To bomb or not to bomb ?

[Pat494]

That is the question ?

 

[Splitlink]

That is the question ?

They'll have to be careful not to bomb stockpiles of chemical weapons.

That is one of the arguments that I heard from a US military man when Obama insisted that there would be no "boots on the ground". Elimination of these weapons would involve that and rockets could cause an ecological disaster.

However, as we have had to wait for Congress, I expect that the military have spent the time carefully planning the best course of action.

 

[Pat494]

They'll have to be careful not to bomb stockpiles of chemical weapons.

That is one of the arguments that I heard from a US military man when Obama insisted that there would be no "boots on the ground". Elimination of these weapons would involve that and rockets could cause an ecological disaster.

However, as we have had to wait for Congress, I expect that the military have spent the time carefully planning the best course of action.

Let's not sit on the fence Capitano.
Is that a yes or no ?

 

[Triggerfish]

How does bombing going to SOLVE the problem?.....or does it create another problem?

Can you see the cause?.....or do we see the effects?.....or are we all just reacting?

 

[Splitlink]

Let's not sit on the fence Capitano.
Is that a yes or no ?

I am only interested in the UK position. I am pleased that Cameron has said no.

The rest must decide for themselves but I don't think that any advantage will be gained for the Syrian population on America getting involved. As for Assad and his army. I could not care less what happens to them.