So what are your thoughts? I'm still figuring out what I feel about the issue of an air war with Syria over chemical weapons, and I will post on my opinions later.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What are Your Thoughts on the Looming Air War with Syria?
- Thread starter Steven Yeadon
- Start date
Syria is incapable of defending themselve against us. They would be put out of business very quickly.
I'd guess what you're really worried about is the Russian reaction.
Personally, I'd think the russians would make a lot of noise, but do they really want to be a party to the use of chemical weapons?
I'd guess not.
I'd guess what you're really worried about is the Russian reaction.
Personally, I'd think the russians would make a lot of noise, but do they really want to be a party to the use of chemical weapons?
I'd guess not.
What is our motive? To stop any/all countries from using gas to kill people? What about other forms of killing?
Based on history (ancient and recent), if we are not willing to bring a government to total surrender, including with "collateral" damage, stay out of their affairs.
Reality is, we are financially bankrupt.
I am an isolationist unless there is direct, measurable benefit to our citizens.
We should not continue to assume/accept the idea that we are responsible for "policing" the world.
I agree with President Trump's position prior to the gas-attack in Syria, let other countries deal with the Syrian situation.
Based on history (ancient and recent), if we are not willing to bring a government to total surrender, including with "collateral" damage, stay out of their affairs.
Reality is, we are financially bankrupt.
I am an isolationist unless there is direct, measurable benefit to our citizens.
We should not continue to assume/accept the idea that we are responsible for "policing" the world.
I agree with President Trump's position prior to the gas-attack in Syria, let other countries deal with the Syrian situation.
We are inextricably enmeshed in global relationships.
Isolationism is an impossible dream. The world depends on us we depend on the world.
Air war with Syria?They will takeoff and immediately be brought down.
Russia? Depends on our unrevealed technology. This is Putin's fear.
He may have to find out and I believe both he and the world will be shocked.
Isolationism is an impossible dream. The world depends on us we depend on the world.
Air war with Syria?They will takeoff and immediately be brought down.
Russia? Depends on our unrevealed technology. This is Putin's fear.
He may have to find out and I believe both he and the world will be shocked.
Isolationists are sure to be disappointed a lot.
All of the nations on earth agree that chemical weapon are illegal to use, so we would be justified to eliminating their use on civilians!
Same reason why we must use military force as a final resort to keep North Korea from having launchable nukes!
My honest opinion; keep poking the hornets nest just enough to keep all those nut jobs killing each other off. Handle it the way we handled Iran Iraq war; maintain military parity between both sides.
To not let terrorists take control of the area. That is a direct threat to us
BroOldTimer
Member
Strikes beginning now with the British and French.
I have thought about it. I am not for purely humanitarian wars yet, as I am mulling over whether we should go to war over the pain and suffering of others. However, I believe this war against Syria is justified because we are simply holding someone who signed a treaty to account for breaking that treaty. Chemical weapons are illegal by treaty, and as such anyone who uses them should be punished, even to the point of death for breaking their agreement. Especially given it was WW I's unspeakable horror that got us here.
I will have to now think on whether it is ever justified to fight wars for the sole purpose of alleviating the pain and suffering of others or to avenge heinous crimes. My initial thought is that it is naive to do so and misguided to wage purely humanitarian violence, but my first instincts may be way off.
Of course, I expect Assad to use chemical weapons again tomorrow or next week, the man seems to be a beast and may have to learn the hard way to show discipline before other kings of the earth. Likely through a number of military strikes, sanctions (economic siege warfare), and UN diplomacy.
I will have to now think on whether it is ever justified to fight wars for the sole purpose of alleviating the pain and suffering of others or to avenge heinous crimes. My initial thought is that it is naive to do so and misguided to wage purely humanitarian violence, but my first instincts may be way off.
Of course, I expect Assad to use chemical weapons again tomorrow or next week, the man seems to be a beast and may have to learn the hard way to show discipline before other kings of the earth. Likely through a number of military strikes, sanctions (economic siege warfare), and UN diplomacy.
There is no "war against Syria". Punitive airstrikes do not a war make.
Two things:
1. This intervention turned out to be much smaller than I, and even some military analysts such as those at FOX News thought it was going to be. Personally, I am left wondering if we applied enough hurt to make a man like Assad blink. I was expecting a more considerable missile strike that would eliminate Assad's air force and target his command and control in Damascus. So did a a number of military analysts. Also, we aren't done yet. If Assad uses chemical weapons again, including his beloved chlorine gas, we will likely have more strikes to degrade his ability to make and deliver such weapons.
2. Anytime our men and women in uniform must go into harm's way to protect us or obey the orders of our sovereign, I am left thinking it is a war. Also, from the perspective of those we aim to kill, which possibly includes Christian brothers and sisters in the case of Syria, I believe they would call this a war against them. Not only that, but I have traditionally thought it disingenuous to call something a "conflict" when the lethal use of force is being applied. I was thinking on an emotional level when I called it a "war."
That said, again it was my expectation that broad, punitive strikes were going to occur that caused me to label this an air war. That may yet happen since a beast like Assad may not back down with this level of air assault.
A war has at least 2 combatants. This will be no more than an unanswered punitive strike.
However , I will go along with the attacks being considered an act of war. As far as I know, not a single American's life was at risk...as of yet. If syria retaliates and we mix it up with them on an unlimited basis in the air, then I will consider your statement correct. It would be an "air war". right now, it's far short of that. Hopefully it will remain so.
Last edited:
I like Trump, but I am now wondering if he is part of the NWO, there is zero evidence that Assad used chemicals against his people, he loves his people and they love him.
That's not true.
You sound like a demoncrat, show us the evidence.
And you sound like Russian propaganda.