did the voters.
In foreign relations.... I don't think there is a difference. The difference is in domestic policy.
No, but it's one of the more complex international situations the US has been involved in for quite some time IMO. Certainly more so than Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, or Somalia. The chances of this being a major international war are very slim. That said, the Serbs weren't much of a world cosideration when they killed Ferdinand. Nobody expected that to be anything more than a quick, unimportant military action between Serbs and Austria-Hungary. Different times, I know. Still, the Middle East is a extremely volatile and I think it is naive to always just assume every military action will be easy and that Russia/Iran will back down every time.
Wait, if we are on the same side as the terrorists then doesn't that make us terrorists by association? And if we are terrorists shouldn't we be fighting ourselves?
no, but cheetos will turn your #### orangejohnnycakes said:
Starting a war on a holiday weekend and finishing it before everyone gets back from vacation down?
You do both at the same time, but because this is the American version you get 72 Miley Cyruses.
[SIZE=10.5pt]what is your definition of making a difference? The goal of launching a bunch of cruise missiles over 2-3 days is not regime change.[/SIZE]
Yes. Because we know the bad guys will make sure to move innocent civilians out of harms way once they hear this.
Russia evacuated their citizens from Syria. I imagine Syrian civilians will do their best to avoid areas of military targets the best they can over the next few days.
To show all of our johnnycakeses how determined we are to be taken seriously.
I just don't understand why we are going to fire cruise missiles at Syria. What goal are we trying to accomplish? How will this help us, or help the world? I don't see it.
It worked in Bosnia and Libya, didn't it?
I just don't understand why we are going to fire cruise missiles at Syria. What goal are we trying to accomplish? How will this help us, or help the world? I don't see it.
Not three days of it.It worked in Bosnia and Libya, didn't it?
I just don't understand why we are going to fire cruise missiles at Syria. What goal are we trying to accomplish? How will this help us, or help the world? I don't see it.
Funny side story: When I was in Libya a few years back, one of the guys told me in private, "We hate Qaddafi. Please tell your government that we do not like having him in charge." Something to that extent. At the time, I thought, "Does this guy think I'm that powerful that I can persuade the U.S. government to make regime changes happen in other countries?" Fast forward a few years and boom goes the dynamite on Libya.
Worse than any of the other offenses to humanity he listed.Cliff Clavin said:
[SIZE=10.5pt]We could vaccinate a whole lot of third world children for the price. [/SIZE]
