So I have seen lots of accusations about hypocrisy about American involvement in Iraq and our possible involvement in Syria. And it got me thinking- what is the relationship between peoples support for our invasion of Iraq, and our possible attack on Syria. So that is the poll- did you support both, against both or for one and not the other.
The limited US military strike over Syria would target mainly command and control centres for chemical weapons units as well as artillery and missile systems used for chemical weapons delivery to make sure that Assad would not cross the red line again to win an easy victory. The Iraq War was an invasion to remove Saddam from power but American involvement in Syria would be strictly limited and it would last less than 48 hours without ground troops and it's necessary to degrade the Assad regime's capabilities to launch chemical weapons attacks against innocent civilians on humanitarian grounds.
With the greatest respect.... bollocks! Limited? They have already voted for 90 days war. But it will be a 1 year war, and all will be invited! World wide! Your moron Cameron, making a speak supporting invasion, which was against the views of your parliament, but because of AIPAC, he followed his orders. Cameron, a man who has a silver spoon in his mouth since birth, hasn't seen a days work and cares nothing for the goy. Regards Highlander
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dkamZg68jpk#t=907 A little help with your education! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dkamZg68jpk#t=907 Regards Highlander
Why was it necessary to remove Saddam from power?. He was the only force that stabilized his country between the Shia and Sunni. It simply was, as is Syria, none of our business.
