9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask

To me, there's no benefit to America if one side wins, and thusly we shouldn't support a side that's not going to benefit us. We need to be a lot more calculating in our going to war - the choice is either Iran and Russia or Al Qaeda. Like FDR's allowing the Nazi's to deal with the Soviet wall of flesh for years before jumping in, we ought to allow the time, energy, and resources of two enemies of the United States to beat each other bloody.

yea i am really not seein benefits of gettin involved here. i see no positives happening. as much as i think assad is a turd, i think our involvement probably results in more deaths

i dont like the sound of chemical weapons


its hard to imagine any other country comin after the usa tho. even if we did intervene but i dont like the idea od putting americans at risk for somethng not worth them dying for. our armed forces are so much more financed than anyone else its ridiculous

A few points, one just because we might be getting involved doesn't mean we are putting boots on the ground. The Navy is going to do what they do and send off strikes.

Two, the benefits of getting involved is to protect our allies/interests in the immediate area that may have to deal with similar attacks. Also I guess you think it's perfectly fine to just kill men, women and children with nerve gas.

Three, as I mentioned earlier americans aren't being put at risk to die for anything right now. No boots are going to be on the ground also they did sign up for the military. So even if that does change later on it's not like they should be shocked or surprised. Just joining the military in the first place is putting themselves at risk that they may have to get involved with something that they don't agree with.

1 already know no boots on the ground


2 lol @ u. you must not care about literally thousands of dead ppl throughout the world bein subjected to death and torture by their own goverments. sorry using ur logic

3 so your main point in this is that american troos wouldnt be on the ground, somethin i already know? umm ok. yea lets send troops and piss off russia and more of the middle east. doesnt sound good to me

the thousands of dead people throughout the world aren't being killed by chemical attacks near countries that are our allies though.

You keep saying you know that troops won't be on the ground yet in your next sentence you say let's send troops and piss off Russia/more of the middle east.

The middle east is going to be pissed off regardless of what we do but in my opinion it's better to DO something than to just sit off on the sidelines doing nothing with our thumbs up our asses.

i was clearly sarcastic i thought when i said to piss off russia


so if the middle east is goin to be pissed off anyways, u want to send high powered weaponry over there??

so we would be arming groups of ppl who generally hate our country. i would like to prevent a future conflict where our own troops are bein killed with weapons that we provided to the enemy if possible

to my knowledge syria hasnt attacked any of our allies have they??

No they haven't yet.

arming groups of people that end up using their weapons against us has been happening for so long. It's not a new thing and it's not something that is going to stop happening any time soon. There are deals that go on behind the scenes that you never even hear about.

Also, having limited strikes isn't about arming anyone. We aren't doing these strikes to take to turn around and arm anyone.

i know weapon sellin has been goin on forever and we have battled against ppl who were usin our weapons before.

but because its happened before, does that make it smart?? i dont like any idea that involves us givin al quaeda more weapons.


what are we really achieving with strikes?? probably not goin to shift the war or really impact it that greatly. it looks like its more of a warning shot to let ppl know we aint cool with chemical weapons. and what if assad calls our bluff and says 'lol whatever usa, watch this huge chemical attack' and attacks syrian ppl again. do we just keep sending unlimited strikes??

The main point that is trying to be accomplished is to show that chemical weapons which are already on whatever ban list of weapons that the UN has shouldn't be allowed to used in any capacity. They already called our bluff by using it in the first place. They are trying to say fuck you we used it. Your move. There are other international countries that agree with the strike that we are getting ready to do but they don't want to come out and say they are and back up what they already agreed to.

The only benefit I see to us getting involved is that without chemical weapons, it will take the Administration in Syria longer to kill its enemies. A prolonged war there saps resources in places like Yemen and Afghanistan.