46
   

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 06:46 am
@izzythepush,
Fascist and stupid. The guy is a patented idiot. He is against US intervention in Syria, and laments Obama going to congress, which will delay and in all likelihood stop any thought of intervention in Syria. Logic, anyone?
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 06:55 am
@Olivier5,
I think he covered that point Ollie. He can think that the initial reaction was a mistake but that the backing down was another one. Perhaps a larger one.

Not that I am an admirer of Mr Bolton. My daddy told me to never trust anybody with a moustache.
George
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 07:00 am
@JPB,
Suppose that option "b" is selected.
What are the pass/fail criteria?
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 07:16 am
@George,
and, how clear is the crystal ball on the fallout from within Syria and the rest of the region?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 07:21 am
@spendius,
Yes, he tried to cover his own stupidity.

The problem these guys have is, if congress votes the thing down, they will look like chicken, and if they authorize it, they will look like they are supporting Obama. What really matters to them is how they look, not what the consequences to their action or inaction will be. Posturing is the name of the game. It's all about the moustache.

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 07:55 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Maybe not the most faithful since then

As for the faithfulness of the Americans to their French allies, it's best forgotten.

True.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 07:59 am
People want you to feel bad for not protecting those people, but it's not possible to protect people in a war without jumping in and killing hundreds of thousands more than you would be saving, on both sides. I am against more military action.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 08:37 am
@edgarblythe,
The idea is just to make Assad stop using chemical weapons. He's got loads of them. Doing nothing would encourage their use.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 08:45 am
@Olivier5,
I don't agree. If they were used once, after they knew about the prohibition, they will be used twice. I don't think the stated objective will convince them otherwise.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 09:38 am
@Olivier5,
I guess I'm an idiot too! I'm against any intervention in Syria by the US. A few strikes from the US is not going to stop a madman like Assad.

How far will anyone have to go to stop Assad using WMD's? Does anybody know? I don't think so.

It has to be an international effort, but the consequences are far worse. When does it end, and how many more innocent Syrians will be killed?

What number is the trade off? Logic anyone?
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 11:56 am
@JPB,
Quote:
b) limited military response with a specified intention and goal?


I go for "b)". Failure to take action in the face of such savagery will merely unleash more of the barbaric characteristics of the Syrian monster. Bashar al-Assad crossed the line when he used sarin gas on his own people which shows his arrogance and egotism is so out of bound, that in the face of doing nothing against him by the international community, will only embolden the creep....pretty soon he'll believe he's god!

Since it's clear there's to be no regime change, then the nerve gas sites should be targeted, warehouses and surrounding areas. There will be some casualties, no doubt, but that would be pale in comparison to what Assad might have in store for his citizens if he's unable to bring this civil war under control.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 12:01 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
If it were that simple I don't think Obama would have waited to strike. There are far more negatives than positives here. A limited strike such as they have planned does not seem to me to be designed to knock out the capability to deal poison gas, but merely to rap Assad's knuckles. I don't think it's worth the killing of unintended targets, as always happens.
Ragman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 12:08 pm
@edgarblythe,
Furthermore, what did US gov't do to intercede in Darfur and other nations internal affairs when millions were starved to death or tortured...Tianeman Sq, when China mowed down protestors with tanks .. and several other genocides not unlike this? Mah nishtanah halaylah hazeh (why is this night different than any other nights)?

Intervention such as lobbing a cruise missile at Assad's military forces or weapons stores will not lead to anything positive. Rapping Assad's knuckles will not cause more compassion for a morally impaired Assad. 2 wrongs are still 2 wrongs. Since when is any of this an example of a moral high ground or performing as an example of a democratically governed nation?

Laying on of cruise missiles on Assad will cause him to do what? Yes...that's right...he will do what he did again. Then what is the next step? How stupid does our gov't think we are? oh wait..i know the answer there. Let's hope incompetent Congress will vote this down...they've obstructed some potentially good legislation - why not block something morally reprehensible for a change?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 12:16 pm
@Ragman,
All good points, Ragman. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by the US bombing of Syria. NOTHING. They are not a threat to the US. If their neighbors are worried, they're the ones who needs to act. It's their security.
If they're not going to act on behalf of their own security, why should we?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 12:29 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:
Since it's clear there's to be no regime change, then the nerve gas sites should be targeted, warehouses and surrounding areas.


No no no no no. Nobody thinks that's a good idea. It will release clouds of sarin over a wide area, which could easily drift over to an adjoining country, heavily populated civilian area etc.
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 12:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The answer is we shouldn't.

It's NOW time to reclaim our gov't and restore some tiny modicum of power back to the people and prevent these ass-clowns from doing morally reprehensible things in our name! In the name of a true democracy, sign the petitions that are circulating on the Internet and let your Congress persons know you are as mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 12:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I guess I'm an idiot too! I'm against any intervention in Syria by the US.

Fine. Are you also against Obama going for a vote in congress about it, like Bolton is??? Cause if yes, you want to have your cake and eat it too... That's what Bolton is saying: 'I don't want this intervention, but the congress should not be given an opportunity to stop it.'
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 12:50 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
'I don't want this intervention, but the congress should not be given an opportunity to stop it.'


I didn't think that is what Bolton was saying. He doesn't want the intervention for one reason and he doesn't want Congress deciding for a quite separate reason.

The first was to do with attacking Syria and the second was to do with the dignity and credibility of the Presidential office.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 12:55 pm
@JPB,
Option a) isn't even on my table. It's been done, and our red line didn't impress anyone. Anyone important, in any case.
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 01:08 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:

No no no no no. Nobody thinks that's a good idea. It will release clouds of sarin over a wide area, which could easily drift over to an adjoining country, heavily populated civilian area etc.


Oops! My bad! I'm sure you're correct, but I was thinking of bombing the sites that process such into sarin. But in hindsight, they could only rebuild other sites. Well, I guess what I had to say is not such a good idea. But surely the Obama admin must have thought along these lines. What would be the purpose of striking if there's not going to be a regime change is my original thought? Everyone realizes we have the capability but what substantive change will be affected if a strike does come about? How will a mere strike deter Assad in the future? One possible outcome from such a strike will motivate the rebellion to take out their rogue leader. A strike will certainly be a psychological boost to the ego of those against Assad.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 05:44:17