Do you support the missile strikes on Syria?

[Pericles]

Absolutely. Assad is a murderous tyrant who gassed his own people-he must be punished. If the US failed to act as Obama did in 2013, it would show the US and international law are toothless and have no bark to their bite. While intervention has risks, continuing the slaughter in Syria and allowing Assad to gas his people unabated would be a far bigger risk. Assad invited the strike through his own actions. This should have been done years ago.

[Dr. Arch]

A good chunk of Americans sure do love violence, especially when it involves lobbing nearly $100,000,000.

No but i do support punishing a regime gassing its civilians with sarin gas and slaughtering its civilians

Why not send in a special task force, which could have accomplished the same for so much less. Seriously. This is why this country's economy is in a dark hole.

If I managed my finances like the US government does, I'd be living on the streets.

[swf541]

A good chunk of Americans sure do love violence, especially when it involves lobbing nearly $100,000,000.

No but i do support punishing a regime gassing its civilians with sarin gas and slaughtering its civilians

Why not send in a special task force, which could have accomplished the same for so much less. Seriously. This is why this country's economy is in a dark hole.

If I managed my finances like the US government does, I'd be living on the streets.

The argument on the cost is nonsensical since the cost is already built into whenever we purchased the missiles.  

A taskforce to do what? go investigate the chemical attacks again?  That would accomplish nothing, quite frankly my only criticism is that this didnt go far enough and we should have grounded the entire SAAF and tried to take out more SAA and Hezbollah commanding officers.

But in the end im a proponent of regime change so...

[Dr. Arch]

A good chunk of Americans sure do love violence, especially when it involves lobbing nearly $100,000,000.

No but i do support punishing a regime gassing its civilians with sarin gas and slaughtering its civilians

Why not send in a special task force, which could have accomplished the same for so much less. Seriously. This is why this country's economy is in a dark hole.

If I managed my finances like the US government does, I'd be living on the streets.

The argument on the cost is nonsensical since the cost is already built into whenever we purchased the missiles.  

A taskforce to do what? go investigate the chemical attacks again?  That would accomplish nothing, quite frankly my only criticism is that this didnt go far enough and we should have grounded the entire SAAF and tried to take out more SAA and Hezbollah commanding officers.

But in the end im a proponent of regime change so...

We will never see eye to eye then. Most of our persistent foreign policy atrocities are exactly because of regime change.

[Adam Griffin]

NO NO NO

[swf541]

A good chunk of Americans sure do love violence, especially when it involves lobbing nearly $100,000,000.

No but i do support punishing a regime gassing its civilians with sarin gas and slaughtering its civilians

Why not send in a special task force, which could have accomplished the same for so much less. Seriously. This is why this country's economy is in a dark hole.

If I managed my finances like the US government does, I'd be living on the streets.

The argument on the cost is nonsensical since the cost is already built into whenever we purchased the missiles.  

A taskforce to do what? go investigate the chemical attacks again?  That would accomplish nothing, quite frankly my only criticism is that this didnt go far enough and we should have grounded the entire SAAF and tried to take out more SAA and Hezbollah commanding officers.

But in the end im a proponent of regime change so...

We will never see eye to eye then. Most of our persistent foreign policy atrocities are exactly because of regime change.

Sick of the iraq and libya interventions/ wars were failures myth.  Quite frankly while both were badly managed and executed the alternative was magnitudes worse and would have lead to exponentially more deaths.

On the same note i would agree America's intervention in Latin America has been largely negative.

[mieastwick]

I posted this well over an hour before in individual politics. This thread should be moved there and combined with mine somehow.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=262003.0

[Pericles]

The Libyan intervention was the best option compared to the alternative, letting Gaddafi massacre civilians. Syria had no US intervention and it is far worse than Libya. The US should have done a Libya-style intervention in Syria four years ago.

[swf541]

The Libyan intervention was the best option compared to the alternative, letting Gaddafi massacre civilians. Syria had no US intervention and it is far worse than Libya. The US should have done a Libya-style intervention in Syria four years ago.

100% agreed. we just should have stayed around a bit longer to get a functional gov in place and it would have turned out alot better.  Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Libyan intervention was the best option compared to the alternative, letting Gaddafi massacre civilians. Syria had no US intervention and it is far worse than Libya. The US should have done a Libya-style intervention in Syria four years ago.

100% agreed. we just should have stayed around a bit longer to get a functional gov in place and it would have turned out alot better.  Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

Yes, ISIS will overrun Syria, and Syria will live happily ever after.

[Potus]

Holy cow, anti-war left, my old friend! Geez, how long has it been? Like eight years?

[swf541]

The Libyan intervention was the best option compared to the alternative, letting Gaddafi massacre civilians. Syria had no US intervention and it is far worse than Libya. The US should have done a Libya-style intervention in Syria four years ago.

100% agreed. we just should have stayed around a bit longer to get a functional gov in place and it would have turned out alot better.  Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

Yes, ISIS will overrun Syria, and Syria will live happily ever after.

Yea Isis the group currently with its capital virtually under siege and running out of troops and in general imploding......

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Libyan intervention was the best option compared to the alternative, letting Gaddafi massacre civilians. Syria had no US intervention and it is far worse than Libya. The US should have done a Libya-style intervention in Syria four years ago.

100% agreed. we just should have stayed around a bit longer to get a functional gov in place and it would have turned out alot better.  Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

Yes, ISIS will overrun Syria, and Syria will live happily ever after.

Yea Isis the group currently with its capital virtually under siege and running out of troops and in general imploding......

The US taking out Assad would be the best thing that happened to it since the US took out Saddam.

[swf541]

The Libyan intervention was the best option compared to the alternative, letting Gaddafi massacre civilians. Syria had no US intervention and it is far worse than Libya. The US should have done a Libya-style intervention in Syria four years ago.

100% agreed. we just should have stayed around a bit longer to get a functional gov in place and it would have turned out alot better.  Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

Yes, ISIS will overrun Syria, and Syria will live happily ever after.

Yea Isis the group currently with its capital virtually under siege and running out of troops and in general imploding......

The US taking out Assad would be the best thing that happened to it since the US took out Saddam.

Which prevented a further genocide against the majority of the pop so yes i agree it would be a great thing for syria

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Libyan intervention was the best option compared to the alternative, letting Gaddafi massacre civilians. Syria had no US intervention and it is far worse than Libya. The US should have done a Libya-style intervention in Syria four years ago.

100% agreed. we just should have stayed around a bit longer to get a functional gov in place and it would have turned out alot better.  Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

Yes, ISIS will overrun Syria, and Syria will live happily ever after.

Yea Isis the group currently with its capital virtually under siege and running out of troops and in general imploding......

The US taking out Assad would be the best thing that happened to it since the US took out Saddam.

Which prevented a further genocide against the majority of the pop so yes i agree it would be a great thing for syria

It wasted $2 trillion, led to many deaths, and gave us ISIS.

[swf541]

The Libyan intervention was the best option compared to the alternative, letting Gaddafi massacre civilians. Syria had no US intervention and it is far worse than Libya. The US should have done a Libya-style intervention in Syria four years ago.

100% agreed. we just should have stayed around a bit longer to get a functional gov in place and it would have turned out alot better.  Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

Yes, ISIS will overrun Syria, and Syria will live happily ever after.

Yea Isis the group currently with its capital virtually under siege and running out of troops and in general imploding......

The US taking out Assad would be the best thing that happened to it since the US took out Saddam.

Which prevented a further genocide against the majority of the pop so yes i agree it would be a great thing for syria

It wasted $2 trillion, led to many deaths, and gave us ISIS.

Isis existed beforehand under a diferent names

Money sure

Hussein would have lead to many more deaths and the continuation of several genocides besides the fact he technically did have WMD's just not nuclear ones

[Xing]

Unless they actually prove effect in making Assad change his tactics, no.

[Edu]

Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

And be replaced with, what exactly?

[Dr. Arch]

Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

And be replaced with, what exactly?

ISIS? Likely, given how much regime change hurts us every time.

[Virginiá]

And be replaced with, what exactly?

A mercenary army composed entirely of well-trained, battle-hardened tactical chimpanzees.

[Helsinkian]

Provided that it is confirmed that the gas attack was done by Assad, and provided that this was a one-off strike (unless Assad uses chemical attacks again), then yes.

[swf541]

Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

And be replaced with, what exactly?

Ideally turkish backed or jordanian backed rebels in some areas, the sdf in othrs and then an Alawite state in Latakia, i generally support balkanizing the country.

[Sumner 1868]

Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

And be replaced with, what exactly?

Ideally turkish backed or jordanian backed rebels in some areas, the sdf in othrs and then an Alawite state in Latakia, i generally support balkanizing the country.

Generally balkanization of already troubled areas means more and bloodier wars. Or is that the point?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yes.