1. johnny says

    Here we go again.

    What if all the politicians and heads of state want to respond to Syria, but none of the citizens want to?

    The people of this country (soldiers included) are tired of police actions and wars. Let them solve their own problems, we have enough problems here on U.S. soil.

  2. yuninv says

    Well, we have to justify the fact we spend three times as much as the next 10 countries combined on defense…

  3. ratbastard says

    Who benefits the most from NATO [i.e. Britain, France + U.S.] attacking Syria? And no, I’m not just referring to Israel. It’s much more complicated than that. It also involves energy resources [especially for Europe] and denying China inexpensive energy sources while containing Russia and it’s ability to make big $ off it’s gas and oil.

    Western nations [i.e. NATO] want to control the M.E. and access to it’s oil and prevent Israel from having any serious and viable threat from any of it’s neighbors. And they want to rub China and Russia’s nose in it.

  4. Jeff says

    Christ, have none of you seen the photos of the thousands who were gassed? That crazy effer in Damascus has to be stopped. Immediately. Preferable with a bullet through his skull or perhaps some gas for him too.

  5. anon says

    There are no oil resources in Syria.

    I’m not sure what the US can do that will help. Technically, Assad would need to be brought up on war crimes charges under the Geneva convention and then someone would have to affect an arrest (this is a big weakness of the convention). Otherwise, we are just unilaterally entering the civil war on the side of the rebels. Saudi Arabia is already arming one faction of the rebels and Egypt was arming the Muslim Brotherhood faction until recently and the three or four factions were all fighting each other, which was allowing the govt. forces to regain control in many areas. Exactly how are we going to help? If we do a bombing strike it almost certainly won’t hit Assad (and the US never targets leaders anyway).

  6. Moz's says

    well RB

    assad family and their tribe are a minority and shia

    the sunni saudis etc would love to have shia supporters of iran pushed out of control of a country that neighbors them

    BUT the use of chemical weapons especially against one’s own populace is against the geneva protocols

    assad’s father was infamous for gassing his own people (well the sunni majority to scare them into submission of his shia rule)

    the snipers firing at and stalling the inspectors are buying time because assad regieme is supposedly bombing the area with conventional bombs destroying evidence

    it is all very complex and not a simple issue

  7. Moz's says


    the simplest solution is an assassination = bullet to the head

    preferably someone within the assad regime with access. regrettably those who could have done such like many generals etc have fled to turkey with their families

  8. ratbastard says


    His regime is being propped up by various outsiders, as is the ‘rebels’ or whatever you want to call them. Everything from realpolitik to geopolitic is playing a big role.

  9. ratbastard says


    Right, it has oil. Not as much as other M.E. nations. It primarily is attracting attention because of it’s uber strategic location.

  10. says

    Once again we’re going into the Middle East to topple a secular ruler. Why do we waste resources on them? Better a tyrant in a suit than a mullah. The Alawites, Syria’s minority ruling group, are an unusual off-shoot of Islam. Women aren’t obligated to be involved or adhere to anything. They’re Shiite in name only. Iran’s mullahs made some kind of proclamation back when they strengthened their Syrian alliance as a way to give the Alawites some kind of credibility in the Islamic world. They celebrate Christmas and Easter and have portraits of the Virgin Mary in their homes. Assad is the lesser of the two evils. He’s no good guy, but who are we supporting against him? We don’t have a successful track record with assisting regime change in this region. The rebels previously used amateurish chemical weapons. We have no certain evidence that it was the Assad regime. We will likely learn, again, after the fact, that we shouldn’t have become involved in this fight.

  11. simon says

    Not to justify the use of these weapons.
    His stand is a bit hypocritical considering US was the first nation and only one which has used the atomic weapon on Japan and has created havoc on several generations of Japanese.

  12. simon says

    John Kerry and Obama have both criticized Bush for invading Iraq on the assumption they have weapons of mass destruction. It is close to impossible to verify who has used chemical weapons if they have indeed been used. History is repeating itself.

  13. ratbastard says


    Off topic, but Kerry was recently seen in public with black eyes; he has definitely had cosmetic surgery.