Why is it our responsibility to invade if Syria Gases its own people

Discussion in 'Politics' started by noob_trad3r, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. I agree. The only reason to deploy our troops or to commit an act of war is if our country's vital interests are at stake. I can't see that they are in syria.
  2. Clinton's statement is big on vagueness and it's hard to draw any specific inference from it. Any intent or threat to place US troops in a combat zone is going to be announced by the President and not the Sec. of State.

    Agree with the other posters. They want to gas their people, let someone else deal with it.
  3. Smells like Iraq, The government starts to build a pretext for war. It will reach it's crescendo and soon 100K+ US soldiers will be in another quagmire so that the Military Industrial Complex can profit again.
  4. Let the UN or Europe clean it up.

    Screw them.
  5. It's our job as world cop to clean up every mess, pay for it all ourselves in lives and treasure, take the blame for anything and everything that goes wrong while the U.N. and the rest of the parasites in the world wring their hands and critique from the cheap seats.
  6. For some people acround the world, We (the US) are their only hope.

    very sad in a way... this is a big world....and we are "it". "it" being all things to all people. No one will step up to the plate. Is the cure worse than disease....hell yea..most of the time...

    just sayin....
  7. I have no problem with being "it". However, if we're "it', then we make all the rules and don't need permission from anyone to do anything. Don't like it? Then FUCK YOU, solve your own problems.
  8. I think you're more compassionate than that. I hate to bring up WW2 and the Holocaust, but these types of things are happening around the world. If not US, then who?
  9. So you must have fully supported the Iraq war then right?

    Based on that response the answer has to be yes or you are a lying sack of shit.

    #10     Dec 4, 2012