Signals.Cpl

You are right on this one, his family LOVES Canada and our healthcare... I mean how could they not? Those animals fight against us, kill our soldiers and should they ever get hurt or captured they cry that Canada is not doing enough to free them. I mean we are already paying for his brothers healthcare, now we have this freak to deal with. He was 16, and he damn well knew what he was doing. IED's have killed a lot of Canadian soldiers, for all we know the IED's he build were used against our troops, and they were definitely used against our allies. Yeah, I'm sure he has been "trying" to "cooperate" ever since...

American civil war was based on different political beliefs as opposed to an ethnic group that are fighting and more than willing to slaughter each other by the hundreds of thousands, which only one side could do at the moment. As I said, the conflict being a civil war does not exclude it from being a genocide, on the same note a genocide does not necessarily mean a civil war or even a conventional war. What we have in Syria is a civil war with a very likely outcome of a genocide, a minor intervention now, could help Syria avoid a genocide, whereas no intervention whatsoever now, would most certainly cost a lot of lives and will be that much harder to end in the future.

So as long as they are using conventional weapons to slaughter civilians we should get the popcorn and watch?

I'm sure them little kids are badass rebels... if they killed rebels fighting against them its one thing, killing innocent unarmed civilians because they belong to the same religion/ethnic background is a whole other issue. Yeah and the UN members spend 3 months trying to determine if it was ethic cleansing or a genocide. At which point should the international community intervene? After 10,000 people are killed? Should we wait until 500,000 are killed? I are talking about providing assistance to the rebel forces in order to allow them to protect themselves.

So you don't think it qualifies as genocide when one ethnic group deliberately massacres another ethnic group? Rwanda was a civil war so there goes our responsibility to help them, just because an event is considered a civil war does not exclude it from being a genocide.

I don't think an involvement is necessary at this point but should it become a problem there might come a time where an intervention is appropriate and necessary but an intervention could come in the form of select strikes in order to remove the offending piece of equip or a WMD site. Yes, Sunni, Shia and Kurds whats the point? It is in our(Canada) best interests to assist in preventing the instability in Syria to extend or even threaten neighbours like Jordan, Israel or Turkey. And its in the best interest of the US to keep the Syrian conflict in Syria and out of Iraq in order to make sure that Syria's problem do not become Iraq's problems and thus lead to a civil war there and undo almost a decade of hard and thousands of dead and wounded soldiers and civilians.

I do believe that the civil war in Syria is divided up amongst ethnic and to some extend religious lines so it is not just a case of just a political entity having its members massacred but of a ethnic group that has been and is being oppressed. As I mentioned above there are ethnic and religious differences between the two sides. I would think that it would cover both cases... And we as a people need to step in at some point and stop the genocide, because as I mentioned above it does fit the bill as there are ethnic and religious aspects within this war and not just political once. Aslo at some point it becomes within our self-interest to interfere in the Syrian Civil War due to the its proximity to nations that have stability issues(Iraq), or nations that are traditional enemies(Israel), nations that would be immensely affected by this civil war(Turkey) or in nations where instability in Syria could spell instability and a refugee problem as well(Jordan). Now, I do believe that there could be a way to avoid large-scale armed confrontation and subsequent occupation of Syria, but that would involve material, financial and technical assistance to make sure that the conflict does not require the aforementioned large-scale combat and occupation.

And I am pointing out that arguing wether the WMD's came from Iraq or not is irrelevant because they are just as deadly if they were purchased by the Syrians from a source like China or Russia as they would be if they were to be "donated" by Iraq before the Invasion. I don't think that we need to get militarily involved in Syria at this moment, but I do think that it might become a necessity at least in a limited role involving restricting/destroying any suspected WMD caches. And just for clarification, when would consider it a full blown genocide warranting a military intervention?

So is the list of 14 people you presented the complete list of all the people that were banned from this forum?

I just want to point out one thing, wether the weapons came from Iraq, Russia, Canada or Mars the victims will be just as dead. And GH, your first post does seem to at least the way I understood it, present the assertion of Syria moving their WMD's as false based on the actions that happened almost a decade ago. We need to judge these situation in a case by case manner and use the case specific evidence in order to determine what is right or wrong as opposed to saying that they are wrong now because they were wrong before because whit that reasoning we can also use the opposite argument, they were right last time so they MUST be right now. If the Case is made that Syria has WMD's and plan on using them against their own people and they actually go through with it, would you blindly argue that we should do something about Iran because the intelligence was spot on in Syria?

I dotn think that is a fair assesment as the USSR would have gone to war in order to protect the Warsaw Pact as they were the buffer and would have threatened them, while if Syria collapses the Russians lose a customer for weapons but noone will shed a tear for them aside from lost income.

They didnt have to come from Iraq, I am pretty sure Syria has a working relationship with Russia so they could have gotten their own stockpile of weapons.

2006? March 2003 was the invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

But you yourself said that you only want natural born citizens as POTUS which would imply that there is a lower sense of loyalty to the US from those who hold dual citizenship at least in your eyes.

I don't know what the solution is, but making poorly thought out demands and a way to dig a deeper hole for all of us and leave our kids in an even worse situation is probably not the right solution in this instance.

Yea, I'm sure adding to the problem must be the best way to solve the problem. Someone used all of your gas thus stranding you in the middle of nowhere, what do you do? Sit and complain about it or do something to solve the problem?

So they can sit in a hotel because its "too dangerous"? And who will authorize a. Authorize the inspectors seeing as Russia can and will block any such move and b. seeing as they will be at the mercy of the Syrian government what can we expect them to find? Right now I think that the US will present the evidence and use it as a means to get Russia to take away their support for Syria and thus get some reaction from the UNSC rather than as a pretext for an introduction between the Syrian military and the US Navy.

So are you one of those people who cannot view the evidence and make a decision based on the evidence, rather you base your decision on an event that happened 9 years ago?

I don't think that it was bizarre to ask if there were discrepancies in the past of the president, personally I suspect that someone at some point in the president's career had checked if he was intact born in the US but the people have a right to ask and receive an answer, where I feel it became weird was after the proof was presented and it became a dead issue people still tried to bring it up. I think for certain jobs there should be a requirement for complete loyalty even if it is just as simple as giving up a dual citizenship, to me this should apply to senior government officials elected and otherwise, as well as senior LEO's and Military officers.

No, we have to consider it case by case rather than throwing everything under assumption that "they" are lying and thus no matter what is presented the assumption is they lied, just like you wouldn't assume that if "they" are right about Syria "they" must be right about every subsequent similar event.

There are certain jobs that should require 100% loyalty in the sense that we know they have the best interest for the country, but also and this might sound stupid but some people(me included) would prefer knowing that the potential leader of the country will have to live with the consequences of any bad decisions rather than screw the country and and have a way out while the majority of the citizens don't have one and would be stuck with his/her bad decisions.

Admittedly the US government screwed the pooch on Iraq and the WMD's but this does not and should not define every subsequent situation and event that is in anyway similar to Iraq and the events leading up to the Iraq War mainly because the consequences would mean many people have to die.

And for you to see the proof, thousands or tens of thousands will have to die. I hope for the sake of the world that the Assad regime is not desperate/stupid enough to actually use those weapons or "donate" them to someone willing to use them.

Doesn't matter though, either way I can't see the US acting on this unless one of their allies in the region or they themselves are threatened in some way by those.

And what would the world say if Assad uses Chemical/biological weapons against his people? Who would be blamed? I bet the US will get the blame for knowing that he had the weapons and was willing to use said weapons and they didn't do anything to stop/prevent him and the blame will come from the exact same people who cry about the US when they do get involved.