Syria

[BDBGoalie]

Okay...

 

How about an "Undecided" option?

 

cause that's where I'm at currently... I don't think that syria should get away with using chemical weapons, and if that is the case, then I think Someone should punish them...

 

If nobody else is going to do it, then we are going to have to. (assuming they actually did use chemical weapons)

 

No. Thats the kind of thinking that has been getting us into messes for the past few decades.

 

They don't want us there.

If we "assist" both side will seize the target of opportunity and attack us. They will continue to attack us once the conflict is over.

There is no endgame strategy set up, nor is there any endgame that will satisfy the region.

We don't have the finances to support another war.

We definately don't have the finances to single-handedly play world policeman.

The regime hates us and is allied with Iran/China/Russia. The rebels are extremists and muslims and they hate us too. Neither is a side I want to help in the slightest. Less of either of them is a good thing.

 

 

They are killing each other and seem quite happy about it. I say go ahead and let them keep going. Saves us millions in ordinance.

 

 

However, all Obama has succeeded in thusfar is making the US look even weaker and indececive than before. First rule of leadership: Make a decision and stick with it. Deterrant and power projection strategies won't work anymore because the other nations know we don't have the balls to back up what we say we are going to do.

Edited September 4, 2013 by BDBGoalie

[ohiomike]

The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told

 

 

[magley64]

No. Thats the kind of thinking that has been getting us into messes for the past few decades.

They are killing each other and seem quite happy about it. I say go ahead and let them keep going. Saves us millions in ordinance.

So to hell with the geneva convention and international law? Fuck innocent civilians?

In a nut shell?

[Medina]

Wait, YOU'RE the troll they told me about, am I right?

 

 

 

[Casper]

So to hell with the geneva convention and international law? Fuck innocent civilians?

In a nut shell?

Who's innocent here? Who's using chemical weapons on who? You just said you don't know. So we should just willy nilly pick a side and start bombing? Mind you, the side our government has taken is with the same side the "terrorists" we've been fighting since September 11th have taken.

[BDBGoalie]

So to hell with the geneva convention and international law? Fuck innocent civilians?

In a nut shell?

 

Yup. We can't fix this unless we engage enough to DESTROY BOTH agressive parties. No way they are willing to do that. And we shouldn't be doing that anyways.

 

It is not our fight. That area of the world will continue to kill each other until they grow out of their antiquated religion (Which isn't happening anytime soon). They are just finding more effective methods of killing each other now, and the media is telling you about every person that gets killed.

 

We won't change anything by intervening. If anything, we'll create a vaccum like Iraq and fuck the situation up even more. Then we're responsible for the clean up. Not to mention re-aggravating the entire radical muslim world and putting us back into the center of the crosshairs.

Edited September 4, 2013 by BDBGoalie

[BDBGoalie]

So to hell with the geneva convention and international law? Fuck innocent civilians?

In a nut shell?

Geneva convention was written for protection of soldiers and civillians in a conventional battlefield. Those wars don't exist anymore.

 

The rules are a good guideline, but it isn't as practical when part of the battle plans for today's wars is to de-legitimize the governing/invading force by any means necessary. Attacking aid workers, civilians, social structures, etc, and all in a manner that doesn't disclose who made the attack, but rather emphasizes that the government can't defend them. Everything is fair game to them.

 

Long story short - insurgents are willing and able to target civilians with whatever means necessary to accomplish their goals. They don't give a shit about rules.

Edited September 4, 2013 by BDBGoalie

[Pokey]

Geneva convention was written for protection of soldiers and civillians in a conventional battlefield. Those wars don't exist anymore.

 

The rules are a good guideline, but it isn't as practical when part of the battle plans for today's wars is to de-legitimize the governing/invading force by any means necessary. Attacking aid workers, civilians, social structures, etc, and all in a manner that doesn't disclose who made the attack, but rather emphasizes that the government can't defend them. Everything is fair game to them.

 

Long story short - insurgents are willing and able to target civilians with whatever means necessary to accomplish their goals. They don't give a shit about rules.

 

And......only one way to deal with and get rid of vermin like that too. They know that our morals and principles will get the best of us, until we become ruthless back, they are gonna keep on thriving.

[Medina]

I have to admit I am perplexed by the logic or lack there of in this decision. I think I understand Obama's drive and agenda to help the Muslim Brotherhood at every instant, even though I fail to see or fathom his motivation. But what really baffles me is the insistence of this administration to provide aid to our enemies, as was done in Libya and Egypt. 

 

Helping to defeat Assad in anyway is a victory for Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. In the off-chance we actually took out key Assad leaders or Assad himself, who secures the chems?

 

Russia is openly allied with Assad and even if we don't like it, do we risk turning the heat up with the Russians over this? 

 

And finally, can someone for the love of fucking PETE, please show me some evidence that proves without a doubt that it was Assad who ordered the chem attack, while he was busy winning against the rebels, and that it wasn't the rebels who have everything to gain from a huge fucking blunder like this chem attack that actually managed it?

[ohiomike]

The Geneva Convention agreement only applies to the good guys, basically.  It supposed to apply to all nations, but Japan and Germany scoffed at it and violated all the time.  The Jihadists are even worse.  Technically we shouldn't be waterboarding, but we have.

 

But these situations have little to do with whats happened in Syria and the implications of a strike being made by us  Its not our place to take up this onus.  Heck, even Britain, for the first time since the 1700's, decided against the demands of the Prime Minister to aid and abet in an attack.  This is an international incident and should be dealt with by 1. NATO or .2,the United Nations.

 

 In addition, its very possible Assad and co. did not do this atrocity.

 

U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime'

Notice the date-Jan 2013.

http://web.archive.org/web/201301300...ame-Assad.html

 

Plus by taking sides against Assad and co. we are siding with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quada.  What kind of lunacy is this?

[RCBS]

I'm so over the middle east. When is it someone else's turn to babysit? At this point, even wasting a cognitive thought about the entire region pisses me off. Bring them all home. Let those people deal with their problems as we have plenty of our own which need addressing.

[Medina]

Alan West says:

Listening to President Obama in Sweden saying he never set a red line and that his credibility isn't on the line, but rather the credibility of America, Congress, and the International community. It never ceases to amaze me how Obama never takes any responsibility for his actions. He is the leader of the United States of America and he sets the tone, not Joe and Jane. As a leader, he did nothing for all these months and now wants to enjoin everyone in his abject failure and abdication of accountability. I am not buying into Obama's weak attempt of guilt-tripping us. Mr. President, you have not earned anyone's respect to follow you, May I remind you of the result of your unilateral actions in Libya? Also, is it not perplexing that within the last 6 years, Pelosi, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all sat with and praised Assad, but now they want to blow him up?

[magley64]

Who's innocent here? Who's using chemical weapons on who? You just said you don't know. So we should just willy nilly pick a side and start bombing? Mind you, the side our government has taken is with the same side the "terrorists" we've been fighting since September 11th have taken.

Hundreds of syrian children poisoned with sarin for a start? Again I personally am not privy to the intelligence that was provided the congress. If chemical weapons were used (becoming more or less a sure thing) and If they were used by the syrian government (congress seems convinced) and If nobody else will do anything about it... then what choice do we have? Let them get away with the things we've decided as a civilized world that we would not tolerate? What's next?

[Casper]

Hundreds of syrian children poisoned with sarin for a start? Again I personally am not privy to the intelligence that was provided the congress. If chemical weapons were used (becoming more or less a sure thing) and If they were used by the syrian government (congress seems convinced) and If nobody else will do anything about it... then what choice do we have? Let them get away with the things we've decided as a civilized world that we would not tolerate? What's next?

Who's them? Who are we letting get away? You've already said you don't know. An educated decision needs to be made, not an emotional one. You don't know who the enemy is, yet this is you; "oh the poor children, we have to bomb someone".

[magley64]

Who's them? Who are we letting get away? You've already said you don't know. An educated decision needs to be made, not an emotional one. You don't know who the enemy is, yet this is you; "oh the poor children, we have to bomb someone".

 

YOU asked me who was innocent... I answered

 

Then you missed a few steps in between...

1. Were chemical weapons used on these children? (seems pretty apparent now)

2. Who supplied these chemical weapons? (becoming clearer that it is syria)

3. Who used these chemical weapons? (becoming clearer that it is syria's government)

4. Is the UN or Nato willing to do anything about it? (seems the answer is no)

5. Are we willing to accept that this country uses chemical weapons against it's citizens without any consequence whatsoever?

6. If yes, What message does THAT send?

 

It's not emotion driving me, It's an interest in justice and consequence.

[Casper]

YOU asked me who was innocent... I answered

Then you missed a few steps in between...

1. Were chemical weapons used on these children? (seems pretty apparent now)

2. Who supplied these chemical weapons? (becoming clearer that it is syria)

3. Who used these chemical weapons? (becoming clearer that it is syria's government)

4. Is the UN or Nato willing to do anything about it? (seems the answer is no)

5. Are we willing to accept that this country uses chemical weapons against it's citizens without any consequence whatsoever?

6. If yes, What message does THAT send?

It's not emotion driving me, It's an interest in justice and consequence.

Emotion.

[max power]

YOU asked me who was innocent... I answered

 

Then you missed a few steps in between...

1. Were chemical weapons used on these children? (seems pretty apparent now)

2. Who supplied these chemical weapons? (becoming clearer that it is syria)

3. Who used these chemical weapons? (becoming clearer that it is syria's government)

4. Is the UN or Nato willing to do anything about it? (seems the answer is no)

5. Are we willing to accept that this country uses chemical weapons against it's citizens without any consequence whatsoever?

6. If yes, What message does THAT send?

 

It's not emotion driving me, It's an interest in justice and consequence.

Did the Daily Show tell you all these "facts"?

[magley64]

Did the Daily Show tell you all these "facts"?

 

Actually, stewart's position is the opposite of mine in this case, and I'm fine with that.

[magley64]

Emotion.

:eyeroll:

 

why is it every time someone disagrees with you it's because they are emotionally driven?

 

I think there are situations in which the US needs to remain vigilant. We dropped the ball during the holocaust, but it could be argued that "we didn't know".

Now the argument is "we're not sure..?" or "even if we are sure, we shouldn't do anything..."

 

If the latter, welcome to the wrong side of history.

Edited September 5, 2013 by magley64

[ohiomike]

:eyeroll:

 

why is it every time someone disagrees with you it's because they are emotionally driven?

 

I think there are situations in which the US needs to remain vigilant. We dropped the ball during the holocaust, but it could be argued that "we didn't know".

Now the argument is "we're not sure..?" or "even if we are sure, we shouldn't do anything..."

 

If the latter, welcome to the wrong side of history.

Then go enlist and put your ass where your mouth is.

[magley64]

Then go enlist and put your ass where your mouth is.

 

My cousin is currently serving (in hawaii at the moment) and He's 100% for a full on invasion...

 

Are you an enlisted man? No, then why do YOU have an opinion?

Edited September 5, 2013 by magley64

[Medina]

My cousin is currently serving (in hawaii at the moment) and He's 100% for a full on invasion...

 

Are you an enlisted man? No, then why do YOU have an opinion?

 

I would love to see that email.

half my customers are military in various branches, various levels. and NONE of them want SHIT to do with it!

I work for contractors, and one of those guys, and about a third of his crew are either retired or inactive military...and none of them want shit to do with it either. 

I'd expand and say 2 friends are in the UK, serving proudly with the brits.....and NONE of them want shit to do with it either. 

 

 

 

THIS JUST IN: oh SNAP--Putin called Kerry...a LIAR

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/09/05/obama-kerry-putin-syria-russia-g-20/2769683/

 

oh hell, next one down, Secretary Kerry: No Place for Benghazi in Syria Debate 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/secretary-kerry-no-place-for-benghazi-in-syria-debate

 

the news is on fire

 

Obama Shrugged

 

 

and Kerry is hellbent on swiftboating the US along with himself on this one. 

[Casper]

:eyeroll:

 

why is it every time someone disagrees with you it's because they are emotionally driven?

 

I think there are situations in which the US needs to remain vigilant. We dropped the ball during the holocaust, but it could be argued that "we didn't know".

Now the argument is "we're not sure..?" or "even if we are sure, we shouldn't do anything..."

 

If the latter, welcome to the wrong side of history.

 

The only "fact" you gave was that children were killed. The rest are irrational assumptions based on incomplete facts and/or rumors. "Seems pretty apparent", "becoming clearer", "seems the answer", et cetera are descriptors you would use for facts. Then we have my favorite, "Are we willing to accept that this country uses chemical weapons against it's citizens without any consequence whatsoever?" This is an emotional appeal, red herring fallacy. Your "facts" are full of hasty generalizations. Thanks for trying though. Come back with the facts then we can talk. 

 

[magley64]

 

I would love to see that email.

 

His facebook status, august 22nd Verbatim

 

"WHAT THE FUCK AMERICA? Are we going to let Syria's Government use chemical weapons on kids and women. More than 100,000 dead and the displacement of over 1,000,000 Syrian civilians. How about we stand up for what's right... Write your Senators and Congress members and tell them you want troops on ground in Syria..

Aug 26th

 

And then there was WAR! #Syria

 

Aug27th

 

WAR WAR WAR WAR #Syria

 

Sept 3rd

 

John boehner R-Ohio is the man...

[ohiomike]

My cousin is currently serving (in hawaii at the moment) and He's 100% for a full on invasion...

 

Are you an enlisted man? No, then why do YOU have an opinion?

Your freaking idiotic response just reinforces why everyone here thinks you are a troll.  So what you are saying is that unless someone is an enlisted person, they have no say in any of this?  MFer, if I would be accepted into the Armed Forces, I would gladly enlist.  I tried to when 9/11 occurred, but I was not accepted because of my age then.  WHATS YOUR FREAKING EXCUSE?