US forces 'ready to strike Syria'

[spartan301]

---

There goes the gasoline prices... Grrrrrrr.....

[reptoid]

Assad needs to be punished. There's a lot at stake here in terms of future security and war crimes. To ignore the slaughter would be a huge step backwards and likely embolden despots around the world. A limited strike designed to kill the people at the top of the regime would be the best option IMHO.

[Dorothea]

^the British Parliament just voted NO...why should the US be the only one with blood on its hands?

[reptoid]

^the British Parliament just voted NO...why should the US be the only one with blood in its hands?

The Brits made the wrong choice this time IMO. The problem is that public is weary of conflict. Britain has sacrificed a lot over the years and there's not much appetite for intervention right now. Iraq.. or rather the twisting of truths in order to get a green light for military action has also created mistrust of intelligence.

Why should the US intervene:

1. It's the right thing to do.

2. Obama drew a red line on behalf of America. Not backing that up with action hurts the US globally.

[lhorenzoo]

i am against america intervening in in this situation but its only my opinion . i hope america will let the syrians or maybe even russia handle this crisis in syria

[vipvip68]

The Brits made the wrong choice this time IMO. The problem is that public is weary of conflict. Britain has sacrificed a lot over the years and there's not much appetite for intervention right now. Iraq.. or rather the twisting of truths in order to get a green light for military action has also created mistrust of intelligence.

Why should the US intervene:

1. It's the right thing to do.

2. Obama drew a red line on behalf of America. Not backing that up with action hurts the US globally.

just to add:

Why the US should NOT (yet) intervene:

1. No Clear strategy with just cruise missiles and no measure of success with the plan.
2. No Support from international community (another IRAQ situation in the making)
3. It will strain relations with Russia and China
4. Without ground troops to finish the job, they risk possible retaliation on Saudi Arabia and Israel
5. Arming / Helping the rebels might turn into another Afghanistan situation

Yes, it is the right thing to do with hundreds/thousands of civilians being slaughtered pero the U.S. can't do this alone. It needs the support of the international community. It must exhaust all means through validation from UN weapons inspectors and really justify its decision to attack based on sound and irrefutable evidence and not just rhetoric.

To succeed, the US needs to build an international coalition of countries and the basis for their action should be based on UN findings / Clear evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons. Also, each member of the coalition should pledge air/naval/ground assets. Even if the US is capable of "going it alone", politically, it is not the correct decision lest it be ridiculed again.

[street_of_no_return]

ka kuyaw ani oe.. saun pud ning US oe cge lang og panghilabot og laing country.. kung di ta magbasa2x sa internet ani d gyd ta kbaw nga na nag-gubat na d.i dira middle east..

[Rakizta]

internal problem man ni sa syria i hope america will back of for the meantime

[Gharid]

Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies

daghan kaaung pro US dri na nadala sa propaganda.. critical thinking sad gamay then basa basa sad ug laing source kay mainstream media is full of crap..


kani cya ay dugay nani na na employee sa mga cnn.. media propaganda at its best sadly idiots often fall to these kind of crap.. no offense dli man kaha mo idiots..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZhnkPSo9jI

[cebu_doki]

US should not and must not intervene :
1. US in financial trouble / crisis. it is expensive. Congress will say NO !
2. RUSSIA has no fear on Obama, in fact they are ready to participate make syria strike complicated
3. IRAN will strike israel. widening the conflict.

with US alone ?