71% of Britons say MPs were right to reject Syria action - two thirds don't care if it damages US re - Polidicks

Why do they conduct polls AFTER making a decision, shouldn't they ask for public opinion before sending people to war?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056805]so are you saying that collateral damage will not happen? i would like to point out the iraqi's who got murdered by american armed forces a decade ago.[/QUOTE] Collateral damage always happens and we need to reduce it to as close to zero as we possibly can. However, neither side currently cares or even will intentionally shoot civilians. Both sides need to have their military capability destroyed before we can bring them to the table to talk.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056820]Collateral damage always happens and we need to reduce it to as close to zero as we possibly can. However, neither side currently cares or even will intentionally shoot civilians. Both sides need to have their military capability destroyed before we can bring them to the table to talk.[/QUOTE] so you admit that the bombs we drop will kill innocent people and endorse the idea anyways.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;42052781]please we share a border with [I]scotland[/I] we've been at war with them since the creation of our country[/QUOTE] We're winning, ye dirty Englishmen. Soon we'll annoy all of you off our islands.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056832]so you admit that the bombs we drop will kill innocent people and endorse the idea anyways.[/QUOTE] If it means that we save more innocent lives in the end? Yes. We can debate if the ends justify the means afterward. That is the pragmatic decision.

[QUOTE=RikohZX;42054000]Why did we re-elect him for another four years again?[/QUOTE] since we rather not be flip-flopped so hard we become Australia

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056855]If it means that we save more innocent lives in the end? Yes. We can debate if the ends justify the means afterward. That is the pragmatic decision.[/QUOTE] then you can be the one to spend your own money and buy your own gun and shoot people. leave me out of it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056905]then you can be the one to spend your own money and buy your own gun and shoot people. leave me out of it.[/QUOTE] And you can be just as responsible for more people getting killed. Sitting on the fence is choosing to do nothing.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056855]If it means that we save more innocent lives in the end? Yes. We can debate if the ends justify the means afterward. That is the pragmatic decision.[/QUOTE] Can you name a violent event in history that easily caused peace. Even if Assad gets removed we'll see violence emerge from the rebel groups possibly even directed towards the first world in the future.

[QUOTE=matt000024;42056951]Can you name a violent event in history that easily caused peace. Even if Assad gets removed we'll see violence emerge from the rebel groups possibly even directed towards the first world in the future.[/QUOTE] And letting violence just happen helped out so much with Africa, didn't it? You guys don't get that they're already killing eachother. Also, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Kosovo_War"]Kosovo[/URL].

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056964]And letting violence just happen helped out so much with Africa, didn't it?[/QUOTE] we caused the violence in africa.

TBH Im surprised they fucking did something right.

[QUOTE=lifehole;42052530]I don't think the US public wants in this either. The government on the other hand..[/QUOTE] I don't think our government as a whole wants to either. They aren't willing to cut their long ass vacation/break short to convene

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056981]we caused the violence in africa.[/QUOTE] And then sat on our hands and did nothing as they killed each other. The European powers responsible for the mess that is Africa have never once apologized. If you want to honestly say that doing nothing and letting them kill each other is the best option instead of actively trying to resolve the issue is the best option.

[QUOTE=HighdefGE;42054820]There have been crimes just as bad and still being committed today, but we can't go around intervening especially when they have nothing to do with us. It is a matter of resolving who wins and who doesn't because our government explicitly stated so about removing Assad and arming the rebels. Nobody is turning a blind eye. We're all aware of what's going on, but you have to draw the line. If we invade Syria, we're going to lose a lot of people. It will give our government another reason not to lower our military budget that's already draining money from us. And let's just say we do remove Assad. You have to ask yourself 'what then'? People aren't going to stop fighting each other, especially if the so called rebels already consist of multiple groups and sects, even radical ones, who are going to kill each other eventually. That is if we pack up and leave after Assad is gone, and if we stay there, would natives even accept foreign authority? Because that doesn't go so well for us in Iraq. Even then, assuming we don't pack up and leave and staying there would drain our resources. The US already has a bad reputation with others anyways, especially for being the 'world police' and all. The last thing we need is to pool the resources and money we need and deter away from our own internal problems.[/QUOTE] Where did you get losing men from? The current USA plan for the invasion on Syria involves no group troops and just bombarding them for a couple of days, while also punishing and trying to root out the problem of the chemical weapons I feel like a lot of people are uninformed on what the USA is even trying to do here

[QUOTE=Swilly;42057002]And then sat on our hands and did nothing as they killed each other. The European powers responsible for the mess that is Africa have never once apologized. If you want to honestly say that doing nothing and letting them kill each other is the best option instead of actively trying to resolve the issue is the best option.[/QUOTE] the problem i have is that you have this sociopathic idea that "resolving" conflict means we go in there with guns and bombs and start murdering people.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056299]The apathy being shown by the first World is fucking atrocious. The apathy and lack of will to DO anything is what lead to this bloody civil war. Its what lead to half the shit that happened in Africa and now you have a Middle Eastern nation being torn up filled with a radical Government and Mixed Bag Militia. We could've avoid ALL OF THIS if we had ignored Russia and China and brought aid to the rebels immediately. But instead, everyone complained about something mumble something blah blah and now we're all apathetic because we no longer want to associate with the only damn group that actually helped them. This is going to spill over, Turkey is getting strained by this, so are Syria's other neighbors in that region.[/QUOTE] This is what I'm speaking out against, the lack of apathy displayed here and by the general populous over this conflict. I mean if you were in the same situation as the Syrians, would it not disgust you to read how little people think the safety of your lives are just because it has no correlation to their own security?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42057021]the problem i have is that you have this sociopathic idea that "resolving" conflict means we go in there with guns and bombs and start murdering people.[/QUOTE] I'm saying they're already at a Civil War. Talking at the table won't happen until they stop performing military engagements. I would rather we have stopped the god damn Civil War before it even happened!

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056512]this is the same argument that was used for the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki...among the most brutal and vicious war crimes ever committed against another nation in the history of war.[/QUOTE] honestly I'd consider the firebombings in places like Dresden to be way worse around a quarter million people burned alive in a literal firestorm

[QUOTE=RichyZ;42057044]yeah in libya we sent in a force of baby killing us soldiers who went into libyan strip malls and gunned down all the toddlers it was great[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/05/14/nato-investigate-civilian-deaths-libya[/url] (Brussels) – The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has failed to acknowledge dozens of civilian casualties from air strikes during its 2011 Libya campaign, and has not investigated possible unlawful attacks, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

Honestly, you can have your kid dream world where war is always wrong(It is) and should never EVER be considered when trying to prevent people getting killed. That's not the human race right now, maybe in 50 or more years. But right now, sorry but you're in nightmare land. [editline]2nd September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42057092][url]http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/05/14/nato-investigate-civilian-deaths-libya[/url] (Brussels) – The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has failed to acknowledge dozens of civilian casualties from air strikes during its 2011 Libya campaign, and has not investigated possible unlawful attacks, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.[/QUOTE] I wonder how many would be dead with Qaddafi still in power, or if this would be year 2 for the Libyan Civil War.

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;42057080]honestly I'd consider the firebombings in places like Dresden to be way worse around a quarter million people burned alive in a literal firestorm[/QUOTE] lol where'd you get the 250,000 figure from? esitimates at the time and now, put the death toll at around 25k still a horrible war crime none the less