Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#29 - hueyfreeman (09/10/2013) [-]
We're not invading them, we're trying to help them because their president committed a war crime against them, and 'Merica isn't gonna have that 			****		.    
We shall rain liberty and justice for all upon our enemies.

We're not invading them, we're trying to help them because their president committed a war crime against them, and 'Merica isn't gonna have that **** .

We shall rain liberty and justice for all upon our enemies.
User avatar #196 to #29 - dapianoman (09/11/2013) [-]
A well-supported and thought out opinion on the internet? oh, no, we're not gonna have that..
#190 to #29 - anon (09/11/2013) [-]
Assad used chemical weapons
And Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
because, why would your government lie to you?
if they said they go there to save the people of Syria, they must be right, it is not as if Syria was an ally of Iran and we were interested in making them a puppet state
User avatar #171 to #29 - huttero (09/11/2013) [-]
I dont think so, the US only cares about its own interests and if they go to war is because there is something to do in syria that will be profitable for them
User avatar #174 to #171 - swagloon (09/11/2013) [-]
then why is France going along with them?
User avatar #176 to #174 - huttero (09/11/2013) [-]
because they just want a piece of the cake, and they obey US of course
User avatar #179 to #176 - swagloon (09/11/2013) [-]
China too?
User avatar #157 to #29 - urbancohort (09/11/2013) [-]
They got diamonds.
#146 to #29 - anon (09/11/2013) [-]
I'm pretty damn sure that the chemical weapons attack was from Syrian Rebels.

Multiple sources say multiple things, but jesus ******* christ if we don't have beyond shadow of doubt proof about WHO did it. Then no action should be taken at all
#119 to #29 - anon (09/11/2013) [-]
i hope that was sarcasm or else you're incredibly stupid
#118 to #29 - anon (09/11/2013) [-]
except that our invading them wont help them...what country has the us made more peaceful as of yet...?
User avatar #135 to #118 - hueyfreeman (09/11/2013) [-]
We're not ******* invading them. That is literally the first line of my comment.

We're shooting missiles at them from far away. That's different.
#93 to #29 - DrollHumor (09/11/2013) [-]
I don't claim to know anything, about anything, because trying to find an unbiased and knowledgeable source of information is about as possible as finding dehydrated water.

But from what I gather, we're helping Syria because their president used chemical weapons on them and we're not about to turn a blind eye because it could end up being a holocaust of some sort?
User avatar #115 to #93 - rhiaanor ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
its because:

we signed the pact of no biological warfare, the rebels claimed it was used, the governent denies it, there is no proof either way.

If we go to war it will be retarded because:
an american politician rhetorically offered to take syria's chemical weapons and avert a war, russia renewed the offer, seriously this time, and Syria's government agreed since it was respectfully and not sarcastically
#99 to #93 - gerfox (09/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, what we do know is that chemical weapons have been deployed. The international community wishes to remove these, and the US wishes to take up military actions to do so (while for instance Russia wishes to remove them through diplomatic channels). However, we do not know which side used chemical weapons - and therefore you can't simply bomb someone back to the stone age without justification. The US mean they have this justification, while Russia means no proof points to the current regimes involvement in the use of chemical weapons.
#82 to #29 - bigmanblue (09/11/2013) [-]
sending armed forces into anoter country with the purpose of killing people (which it is its just the plan to kill the "bad" people)

thats not an invasion guys

well what the **** is then?
#86 to #82 - gerfox (09/11/2013) [-]
Too bad an invasion was never on the table, then. They wished to perform air strikes to destroy the huge amounts of chemical weapons possessed by Syria. In fact they have the third biggest stockpile of that **** in the world.
#87 to #86 - bigmanblue (09/11/2013) [-]
i wonder who has the 1st
#91 to #87 - gerfox (09/11/2013) [-]
User avatar #73 to #29 - bladebites (09/11/2013) [-]
I actually agree with you. I was surprised that opinion was so rare.
User avatar #96 to #73 - BIGSEXYISBACKAGAIN (09/11/2013) [-]
Same here. I don't get why so many people are against it. No boots on the ground, no ongoing war, just a precise strike to take out the chemical weapons and deter use of them in the future by Assad and others.
#72 to #29 - anon (09/11/2013) [-]




User avatar #64 to #29 - pioneermhm (09/11/2013) [-]
Oh, just like they brought Iraq liberty and freedom. Seems legit
#61 to #29 - anon (09/11/2013) [-]
There Is no "uprising" in Syria. What you are witnessing is a CIA, Saudi and Israeli backed coup. The Western powers are exploiting an age old ethnic tension to effectively destroy Syria as a sovereign state. An estimated 75% of the FSA are foreign militant islamists who believe the Syrian Civil War is the apocalypse, as prophesied by the Qu'ran and Bible.

There is no irrefutable proof that Assad has committed a war crime. In fact, America would be violating every treaty against a war of aggression since 1950 by attacking Syria without a UN mandate.

If the American government were truly interested in pursuing international justice, they would be invading Israel for using ILLEGAL white phosphorus chemical weapons on thousands of Palestinians in 2008.

Protip: Assad offered to destroy all his chemical weapons in 2004, on the condition that Israel do the same. He was of course rejected.
User avatar #218 to #61 - randomlunchbox (09/11/2013) [-]
If I learned anything in history its that The U.S doesn't follow the very laws we make other countries follow. In other words our government does what it wants because it can and for the most part no country is willing to call us on our crap.
#129 to #61 - zackmorris (09/11/2013) [-]
It's a sad day when anon is the voice of reason.
It's a sad day when anon is the voice of reason.
User avatar #54 to #29 - thereverand (09/11/2013) [-]
Cause that worked so well before.
User avatar #49 to #29 - reaperriley ONLINE (09/10/2013) [-]
Yeah... and Russia just agreed that if we attacked Syria they would back the government. Aka, we attack Syria we are at war with Russia. While I believe that its wrong what they Syria did, do we really want to spend that many American lives and money to have a war against Russia?
#95 to #49 - gerfox (09/11/2013) [-]
No. All experts say that Russia won't go to war over something as small as this. There are a lot of reasons why they won't.

One of their biggest concerns regarding a military operation in Syria is the effect it will have on the world economy. What kind of effect will a prolonged war between the US and Syria have? Also, the US would annihilate the Russian military, which is not quite up to date compared to the US. It's simply not in the interest of Russia. They supply the Assad regime with arms, correct, and they support them - but I think they'll restrict that to just diplomatic channels. It's more likely that for instance Iran will interfere, but I think the US are well aware of this risk - and their allies in the region are also prepared.

However, Obama said just now in a speech they will pursue the Russian diplomatic effort, and put the military actions on hold. For now.
User avatar #149 to #95 - reaperriley ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
There are plenty of instances where people, leaders, and nations do stupid things that don't make sense. So just because its not smart to do something doesn't mean it cant happen. But it does decrease the chance of it happening. I just don't want a war.
#46 to #29 - anon (09/10/2013) [-]
well to be fair there is little to no proof of that and there government denies it.
 Friends (0)