Do you support the US bombing Syria?
Let’s keep it specific to the bombing and that happened a couple days ago. Comment why if you’d like.
No, I won't keep it specific to one bombing incident by a country that bombs routinely, which has bombed countries ranging from Serbia to Iraq to Yemen. Bombing the shit out of everyone is something all American voters agree on, whether it's the yuuuuge mother of bombs dropped on a random Syria town, or the bombing of a children's hospital in Afghanistan followed by refusal to even say sorry. Americans are murderers, 99% of them vote for fascist mass killers like Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump. Almost every president they elected since WWII has been the biggest murderer of all world leaders during his term, by simple death toll.
Stupid. There’s a difference between popular opinion and the political establishment. This is a representative democracy, moron. I’m against all bombings too, but I’m more against morons like you who say all “ Americans are murderers.”
Will forgive Americans to make bank at American company though!
the thing is... you don’t have a good alternative. It’s either one shit or another possibly even worse shit.
Can you recall a time in history when we sat idly by as another country gassed their own people?
Don’t see the relevance of this recall except as the preface for some values-based war argument. Anyway, can YOU recall a time where we bombed a country because of its weapons of mass destruction (like chemical gas) and then it ended up cost $3T USD, tons of lives, and gave rise to radical Islamic groups (ISIS)?
Many countries have chemical weapons. WE have chemical weapons. There’s a difference between possessing such weapons and actually using them on your people. If your serious about “please don’t gas your people or use chemical weapons” and don’t want it to become a meme, you need to actually hold people accountable. That’s exactly what the US, UK, and France did. As a side note, I would hope you require some values be violated as a preface to war. Going to war shouldn’t be a willynilly thing.
Assuming there is concrete evidence that the Asaad regime gassed it's citizen, I wholly support the bombing on it's chemical plants. It was a careful bombing, taking into regards civilian loss & ensuring we don't end up in a big fight with Russia.
but we shouldn’t pay for other people’s justice every time. Freedom is not free and we’re the one ending up paying the price every freaking time.
(1) big assumption (2) careful bombing => doesn’t accomplish any goals (3) what chance of global nuclear war is worth it? Is 1% low enough for you to risk billions of lives for your virtue?
Let’s stop wasting taxpayer money and policing the world. We should be reducing national debt.
Thank you
We policed the world previously when leaders gassed their people. Should we have not done so then as well?
Fuck the dictator !
Except when they’re US allies, then it’s “arm and fund the dictator!”
This days most of the dictators are not on the US side,they know the deal
The so called bombing took out a chemical weapons plant, they were warned beforehand and given time to evacuate give me a break
The US has already spent way more blood and money than it's fair share in the middle easy. We're done. We need to just finish mopping up ISIS and then go the fuck home. There are plenty of other nations that can deal with Assad. Here are some countries with a combines military ability can easily handle Assad. The US does not need to be there at all. Japan Canada UK Australia Germany France Spain India Norway Sweden Finland Denmark Italy Poland Those countries can form a very large coalition to do what needs to be done without the US.
they don’t have motivation.
What do you mean?
The US rulers don’t want other countries to have that kind of international influence. The US rulers can not leave the Middle East because China will have their own trade without US gatekeeping. The US is an empire and won’t simply walk away. It will need to be forced out - either from us, internally through popular resistance or externally either from insurgents or defeat in major wars by competitors. The popular resistance option would be the best and least bloody option. There needs to be a principled anti-war resistance that doesn’t support Russian Imperialism over US imperialism (is against both) and won’t end up supporting someone like “reporting for duty” John Kerry.
So you’re saying if China Russia and the US worked together it’d be better?
I’m saying this is a deadly game played by empires. These countries do more or less work together as it is, they just also compete and that leads to war. It’d be better if people in the US and China created networks with each-other independent of their rulers to try and build cross border opposition against their rulers.
Let’s keep it specific to when Trump did it so that we don’t have to admit we liked it when Obama did it.
Hmm, I didn’t think about that when I was phrasing it but my intention was to distinguish between the bombing that just happened and a longer-term potential “conflict” in the future which I suspect more people would be against.
Personally, I’m against any military conflict under all circumstances besides something equivalent to Hitler being on the verge of taking over the world. I’m especially against this narrative that we need to bomb them because of some emotional bullshit having to do with “values”.