Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[Cheshire Cat]

Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria

Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research shows that almost same percentage (66.8%) believe such an attack would drag Israel into war • 57% think IDF will act against specific targets or threats • Over 71% of those questioned have gas masks.

Israel is perhaps the only Western country where there is widespread support for an American/European attack on Syria. While in the United States and Great Britain, some 90 percent of the publics are opposed to such an attack -- in Israel, more than 66% of the Jewish Hebrew-speaking population supports an attack (only 17% opposes). With that, the exact same percentage of the population is concerned that if such an attack occurs, Israel will be drawn into a war.

This duality, which characterizes the Israeli mood and public discourse in recent weeks, receives statistical affirmation in an Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research.

Israelis believe that ultimately an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime will take place -- close to 73% of Israelis believe so. More than 57% believe if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Israel Defense Forces will act against specific targets or threats. Only 13% think that the situation will deteriorate into all-out war in the Middle East. Over 28.7% said they are not concerned that a U.S. attack will drag Israel into a war.

The survey also found that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clear advantage over his political rivals as the person most qualified to lead the country: 54% said he is best suited for the job, compared to Opposition Leader and Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich (9.2%), Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennet (8.6%) and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (3%). One quarter of the respondents said they were undecided.

Another statistic of note coming from the survey is that over 71% of those questioned have equipped themselves with a gas mask. Of those who still have not, some 25% said they intended to do so in the coming days (some 7% of all those polled). 37% said they do not intend to get gas masks (some 10% of all those polled), and the same percentage said they have not yet decided.

The survey was conducted on August 28, and is comprised of a random pool of 500 Jewish Hebrew speaking Israelis over the age of 18. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

I guess all of your last posts and visuals are meant to show everyone that first we don't need the U.N. to go after Syria.  That's true, however I did not say we did, I said the U.N. should decide as a global community what action if any they wish to take in Syria.   Next the awful photo's and death count.  War kills.  Who knew?  People in countries across the world struggle to fight oppressive governments.  This has always been an historic reality.  Remember the Civil War here in the U.S.?  You know that North/South thing.  It was horrific but it was created here by internal conflict and ended here by our own people at a very high cost.  We grew through it and I would like to think are better for it. Our freedoms were hard won by us.

Again to the chemical weapons issue.  There is no proof as to who used the weapons, none.  Just an idea of who did.  How in the world can we decide to bomb a people based on a supposition claiming that to kill with chemical weapons is reprehensible but to likely kill innocents or perhaps even target people for an action that has not been proved they were responsible for is the thing to do? It is still killing and there is always some collateral damage in human life. "Collateral damage",  a term I abhor by the way.  Whose precious loved ones get to be viewed as collateral and their lives worth losing?  All lives are sacred.  Anyone who thinks this is okay should hold in their minds the picture of the person or persons they love most in the world and ask themselves to imagine that person being blown to bits because, aw heck, they were just collateral damage. Human are never collateral to anything in war. 

Finally, I don't give a darn how many folks in Israel agree with going after Syria.  That has nothing to do with what American might think and any action we should take.

Apache, in recent history our world has seen and continues to see atrocities of all types.  Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for example, rampant murder of innocents in Darfur and the list goes on.  The U.S. took no offensive action in these cases and millions died.  The fact of the matter is we cannot police the world and when we do, who we go after seems to be a selective process often based in politics.

IILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?

[Cheshire Cat]

Unfortunately, these are very hard decisions to make in reality. I go back and forth. We should not be the world police in my opinion. Nor should we try force our ideals on other countries and cultures.

On the other hand, I also understand we are a global society today more than ever. If Syria goes unchecked, then so does Iran, so does North Korea, Pakistan and so forth. And sooner or later the US will have to deal with a real threat from one of these countries because their power and influence and military will grow if unchecked.

As for me currently, I'm back, not forth. We have had too much war in recent memory. Unfortunately for the victims, I don't think the US should intervene in this situation.

I feel like we have a decent sized Syrian population in Jax. I know a bunch anyway. I'd be curious to hear a Syrian-American view on it. 

That would be interesting to know.  If you can ask anyone, please let us know their feelings.

I was driving up Beach Blvd yesterday evening and there was a decent sized group of Syrians outside the Salaam Club holding signs opposing US involvement in Syria.  Apparently there was a group downtown as well yesterday. 
http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/syrians-jacksonville-rally-against-us-intervention/nZghY/

Thank you for this carpenter.  I expected as much.  They get the fact that missile strikes will not end the problem. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

Apache I'm not talking about sending troops in? We could bomb all of their planes. Just today in Syria one of their planes bombed a school with what a BBC reporter at the scene estimated the bomb contained either a napalm type explosive or thermite.  http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

[Cheshire Cat]

And bombing those planes is going to stop them from using chemical weapons on people?   Really?  Someone "estimated" a bomb contained napalm?  Estimated?  We bomb based on that assumption?

[If_I_Loved_you]

Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria

Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research shows that almost same percentage (66.8%) believe such an attack would drag Israel into war • 57% think IDF will act against specific targets or threats • Over 71% of those questioned have gas masks.

Israel is perhaps the only Western country where there is widespread support for an American/European attack on Syria. While in the United States and Great Britain, some 90 percent of the publics are opposed to such an attack -- in Israel, more than 66% of the Jewish Hebrew-speaking population supports an attack (only 17% opposes). With that, the exact same percentage of the population is concerned that if such an attack occurs, Israel will be drawn into a war.

This duality, which characterizes the Israeli mood and public discourse in recent weeks, receives statistical affirmation in an Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research.

Israelis believe that ultimately an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime will take place -- close to 73% of Israelis believe so. More than 57% believe if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Israel Defense Forces will act against specific targets or threats. Only 13% think that the situation will deteriorate into all-out war in the Middle East. Over 28.7% said they are not concerned that a U.S. attack will drag Israel into a war.

The survey also found that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clear advantage over his political rivals as the person most qualified to lead the country: 54% said he is best suited for the job, compared to Opposition Leader and Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich (9.2%), Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennet (8.6%) and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (3%). One quarter of the respondents said they were undecided.

Another statistic of note coming from the survey is that over 71% of those questioned have equipped themselves with a gas mask. Of those who still have not, some 25% said they intended to do so in the coming days (some 7% of all those polled). 37% said they do not intend to get gas masks (some 10% of all those polled), and the same percentage said they have not yet decided.

The survey was conducted on August 28, and is comprised of a random pool of 500 Jewish Hebrew speaking Israelis over the age of 18. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

I guess all of your last posts and visuals are meant to show everyone that first we don't need the U.N. to go after Syria.  That's true, however I did not say we did, I said the U.N. should decide as a global community what action if any they wish to take in Syria.   Next the awful photo's and death count.  War kills.  Who knew?  People in countries across the world struggle to fight oppressive governments.  This has always been an historic reality.  Remember the Civil War here in the U.S.?  You know that North, South thing.  It was horrific but it was created here by internal conflict and ended here by our own people at a very high cost.  We grew through it and I would like to think are better for it.  Our freedoms were hard won by us.  Again to the chemical weapons issue.  There is no proof as to who used the weapons, none.  Just an idea of who did.  How in the world can we decide to bomb a people based on a supposition claiming that to kill with chemical weapons is reprehensible but to likely kill innocents or perhaps even target people for an action that has not been proved they were responsible for is still killing and there is always some collateral damage in human life? "Collateral damage"  a term I abhor by the way.  Whose precious loved ones get to be viewed as collateral and their lives worth losing?  All lives are sacred.  Anyone who thinks this is okay should hold in their minds the picture of the person or persons they love most in the world and ask themselves to imagine that person being blown to bits because, aw heck, they were just collateral damage. Human are never collateral to anything in war. 
Finally, I don't give a darn how many folks in Israel agree with going after Syria.  That has nothing to do with what American might think and any action we should take.

Apache, in recent history our world has seen and continues to see atrocities of all types.  Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for example, rampant murder of innocents in Darfur and the list goes on.  The U.S. took no offensive action in these cases and millions died.  The fact of the matter is we cannot police the world and when we do, who we go after seems to be a selective process often based in politics.

IILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?

(ILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?) I did answer you besides you have no right to Judge Me you don't even know me.

[Cheshire Cat]

Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria

Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research shows that almost same percentage (66.8%) believe such an attack would drag Israel into war • 57% think IDF will act against specific targets or threats • Over 71% of those questioned have gas masks.

Israel is perhaps the only Western country where there is widespread support for an American/European attack on Syria. While in the United States and Great Britain, some 90 percent of the publics are opposed to such an attack -- in Israel, more than 66% of the Jewish Hebrew-speaking population supports an attack (only 17% opposes). With that, the exact same percentage of the population is concerned that if such an attack occurs, Israel will be drawn into a war.

This duality, which characterizes the Israeli mood and public discourse in recent weeks, receives statistical affirmation in an Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research.

Israelis believe that ultimately an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime will take place -- close to 73% of Israelis believe so. More than 57% believe if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Israel Defense Forces will act against specific targets or threats. Only 13% think that the situation will deteriorate into all-out war in the Middle East. Over 28.7% said they are not concerned that a U.S. attack will drag Israel into a war.

The survey also found that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clear advantage over his political rivals as the person most qualified to lead the country: 54% said he is best suited for the job, compared to Opposition Leader and Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich (9.2%), Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennet (8.6%) and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (3%). One quarter of the respondents said they were undecided.

Another statistic of note coming from the survey is that over 71% of those questioned have equipped themselves with a gas mask. Of those who still have not, some 25% said they intended to do so in the coming days (some 7% of all those polled). 37% said they do not intend to get gas masks (some 10% of all those polled), and the same percentage said they have not yet decided.

The survey was conducted on August 28, and is comprised of a random pool of 500 Jewish Hebrew speaking Israelis over the age of 18. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

I guess all of your last posts and visuals are meant to show everyone that first we don't need the U.N. to go after Syria.  That's true, however I did not say we did, I said the U.N. should decide as a global community what action if any they wish to take in Syria.   Next the awful photo's and death count.  War kills.  Who knew?  People in countries across the world struggle to fight oppressive governments.  This has always been an historic reality.  Remember the Civil War here in the U.S.?  You know that North, South thing.  It was horrific but it was created here by internal conflict and ended here by our own people at a very high cost.  We grew through it and I would like to think are better for it.  Our freedoms were hard won by us.  Again to the chemical weapons issue.  There is no proof as to who used the weapons, none.  Just an idea of who did.  How in the world can we decide to bomb a people based on a supposition claiming that to kill with chemical weapons is reprehensible but to likely kill innocents or perhaps even target people for an action that has not been proved they were responsible for is still killing and there is always some collateral damage in human life? "Collateral damage"  a term I abhor by the way.  Whose precious loved ones get to be viewed as collateral and their lives worth losing?  All lives are sacred.  Anyone who thinks this is okay should hold in their minds the picture of the person or persons they love most in the world and ask themselves to imagine that person being blown to bits because, aw heck, they were just collateral damage. Human are never collateral to anything in war. 
Finally, I don't give a darn how many folks in Israel agree with going after Syria.  That has nothing to do with what American might think and any action we should take.

Apache, in recent history our world has seen and continues to see atrocities of all types.  Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for example, rampant murder of innocents in Darfur and the list goes on.  The U.S. took no offensive action in these cases and millions died.  The fact of the matter is we cannot police the world and when we do, who we go after seems to be a selective process often based in politics.

IILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?

(ILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?) I did answer you besides you have no right to Judge Me you don't even know me.

Judge you?  I am not judging you.  I am asking a reasonable question of a person who is always talking about how "God" loves everyone, how "Jesus" loves everyone and regularly takes pot shot's at non believers while posting scripture and talking about how they would "love" to use missiles on people in a foreign land.  Perhaps your response about judging you is an effort of deflect the question, which was sincere.  How do you square the killing of people with the teachings of Jesus you so often refer to?  I seem to remember him saying something about "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Perhaps I am mistaken?

[Cheshire Cat]

To the "assumed use of napalm".  What reprehensible, horrible type of people could do such a thing?  Let's kill em all, they are criminals.

What about this truth in history?  We are not a perfect people, have never been and we need to think about our own actions when looking at what disgusts us around the world.

Napalm bombs first employed in incendiary bombs and went on to be used as fuel for flamethrowers.[10]
The first recorded strategic use of napalm incendiary bombs occurred in an attack by the USAAF on Berlin on 6 March 1944, using American AN-M76 incendiary bombs (with PT-1 (Pyrogel) filler).[11][12] The second known attack, this time a tactical operation by De Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito FB Mk.VIs of No. 140 Wing RAF, Second Tactical Air Force on 14 July 1944, also employed the AM-M76 incendiary in a reprisal attack on the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division ,,Götz von Berlichingen" in Bonneuil-Matours; soldiers of this Waffen SS unit had captured and then murdered a British SAS prisoner-of-war, Lt. Tomos Stephens, taking part in Operation Bulbasket, and seven local Resistance fighters; although it was not known at the time of the air strike, 31 other POWs from the same SAS unit, and an American airman who had joined up with the SAS unit, had also been executed.[13]
further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 and 1945, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[14]
Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay, turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[15]
In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[16] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

[If_I_Loved_you]

Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria

Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research shows that almost same percentage (66.8%) believe such an attack would drag Israel into war • 57% think IDF will act against specific targets or threats • Over 71% of those questioned have gas masks.

Israel is perhaps the only Western country where there is widespread support for an American/European attack on Syria. While in the United States and Great Britain, some 90 percent of the publics are opposed to such an attack -- in Israel, more than 66% of the Jewish Hebrew-speaking population supports an attack (only 17% opposes). With that, the exact same percentage of the population is concerned that if such an attack occurs, Israel will be drawn into a war.

This duality, which characterizes the Israeli mood and public discourse in recent weeks, receives statistical affirmation in an Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research.

Israelis believe that ultimately an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime will take place -- close to 73% of Israelis believe so. More than 57% believe if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Israel Defense Forces will act against specific targets or threats. Only 13% think that the situation will deteriorate into all-out war in the Middle East. Over 28.7% said they are not concerned that a U.S. attack will drag Israel into a war.

The survey also found that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clear advantage over his political rivals as the person most qualified to lead the country: 54% said he is best suited for the job, compared to Opposition Leader and Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich (9.2%), Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennet (8.6%) and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (3%). One quarter of the respondents said they were undecided.

Another statistic of note coming from the survey is that over 71% of those questioned have equipped themselves with a gas mask. Of those who still have not, some 25% said they intended to do so in the coming days (some 7% of all those polled). 37% said they do not intend to get gas masks (some 10% of all those polled), and the same percentage said they have not yet decided.

The survey was conducted on August 28, and is comprised of a random pool of 500 Jewish Hebrew speaking Israelis over the age of 18. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

I guess all of your last posts and visuals are meant to show everyone that first we don't need the U.N. to go after Syria.  That's true, however I did not say we did, I said the U.N. should decide as a global community what action if any they wish to take in Syria.   Next the awful photo's and death count.  War kills.  Who knew?  People in countries across the world struggle to fight oppressive governments.  This has always been an historic reality.  Remember the Civil War here in the U.S.?  You know that North, South thing.  It was horrific but it was created here by internal conflict and ended here by our own people at a very high cost.  We grew through it and I would like to think are better for it.  Our freedoms were hard won by us.  Again to the chemical weapons issue.  There is no proof as to who used the weapons, none.  Just an idea of who did.  How in the world can we decide to bomb a people based on a supposition claiming that to kill with chemical weapons is reprehensible but to likely kill innocents or perhaps even target people for an action that has not been proved they were responsible for is still killing and there is always some collateral damage in human life? "Collateral damage"  a term I abhor by the way.  Whose precious loved ones get to be viewed as collateral and their lives worth losing?  All lives are sacred.  Anyone who thinks this is okay should hold in their minds the picture of the person or persons they love most in the world and ask themselves to imagine that person being blown to bits because, aw heck, they were just collateral damage. Human are never collateral to anything in war. 
Finally, I don't give a darn how many folks in Israel agree with going after Syria.  That has nothing to do with what American might think and any action we should take.

Apache, in recent history our world has seen and continues to see atrocities of all types.  Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for example, rampant murder of innocents in Darfur and the list goes on.  The U.S. took no offensive action in these cases and millions died.  The fact of the matter is we cannot police the world and when we do, who we go after seems to be a selective process often based in politics.

IILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?

(ILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?) I did answer you besides you have no right to Judge Me you don't even know me.

Judge you?  I am not judging you.  I am asking a reasonable question of a person who is always talking about how "God" loves everyone, how "Jesus" loves everyone and regularly takes pot shot's at non believers while posting scripture and talking about how they would "love" to use missiles on people in a foreign land.  Perhaps your response about judging you is an effort of deflect the question, which was sincere.  How do you square the killing of people with the teaches of Jesus?  I seem to remember him saying something about "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

God loves everyone who loves God what don't you understand Diane? I'm not deflecting the question. Besides no madder what I say you will debate it till the cows come home. You go ahead and believe what you want Diane and I will believe what I want. And when I Die one day only then will I have to face what I did in my life to God aka Jesus! Amen!

[Cheshire Cat]

Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man Jesus you revere and speak about all of the time, would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to use deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything. I don't think blowing up anyone with a bomb comes close to "loving thy neighbor".  Perhaps that is just my faulty interpretation of the statement. 

Let me make something clear, for me this is not about arguing a point, it is not about blowing off steam,  it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest and ugliest form.  Claiming to love God in one breath and then asking for blood in another.  You made the statement that you would "love" to drop a bomb on Syria, God didn't, you did, so don't claim that this is a spiritual mystery.  This is also about recognizing and working through the hypocrisy we sometimes embrace as a nation when it comes to armed combat.  Currently our leadership claims  to abhor the use of chemical weapons and that is grounds for an armed attack when the reality is that we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster called chemical weapons on people over and over again in the name of war. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

To the "assumed use of napalm".  What reprehensible, horrible type of people could do such a thing?  Let's kill em all, they are criminals.

What about this truth in history?  We are not a perfect people, have never been and we need to think about our own actions when looking at what disgusts us around the world.

Napalm bombs first employed in incendiary bombs and went on to be used as fuel for flamethrowers.[10]
The first recorded strategic use of napalm incendiary bombs occurred in an attack by the USAAF on Berlin on 6 March 1944, using American AN-M76 incendiary bombs (with PT-1 (Pyrogel) filler).[11][12] The second known attack, this time a tactical operation by De Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito FB Mk.VIs of No. 140 Wing RAF, Second Tactical Air Force on 14 July 1944, also employed the AM-M76 incendiary in a reprisal attack on the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division ,,Götz von Berlichingen" in Bonneuil-Matours; soldiers of this Waffen SS unit had captured and then murdered a British SAS prisoner-of-war, Lt. Tomos Stephens, taking part in Operation Bulbasket, and seven local Resistance fighters; although it was not known at the time of the air strike, 31 other POWs from the same SAS unit, and an American airman who had joined up with the SAS unit, had also been executed.[13]
further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 and 1945, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[14]
Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay, turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[15]
In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[16] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

"Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash."

General George S. Patton quote

[If_I_Loved_you]

Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking. 

[Cheshire Cat]

To the "assumed use of napalm".  What reprehensible, horrible type of people could do such a thing?  Let's kill em all, they are criminals.

What about this truth in history?  We are not a perfect people, have never been and we need to think about our own actions when looking at what disgusts us around the world.

Napalm bombs first employed in incendiary bombs and went on to be used as fuel for flamethrowers.[10]
The first recorded strategic use of napalm incendiary bombs occurred in an attack by the USAAF on Berlin on 6 March 1944, using American AN-M76 incendiary bombs (with PT-1 (Pyrogel) filler).[11][12] The second known attack, this time a tactical operation by De Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito FB Mk.VIs of No. 140 Wing RAF, Second Tactical Air Force on 14 July 1944, also employed the AM-M76 incendiary in a reprisal attack on the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division ,,Götz von Berlichingen" in Bonneuil-Matours; soldiers of this Waffen SS unit had captured and then murdered a British SAS prisoner-of-war, Lt. Tomos Stephens, taking part in Operation Bulbasket, and seven local Resistance fighters; although it was not known at the time of the air strike, 31 other POWs from the same SAS unit, and an American airman who had joined up with the SAS unit, had also been executed.[13]
further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 and 1945, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[14]
Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay, turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[15]
In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[16] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

"Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash."

General George S. Patton quote

Calculated risk is the answer now?  You better pray a little harder for clarity IILU.  You do understand that calculated risk, translates to the likely hood that innocent people will be killed and the possibility that the deadly attack will not solve the problem.  Whose life is collateral in conflict when all life is sacred?

[Cheshire Cat]

Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking. 

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood. 

[JayBird]

I don't believe the US should enter another armed conflict this soon when we still have boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there is a long history of our government engaging in conflicts that do not directly effect us as a united nation. For those that simply say it isn't our place, what is the best time? When one of our embassies is directly attacked? When an attack occurs from another on our own land? And even more important, how do you know when the best time is? How can one of us even begin to think about the actions of our military without first knowing the exact facts surrounding the situation? Which, unless someone is currently employed by the Pentagon, White House or one of the beltway agencies, none of us truly know the full picture. We elected a person to serve as the Chief Commander of our Armed Forces, and even if we didn't individually elect that person, once that decision is made we should stand by the decision they make regardless of our personal beliefs, except if their actions are so ludicrous as to jeopardize our very way of life and even then that is why we've elected senators and congressman and have a judicial branch.

I hope that the leaders we've selected are able to find a better solution to this current situation, but if the best solution ends up being military action then so be it, may our soldiers go with our prayers and wishes for a more peaceful world and return with our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters.

[If_I_Loved_you]

To the "assumed use of napalm".  What reprehensible, horrible type of people could do such a thing?  Let's kill em all, they are criminals.

What about this truth in history?  We are not a perfect people, have never been and we need to think about our own actions when looking at what disgusts us around the world.

Napalm bombs first employed in incendiary bombs and went on to be used as fuel for flamethrowers.[10]
The first recorded strategic use of napalm incendiary bombs occurred in an attack by the USAAF on Berlin on 6 March 1944, using American AN-M76 incendiary bombs (with PT-1 (Pyrogel) filler).[11][12] The second known attack, this time a tactical operation by De Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito FB Mk.VIs of No. 140 Wing RAF, Second Tactical Air Force on 14 July 1944, also employed the AM-M76 incendiary in a reprisal attack on the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division ,,Götz von Berlichingen" in Bonneuil-Matours; soldiers of this Waffen SS unit had captured and then murdered a British SAS prisoner-of-war, Lt. Tomos Stephens, taking part in Operation Bulbasket, and seven local Resistance fighters; although it was not known at the time of the air strike, 31 other POWs from the same SAS unit, and an American airman who had joined up with the SAS unit, had also been executed.[13]
further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 and 1945, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[14]
Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay, turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[15]
In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[16] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

"Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash."

General George S. Patton quote

Calculated risk is the answer now?  You better pray a little harder for clarity IILU.  You do understand that calculated risk, translates to the likely hood that innocent people will be killed and the possibility that the deadly attack will not solve the problem.  Whose life is collateral in conflict when all life is sacred?

(when all life is sacred) Diane I'm Pro-Choice and a Christian does this blow your mind?