U.S pentagon considering arming rebels and even a military strike on Syria.

[Metagame]

Link 1
Link 2

Once again, seems like the U.S just can't seem to mind their own business and instead continue on to police the world despite the fact the majority of Americans are tired of the nation building and policing their government is involved in. The irony is that it is mostly "conservatives" such as John McCain calling for arming the rebels and even a full out strike on the regime. Funny how the neo-cons call themselves conservatives, but yet believe in spending taxpayer money to collapse nations and then build them from ground zero.

Can the U.S and NATO ever learn to mind their own damn business and not get involved in things that have nothing to do with them (not a threat to their national security)?

[kingofwale]

Link 1
Link 2

Once again, seems like the U.S just can't seem to mind their own business and instead continue on to police the world despite the fact the majority of Americans are tired of the nation building and policing their government is involved in. The irony is that it is mostly "conservatives" such as John McCain calling for arming the rebels and even a full out strike on the regime. Funny how the neo-cons call themselves conservatives, but yet believe in spending taxpayer money to collapse nations and then build them from ground zero.

Can the U.S and NATO ever learn to mind their own damn business and not get involved in things that have nothing to do with them (not a threat to their national security)?

funny thing is.. if US does nothing and genocide continues, US will get blamed again for standing aside doing nothing.

[flashy_mcflash]

They can't even pick one war either. They're spoiling for a battle in Syria even while idiots are writing editorials about provoking one with Iran.

[flashy_mcflash]

US will get blamed again for standing aside doing nothing.

What do you mean 'again'? When did this happen the first time?

[cheapmeister]

What do you mean 'again'? When did this happen the first time?

I believe in Africa, there was a genocide, and nobody did a thing, including Canada.

This is a good opportunity to help the rebels and spread democracy in the region, as some might say.

[DearSummer]

U.N. would be involved if it wasn't for Russia and China. I fully support the U.S. getting involved, although I doubt it will be with a military strike. Syria's anti-air defense is much more formiable than Libya's.

It's funny that nobody will call out Russia for supplying arms to the murdering regime but would love to call out the U.S. if they arm the rebels.

[Metagame]

funny thing is.. if US does nothing and genocide continues, US will get blamed again for standing aside doing nothing.

And what happened to those countries that the U.S ignored? Do you see terrorists from their country actively plotting against the U.S, or do most feel neutral and indifferent towards the U.S?

There's a reason why Russia and China have a much better public image among middle easterners than the U.S and NATO, because you don't see Russia or China invading them and forcing their customs and morals on a people who do not want it. Perhaps the U.S and NATO countries should take note and stop policing the world and invading countries on the simple fact they are in violation of their morals, which are relative?

[Metagame]

This is a good opportunity to help the rebels and spread democracy in the region, as some might say.

Please tell me one good reason why "spreading democracy" warrants spending the taxpayer's money to assault a sovereign government that is not a threat to our national security? Should the U.S go around and start condemning and even attacking countries that aren't as capitalistic as them, because capitalism is good and it should therefore be spread through force?

[Metagame]

U.N. would be involved if it wasn't for Russia and China. I fully support the U.S. getting involved, although I doubt it will be with a military strike. Syria's anti-air defense is much more formiable than Libya's.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "U.N" anymore as proven by the fact the U.S can override them easily to invade sovereign nations as they please. It is really NATO and, more importantly, the U.S that would launch an unwarranted, unjustified attack against the government. Let's be honest here, NATO and the U.S couldn't careless about the Syrian people (rightfully so, they have no legal obligation nor right to protect them against their sovereign government), but want to take control of Syria since it is a strategic location to launch attacks again Iran.

Also, you seem to have some very strange beliefs. You believe taxation should be heavily reduced and social benefits should be seriously reformed and cut (I agree), and seem to be a staunch advocate for the conservative mantra of personal responsibility (a good thing). Yet, here you are advocating for the unwarranted assault against a sovereign nation. Who do you think is going to pay for it? The taxpayer, and most taxpayers are not as happy as you to have their tax dollars be used to attack a sovereign nation that isn't a concern to national security.

It's funny that nobody will call out Russia for supplying arms to the murdering regime but would love to call out the U.S. if they arm the rebels.

You don't see Russia going around, policing the world and forcing their morals, political structure, and culture on a people that want nothing to do with it. The U.S wouldn't be as hated as it is now if it adopted a similar policy like Russia (never concerning yourself with the internal strife of other countries and only dealing in business, defending itself against its enemies and not policing the world and wrongly attacking countries in the hopes of "spreading democracy").

[MrKap]

I didn't click the links, but do they by any chance point to RT, Democratic Underground, or Prison Planet?

[DearSummer]

First of all, there is no such thing as a "U.N" anymore as proven by the fact the U.S can override them easily to invade sovereign nations as they please. It is really NATO and, more importantly, the U.S that would launch an unwarranted, unjustified attack against the government. Let's be honest here, NATO and the U.S couldn't careless about the Syrian people (rightfully so, they have no legal obligation nor right to protect them against their sovereign government), but want to take control of Syria since it is a strategic location to launch attacks again Iran.

Also, you seem to have some very strange beliefs. You believe taxation should be heavily reduced and social benefits should be seriously reformed and cut (I agree), and seem to be a staunch advocate for the conservative mantra of personal responsibility (a good thing). Yet, here you are advocating for the unwarranted assault against a sovereign nation. Who do you think is going to pay for it? The taxpayer, and most taxpayers are not as happy as you to have their tax dollars be used to attack a sovereign nation that isn't a concern to national security.

Where did I say that America will attack Syria? In all likelihood the most they will do is arm the rebels (aka the same thing Russia did with the regime). I don't prescribe to an idealogical position where everything is left/right. I have my own set of beliefs and like most people, they don't correspond perfectly with a certain political position.

You don't see Russia going around, policing the world and forcing their morals, political structure, and culture on a people that want nothing to do with it. The U.S wouldn't be as hated as it is now if it adopted a similar policy like Russia (never concerning yourself with the internal strife of other countries and only dealing in business, defending itself against its enemies and not policing the world and wrongly attacking countries in the hopes of "spreading democracy").

Russia is really the paragaon we want to measure up against? The country that supplies murdering regimes like Syria with arms? The country with such entrenched corruption that an uprising is likely? You are free to move to Russia if you like. Let me know how that goes for you.

[Phoenix3434]

funny thing is.. if US does nothing and genocide continues, US will get blamed again for standing aside doing nothing.

Just b/c civilians die when they fight the government, doesn't mean that it is a "genocide". This is simply the nature of a civil war. A genocide is when the government goes out and tries to cleanse out a particular population. Trying to crush a civilian uprising, even by brutal means, is not a genocide. It's simply trying to crush a civilian uprising by brutal means. Don't throw that word "genocide" around lightly.

[hagbard]

I hope Russian goes in and supports the other side if the Americans get further involved in this. The US hasn't done one thing right in ten years.

[zz000ter]

I think Libya was the right thing
I think the same thing should happen in Syria

The Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is a nutcase - slaughtering his own people.

This mass murderer has a hot wife
- I wonder why she is not doing anything to stop the violence

[diggler649]

Isn't this how al-qaeda started? With the U.S. arming Afghan rebels to help drive out Russia? Unfortunately, they helped out a guy named OSAMA BIN LADEN.

noobs.