• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia condemns ally Syria over massacre of 108

Eh. Its just propaganda.
 
Talk is cheap.
 
Well,at least it's something.Let see if Putin has the cajones to really put the screws to Asssad,or is he just blowing smoke?
 
Verthaine said:
Well,at least it's something.Let see if Putin has the cajones to really put the screws to Asssad,or is he just blowing smoke?
Click to expand...

IMO, Putin should condemn the action and threaten sanctions as punishment for future atrocities. I don't believe it would be any more appropriate for Russia to seek to bring about regime change than it would be for the U.S. to do so.

Indeed, given its interests, Russia likely has a much greater stake in preserving the status quo, while the U.S. can afford greater flexibility. No matter the outcome in Syria, there likely won't be fundamental change vis-a-vis the U.S. and U.S. allies. There's no concrete evidence that a successor regime, even if it could take hold and bring about stability, would be any friendlier to U.S. interests and allies. In contrast, Russia has more to lose, as a successor regime might well be far less friendly to Moscow than the current regime has been.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I thought the US reaction was atrocious.

What is White House's response to massacre in Syria? - CBS News Video

All they did was expel diplomats and then ADMITTED that would not work!
Click to expand...

The U.S. has no good solutions that would immediately or effectively bring about an end to the bloodshed in Syria. It can and should condemn atrocities. It can impose unilateral sanctions (but such sanctions usually are not effective) or seek multilateral ones. It can symbolically express displeasure by expelling diplomats. Issues such as the lack of critical U.S. interests in Syria, questions about the character and nature of the anti-Assad uprising, the lack of vision/governing agenda by the anti-Assad movement, and Syria's sectarian makeup preclude military-driven regime change.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The U.S. has no good solutions that would immediately or effectively bring about an end to the bloodshed in Syria. It can and should condemn atrocities. It can impose unilateral sanctions (but such sanctions usually are not effective) or seek multilateral ones. It can symbolically express displeasure by expelling diplomats. Issues such as the lack of critical U.S. interests in Syria, questions about the character and nature of the anti-Assad uprising, the lack of vision/governing agenda by the anti-Assad movement, and Syria's sectarian makeup preclude military-driven regime change.
Click to expand...

Oh b.s. NOTHING precludes military action when innocent civilians are being slaughtered like cattle. One F-22 could take out their entire military in a day. They are an ant, an ant that needs to be squashed...NOW. I was all for sanctions until this. Now, it is time to take real action.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Oh b.s. NOTHING precludes military action when innocent civilians are being slaughtered like cattle. One F-22 could take out their entire military in a day. They are an ant, an ant that needs to be squashed...NOW. I was all for sanctions until this. Now, it is time to take real action.
Click to expand...

Aside from your vastly underestimating Syria's military capabilities (which are vastly greater than the Taliban's in Afghanistan), I do not believe the U.S. should give its military the mission of dealing with similar violence wherever it might exist regardless of U.S. interests. If one argues for military intervention in Syria, one cannot credibly argue against a similar stance as it relates to strife between Sudan and South Sudan (essentially the continuation of a civil conflict that became international only because of the splitting of Sudan), Somalia, Yemen, Democratic Republic of Congo, among others.

The U.S. does not have unlimited resources (financial, manpower, weapons) to exponentially expand its military commitments and operations, followed by difficult nation-building afterward. The national interest remains a logical constraint.
 
I am wondering, what our esteemed foreign policy and military planning experts here at DP...would recommend as the actions we might take?

Should we send arms to the oppressed in Syria, and escalate the killing dramatically. Then wait for the winner to use those guns against our allies and ourselves?

Should we Drop some bombs on wherever we think Assad may be, and hope we didn't kill a bunch of the folks he is already killing?

Should we Seal Team 6 the bastard, and hope it goes as smoothly as the Osama thingy?

Should we send in ground forces?

Should we create a No-Fly zone and hope the massive anti aircraft barrage misses our planes?


I am sure....those who are trying to tear apart their own President for actually understanding how crappy the situation is, know far more than he and the Pentagon ever will.
 
The "give the resistance weapons" strategy seems to me to be the silliest, if not the most costly, option. We'd be giving weapons to sunni militants, many of them with a very religious bent, after spending a decade in neighboring Iraq fighting sunni militants with a very religious bent. In Iraq they were called 'al Qaeda' but I suppose we want to avoid language like that in Syria were we see them as being on our side. This is all on the backdrop of fighting sunni militants in Afghanistan who we funded and armed decades ago when they were facing oppression.

Yeah, we should just stay the **** out of this in any sort of military fashion.
 
Those folks who brought down George Bush over the Second Iraq War can't legitimately intervene militarily in Syria. Besides, America has no friends on either side in Syria. The best approach is not to get involved.
 
tecoyah said:
I am wondering, what our esteemed foreign policy and military planning experts here at DP...would recommend as the actions we might take?

Should we send arms to the oppressed in Syria, and escalate the killing dramatically. Then wait for the winner to use those guns against our allies and ourselves?

Should we Drop some bombs on wherever we think Assad may be, and hope we didn't kill a bunch of the folks he is already killing?

Should we Seal Team 6 the bastard, and hope it goes as smoothly as the Osama thingy?

Should we send in ground forces?

Should we create a No-Fly zone and hope the massive anti aircraft barrage misses our planes?


I am sure....those who are trying to tear apart their own President for actually understanding how crappy the situation is, know far more than he and the Pentagon ever will.
Click to expand...

While it is tragic that people are being killed in Syria, the responsibility of playing global cop should be dictated by the United Nations, whom should use their military force, NATO. The United States can take part in that joint NATO effort, but by no means should it be a lone US mission to restore order. Because as a stand alone, its none of the US' business. But, I do believe America has already crossed that threshold.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Those folks who brought down George Bush over the Second Iraq War can't legitimately intervene militarily in Syria. Besides, America has no friends on either side in Syria. The best approach is not to get involved.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the US hasn't gotten involved already?
 
Jango said:
While it is tragic that people are being killed in Syria, the responsibility of playing global cop should be dictated by the United Nations, whom should use their military force, NATO. The United States can take part in that joint NATO effort, but by no means should it be a lone US mission to restore order. Because as a stand alone, its none of the US' business. But, I do believe America has already crossed that threshold.
Click to expand...

The same UN that has honored Mugabe?

“The UN has hit a new low with naming Mugabe as a UN tourism envoy as if North Korea chairing the Conference of Disarmament and Cuba serving as vice-president of the Human Rights Council had not been enough,” Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement
 
Aberration said:
The same UN that has honored Mugabe?

“The UN has hit a new low with naming Mugabe as a UN tourism envoy as if North Korea chairing the Conference of Disarmament and Cuba serving as vice-president of the Human Rights Council had not been enough,” Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement
Click to expand...

Good point, but do you have any suggestions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom