It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
There was a time when our "war on" included a war on poverty.
Better than dropping bombs at least.
I am expressing displeasure at the continuation of the "US Mission." We've had Iraqi Freedom ongoing from 2003 to 2011, and haven't moved on to a more militarily important target, like Iran, since, and now we're discussing military action against a podunk little regime in a podunk little nation just because they used chemical weapons against rebels backed by the terrorist cell that enacted the 9/11 attack. And we cannot seem to get any support for the operation except from France and the aforementioned terrorists.Please feel free to correct me if any of that is wrong, but from my perspective it seems like we're jumping into a Vietnam situation right after having gotten OUT of a Vietnam situation.
The CWs are the justification, not the reason, which is an important distinction IMO
The CWs are the justification, not the reason, which is an important distinction IMOActually, I'm pretty sure the chemical weapons are the reason as well as the justification here. Enforcing the norm against chemical weapons use is seriously the only goal that US intervention could possibly accomplish.It would not become a Vietnam because there is no reason why the US would want to put boots on the ground. It is literally just "we're going to throw a whole bunch of missiles at Syria so that nobody else uses chemical weapons."
Tired of us being the good guys.
Didn't the US use shit loads of chemical weapons in Vietnam? Is that what you mean by this being the new Vietnam?