View more polls
September 5, 2013 - 4:01pmPermalink
I find the distinction of chemical weapons to be dubious. Gunpowder is a chemical weapon capable of mass destruction - especially in large quantities (think bunker busters). So is C-4, in even smaller quantities. And let's not forget about Napalm; it can clear the forest and anything in it. Every country would use these, and they can have collateral damage including children. Hmmm?
A ban on Biological weapons does make sense, because it is easy to see how they could easily get out of control and rage like a wildfire in a unintended population. Nuclear weapons have widespread and long lasting effects - again two negatives beyond the immediate devastation.
But back to chemical weapons; is dead by bullet to the chest preferable to dead by gas? I don't know, but I would probably prefer sarin gas to napalm. Burning alive with the flammable material stuck to your skin isn't preferable to anything I can think of.
I don't like war; it is about killing people, plain and simple. But if war is to be fought, the nit picking about what is used (except for biological and nuclear) seems a bit absurd. I would be more inclined to "punish" a country for cavalierly allowing collateral damage to women and children rather than what they use to kill enemy combatants.
That's just my two cents,
September 5, 2013 - 4:55pmPermalink
Foreign Leaders at the United Nations are saying that both Obama and Kerry are lying about the evidence.
So if Kerry and Obama have all of the evidence they say they have...why don't they present this evidence to the United Nations and the Free World?
September 5, 2013 - 7:21pmPermalink
The correct answer is missing. If sarin gas was indeed used, a much more likely scenario would be that it was Al-Qaida who used it. These are the same terrorists who Obama, Kerry, and others such as McCain are so eager to support to overthrow Assad. Even IF it was Assad, why in the world would we want to support Al-Qaida? The same question could be asked about Libya and why we supported Al-Qaida there. For the most part, there are no "good guys" in the Middle East. Interference by the United States isn't going to solve anything and most likely will just makes things worse. When a cobra and a rattlesnake do battle over a rat, American interference on either side will not save the rat and will likely just get us bit, too.
September 5, 2013 - 8:05pmPermalink
Well, I have been saying since the beginning of the Iraq war that we gave them 4 months to hide the chemical weapons by sending then to Syria. Heck, give me 4 months warning to hide something (WMD's or whatever) and I guarantee you won't find it. Anyways, back to the point. The USA has absolutely NO compelling national interest in messing around in Syria. It is a lose-lose scenario. Let them beat the crap out of themselves and watch from here.
September 5, 2013 - 8:52pmPermalink
In the United States, 1,200,000 babies are killed in the womb each year!!!! How hypocritical of us to threaten the Syrian Govt. for killing 400 children
September 5, 2013 - 9:45pmPermalink
Syria, along with the many other mid-east muslim nations seem to persist in their desire to return to shaira law and the 14th century. We should not bomb or attack Syria or any other country. Let the muslims kill each other as they have for thousands of years. Let Allah sort them out!
September 5, 2013 - 11:52pmPermalink
So who do we aid. No matter who wins they will take the weapons we gave them and try to kill us, just like the Afgans did. I say let them kill each other and be done with it!
September 6, 2013 - 10:20amPermalink
The bottom line for all this sarin gas issue is that the following; WMD, Chemical, and Biological weapons of mass destruction SHALL NOT be used in any manner on this planet, Except for the possible destruction of Aliens if they decide to attack us. The aftermath and lasting damage that can be and will be done by using WMD, Chemical weapons, and Biological weapons is something that needs to be brought to the forefront and the UN needs to push this insted of deciding who is going to war on who. NO one wins a war. Come on people, we are supposed to be intelligent, just imagine, IF YOU CAN, what we might of had or where we could be today if everyone would work together for the betterment of man kind. As it stands now and in the past or in the future the middle east has been waring for thousands of years and the US is NOT going to change that ever. Did someone somewhere appoint the US as the world policing entity and make us the go to country for every little squabble that comes up? If so I missed that one. No matter what we as the United States do it is not going to prevent any warring issues that are done in the middle east. Let them, inhabitants of the middle east, take care of their own issues, we as the United States have many issues here at home that need resolve instead of worrying about the middle east. We have 13 million children that go to bed hungry every night, The government allowed all our manufacturing and technology to be sent overseas, causing extreme issues here by increasing unemployment to a unacceptable level, losing the middle class, Losing the American dream, causing thousands to become homeless, We have the government trying to cut social security, there are a multitude of necessary needed fixes right here at home, FIX THESE NOW instead of giving aid to Egypt and other countries. All the aid money going overseas can fix a multitude of issues right here at home. STOP sending aid to other foreign countries and it could help the national budget, dont you think? Or is that too difficult and complicated for the supposed intelligence of the 535???? what happened to just plain old common sense? the 535 sure does not have a clue....
December 28, 2013 - 3:56pmPermalink
You left out us disabled veterans. I agree that we need to concentrate on our own problems. F_ck those elsewhere. Let them handle their own ...!
September 6, 2013 - 5:05pmPermalink
I think we should do a full military build-up in the Middle East. Poise our missiles, and then attack every possible nuclear development location in IRAN. Destroy their nuclear capabilities for decades. Syria has always been a proxy exporting terrorism for Iran. Iran is the real problem, the central main problem in the whole Middle East.
Both sides fighting in Syria are undesirable for the USA, therefore there is no good choice to support.
Our radicalized Muslim concerns should be Iran in the Middle East and the "Muslim Brotherhood" wherever it exists.
September 7, 2013 - 6:35pmPermalink
This is a UN problem not a US problem If the UN does nothing then why are they there .We should not go at this alone.
September 8, 2013 - 1:34pmPermalink
Everyone should stay out of Syria. You only need to look at each Arab country that has overthrown A DICTATOR TO FIND THAT Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS who are only 15 to 20 percent of the various countries population have usurped the popular uprisings to rain a worse terror down on the people. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia,etc. are now in the middle of a 2nd uprising and more deaths. Let them be.
More information about text formats