(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Just a general question on a very serious and current topic which seems to be filling my Facebook page.

Personally, I would agree with the airstrikes. Fighting fire with fire is sometimes the only option however I say this and purely only want to see terrorist units in Syria being destroyed, not towns with innocent people. I know a lot of you may disagree with me but that's just how I feel.

No :p

Half measure which just adds to the frozen conflict we could be other things and be far more effective

The shitstorm that was left in Iraq and Libya was caused by liberals like you. If we let the military do what it is meant to do instead of making it politically correct, there wouldn't be as much as a shitstorm.

i find it quite insulting that u make reference to a world war blitz and people in mud houses!!as a mod i would think u would word it up a bit better than to sound like a racist!anyway ans to this in my opinion is boots on the ground,but the UN refuses because its vietnam all over bla bla..probability is the un will lose a ground warfare.as in all wars people die!!by avoiding it will escalate,by fighting it will escalate..either way we look at it,it will never end!!

You don't make any sense... Liberals like me? Honestly this is why people fun of certain right wing Americans... You do realise Bush was a Republican right?