This is not out war.
We need to stop getting involved in other people's conflicts. ... especially given how much in debt we are right now.
//
We have plenty of business in Syria. At least on the CBR front. We should limit our objectives to that.
I'll pitch in the .01% of my taxes required to pay my share per tomahawk.
//
The Tomahawks that will probably used are the ones reaching their EOL cycle, and either have to go through a very expensive refurbishment or a less expensive tear down.
http://www.pictureshack.us/
They actually have a valid point. Libertarians are 100x less creepy and totalitarian than leftists, they don't have a plan for society nor do they try to socially engineer outcomes.
I actually came to /pol/ in 2010 as a libertarian and left after the board was overwhelmed by Ron Paul ads.
That's my point exactly!
Which is why a failure to act firmly on Syria will all but assure that not only will the hawks in Israel win out the argument at home and go at Iran alone; which will more than likely plunge the entire region into extended attrition warfare. But also that countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even perhaps Egypt will also begin their own WMD programs.
And I'm not just talking about strikes. But just having Syria give up their WMD's after having used them is not a punishment in any shape or form that will satisfy anyone in the region. This issue is larger than Syria itself.
// I hate ars technica.
what the fuck ars. why are you so retarded, how do you people hold jobs and interact with people in real life?
Wilford_Brimley posted:That's my point exactly!
Which is why a failure to act firmly on Syria will all but assure that not only will the hawks in Israel win out the argument at home and go at Iran alone; which will more than likely plunge the entire region into extended attrition warfare. But also that countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even perhaps Egypt will also begin their own WMD programs.
And I'm not just talking about strikes. But just having Syria give up their WMD's after having used them is not a punishment in any shape or form that will satisfy anyone in the region. This issue is larger than Syria itself.
// I hate ars technica.
just correctly explain to them that nuclear proliferation is an objectively positive outcome, and that the goal should be for all middle eastern states to become nuclear powers, since clearly history shows that countries who posses nukes are actually much more stable and less likely to engage in revolution, social unrest, or war. if they disagree, ask them to provide specific examples where this is not true 
Superabound posted:Wilford_Brimley posted:That's my point exactly!
Which is why a failure to act firmly on Syria will all but assure that not only will the hawks in Israel win out the argument at home and go at Iran alone; which will more than likely plunge the entire region into extended attrition warfare. But also that countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even perhaps Egypt will also begin their own WMD programs.
And I'm not just talking about strikes. But just having Syria give up their WMD's after having used them is not a punishment in any shape or form that will satisfy anyone in the region. This issue is larger than Syria itself.
// I hate ars technica.just correctly explain to them that nuclear proliferation is an objectively positive outcome, and that the goal should be for all middle eastern states to become nuclear powers, since clearly history shows that countries who posses nukes are actually much more stable and less likely to engage in revolution, social unrest, or war. if they disagree, ask them to provide specific examples where this is not true
I just want to note that this is exactly the kind of poeslaw stuff that they can't even tell is trolling. I posted it but their response is boring and I'm too lazy to carry on with it.