UK Parliament voted not to intervene with a majority of 13.And more power to 'em on that. If only more nations would follow suit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848)
Causing no end of arguements since it was the ruling coalition that wanted to intervene.
UK Parliament voted not to intervene with a majority of 13.And more power to 'em on that. If only more nations would follow suit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848)
Causing no end of arguements since it was the ruling coalition that wanted to intervene.
UK Parliament voted not to intervene with a majority of 13.And more power to 'em on that. If only more nations would follow suit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848)
Causing no end of arguements since it was the ruling coalition that wanted to intervene.
I'm turning WWIII into a drinking game. One shot for each city flattened. Who's with me?
I thank that video for the mental image of Obama and Putin in a literal dick waving contest.
I'd love to know why Russia is defending Syria even with their recent actions. I know you want to be an antagonistic ass Putin, but is now really the time?
Small note. John Kerry is no longer a Senator. He's the Secretary of State.I probably could've reread the LA Times article for that. Didn't really care enough to check.
Ironbite-just being pedantic.
Also China has agreements wth Sudan and Syria for other things (in Sudan it's oil) Basically US and EU focus on the wealthy middle east and Russia and China get the poor halfI thank that video for the mental image of Obama and Putin in a literal dick waving contest.
I'd love to know why Russia is defending Syria even with their recent actions. I know you want to be an antagonistic ass Putin, but is now really the time?
I'm gonna come along and explain the Russia/Syria thing. Russia has bases they really want to stay open in Syria. Russia has also beefed up Syria over the years where military stuff is concerned. Syria had a bunch of SIGs because of Russia. The Russia/Syria agreements have been there since before Putin.
Well here's a fun story that just happened. Me and my little brother had just pulled in to our driveway on the way back from going to pick up food for dinner and he gets oout to open the gate. Once he gets out I'm fiddling with buttons trying to figure out how to turn off the light I accidentally turned on earlier. In the process I hit a button that changes the radio station to Dan Savage's Savage Nation.
Oh boy, I think I lost noticeable brain mass from that minute of listening to it. He said Something to the effect of -
"I've been watching the BBC and they're reporting what the American news stations won't, that US warships have been sighted of the coast of Iceland (I think that's what he said) on their way to Syria. Obama's going to strike Syria in the night while Americans are too busy partying to care!
Obama needs to be impeached. He should be dragged before the war crimes tribunal in the Hague! These are definitely war crimes he's committing! He's attacking Syria after they used chemicals once! The recent attack hasn't even been confirmed and it's probably the rebels!
This is nothing like the Holocaust. Even if it was it would be like bombing the trains of prisoners to stop it!"
At this point my little brother was getting back in the car and I promptly shut the radio off, both because I couldn't listen to it anymore and because I didn't want to expose my little brother to the concentrated stupid that was spewed forth.
Damn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?
Damn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?
QuoteDamn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?
This is exactly how I feel about it. Not sure what to think.
Damn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?Really doesn't need to be. People just are so worried about interfering in anything or ever daring to get involved in other people's business that they'd rather let thousands die. The money spent on our military isn't exactly refundable. The least we can do is not let brutal dictators continue to torture and kill people. However, apparently it's racist to acknowledge that there are dictators in the Middle East.
Yeah.... no. Much as I'd like to agree with you, food/medical supplies is too hot a target, and putting our troops in Syrian territory, regardless of the reasons, will be seen as an act of war. Do you really think Russia will stand for that, given their behavior?QuoteDamn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?
This is exactly how I feel about it. Not sure what to think.
how about instead of dropping bombs and choosing a camp (or choosing between the plague and cholera) we send in aid, logistical support for the civilians? keep the armed guard around so that the rebels or the army can't get the supplies and make sure that its helping the population and not fuelling the fire?
let warriors wage war, let the civilians live.
Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards. The jihadists pouring into Syria from countries like Iraq and Lebanon are not flocking to the front lines. Instead they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern, rebel-held areas of the country.
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AR204_obagy_G_20130830164816.jpg)
Groups like Jabhat al Nusra, an al Qaeda affiliate, are all too happy to take credit for successes on the battlefield, and are quick to lay claim to opposition victories on social media. This has often led to the impression that these are spearheading the fight against the Syrian government. They are not.
I'm very afraid that this turn into another clusterfuck like Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we'll end up bogged down for years to come. I would feel better we had a coalition of some sort to go in to it, and it seems that Obama is rushing into it, funny given that he had a problem when Bush rushed into Iraq.I swear, if you Americans drag us into another Middle-Eastern money sinkhole of a clusterfuck like you did with Afghanistan and Iraq, there will be hell to pay. Fight your own damn battles.
I'm not in favor of going in to begin with, but going in alone is stupid, and is sure to end in a clusterfuck. But god forbid we wait for the UN or whatnot, no we have to jump the fucking gun in everything. Never said that I was in favor of going in, all I said it would better to do this as a joint effort if it does happen.I know, but saying that you should at least get a coalition together first if you really must invade is my objection. Especially since my own government will probably be willing, assuming the conservatives win the next election (which they almost certainly will). It would be tantamount to a kick to the balls to drag us into another one of these clusterfucks right after we just got out of Iraq.
It is not our job to police the world. The only reason I can justify getting involved is if the fighting spreads to neighboring countries that want no part of it. Otherwise, it's an internal affair that Syria needs to deal with on its own.
It is not our job to police the world. The only reason I can justify getting involved is if the fighting spreads to neighboring countries that want no part of it. Otherwise, it's an internal affair that Syria needs to deal with on its own.
This. We really need to stop interfering in other countries' affairs, using the excuse of "preventative measures." I mean, we're hardly a stellar example of obeying the United Nations. We have no right to attack other countries for doing the same things we've done, and we certainly don't need to jump in and try to stop them fighting among themselves. The double standard is infuriating.
President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)
The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.
President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)
Every news article I've read, watched, or heard has made it clear that there's no interest in an invasion. What's being discussed is airstrikes like those conducted a few years ago in Libya.President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)
The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)
There's no plan to invade. These are just limited attacks that are supposed to show the world that the use of chemical weapons isn't condoned. The attacks probably won't do much of anything except deliver that message. I don't support it, but I understand the logic behind it. But damn people, pay attention to the news.
If the West had intervened earlier, al-Nusra et al would never had gained the support they had.
I just realized what really bugged me about that argument. It's that regardless of what is or isn't done that argument can be used. You can use it for sending troops, you can use it for not sending troops. You can use it for making airstrikes, you can use it for not making airstrikes. You can use it for sending medical aide, you can use it for not sending medical aide. Anything can be criticized using this argument. In fact, you can even see it in this thread.Every news article I've read, watched, or heard has made it clear that there's no interest in an invasion. What's being discussed is airstrikes like those conducted a few years ago in Libya.President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)
The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)
There's no plan to invade. These are just limited attacks that are supposed to show the world that the use of chemical weapons isn't condoned. The attacks probably won't do much of anything except deliver that message. I don't support it, but I understand the logic behind it. But damn people, pay attention to the news.
And what's not to say it will turn into a clusterfuck somewhere down the road where troops are sent in, and we're bogged down for years to come.
If the West had intervened earlier, al-Nusra et al would never had gained the support they had.
To reduce this to purely diplomatic terms, it's none of our goddamned business what they do to one another. The Mideast has been characterized by mutual slaughter throughout history. They're good at it. They enjoy it. Leave them alone. Maybe if we looked real hard we could find some domestic problems to attend to.
Go back further in history Fred.
Ironbite-people have been killing each other in that desert since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.
Go back further in history Fred.
Ironbite-people have been killing each other in that desert since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.
Fred I really do have to wonder where you get your history lessons then I remembered the stunt you tried to pull a while back.
Seeing as Russia and Iran are threatening to engage us/Israel if we make a move, fuck yeah there are going to be problems. Iran may not be in the best shape (thanks to our sanctions), but Russia can still fuck us up bad.Every news article I've read, watched, or heard has made it clear that there's no interest in an invasion. What's being discussed is airstrikes like those conducted a few years ago in Libya.President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)
The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)
There's no plan to invade. These are just limited attacks that are supposed to show the world that the use of chemical weapons isn't condoned. The attacks probably won't do much of anything except deliver that message. I don't support it, but I understand the logic behind it. But damn people, pay attention to the news.
And what's not to say it will turn into a clusterfuck somewhere down the road where troops are sent in, and we're bogged down for years to come.
Which is why we ought to get Turkey involved. Then if Russia tries anything, we lock down the Bosphorus.Seeing as Russia and Iran are threatening to engage us/Israel if we make a move, fuck yeah there are going to be problems. Iran may not be in the best shape (thanks to our sanctions), but Russia can still fuck us up bad.Every news article I've read, watched, or heard has made it clear that there's no interest in an invasion. What's being discussed is airstrikes like those conducted a few years ago in Libya.President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)
The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)
There's no plan to invade. These are just limited attacks that are supposed to show the world that the use of chemical weapons isn't condoned. The attacks probably won't do much of anything except deliver that message. I don't support it, but I understand the logic behind it. But damn people, pay attention to the news.
And what's not to say it will turn into a clusterfuck somewhere down the road where troops are sent in, and we're bogged down for years to come.
That's why leftists piss me off. More often then not, they have nothing to offer but platitudes, bleeding heard, feel good nonsense and pretty much everything else bar a practical solution or two, and then wonder why nobody takes them seriously. The idiots do more harm to their cause than the opposition ever could.I am seriously tempted to attend the next rally so I can hijack the podium and point this out.
Well here's a fun story that just happened. Me and my little brother had just pulled in to our driveway on the way back from going to pick up food for dinner and he gets oout to open the gate. Once he gets out I'm fiddling with buttons trying to figure out how to turn off the light I accidentally turned on earlier. In the process I hit a button that changes the radio station to Dan Savage's Savage Nation.
Oh boy, I think I lost noticeable brain mass from that minute of listening to it. He said Something to the effect of -
"I've been watching the BBC and they're reporting what the American news stations won't, that US warships have been sighted of the coast of Iceland (I think that's what he said) on their way to Syria. Obama's going to strike Syria in the night while Americans are too busy partying to care!
Obama needs to be impeached. He should be dragged before the war crimes tribunal in the Hague! These are definitely war crimes he's committing! He's attacking Syria after they used chemicals once! The recent attack hasn't even been confirmed and it's probably the rebels!
This is nothing like the Holocaust. Even if it was it would be like bombing the trains of prisoners to stop it!"
At this point my little brother was getting back in the car and I promptly shut the radio off, both because I couldn't listen to it anymore and because I didn't want to expose my little brother to the concentrated stupid that was spewed forth.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Are you seriously trying to stir up more of the same shit you started in the "Fairly substantial massacre in Egypt." thread?I apologize for having a differing opinion. I forgot that conformity is required. Wait, no, I don't give a shit if people don't like that I don't agree with them. Still, it's going to be seriously interesting to see how people can spin "All humans are equal" into being a racist statement.
Are you seriously trying to stir up more of the same shit you started in the "Fairly substantial massacre in Egypt." thread?I apologize for having a differing opinion. I forgot that conformity is required. Wait, no, I don't give a shit if people don't like that I don't agree with them.
This is slightly different, with it being Syria instead of Egypt. Additionally, this time we're mixing in the Russia stuff as well, which is another thing that's been being debated. It's not the same thing, and in this case, I'm talking more Syria than the Middle East on a whole. Also, I've hopefully made it clear enough that it's not about race, so perhaps we'll hear better arguments rather than "That's racist!" repeatedly. I'll gladly debate this is people will stop with the bullshit calls of racism, and the attempts to prevent discussion via misuse of Godwin's Law (it's supposed to be used when you call someone a Nazi for disagreeing on the Internet, not used when a nation is systematically oppressing people and has a charismatic, power hungry leader and a nation that has seen better days but remembers and desires its former glory).Are you seriously trying to stir up more of the same shit you started in the "Fairly substantial massacre in Egypt." thread?I apologize for having a differing opinion. I forgot that conformity is required. Wait, no, I don't give a shit if people don't like that I don't agree with them.
It's not that I don't like that you disagree with the majority opinion, it's that A) we just had this debate, and B) everyone else's criticisms apparently didn't change your views whatsoever, so trying to revive this freshly-dead debate serves no purpose other than stirring shit up purely for the sake of stirring shit up. I love heated debates (even if I don't participate much), but this I find to be childishly annoying.
So I suppose when people point out that such an occupation will do far more harm than good to the locals (like Iraq and Afghanistan) and be a huge burden on an economy that's only just beginning to recover from a huge recession (again, like Iraq and Afghanistan), you're just going to ignore it like last time, right?I could have sworn I already addressed the second point in the big post I made on this thread. Money is not as important as human lives. Additionally, I don't remember Iraq using chemical warfare on their citizens. Syria is not the same as Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is slightly different, with it being Syria instead of Egypt.
Additionally, this time we're mixing in the Russia stuff as well, which is another thing that's been being debated.
It's not the same thing, and in this case, I'm talking more Syria than the Middle East on a whole.
Also, I've hopefully made it clear enough that it's not about race, so perhaps we'll hear better arguments rather than "That's racist!" repeatedly. I'll gladly debate this is people will stop with the bullshit calls of racism, and the attempts to prevent discussion via misuse of Godwin's Law (it's supposed to be used when you call someone a Nazi for disagreeing on the Internet, not used when a nation is systematically oppressing people and has a charismatic, power hungry leader and a nation that has seen better days but remembers and desires its former glory).
Tell that to the people who'll end up losing their livelihood because the entire economy was run into the ground over your little crusade, or the soldiers who're dying for it. Not to mention, what about the first point? That occupation will only make things worse? How about you actually address that one, hmm?So I suppose when people point out that such an occupation will do far more harm than good to the locals (like Iraq and Afghanistan) and be a huge burden on an economy that's only just beginning to recover from a huge recession (again, like Iraq and Afghanistan), you're just going to ignore it like last time, right?I could have sworn I already addressed the second point in the big post I made on this thread. Money is not as important as human lives. Additionally, I don't remember Iraq using chemical warfare on their citizens. Syria is not the same as Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's rather hard to address the future. Without seeing the results, you can't really say things will be worse. But, if you want my opinion on it, I doubt they will be, mainly because we won't be using chemical weapons, and civil wars are generally less stable than other things. Also, if I remember correctly, it was the unregulated madness of Wall Street that ruined the economy moreso than anything else. Now, the American government's debt comes from our wars, that is true. Additionally, regarding the soldiers, there it is again. The soldiers lives are more important than the civilians lives. Why? Soldiers die or civilians die. One of them signed up knowing the risks. Anyone in the American military now knew what they were getting into. It's not like people who signed up in 2000 and got thrown in. People signing up now were elementary schoolers when 9/11 happened. They know they're signing up in a dangerous time. Civilians, meanwhile, never were given another option. They were forced into this shit. If anything, risking the lives of those who agreed to save the lives of those who did not is the just thing, not letting people who never had another option die because people who didn't have to sign up weren't sent.Tell that to the people who'll end up losing their livelihood because the entire economy was run into the ground over your little crusade, or the soldiers who're dying for it. Not to mention, what about the first point? That occupation will only make things worse? How about you actually address that one, hmm?So I suppose when people point out that such an occupation will do far more harm than good to the locals (like Iraq and Afghanistan) and be a huge burden on an economy that's only just beginning to recover from a huge recession (again, like Iraq and Afghanistan), you're just going to ignore it like last time, right?I could have sworn I already addressed the second point in the big post I made on this thread. Money is not as important as human lives. Additionally, I don't remember Iraq using chemical warfare on their citizens. Syria is not the same as Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's rather hard to address the future. Without seeing the results, you can't really say things will be worse. But, if you want my opinion on it, I doubt they will be, mainly because we won't be using chemical weapons, and civil wars are generally less stable than other things.Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupation just makes things worse, that's been proven time and time again by history. Extremism goes through the fucking roof because, surprise surprise, people generally don't like foreign occupiers. Doesn't matter if it's out of colonial greed or an asininely naive white knight complex, they just don't take kindly to it. That's largely why Baghdad and Kabul are a lot more explodey right now than they were before the Americans had their way with the country.
Also, if I remember correctly, it was the unregulated madness of Wall Street that ruined the economy moreso than anything else. Now, the American government's debt comes from our wars, that is true.I'm not saying they caused the recession, I'm saying additional wars and with it even more skyrocketing debt will make lead to a crash that makes the current recession seem like a minor hiccup,
Additionally, regarding the soldiers, there it is again. The soldiers lives are more important than the civilians lives. Why? Soldiers die or civilians die. One of them signed up knowing the risks. Anyone in the American military now knew what they were getting into. It's not like people who signed up in 2000 and got thrown in. People signing up now were elementary schoolers when 9/11 happened. They know they're signing up in a dangerous time. Civilians, meanwhile, never were given another option. They were forced into this shit. If anything, risking the lives of those who agreed to save the lives of those who did not is the just thing, not letting people who never had another option die because people who didn't have to sign up weren't sent.Just because their job is risky is not a valid excuse to get them killed in a poorly thought out invasion. And yes, because they are American, the American government has an actual responsibility to keep them as safe as possible (naturally, this applies to other nationalities just as much). Foreigners, not so much. They're the responsibility of their own government. It doesn't matter how strongly you believe in this incredibly bleeding heart and impractical mindset of yours, that's the reality of it. A government's obligation is to its citizens. As long as there is poverty, violence and other issues at home, the government has no business playing world police.
It's not that I don't like that you disagree with the majority opinion, it's that A) we just had this debate, and B) everyone else's criticisms apparently didn't change your views whatsoever, so trying to revive this freshly-dead debate serves no purpose other than stirring shit up purely for the sake of stirring shit up. I love heated debates (even if I don't participate much), but this I find to be childishly annoying.It would not stir up the freshly-dead debate if you wouldn't divert to it. Every one of your arguments in this
Fred I really do have to wonder where you get your history lessons then I remembered the stunt you tried to pull a while back.Why, is he wrong? Evidence please, instead of a generalized 'people will always fight each other'.
It's rather hard to address the future. Without seeing the results, you can't really say things will be worse. But, if you want my opinion on it, I doubt they will be, mainly because we won't be using chemical weapons, and civil wars are generally less stable than other things.Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupation just makes things worse, that's been proven time and time again by history. Extremism goes through the fucking roof because, surprise surprise, people generally don't like foreign occupiers. Doesn't matter if it's out of colonial greed or an asininely naive white knight complex, they just don't take kindly to it. That's largely why Baghdad and Kabul are a lot more explodey right now than they were before the Americans had their way with the country.
Also, if I remember correctly, it was the unregulated madness of Wall Street that ruined the economy moreso than anything else. Now, the American government's debt comes from our wars, that is true.I'm not saying they caused the recession, I'm saying additional wars and with it even more skyrocketing debt will make lead to a crash that makes the current recession seem like a minor hiccup.
There will always be poverty, violence and other issues here. World peace is impossible with humans in control. Also, it's only poorly thought out if you don't, well, think it out. With good planning, it's not poorly thought out. Additionally, I'd say that that is in fact the racist mindset. No group of people should be more important than others due to their nationality. In the end, one group signed up for the job whose description involves shitty conditions and a high chance of bullet-related problems. The others were born in a bad place. One asked to be put in these situations, whether due to needing the military to pay for school, tradition, patriotism or sheer sociopathy, and the other did not. We spend more money on our military than is even remotely sane. To horde that power and let others die when they don't have to and never asked to be put in that situation is immoral as a fat man hoarding food and letting people starve to death.Additionally, regarding the soldiers, there it is again. The soldiers lives are more important than the civilians lives. Why? Soldiers die or civilians die. One of them signed up knowing the risks. Anyone in the American military now knew what they were getting into. It's not like people who signed up in 2000 and got thrown in. People signing up now were elementary schoolers when 9/11 happened. They know they're signing up in a dangerous time. Civilians, meanwhile, never were given another option. They were forced into this shit. If anything, risking the lives of those who agreed to save the lives of those who did not is the just thing, not letting people who never had another option die because people who didn't have to sign up weren't sent.Just because their job is risky is not a valid excuse to get them killed in a poorly thought out invasion. And yes, because they are American, the American government has an actual responsibility to keep them as safe as possible (naturally, this applies to other nationalities just as much). Foreigners, not so much. They're the responsibility of their own government. It doesn't matter how strongly you believe in this incredibly bleeding heart and impractical mindset of yours, that's the reality of it. A government's obligation is to its citizens. As long as there is poverty, violence and other issues at home, the government has no business playing world police.
PHH, why is the Middle East catching your attention so strongly? Subsaharan Africa has war, poverty, epidemic, famine. Southeast Asia has plenty of problems. South America. There's human trafficking going on all over the world. There's always people dying from preventable diseases, from war or starvation. Here in the U.S., we have plenty of problems, with poverty, and health-related issues. So, yes, the Middle East is particularly unstable right now. But. As long as their war stays within their own borders, it's none of our business. There are too many problems, both in America and all over the world, problems that we can actually do something about, without making even more people hate us. It's not that "oh, they're not Americans, so they don't matter." It's, why are we doing this AGAIN? Why are we intervening in another country's affairs against their wishes, AGAIN? Why are we acting like the world police, AGAIN? THAT'S why I oppose military intervention in Syria.Well, we're discussing the Middle East. That's why it's what I discuss. Although not on here, I've expressed the thought that what we're doing elsewhere, especially Africa, is pointless and actually harms them, because the aid we send to Africa gets taken by warlords, making them more powerful. Additionally, we feel that there is too many problems in America because we're used to less problems. Most of the world would take all of our problems over their own problems. Also, the government of that nation is evil. I think oppressive dictators can be described as evil. It does not matter what the government of Syria wants, because, well, of course they want us to stay away. They're the bad guys here. The way I see it, the more fortunate have the obligation, not just the ability or the opportunity, but the obligation, to help the more downtrodden. I view it the same way as raising taxes on the rich. They should be required to give more to help others, because they have more to give. That goes for the first world in general, when compared to the third world, too. As a nation with the ability to remove the murderous dictatorship in charge and save thousands, we have an obligation to do so. We have the ability to help, and so, we must.
It's quite easy to say we shouldn't intervene from the comfort of our air-conditioned homes and first world living conditions. It's quite easy for us to say "Stay out of it!" when we're not affected by that, only by going in. It's quite easy to say we should sit back when that's the beneficial option for us.
We disagree on what would be beneficial. I think removing the madman launching chemical weapons at his own people would be beneficial. Somehow, you do not.It's quite easy to say we shouldn't intervene from the comfort of our air-conditioned homes and first world living conditions. It's quite easy for us to say "Stay out of it!" when we're not affected by that, only by going in. It's quite easy to say we should sit back when that's the beneficial option for us.
I agree that something beneficial should be done. Please identify something beneficial that could be done.
Which madman though.Well, what I'm currently talking about is the government of Syria. They're the prime issue.
Ironbite-there's more then one.
It's rather hard to address the future. Without seeing the results, you can't really say things will be worse. But, if you want my opinion on it, I doubt they will be, mainly because we won't be using chemical weapons, and civil wars are generally less stable than other things.Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupation just makes things worse, that's been proven time and time again by history. Extremism goes through the fucking roof because, surprise surprise, people generally don't like foreign occupiers. Doesn't matter if it's out of colonial greed or an asininely naive white knight complex, they just don't take kindly to it. That's largely why Baghdad and Kabul are a lot more explodey right now than they were before the Americans had their way with the country.
I'd say things are better than they were, actually. Terrorism is still an issue, true, but Saddam was in fact a bad person, and had more than a few screws loose. I'd say that while things certainly could have gone better, and the way things were done was horrid, things are actually looking up. Al-Qaeda is in shambles, real equality progress is being made, and there's one less psychotic dictator in the world.
We disagree on what would be beneficial. I think removing the madman launching chemical weapons at his own people would be beneficial. Somehow, you do not.It's quite easy to say we shouldn't intervene from the comfort of our air-conditioned homes and first world living conditions. It's quite easy for us to say "Stay out of it!" when we're not affected by that, only by going in. It's quite easy to say we should sit back when that's the beneficial option for us.
I agree that something beneficial should be done. Please identify something beneficial that could be done.
I'd say things are better than they were, actually. Terrorism is still an issue, true, but Saddam was in fact a bad person, and had more than a few screws loose. I'd say that while things certainly could have gone better, and the way things were done was horrid, things are actually looking up. Al-Qaeda is in shambles, real equality progress is being made, and there's one less psychotic dictator in the world.Under Saddam, the economy was actually haflway stable and basic utilities such as electricity and water were reliable. Since the Americans moved in, the economy went down the shitter, utilities were non-existent for a while due to the initial invasion basically flattening the place and while those issues aren't as bad as they used to be (though not as good as they were before the US occupation), the place is about as safe as an active volcano. While the rather frequent IUDs and firefights may be specifically targetting American soldiers, let's just say that collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties isn't exactly a once in a lifetime event.
Ahem, proof?
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.Remember, Iraq and Afghanistan both are rather small countries, and America's total GDP is around $16 trillion (and that's GDP, i.e. the value of the entire economy, tax revenue is a fraction of that and military spending a fraction of that fraction). You want to occupy every country in the world with anything less than first world living conditions? Yeah, you can probably get a rough idea of how well that'll work.
There will always be poverty, violence and other issues here. World peace is impossible with humans in control. Also, it's only poorly thought out if you don't, well, think it out. With good planning, it's not poorly thought out. Additionally, I'd say that that is in fact the racist mindset. No group of people should be more important than others due to their nationality.Racist? What exactly does it have to do with a person's race? Words have meaning, pal, don't misuse them for a cheap ad hom if you want to be taken seriously. Also, note that I didn't say one group is more important in an absolute sense than another, what I said is, from the perspective of any given government, it's citizens are more important than non-citizens. This isn't unique to Americans. Americans are no more entitled to aid from the Italian government than Italians are to aid from the American government. I know, you want us all to be the white knights of the world, saving the oppressed and downtrodden of the world from their shitty situation. However, that's simply not feasible. Resources are limited, even to the west, and domestic problems, contrary to what you're implying, are not trivial. Again, the government has no business spending its citizen's tax dollars on foreigners when there are plenty of unsolved domestic issues that negatively affect said citizens to deal with.
You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.
(the US has been giving the rebels non-lethal aide in the form of MREs and medical supplies)Little of which appears to arrive at the point where it is needed, from what I've been hearing.
I know there won't be boots on the ground. I pointed that out earlier in the thread. I'm just not convinced that a limited missile strike will accomplish much. Everything I've read about it makes it seem like a show of force to say that the use of chemical weapons won't be condoned. As opposed to something that would do something other than deliver a message.
You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.
As opposed to the loss of life currently happening? If no one from the outside intervenes, this war will grind on for years. Either Assad will finally collapse, or he'll just gas most of his citizens. A quick US intervention - just airstrikes and missiles, no boots on the ground - will help bring Assad down much more quickly. It's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we have. Every option, especially doing nothing, will end with a lot of dead people. Intervening will at least help to limit the number of dead people.
I'm in favor of a Libyan-style bombing campaign, designed to cripple Assad's military. And we should try to nail the bastard if we can.I know there won't be boots on the ground. I pointed that out earlier in the thread. I'm just not convinced that a limited missile strike will accomplish much. Everything I've read about it makes it seem like a show of force to say that the use of chemical weapons won't be condoned. As opposed to something that would do something other than deliver a message.
You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.
As opposed to the loss of life currently happening? If no one from the outside intervenes, this war will grind on for years. Either Assad will finally collapse, or he'll just gas most of his citizens. A quick US intervention - just airstrikes and missiles, no boots on the ground - will help bring Assad down much more quickly. It's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we have. Every option, especially doing nothing, will end with a lot of dead people. Intervening will at least help to limit the number of dead people.
Aid pretty much never, ever, ever, ever does.(the US has been giving the rebels non-lethal aide in the form of MREs and medical supplies)Little of which appears to arrive at the point where it is needed, from what I've been hearing.
At the very least, this. It'll make everyone who values American lives over everyone elses' happy because we could just use drones, and it will at least do something.I'm in favor of a Libyan-style bombing campaign, designed to cripple Assad's military. And we should try to nail the bastard if we can.I know there won't be boots on the ground. I pointed that out earlier in the thread. I'm just not convinced that a limited missile strike will accomplish much. Everything I've read about it makes it seem like a show of force to say that the use of chemical weapons won't be condoned. As opposed to something that would do something other than deliver a message.
You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.
As opposed to the loss of life currently happening? If no one from the outside intervenes, this war will grind on for years. Either Assad will finally collapse, or he'll just gas most of his citizens. A quick US intervention - just airstrikes and missiles, no boots on the ground - will help bring Assad down much more quickly. It's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we have. Every option, especially doing nothing, will end with a lot of dead people. Intervening will at least help to limit the number of dead people.
Agreed with the fact that it's not going to end anytime soon. Either a revolution is swift and decapitates the leadership, or it grinds on for eternity. There's no middle ground.
You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.
As opposed to the loss of life currently happening? If no one from the outside intervenes, this war will grind on for years. Either Assad will finally collapse, or he'll just gas most of his citizens. A quick US intervention - just airstrikes and missiles, no boots on the ground - will help bring Assad down much more quickly. It's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we have. Every option, especially doing nothing, will end with a lot of dead people. Intervening will at least help to limit the number of dead people.
okay posthuman yes Iraq is more stable now but u know how many people wouldnt have died if we stayed out of there 1.2 millionIn the long run, how many more would have died with we stayed out?
Nowhere near 1.2 million ::)Over time, yes. Because over time, with all the people being killed by persecution and Saddam, it would easily hit 1.2 million.
My opposition to intervening in Syria has less to do with "who cares?" and more to do with we can't afford it, several nations have declared that they will retaliate, it's not our issue, and this kind of bloody civil war is what every nation goes through on its way to maturity. The Syrian people need to be able to reset their own game board, free of outside interference and meddling. It's brutal and horrific, and that is only made worse by modern weaponry, but it's something that they need to go through as a nation. The rest of the region started down that path with the Arab Spring; it just so happens that Syria's internal conflict is much, much more violent than the other uprisings.
No, the only realistic way Saddam Hussein would have been responsible for that many deaths past 2003 would be if he had started another war.Well, I was talking more from 2003 to now, to the future, to whoever took over for him and so on. And, yeah, it was suspect to me too, but I didn't feel like getting accused of avoiding shit. With 100 to 250 thousand, we certainly saved more than we killed or lost.
Shave a zero off and we're at a believable number.
Victim calculus is a morbid branch of mathematics. Brr.
It's easy to condemn this as speculation, but that's what we have to do. Which path is likely to incur more or less sorrow and death? In Iraq, in Libya, and in Syria.
Edit: The 1.2 million number was suspect to me and I looked into it. There is one survey which arrived at >1m deaths, but it's a rather large outlier. Most countings arrive at somewhere between 100k and 250k.
Nowhere near 1.2 million ::)Over time, yes. Because over time, with all the people being killed by persecution and Saddam, it would easily hit 1.2 million.
*glances over the thread*
Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?
My mistake. Let's go with the slightly less stupid plan. Apologies all around.*glances over the thread*
Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?
For the last time...
WE ARE NOT INVADING SYRIA!
No one has said ONE WORD about sending troops in. We are talking about missiles and airstrikes. Nothing more. Just like Libya.
My mistake. Let's go with the slightly less stupid plan. Apologies all around.*glances over the thread*
Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?
For the last time...
WE ARE NOT INVADING SYRIA!
No one has said ONE WORD about sending troops in. We are talking about missiles and airstrikes. Nothing more. Just like Libya.
No, we merely bombed the living hell outta them, which is precisely what we'll do here if the position of U.S. warships is any indication. Obama learned some things from Bush, namely that one needn't use "boots on the ground" to destroy a nation.My mistake. Let's go with the slightly less stupid plan. Apologies all around.*glances over the thread*
Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?
For the last time...
WE ARE NOT INVADING SYRIA!
No one has said ONE WORD about sending troops in. We are talking about missiles and airstrikes. Nothing more. Just like Libya.
Thank you. Apology accepted. I was just getting tired of people saying that we were going to invade, or that it would inevitably lead to invasion. We didn't end up invading Libya, did we?
My mistake. Let's go with the slightly less stupid plan. Apologies all around.*glances over the thread*
Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?
For the last time...
WE ARE NOT INVADING SYRIA!
No one has said ONE WORD about sending troops in. We are talking about missiles and airstrikes. Nothing more. Just like Libya.
Thank you. Apology accepted. I was just getting tired of people saying that we were going to invade, or that it would inevitably lead to invasion. We didn't end up invading Libya, did we?
Actually, from what I've heard, we're mostly going with missiles, probably due to the aforementioned Syrian AA. And there's always the Israeli option.
At some point in there, Russia and Iran make good on their threats to retaliate. America (and Israeli) forces defend themselves. International shitstorm ensues.Actually, from what I've heard, we're mostly going with missiles, probably due to the aforementioned Syrian AA. And there's always the Israeli option.
If it's a no-fly zone they're after, they're flying jets. If they're only launching missiles, that would be a fairly puny punitive strike. Short-term, too.
I would assume that it's likely to go like this:
H-hour: every airport in the country is blown to pieces by a tomahawk. Every known flak, radar or heat-seeking AAA gets a tomahawk. Following close on is a wave of 150-200 SEAD jets (including support aircraft and such). Everything still emitting radiation gets a HARM, then a JDAM.
H-hour +1: some left-over jets drop the occasional bomb right on ole Bashar's head. They miss a bunch of times. Eventually they don't miss.
H-Hour +2: Rebels ring up the US, "we have some armour kicking our arse at XYZ". XYZ explodes.
H-Hour +3: a radar anywhere in Syria turns on. It is instantly blown to pieces (HARM, JDAM).
Rinse, repeat.
Nonsense. No Russian leader, least of all Putin, is going to commit suicide over an irrelevant naval base.
Nonsense. No Russian leader, least of all Putin, is going to commit suicide over an irrelevant naval base.
I take it you feel that Obama is somewhat less sane and is willing to commit suicide over a bunch of foreign nationals being killed in a civil war half a world away. If Russia and America start swinging at each other there is no guarantee who would be left standing.
So I guess we've exchanged white man's burden for first world man's burden.I'm inclined to agree with this. I've got a couple friends saying that Russia is a shadow of it's Cold War height. True or not, I doubt their military is a pushover, or that any ensuing conflict would be brief.
Have any of you asked yourselves why the U.S. tipped its hand so blatantly and so early? I mean now Assad is just going to scatter and hide all his high value military targets in deep dark little holes in out of the way places instead of on the front lines where they are easy to hit...
...oh, wait. ::)Nonsense. No Russian leader, least of all Putin, is going to commit suicide over an irrelevant naval base.
I take it you feel that Obama is somewhat less sane and is willing to commit suicide over a bunch of foreign nationals being killed in a civil war half a world away. If Russia and America start swinging at each other there is no guarantee who would be left standing.
Russia is not going to pick a fight with the US, Fred is right in that Putin isn't that fucking dumb. As was said earlier in the thread, all Russia is doing is a token show of support for their ally. It's why they've only sent two cruisers against an aircraft carrier and its support vessels. Once the US starts flinging bombs in Syria's general direction, they Russian ships will be leaving post-haste.
Nonsense. No Russian leader, least of all Putin, is going to commit suicide over an irrelevant naval base.
I take it you feel that Obama is somewhat less sane and is willing to commit suicide over a bunch of foreign nationals being killed in a civil war half a world away. If Russia and America start swinging at each other there is no guarantee who would be left standing.
There is no obligation on Russia to use force in defence of Syrians. There is indeed an obligation on Obama to use force if the Russians use force in defence of the Syrians. If the Russians launch an attack on the US fleet, the US will retaliate, 100%. The Russians know this. They also know how much force Obama can drop on their heads. Therefore, the Russians will not launch an attack.
Now, I think this is still stupid. Any strike on Syria will kill loads of Syrians. It will not save them, it will kill them. US credibility is not on the line: the US has, in the last decade, shown it will use force whenever it goddamn pleases, there is no need for a future demonstration. Furthermore, there is no international norm against chemical weapons use. The US government used banned chemical weapons in Fallujah without bombing Washington or arresting anyone (also, Saddam, too).
To his own countrymen, Putin's the devil incarnate. To the rest of the world, he's a big bitch.
Their nation lost power recently, and they have a charismatic leader who knows exactly what went wrong, what to do and how to regain it. He allies himself with nations on the wrong side of human rights, persecutes minorities, and is the personal Jesus to a fair portion of his nation. They're swept up in nationalistic pride. Oh, and they're hosting the Olympics soon. And everyone wants to appease him. Why is it that so many liberals are so fucking blind to history? Sometimes, I'm embarrassed to be associated with it, because we want peace so badly we'll hide behind any Internet joke and piles of denial to avoid violence, which only causes more down the road. Sometimes, you need to punch the other guy in the balls BEFORE he's started attacking you, not after he's already begun firing.To his own countrymen, Putin's the devil incarnate. To the rest of the world, he's a big bitch.
Unfortunately, half the problem is that to much of Russia, Putin is Jesus. Remember, they are still smarting from losing power after the Cold War ended, and Putin is promising to take that power back.
UK papers are now annoyed because the US is giving us the cold shoulder and siding up to France because we aren't being massively gung-ho about intervening in Syria. So much "but the special relationship" going around. And some good-old fashioned American and French bashers have come out of the woodwork.I blame my girlfriend for the Hetalia-related mental images here.
President Barack Obama won critical support from House Speaker John Boehner for a punitive strike against Syria on Tuesday and dispatched senior Cabinet officials to persuade Congress that Bashar Assad's government must be punished for a suspected chemical weapons attack the administration blames for more than 1,000 dead.
The leader of House Republicans, Boehner emerged from a meeting at the White House and said the United States has "enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up when it's necessary."
A definite about face from Bohner but not surprising.
Ironbite-he knows exactly what'll happen if they don't give Obama authorization.
The Tea Party base will eat the GOP alive.
At this point, I'm confused. Is Fox saying to stay out of it?
I agree with both statements, but I thought it was them doing the anti-Islam equivalent of saying to just let God decide.At this point, I'm confused. Is Fox saying to stay out of it?
Not even close to the point. It's so Islamophobic it's hilarious. The Civil War isn't about Islam, as far as I'm aware.
It looks like Liz Cheney, the most ardently pro-war pundit in the media, is against the Syria strike. As are staunch Iraq War supporters Rick Santorum and Paul Broun. On the other hand, Iraq War opponents John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are now beating the drums for war.This is why I'm an independent.
I'll bet these are principled conversions, and not purely self-serving flip-flops for political and partisan gain.
Or this is Obama passing responsibility for this to the GOP. Whatever they decide is on them.Admittedly, I like him (sort of) setting the precedence that even with the power at his disposal he will ask the people for permission before letting shit fly. Realistically, having 90 days of free reign over military action will force the U.S. into a war if that is any president's intention. On the downside, this endless public debate gives the enemy a lot of time to prepare their defences which really sucks if you are one of the pawns that is going to be used to breach them.
Or this is Obama passing responsibility for this to the GOP. Whatever they decide is on them.Admittedly, I like him (sort of) setting the precedence that even with the power at his disposal he will ask the people for permission before letting shit fly. Realistically, having 90 days of free reign over military action will force the U.S. into a war if that is any president's intention. On the downside, this endless public debate gives the enemy a lot of time to prepare their defences which really sucks if you are one of the pawns that is going to be used to breach them.
Or this is Obama passing responsibility for this to the GOP. Whatever they decide is on them.Admittedly, I like him (sort of) setting the precedence that even with the power at his disposal he will ask the people for permission before letting shit fly. Realistically, having 90 days of free reign over military action will force the U.S. into a war if that is any president's intention. On the downside, this endless public debate gives the enemy a lot of time to prepare their defences which really sucks if you are one of the pawns that is going to be used to breach them.
Most of those pawns are Tomahawk missiles.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.
"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
YAY! Its another idiot who doesn't know what the fuck is going on.
Ironbite-WHO KEEPS ELECTING THESE FUCKING MORONS!?
QuoteSen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.
"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/rand-paul-syria_n_3852644.html
Christians. Those are the only humans in the eyes of Republicans.QuoteSen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.
"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/rand-paul-syria_n_3852644.html
Wait, is he saying we should be defending the guy in charge? The guy who ordered the killing of his citizens for no reason? The guy who supposedly used illegal weapons against his own people?? THAT'S the side we should be on??
QuoteSen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.
"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/rand-paul-syria_n_3852644.html
Yeah but are those state of the art systems or cold war surplus?I'm not familiar enough with Russian/Soviet weaponry to say how advanced they are, only that the information I've found says that this tech is more advanced than anything the US has come up against in the Middle East.
Ironbite-my money's on the latter...Putin needs to stop trying to back this moron.
Does anyone think this Syria debacle is another distraction from the NSA issue?
republicans are voting no in house and dems vote yes damn
Doesn't matter. Syria is now opening up to talks with the UN about getting rid of the chemical weapons.
Ironbite-someone told them that no matter where they hide the damn things, the US will blow them up.
Actually, I think it was Russia's plan. Syria uses chemical weapons, Russia keeps us away for it bit, "enters talks", and "convinces them to give them up". Russia looks like the big damn heroes, and America looks evil.Doesn't matter. Syria is now opening up to talks with the UN about getting rid of the chemical weapons.
Ironbite-someone told them that no matter where they hide the damn things, the US will blow them up.
I wonder if that was Obama's plan all along. Scared the living **** out of Syria while we argue about whether to bomb another country (again). Then they agree to hand everything over, and we never fired a shot.
If it's true, awesome Batmat Gambit!
Actually, I think it was Russia's plan. Syria uses chemical weapons, Russia keeps us away for it bit, "enters talks", and "convinces them to give them up". Russia looks like the big damn heroes, and America looks evil.Doesn't matter. Syria is now opening up to talks with the UN about getting rid of the chemical weapons.
Ironbite-someone told them that no matter where they hide the damn things, the US will blow them up.
I wonder if that was Obama's plan all along. Scared the living **** out of Syria while we argue about whether to bomb another country (again). Then they agree to hand everything over, and we never fired a shot.
If it's true, awesome Batmat Gambit!
He used to lead the KGB, and took over Russia in what I doubt will be a presidency shorter than his lifespan. He is pretty much that intelligent.Actually, I think it was Russia's plan. Syria uses chemical weapons, Russia keeps us away for it bit, "enters talks", and "convinces them to give them up". Russia looks like the big damn heroes, and America looks evil.Doesn't matter. Syria is now opening up to talks with the UN about getting rid of the chemical weapons.
Ironbite-someone told them that no matter where they hide the damn things, the US will blow them up.
I wonder if that was Obama's plan all along. Scared the living **** out of Syria while we argue about whether to bomb another country (again). Then they agree to hand everything over, and we never fired a shot.
If it's true, awesome Batmat Gambit!
Considering that Russia has been locking up political dissidents and gays, Vladimir Putin would have to be a super-intelligent chess master in order to make Russia look like the hero right now.
America won't look any more or less evil over one more instance of playing World Police.Okay, maybe not evil. Still looks like douchey morons.
Anyone thinking deja vu with Reagan's Star Wars if this was a bluff on the US' part?They weren't bluffing, they were just giving everyone a chance to talk their way out of it first.
I meant on Obama's position to take action earlier, but ok.Anyone thinking deja vu with Reagan's Star Wars if this was a bluff on the US' part?They weren't bluffing, they were just giving everyone a chance to talk their way out of it first.
Or maybe the whole thing has been a cooperative international pressure tactic against Assad from the beginning, with diplomatic strategists figuring he's an unsophisticated clod who can be guided into being trapped in a corner, since there is enough proof to condemn him anyway. Obama's role is the "bad cop", Putin is the "good cop", NATO plays the role of mommy, and Assad finally cries "uncle".Huh. That might actually be the case. It would be a brilliant Xanatos Gambit.
Me: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.
Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.
However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?
It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.
So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.
The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.
Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.
Yippee
Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.QuoteMe: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.
Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.
However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?
It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.
So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.
The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.
Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.
Yippee
I just saw a post with a guy in uniform saying 'I didn't join the Navy to fight for Al Quaeda in Syria.'Which is strange given I've seen 2 military men saying they're willing to go, one of which I've quoted somewhere before.
So, what he's saying is that we're stuck between Iraq...Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.QuoteMe: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.
Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.
However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?
It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.
So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.
The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.
Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.
Yippee
Huh, this probably the first time I've read a conservative argument that had actual points of merit to it in well over a year. Although I'm not quite sure Obama wouldn't do it if it were more politically convenient. If more Americans supported intervention, I have no doubt that Obama would go ahead with the bombing. But with 61% of the country opposed to intervention, it would be very bad politically for Obama to circumvent Congress and bomb Syria. It would be Unconstitutional as well, but our political leaders don't care much about the Constitution except during election years. And even then, they care only about the parts of it that they agree with.
I thought it was clever enough for a laugh.So, what he's saying is that we're stuck between Iraq...Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.QuoteMe: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.
Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.
However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?
It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.
So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.
The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.
Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.
Yippee
Huh, this probably the first time I've read a conservative argument that had actual points of merit to it in well over a year. Although I'm not quite sure Obama wouldn't do it if it were more politically convenient. If more Americans supported intervention, I have no doubt that Obama would go ahead with the bombing. But with 61% of the country opposed to intervention, it would be very bad politically for Obama to circumvent Congress and bomb Syria. It would be Unconstitutional as well, but our political leaders don't care much about the Constitution except during election years. And even then, they care only about the parts of it that they agree with.
...and a hard place.
Shut up. That's the best pun I could think of.
Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.QuoteMe: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.
Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.
However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?
It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.
So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.
The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.
Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.
Yippee
Nope, still stupid.
I would like your explanations then.Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.QuoteMe: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.
Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.
However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?
It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.
So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.
The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.
Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.
Yippee
Nope, still stupid.
Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it.
However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support.
Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?
So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun
Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.
Please don't give them any ideas. We're going to have more than enough of our own bullshit to deal with in the next four years without America dragging us into foreign scuffles.QuoteHowever now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support.
Probably Canada; Australia would help a bro out if you asked.