UN inspectors in new Syria mission as West prepares to strike

As much as I agree that Chemical and Nuclear weapons should never be used, I still can't understand why we get involved in other Nation's messes? It is quite obvious that other nations do not want us meddling in their affairs. Not to mention that we could save a lot of money that could be put to good use here at home. I can't help but feel that if everyone got to ride a wave at least once, they would have a better view of the world. I know it changed my view.

 

2007: Joe Biden threatened to impeach George Bush if he attacked Iran without congressional approval. Obama agreed.

2013: Joe Biden and Barrack Obama are ready to attack Syria without congressional approval or UN approval.

Let the UN conduct their investigation so we can get "official" word on who actually used the chemical weapons. For all we know, it could be the FSA or even Al Qaeda. Once we get "official" word, then we can start planning our retaliation with our "allies" and the UN. This will lessen the backlash from any of Syria's homies like China, N. Korea and Russia (future threat alliance?) I mean, China can't get that pissed off if the UN is involved; unless they want to start a fight.

The United States should not be involved anyway, since we can't really afford a war to begin with! Plus, if we fight against the Assad regime, we'll be fighting alongside Al Qaeda militants. That doesn't seem right, does it? What happens when we take out the Assad regime? Do we spend billions of tax payer money to establish democracy and institute our Western principles? Or do you let Al Qaeda run the new Syria? I'll let you decide.

It's certianly an unfortunate situation, but things like this happen almost every single day in other parts of the world. This situation gets the press because chemical warfare was involved. I get it and it's messed up. The Assad family has it coming. I just hope the FSA beats us to the chase....

Right now, there are twelve people that are calling the shots against Syria. You voted for them and I hope you voted wisely. They decide our fate.

 

you do realize WE are the UN? So they will find whatever WE want them to.

 

it may be out of the us hands due to un treaties and contracts (I could be wrong)...there may be no choice. we have to consider our allies in the region (Israel) and trickle affects on world economics and responses with Russia and rest of the world superpowers too by our decisions. I would prefer to stay out of this one as awful as the domestic chemical attacks are.

 

Gee, really?

You do realize that there are 193 total member states in the UN, right? In other words, the US makes up 1/193 of the UN, so it's not the "United States show" - it's the WORLD show and the UN is all about world peace. Anytime an infraction - like chemical warfare - occurs, the UN launches an investigation, rather than pulling the trigger prematurely based on an assumption. The consequences of the latter should not require any explanation. It's best to play it safe and wait for the UN to make the call.

"When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me." -Mark Twain

 

I have to go with the Assad regime being responsible for the chemical weapons, however stupid that might seem. The shelling of the site that they did immediately after agreeing to allow UN inspectors to visit the sight is just too clear of a sign that they're guilty of something. The bigger question is why? Are they just a bunch of sociopaths that want to eliminate all who stand in their path, regardless of the consequences? Or do they realize that they are drawing the West into the war by using chemical weapons?

My opinion is that the latter option is more likely. And if that's the case then, again, why? I think there are forces at work trying to further destabilize the region. Because you have to figure that the US/UN response will be similar to its response in every recent conflict. BOMBS. Lot's of BOMBS.

Obviously, it's not the most effective response but peaceful negotiations are looking less and less likely (especially since Obama decided to skip his visit with Putin a few weeks ago). And there's no way in heck the American public would approve of soldiers on the ground. "Strategic" strikes will be the only way to go. The Onion actually had a funny article about the topic yesterday.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-weighing-his-syria-option,33641/

So that's my opinion. US/UN intervention, if it takes the form of strategic strikes, will further escalate the war. That makes a lot of money for US and Russian weapons manufacturers. So everyone wins (except Syria).

 

Who are we going to attack? we gonna shock and awe their arses? We'll teach them a lesson by killing a ship load of civilians.

We have more chemical and biological weapon than we could ever use. How can we get all high and mighty about arabs killing arabs with banned weapons, we should find a way to cover up the fact we used DU arms. Not only effecting the civilian population but our soldiers. Our guys would find undamaged bullets and make necklaces.

 

Send in Seal Team 6 to put a bullet in Assad's farking head! Hell I'll do it for $20 and some good waves.

 

It sounds like a no win situation to me...
The reasoning for striking seems to be to lay down the law, that we won't be accepting chemical warfare from anyone (unless of course its our hypocritical selves). But, from what I a have read, striking is just going to bring on a whole lot of mess.

 

all this is assume assad did it and not AQ. oh, DU ROCKS! Nothing penetrates armor like DU.

 

Do you ever get the feeling that nobody, from the President on down, knows what their doing? It's scary to know that these clowns are deciding our fate. But we got what we voted for.
I was in the Navy. But I have doubts about my sons going into the military, ending up in places like Syria and Egypt, and having their lives thrown away while under the command of self-serving fools. We should not be the world's police dept. So many of these countries hate us no matter what we do, how many of our servicemen/women are killed or maimed, or how much money we continue to give them.

 

ask yourself: "who benefits from this conflict?" "who has something to gain out of it?"

answer: the military industrial complex

so who used chemical weapons? the US backed Syrian rebels.

are people going to fall for the lies anymore? this is clearly a false flag event to create the excuse to invade Syria. just like many other false flags that have led to bloody wars that kill and maim innocent soldiers and civilians, while big companies like Lockheed Martin and Halliburton get filthy rich off the conflict.

Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie that led to 10 years in Vietnam.

False claims of WMDs in Iraq that led to another decade of war.

this is just another. Assad using WMDs during a UN inspection defies logic. Does the NWO think people are really that dumb?

its all lies lies lies.

listen to Kerry's speech. he waves the bloody shirt of children killed in Syria to play on peoples emotions so that they will support the war. he condemns anyone who might think that Assad is not to blame. he says the use of chemical weapons is intolerable. (umm, Agent Orange in Vietnam? Depleted Uranium in Iraq?) then he goes on to say it doesn't matter who used the chemical weapons, we have to invade.

Doesn't matter!? WTF? is this lala land?

clearly the people who stand to gain and who are pushing for this conflict don't give a F*CK about anyone. not the Syrians not the US citizens. no one!

POWER CORRUPTS, AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLY.

 

Now this will sound unintelligent, but I'm for the complete and total destruction of the middle east. I'm tired of these yahoos.

Nobody in Syria is our "allies." It would just be another version of us creating, backing and supporting future adversaries. We backed the Osama types against the Soviets and backed Saddam against Iran.

These terrorists types are completely delusional. America, Britian........we ain't holding them down. Blowing up some buildings isn't going to topple The Great Satan. This whole middle east area is full of destitute morons who need something in their life and they choose jihad. It makes them feel a part of something and gives them a purpose in life.

Yeah, Ali Al Wahalli, if you blow yourself up in a terrorist attack you'll go to heaven with the virgins......yeah dude, there ya go. America isn't preventing them from practicing their religion. Heck, we give many of those countries friggin billions in "aid." Man, I don't get no aid and I'm disaffected and disenfranchised too.

Yeah, you can say bad things aboot the west but we're just snaky in the name of money. We don't stone chicks to death for wearing jeans or kill our sister because she had premarital intercourse with Wombat.

Sha'ria law does not create an econically viable nation. It creates a theocracy full of brainwashed militants who inflict a brand of hypocrisy and corruption that leaves western leaders green with envy.

Man, if we would just cease dependance on oil. We could bring the whole region to their knees and subsequently bow as they pray to Allah.

 

Dos XX, aboot, "We got what we voted for..." Do you think rich, daddy's boy, draft-dodging Mitt Romney would have been a better solution?

 

Even better, the inner-city blacks who find Islam while in prison. Or the white kids with Muslim beards. Saw one on the Sea Isle boardwalk yesterday.

 

Ohh man, Mr. Chavez.......

Dude I was surrounded by these dudes in "The Projects" in B Dorm in the ACJF.........before I moved to "Section 8" and then eventually "Trailer Park."

They'd do their praying, making sure to be extra loud so the whole world could hear, and then they return to talking about vagina, crack and who they have shot and who they were going to shoot.....LOL

Ahhh man they are the worse.......

 

I dunno. Maybe under Romney, more effective corrective action might have been initiated on the economy. But yeah, despite what you and others say, I'd would rather have had Romney in the Oval Office than Obama. But they're all politicians - Republicans and Democrats - which to me makes them all suspect. Each party has it's own agenda which does not seem to include the welfare of this country and its people. Republicans, when their man isn't in power, come across as as a bunch of hateful, uncompromising sore losers. Democrats profess to be champions of the down-trodden, but all they really care about is themselves, creating new committees, and spending other people's money.
Prior to the last election, one heard a lot of complaints about the people in office and the way the county was headed. Yet in the end, many of the incumbents were reelected, and status quo [sp] was maintained.

 

If you study the years since Eisenhower........

The economy has faired better under democratic administrations(job creations, deficits, etc). Really it's the truth.

What has Obama done, that Romney would have done differently in regards to the economy? Jobs are slowly coming back and in actuality factuality corporations have more money than ever, they continue racking in record profits, and the stock market keeps having record days.....

Republican deregulations led to the recession we just faced. Yeah, really.

Repubs claim to love Jesus and hate abortion but they don't think all poeple should have health care and will leave the poor destitute on the streets.

They claim to hate big government and support freedom, yet they back every freedom suprressing law in existence. They back the drug war, the prohibition of prostitution, seat belt laws and laws for crossing the street. So, they want less government but have to pass laws for morons to be able to cross a street?