Any Democrat (or maverick like McLame) care to explain WHY this is so important to our national security???

bloody spaniard wrote:

Take out the radar, bomb storage and manufacturing, air force and facilities, rockets and scuds and the like. Leave him incapable of bombing and some shelling of non. Israel has already struck 3-4 times without impunity. It will be expensive, but worth it. Leave him with conventional weapons. This would be my wishlist if we attack.

rfenst wrote:

screw that,,,,

We have no biz doing that chit.....

Peace Out,,,

wheel,

wheelrite wrote:

screw that,,,,

We have no biz doing that chit.....

Peace Out,,,

wheel,

wheelrite wrote:

I agree, but if we do...

rfenst wrote:

I agree we have no business trying to directly influence the civil war one way or another. I'm OK with letting them continue to shoot each other with conventional arms. Civilian toll and refugee situations suck, but not up to US to 'fix' those. On the other hand, I think that chemical weapons falls into the WMD category and their use cannot be ignored -- by us or the rest of the civilized world. I'm prefectly fine with shoving a bunch of Tomahawks up his azz and making him (and Iran....and North Korea....and ????) think twice before trying it again. Rules for war is a funny concept, but I'm a fan of Geneva and UN conventions and protocols.

dstieger wrote:

Bill Krystal agrees too.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Syria is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Neither are Angola, Myanmar, Egypt, Israel, North Korea, and South Sudan. It prohibits the development, production, and use of chemical weapons. The USA still possesses chemical weapons.

HockeyDad wrote: