It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by muse7
Israel has a pretty good Missile defense system, any missile launched from Iran will most likely be intercepted and shot down
Originally posted by shaneslaughta
Originally posted by muse7
Originally posted by whyamIhere
100,000 are dead in Syria.
Roughly 1400 by chemical weapons.
I wonder if any of the dead give a crap about the method?
Our logic seems to be the Regime must be punished. What is the punishment?
We are going to kill some of your people to protest you killing your people.
If I have it wrong....Let me know.
You do have it wrong
They're not carpet bombing the place, this wont turn into another Nurnberg
They're launching Tomahawk missiles with specific targets programmed into their system. These targets might include weapons cache's, missiles, and other type of weaponry.
We all know that this stuff is hidden in urban areas, where there will be collateral damage.
What is the amount of civvy casualties after we do our thing? What is the cost of our damages that we will do?
I don't yet see a reason to intervene in their matters.
This is just for Obama to say he acted in the defense of human lives. This is just to make Obama look better after his 20+ broken campaign promises.
Originally posted by benrl
Just because you are wearing a bullet proof vest doesn't mean you go looking to get shot.
Originally posted by muse7
The point right now is to send a strong message to Assad, that the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians will not be tolerated.
Originally posted by shaneslaughta
Its what we need to do, cut off their imports so they are forced to play on our terms.
Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by sonnny1
Your point is valid.
I think Russia isn't with us because they are international arms dealers....one by one we are cutting off Russia business partners.
muse7
If the U.S does go ahead and attack, I don't think we'll be alone. I think France will also participate as it has a lot of interests in Syria and it once ruled over it.
Just because the British are not coming along, does not mean we should not take action.edit on 8/31/2013 by muse7 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by benrl
Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by sonnny1
Your point is valid.
I think Russia isn't with us because they are international arms dealers....one by one we are cutting off Russia business partners.
You under stand they are our competitors in arm sales right? The US is one of the biggest arms dealers in the world...
We sold arms to Iraq pre-iraq war..
Originally posted by TheMagus
muse7
If the U.S does go ahead and attack, I don't think we'll be alone. I think France will also participate as it has a lot of interests in Syria and it once ruled over it.
Just because the British are not coming along, does not mean we should not take action.edit on 8/31/2013 by muse7 because: (no reason given)
you seem overly confident
[your "Sanity" is unquestionable of course]
would I Be correct in concluding you'll be nowhere near Syria once the hostilities commence?
still at your terminal [or stock ticker more likely ] cheering the violence on...
but feel free to disregard my words, as I Am quite "Insane".
muse7
Originally posted by TheMagus
muse7
If the U.S does go ahead and attack, I don't think we'll be alone. I think France will also participate as it has a lot of interests in Syria and it once ruled over it.
Just because the British are not coming along, does not mean we should not take action.edit on 8/31/2013 by muse7 because: (no reason given)
you seem overly confident
[your "Sanity" is unquestionable of course]
would I Be correct in concluding you'll be nowhere near Syria once the hostilities commence?
still at your terminal [or stock ticker more likely ] cheering the violence on...
but feel free to disregard my words, as I Am quite "Insane".
No I'm not cheering on the violence, I'm cheering for the destruction of those Chemical weapons used to kill over a thousand innocent people though.
You on the other hand seem perfectly comfortable with letting rogue lunatics like Assad commit mass murder against innocent people with Chemical weapons, so really who is "cheering" on the violence?
Originally posted by muse7
Sorry but the only ones waging war are Assad and his thugs launching chemical weapons into the neighborhoods of Damascus, killing over a thousand people and killing 400+ innocent children.
Launching strikes to destroy these Chemical weapons is the right thing to do in my opinion and I'm glad Obama is taking it to Congress to seek approval. The U.N is basically useless as Russia and China are on the security council and will not allow any resolution that does not include Assad getting away with murder.
We have the means necessary to prevent more mass killings of civilians in this fashion.
The ability to stop evil but not willing is malevolent.edit on 8/31/2013 by muse7 because: (no reason given)