Grit Savage
7 Answers
Colleen
This is what happens when someone is just given the peace prize when he did absolutely nothing to earn it. He likes his war toys better than he does his peace prize.
Newsmax is running a poll about this with their readers. This is the results so far:
Do you believe that the U.S. should strike Syria militarily for using chemical weapons?
Yes....................30,432(16%)
No........................................................................................156,443(83%)
Should President Obama get Congressional approval before authorizing any strike?
Yes, he needs Congressional approval.................................................................................167,132(89%)
No, he does not...........19,701(10%)
| 11 years ago. Rating: 6 | |
sunnyB
I think most people here in the UK are against us getting involved in any action against Syria, that was reflected by the vote in the Houses of Parlierment last week, for once the politicions listened to the people. Most people feel that you would not be changing things for the better if you got rid of assad, you may be helping to replace him with someone far worse. And we can't really afford another war .It makes me wonder how they (our politicions) think they can find the money without question to drop bombs on people without even thinking about cost, when they don't have the money to repair the roads, which are full of pot holes and lumps, and our hospitals are unable to provide proper treatment for people in our own country.
| 11 years ago. Rating: 6 | |
digger
Because wiping out your opponents with conventional bombs is the civilized way of behaving. The use of chemicals is not. The extensive use of Napalm in Vietnam...er...notwithstanding.
| 11 years ago. Rating: 5 | |
We have a history of charging into war without considering meaningful alternatives or exhaustively examining all of the evidence carefully. These issues do not go to a world court for deliberation before handing down a verdict of prescribed action. No, we just mull it over, behind closed doors, while we the people wait to see what the grown-up folks in the other room decide whatever will be our fate. So suck-it-up children someone we choose will decide for us .
Afghanistan: 2200 US soldiers; 20,000 Afghan civilians
Iraq:4500 US soldiers; 175,000 civilians
Vietnam: 58,000 US soldiers; 400,000 civilians died by agent orange alone. Another 500,000 children were born with birth defects.Total civilian casualties estimated well over 1 million.
mycatsmom
follow the money trail . If you want to know why the gov / military/ industry wants to do anything it usually boils down to money. Right before Eisenhower left office, he warned the new incoming administration and the country .......to " watch out for the ' military industrial complex ' '' .
| 11 years ago. Rating: 4 | |
robert grist
In Syria we (USA) would be an invader and the whole country would back their government and kick us out like a flea bit dog. We better let them fight it out on their own and stay out of the way.
Our history of helping rebels opposed to their goverment has been disastrous for us and the people of those countries also. Viet-nam was a stupid, disaster for us and the people of South Viet-Nam also. Our involvment polarizes the fight into a balance of power….us and them…..so we loose.
| 11 years ago. Rating: 3 | |
daren1
bigben
Well, I'm no fan of president Obama and I don't think he should have been given the peace prize, but when to use diplomacy or military force is a complicated issue and one in which the public isn't well versed enough to make an educated guess. What we offer, as the general public, is a smattering of facts, as presented by the media and with it's bias', smothered in emotional content. Hardly, the basis for a pragmatic disposition. The beauty of living in a republic such as ours is that we are able to elect representatives that reflect our general positions with the knowledge that they will be educated on the issues and make intelligent decisions based on current reality. If they don't, hey there is the next election.
Whether to use force or diplomacy is a very complicated. The unfortunate reality is that diplomacy usually doesn't work without force by the US. For example, diplomacy didn't work in Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia, Sierra Leone until force by us was used. And it hasn't worked in most of the conflicts in which we had a strategic, economic , or humanitarian interest. We are the ones that promote democracy, humanitarian interest, and capitalism and the world expects us to help when we can, an idea we promoted. If we respond to global events as the isolationist want things will get worse for us, not better.
That having been said, I'm reluctant to get involved in such a convoluted situation filled with reactionary opponents. But, this problem is one that was exacerbated by Obama's dithering during the whole process and his failure to act much earlier. We have major interest in the middle east and can't afford for the Syrian problem to spread like a virus throughout the whole region. However, to ridicule the president for considering military action because he received the peace prize is naïve and emotional. Global situations ebb and flow, so to denigrate the use of military force because someone ordinarily supports diplomacy is absurd. Diplomacy usually requires the use of force or the threat of it's use. Does anyone really think that Iran will comply with our demands without the knowledge that we might respond militarily??
| 11 years ago. Rating: 1 | |
Like I said, I am reluctant to take military action, but whatever we do, this is definitely a WE situation.
___________________________________________________
Just watched Obama pitching his reason for a "limited targeted" strike on Syria to the senate, "its time for america to act" he says! does this ring any bells??