Syria

So with this uptick in a possible strike on the country how do you feel about another war ... even when no hard proof has been presented?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

raisindot

I think the military model for this should be Clinton's 'interventions' in the Balkans. If I remember, most of this consisted of either missile or air-based assaults on Serbian military positions. Can't remember whether there were ground troops or not; if there were it was a small number.

In the end, these interventions did stop Serbia from ethnic cleansing Bosnia (although we only came in after over thousands of Bosnians were already massacred by Serbians) and Kosovo and ultimately got Milosovich(sp.) out of power.

Unless they're going to drop missiles on the presidential palace, it's doubtful that whatever this action does will do anything to truly change the situation on the ground in Syria. At best, it'll be more of a spanking than anything else.

roland_7707

I wonder if clouds ever look down on us and say,
" Hey , that one there, coming out of that big white building, its shaped like an idiot."

clearlysuspect

Amos Umwhat:
clearlysuspect:
Thought out was interesting the point made on NPR this morning. What exactly is the big deal about the use of biological/chemical attack? It's basically to say Assad can just keep killing all his citizens. As long as he only uses bullets we're fine with it.

As atrocious as it is, I'm just not in favor of intervening in this region of the world until the people of that region evolve even just a little. We take out one dictator, he'll just be replaced by someone else and often times worse than the original dictator.

Also sad that this conversation has mostly been about which idiot politician we each love the most. The only thing more worthless than politicians who can seemingly never accomplish anything is citizens arguing and divided over these idiots.
at the hearings I listened to they kept saying kids were killed. Lucky our missiless dont do that

I think my quote above might read wrong. They were questioning drawing a red line at chemical weapons. Why is that the tipping point? Why is this where intervention is required? Is it any less atrocious to spray everyone down with bullets? Killing thousands is still killing thousands regardless of the method used.

And I agree with you Amos that "shock and awe" is definitely "mass destruction."

beatnic

Kinda odd seeing all of these diverse BOTLs agreeing on this issue. We're usually at each others' throats.
I think its' unanimous. Our government is run by idiots.

Vulchor

Amos Umwhat:
clearlysuspect:
Thought out was interesting the point made on NPR this morning. What exactly is the big deal about the use of biological/chemical attack? It's basically to say Assad can just keep killing all his citizens. As long as he only uses bullets we're fine with it.

As atrocious as it is, I'm just not in favor of intervening in this region of the world until the people of that region evolve even just a little. We take out one dictator, he'll just be replaced by someone else and often times worse than the original dictator.

Also sad that this conversation has mostly been about which idiot politician we each love the most. The only thing more worthless than politicians who can seemingly never accomplish anything is citizens arguing and divided over these idiots.
at the hearings I listened to they kept saying kids were killed. Lucky our missiless dont do that

In the wise words of George Carlin..."f*ck the children"

But in all seriousness, while killing kids is bad----killing adults is fine. And as you said Amos, killing with missles is even more fine.

Vulchor

I think because its as basic as it gets Beat, and sadly---both sides cant get much beyond basic. Healthcare we can pollute with ideas of dead fetuses or poor Grandmas. Finances we can f' up with with wall street vs unions or govt. control vs personal choice. Even personal freedom we can screw with gay marriage and gun control. But going to war in a country most of us cant pick out on a map with people our public sees as 'not able to fix' (at least any time soon? Thats easy enough for anyone to see the answer----other than elected officials of course.

webmost

webmost:
Let's have a show of hands: Who still hopes for change?

I hear crickets

onestrangeone

beatnic:
Kinda odd seeing all of these diverse BOTLs agreeing on this issue. We're usually at each others' throats.
I think its' unanimous. Our government is run by idiots.

+1 Have felt this way for a while now. Sad

Vulchor

I still hope for change Web.....but I wasn't going to be baited into partisan b.s. in this thread.

clearlysuspect

Vulchor:
I still hope for change Web.....but I wasn't going to be baited into partisan b.s. in this thread.

webmost

clearlysuspect:
Vulchor:
I still hope for change Web.....but I wasn't going to be baited into partisan b.s. in this thread.
+1

Let me know when it's more convenient for you.

When it comes to foreign policy, this man cannot find his azz with both hands. No, not even if he dropped the soap in the prison shower. No, not even if he dropped his Nobel Peace Prize medallion. That's not partisan b.s. Dat's da troof.

We need a third party not owned by the conviction that we need to run the world.

RBeckom

beatnic:
Kinda odd seeing all of these diverse BOTLs agreeing on this issue. We're usually at each others' throats.
I think its' unanimous. Our government is run by idiots.

perkinke

webmost:
clearlysuspect:
Vulchor:
I still hope for change Web.....but I wasn't going to be baited into partisan b.s. in this thread.
+1
Let me know when it's more convenient for you.

When it comes to foreign policy, this man cannot find his azz with both hands. No, not even if he dropped the soap in the prison shower. No, not even if he dropped his Nobel Peace Prize medallion. That's not partisan b.s. Dat's da troof.

We need a third party not owned by the conviction that we need to run the world.

We haven't had a government that has understood foreign policy since Bush I, before that, ironically, Nixon?

I think we need to start taking lessons from the Brits again, they have become far more selective and careful in how they intervene internationally after having been the biggest kid on the block until '40. We're in a similar decline of our colonial period and need to start stepping back. And seriously, how many times does it need to be said that no one from outside the middle-east can solve those problems when even middle-easterners can't????

Amos_Umwhat

webmost:
We need a third party not owned by the conviction that we need to run the world.

Amen

Vulchor

Do you think this is possible Amos, or do you think that if said 3rd party gained steam----they would eventually become tied to the same money, interests, corruption, and desires as our 2 party system already? I think I could hear both sides.

phobicsquirrel

Amos Umwhat:
webmost:
We need a third party not owned by the conviction that we need to run the world.

Amen

I agree as well, though the thing is we as a nation need to grow up and also need to understand that we have positioned ourselves to be the one to run or police (however you want it worded). We have way too many interests that directly or indirectly affect this country. I personally think that unless we have a huge international backing we shouldn't be sticking our nose into things. The middle east wars were a huge mistake and sadly we have lost huge amounts of capital on the world stage. The evidence hasn't even been presented and you had UK, France, and the US out there condemning Assad, though several months ago the rebels are the one's who used chemical weapons.

I know obama said months ago about the red line on chemical weapons but going in all by ourselves once again and acting like we are the moral high ground is silly. Plus there's a huge domino effect if we do hit Syria. Iran steps in then Russia then China. Though that's worse case scenario but really, why even try to stir that nest? Unless the security council and the UN want to intervene it's not worth it. Sadly I think the UN and the security council have failed horribly. I mean the atrocities that are going on and nothing is being done. The UN is a joke as Iran is still doing what they want, North Korea is the same and so is Syria. I mean it has all failed. So why would the US who is suppose to be broke (I mean hardly anything is being done to get this country moving again and update to the 21st century) but hell we have a blank check when it comes to war. There is something sadly wrong with that, and I feel that by the time anyone does anything about it, it'll be too late.

beatnic

A sad part of it is that this issue is being used by the administration politically. They are at odds with the American public, which is hurting them politically. And now any decision they make will have that American Political side to it. This is not just a foreign policy failure. JMO

Vulchor

This issue---whatever the action-----will be (and already is being) used by all politicians involved Beat------not just the Pres.

roland_7707

Ok, as of right now, if we move against Syria, Russia, Iran, and now China will stand with them. And in the case of Iran " till the end". True, false? Do i have the wrong info? Us against the world? Anybody else think this is a bad idea?

beatnic

we all think this is a bad idea.

roland_7707

What happened to Americas common sense?

Amos_Umwhat

roland_7707:
Ok, as of right now, if we move against Syria, Russia, Iran, and now China will stand with them. And in the case of Iran " till the end". True, false? Do i have the wrong info? Us against the world? Anybody else think this is a bad idea?

Quite a cast of characters, isn't it. Anyone else had a peek at Revelations 16:16 lately?

Amos_Umwhat

Vulchor:
Do you think this is possible Amos, or do you think that if said 3rd party gained steam----they would eventually become tied to the same money, interests, corruption, and desires as our 2 party system already? I think I could hear both sides.

I think so. Historically, the 3rd parties always seem to melt back into the other two, although sometimes something good is an outcome, it always seems to come back to same 'ole - same 'ole stuff. Heck, I've been voting 3rd parties for years. Libertarians, Ross Perot, etc, people say I'm wasting my vote, I don't think so. It's the only message we can send, and somebody has to start it.

Think about the "Bull Moose" party, though. Was TR's record clean? Did things get better? It's been a long time since I read much about it, I'm not sure. One thing I do remember is Mark Twains exasperation with the Presidency. He knew, and liked TR immensely, said that there was no way not to just like and admire the man, even if you disagreed with nearly everything he did.

Then there were the Mugwumps, too, and I think their significant contribution was to effectively keep at least more than just one party in the running.

Amos_Umwhat

Popped open a history book, turned to the first reference to TR, it was a quote from a letter he wrote to a friend in 1897, "In strict confidence, I would welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one"

That's the kind of thinking the world needs to leave behind.

webmost

Vulchor:
This issue---whatever the action-----will be (and already is being) used by all politicians involved Beat------not just the Pres.

All politicians did not promise change. All politicians are not the guy in charge. Beatnic was not talking about all politicians.

It seems to me by now someone ought to have devised a better set of excuses than simply "So's your old man" or "It's George's fault" or "Fox news deludes you hillbilly racist retards". After five years constantly devising excuses morning till night, for massive unemployment, for massive unstimulus, for Gitmo, Asscrackistan, Benghazi, for Fisker, Solyndra, Volt, and all the rest of that green mess starting out with smashing all the old clunkers poor people need to drive to get to work, the Chicago machine, the NSA, the Obamacare debacle, the deficit... the list is literally endless. Endless. After five years making excuses every day all day, you would think someone would have come up with something better than "So's your old man."

Compare Bush. I give you he's an idiot. But compare leadership. Ragheads knocked down our towers. In nine days -- NINE DAYS -- we were already wreaking vengeance in Asscrackistan. No fooling around, no red lines in the sand, no dodging responsibility, no limp *** excuses. Boom. Pakistan cowed, military doing what needed done, Bush may be a jackass, but he stood tall there.

Then we turned on the nation at the center of Arab power for 8,000 years, the nation sporting the world's fourth largest military bought by a huge oil budget, far and away the most powerful Arab army. Forget about WMD. We all know that's not what that war was about, any more than the Spanish war was about the Maine, WWI was about the Lusitania, WWII was about Pearl, or Viet Nam was about Tonkin. Nobody squeaked when Saddam gassed Iranians with his WMD. It was a matter of vengeance, pure and simple. In a matter of weeks, we destroyed the tyrant's army and air force, blew up all his tanks and fortresses, took each of his cities, killed his henchmen hench by hench by hench, took his capital, capitol, coterie and command, killed his sons and showed him their corpses on television, chased the tyrant down to literally a flea ridden God forsaken hole in the effin ground, dragged his scraggly carcass out, set up a kangaroo court, and made his own people hang the ***.

That's victory. That's victory right there. Resounding. Incredible. In any era. Fantastic. We ought to have turned round and got out right there and then. We are good at assault. We have a genius for it. We suck at occupation. That's our curse. That's when we stumbled into all that rebuilding horse pebbles is when we disgraced ourselves.

But just compare that with the present sitch. Do we have as good cause to meddle? Are we going about it decisively? Have we cause? Have we leadership?

"So's your old man" does not cut the mustard.

raisindot

Amos Umwhat:
Popped open a history book, turned to the first reference to TR, it was a quote from a letter he wrote to a friend in 1897, "In strict confidence, I would welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one"

That's the kind of thinking the world needs to leave behind.

Rather ironic, isn't it, considering that TR is the only other president (other than Obama) to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Then again, it pretty much lost all of its credibility when Kissinger won it.

Vulchor

Not going to get partisan Web, but i will disagree about any victory in Afganistan or Iraq considering we still have people in both. Also, I think any president wouldve acted wquite quickly after 9/11 and also quite decisively. Bush (like Clinton) never made a priority to kill Bin Laden----not giving Obama ll credit here, just saying it was never the priority (even if symbolic) it shouldve been. I would counter the Libya was quick and successful....as much as any mes we should not be inovlved in could be-----and moreso than Iraq and the WMDs that never existed.

beatnic

I'm reminded of the news reports during the Iraq war that many had postulated that Sadam's chemical weapons had been moved into Syria. It seems ironic that we may be dealing with those same chemicals here.

RBeckom

I love this thread as it captures the unending growth and evolution of the forums as it morphs itself into a place where even politics can be discussed in a rational manor without conflict, not so even a year ago. Congratulations gentlemen and gentlewomen, we have all grown up. Myself included.

phobicsquirrel

beatnic:
I'm reminded of the news reports during the Iraq war that many had postulated that Sadam's chemical weapons had been moved into Syria. It seems ironic that we may be dealing with those same chemicals here.

Possible, however there was a lot of bs about Iraq