U.S. Launches Millitary Strike Against Syria (merged)

Do you agree with Trump's decision to strike Syria?


  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Standing idly by is what gave rise to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, taking the fight to them is what keeps these radicals off our shores.
I know you are trolling here, but it was the CIA arming them to fight the Soviets that gave rise to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Religion and our support of Israel is what gave rise to their unmitigated hatred of the west. We're infidels.

You think ignoring them and hoping for the best is a good idea?

I think centuries of outside interference is what has given rise to their unmitigated hatred of the west. I'm not sure what a continued ground presence accomplishes other than risking American lives? I support the naval presence to keep international waters open for trade, but not sure why we need boots on the ground. It's not like we're fighting to win a war. If you're not fighting to win, what's the point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz and AM64
No, but bombing the family members only creates more terrorist. Not to mention........ It is wrong.

But we didn't "bomb family members", it was a strike against Syrian backed militias.

Weird how all of these pearl clutching Peace Corps candidates were silent when Trump whacked the Iranian General.

Suddenly "it's wrong" to take the fight to the people who would kill you where you stand.
 
But we didn't "bomb family members", it was a strike against Syrian backed militias.

Weird how all of these pearl clutching Peace Corps candidates were silent when Trump whacked the Iranian General.

Suddenly "it's wrong" to take the fight to the people who would kill you where you stand.
You may want to check your facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz and AM64
I think it could be easily argued that outside interference from various countries, including the U.S., is what has led to the rise of such militant groups. Other than appeasing "allies", I'm not sure what U.S. interests are being served by keeping a military presence in the region.
It's a complicated subject which can't be sufficiently debated in these short message board forums. Everything here is absurdly oversimplified by non-intellectuals with an absence of critical thinking.

3 main events which are still felt today are (1) the overthrow of the U.S. backed Shah of Iran in 1979, (2) the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 and the CIA's response to it and (3) Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and al-Qaeda's response to the U.S. deploying forces to the region in order to repel it.
 
But we didn't "bomb family members", it was a strike against Syrian backed militias.

Weird how all of these pearl clutching Peace Corps candidates were silent when Trump whacked the Iranian General.

Suddenly "it's wrong" to take the fight to the people who would kill you where you stand.
Because shwacking 5 randos in another sovereign nation is exactly like a targeted hit against a known enemy individual.

Let’s lob a nuke into Venezuela and take out a few more randos
 
I know you are trolling here, but it was the CIA arming them to fight the Soviets that gave rise to them.

Arming them didn't give rise to them, it simply leveled the playing field in our proxy war. Stingers don't make Radicalized muzzies, it's makes makes radicalized muzzies more dangerous to Russian Hinds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol
It's a complicated subject which can't be sufficiently debated in these short message board forums. Everything here is absurdly oversimplified by non-intellectuals with an absence of critical thinking.

3 main events which are still felt today are (1) the overthrow of the U.S. backed Shah of Iran in 1979, (2) the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 and the CIA's response to it and (3) Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and al-Qaeda's response to the U.S. deploying forces to the region in order to repel it.

Goes back much further. It can easily be argued it goes back to the Crusades, but truthfully, it goes back further. And if we're talking modern "main events", you left off the formation of Israel after WWII.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz and AM64
We always make it worse. But they really needed Democracy!
Post WWII we have sucked at nation building. Mostly because we dont know how to build other nations. We have a half butted America, and we try to replicate that with a bunch of Marines overseas and its no wonder things dont follow thru.
 
Goes back much further. It can easily be argued it goes back to the Crusades, but truthfully, it goes back further. And if we're talking modern "main events", you left off the formation of Israel after WWII.
It does... but I was keeping it to events of the last 50 years. This can't be sufficiently summarized in a message board forum. It is ridiculous how much is oversimplified here by people who only see things in black and white and talk out of their butts most of the time.
 
It's a complicated subject which can't be sufficiently debated in these short message board forums. Everything here is absurdly oversimplified by non-intellectuals with an absence of critical thinking.

3 main events which are still felt today are (1) the overthrow of the U.S. backed Shah of Iran in 1979, (2) the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 and the CIA's response to it and (3) Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and al-Qaeda's response to the U.S. deploying forces to the region in order to repel it.
Well you also have some rando Brit dividing up the area into the countries we have today. You also have about a dozen different cultures slamming into each other.
You are right about there being no simple there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Goes back much further. It can easily be argued it goes back to the Crusades, but truthfully, it goes back further. And if we're talking modern "main events", you left off the formation of Israel after WWII.

Goes back to the European countries drawing imaginary borders and colonization after WWI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
This is enjoyable as hell watching libs flex their new found Warhawk “muscles” 😂

It's not nearly as comedic is watching you guys struggle to come up with a reason that's driven past the ladies tee's.

Trump bombs Iranian General, "no problem". Biden bombs Syrian militia and you guys are calling for your fainting sofa.
 
It's not nearly as comedic is watching you guys struggle to come up with a reason that's driven past the ladies tee's.

Trump bombs Iranian General, "no problem". Biden bombs Syrian militia and you guys are calling for your fainting sofa.
I dont see anyone calling this world war 3 yet. So hold off on those settees.

By your same reasoning, why arent "you guys" saying this leads to wwe and all? You know that consistency thing you were just bringing up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Post WWII we have sucked at nation building. Mostly because we dont know how to build other nations. We have a half butted America, and we try to replicate that with a bunch of Marines overseas and its no wonder things dont follow thru.

In this regard you're right, since the first desert storm we've failed to have a comprehensive and coherent strategy for the middle east. I had a buddy who was and 0-5 when he left the Afghanistan, his comments were that we hadn't been there for 20 years, we've been there for one year, twenty times. Every shift in command and leadership brought change which destabilized and undermined every ounce of progress.
 
It's not nearly as comedic is watching you guys struggle to come up with a reason that's driven past the ladies tee's.

Trump bombs Iranian General, "no problem". Biden bombs Syrian militia and you guys are calling for your fainting sofa.
Asked and answered. False equivalency. Keep flexing 😂
 

VN Store



Back
Top