Limelight Forums

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s...ck-n743636

So President Trump is bombing Syria, neocons are pushing for military intervention because of the chemical weapons attack and frankly if you ask me it feels like it's 2003 all over again. Welcome to the world of tomorrow folks.

Good, if they're using chemical weapons on innocent civilians they more than deserve it.

This definitely is the wrong awnser.
"Let's bomb Syria to remind Syria not to bomb Syria."

I feel like this will end in a new "war" in the middle east.
Almost half of the US population voted for him and they knew that he would do crazy things like this.

(Apr 7, 2017, 07:28 AM)Rizion Wrote: [ -> ]This definitely is the wrong awnser.
"Let's bomb Syria to remind Syria not to Syria."

I feel like this will end in a new "war" in the middle east.
Almost half of the US population voted for him and they knew that he would do crazy things like this.

I voted for him, and I still support him. Am I crazy? No.

I believe personally that using chemical weapons on civilians is wrong. I honestly hope the world agrees. What Trump did was strike the airfield they believed responsible for launching the attack in the first place.

Assad has been told many times, including in Obama's administration that this would happen if he continued. Though I find it humorous no one has blamed him yet. Only Trump.

I feel like it's an appropriate response, but I also hope the whole thing doesn't unravel and get out of hand.

(Apr 7, 2017, 07:28 AM)Rizion Wrote: [ -> ]This definitely is the wrong awnser.
"Let's bomb Syria to remind Syria not to Syria."

I feel like this will end in a new "war" in the middle east.
Almost half of the US population voted for him and they knew that he would do crazy things like this.

I'm curious if you have any better answer for Syria? I mean, the Middle East has a long history and it's known for its complicated conflicts and yearn for wars and lack of peaceful diplomacies and policies. And especially in Syria for the past 6 years. Or do you prefer to watch Syria and nobody from the UN Security Council do nothing? We all know what happened when there's no military intervention. Refugee crisis, increased number of extremists, the war last longer and etc. So please, I would love to know what's a better answer for Syria.

(Apr 7, 2017, 08:36 AM)Zombie Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 7, 2017, 07:28 AM)Rizion Wrote: [ -> ]This definitely is the wrong awnser.
"Let's bomb Syria to remind Syria not to Syria."

I feel like this will end in a new "war" in the middle east.
Almost half of the US population voted for him and they knew that he would do crazy things like this.

I'm curious if you have any better answer for Syria? I mean, the Middle East has a long history and it's known for its complicated conflicts and yearn for wars and lack of peaceful diplomacies and policies. And especially in Syria for the past 6 years. Or do you prefer to watch Syria and nobody from the UN Security Council do nothing? We all know what happened when there's no military intervention. Refugee crisis, increased number of extremists, the war last longer and etc. So please, I would love to know what's a better answer for Syria.

(Apr 7, 2017, 10:06 AM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 7, 2017, 08:36 AM)Zombie Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 7, 2017, 07:28 AM)Rizion Wrote: [ -> ]This definitely is the wrong awnser.
"Let's bomb Syria to remind Syria not to Syria."

I feel like this will end in a new "war" in the middle east.
Almost half of the US population voted for him and they knew that he would do crazy things like this.

I'm curious if you have any better answer for Syria? I mean, the Middle East has a long history and it's known for its complicated conflicts and yearn for wars and lack of peaceful diplomacies and policies. And especially in Syria for the past 6 years. Or do you prefer to watch Syria and nobody from the UN Security Council do nothing? We all know what happened when there's no military intervention. Refugee crisis, increased number of extremists, the war last longer and etc. So please, I would love to know what's a better answer for Syria.

Lmao I didn't know he got a nobel peace prize, good to know. I was talking about mainly Syria but however I have to agree it does affects modern Middle East by making Iran worse which is now an enemy of almost every country in the entire region which was non existent that I know of during the Shah's leadership and triggered many conflicts in the region due to the Iranian Revolution.

After all the things the western world messed up in the middle east it looks like a military strike is the only option. Doesn't make the option better tho.
And one last thing: bombs aren't precise enough to avoid civilian damage - you didn't only hit an air field but maybe a school/hospital etc. as well

(Apr 7, 2017, 12:47 PM)Rizion Wrote: [ -> ]After all the things the western world messed up in the middle east it looks like a military strike is the only option. Doesn't make the option better tho.
And one last thing: bombs aren't precise enough to avoid civilian damage - you didn't only hit an air field but maybe a school/hospital etc. as well

We invented smart targeting bombs to avoid this. The problem is Russian retaliation, as it is the only thing keeping Assad afloat. Same with the DPRK.

A good watch.

WOOOOOOOOOOOO LETS FUCKING GO TO WAR ABOUT GOD DAMN TIME TO FUCK SHIT UP

I actually hope that syria and russia strike back. It not even 100% proved that the syrian army is responsible for that. There we 2 different kinds of chemical gases. 1 Bomb. 1 Jet. Tell me how one bomb can have 2 chemical substances which couldnt be used together ín one bomb. As heard from local citizen the place is known for a chemical storage of the rebels.

(Apr 7, 2017, 07:24 PM)Nudelsalat im Panzer Wrote: [ -> ]I actually hope that syria and russia strike back. It not even 100% proved that the syrian army is responsible for that. There we 2 different kinds of chemical gases. 1 Bomb. 1 Jet. Tell me how one bomb can have 2 chemical substances which couldnt be used together ín one bomb. As heard from local citizen the place is known for a chemical storage of the rebels.

What are you a fucking commie. i hope they fucking invade your country first

(Apr 7, 2017, 07:24 PM)Nudelsalat im Panzer Wrote: [ -> ]I actually hope that syria and russia strike back. It not even 100% proved that the syrian army is responsible for that. There we 2 different kinds of chemical gases. 1 Bomb. 1 Jet. Tell me how one bomb can have 2 chemical substances which couldnt be used together ín one bomb. As heard from local citizen the place is known for a chemical storage of the rebels.

I'm sure it would be possible to fill a bomb with two containers. Or even some kind of chemical reaction that occurs between the two. We're not in the 1940s where one bomb can only contain one material. And lets say that the Rebels do have chemicals, why would the Syrian army still bomb a village with civilians? More importantly I don't think the Rebels have any jets at their disposal.