• 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!

Poison gas missile strike in Syria

No one should be frightened by me, a lowly Canadian, a stray voice in the wilderness, although resident in the third largest city in North America. :)

I'm not big on war, being older I'm not able to participate unless something goes truly catastrophic, so it's not for me to be encouraging others to fight. My comments were simply to reflect that in my view Iran may be a lot like Iraq - all talk, not much to back it up - and a force as strong as America's, with allies like those in NATO, would likely make quick work of them as they did in Iraq - and the aftermath would likely be far less chaotic due to the highly educated and in many respects "westernized" younger population.

But like Iraq and Iran, I'm all talk too, just enjoying the give and take of life in DP land.

Fair enough, that's totally a legitimate perspective. I definitely don't think Iran would be easy though, by any stretch of the imagination though. No where near what Iraq was. The Iraq military consisted of and estimated 375,000 troops with coalition forces invaded. Iran is estimated to have that, plus 700,000 reservists. Granted, there is no telling how many of them would remain loyal to the regime, but we made the assumption that the Iraqi people would greet as liberators, and that's not exactly what happened there. There is a lot of hostility toward the US all over the middle east. I think it would be a dangerous proposition, to make that assumption again.

I'm with you though, the give and take in DP land is where all the fun is at :lol:
 
Not every Islamic nation hates our guts. Take turkey for example.

But I am arguing that giving in to our blind rage and kill everyone only makes people join the terrorists side. If we act rationally and come with a understanding of the culture and show that we are not evil, then the people will be more open to reason and not so willing to join the terrorists who commit suicide bombings and indiscriminately kill their own people.

In principle, I concur. But you have to look at what we are dealing with. We are dealing with an evil culture, by any logical standards. I am not one to promote genocide of any culture. I say we just let them live in their desert and go about their business of killing each other. I have no inclination to come to any understanding with any archaic culture such as those over in the middle east. They are dangerous and deadly. I prefer to just isolate them and leave them to their own demise.
 
I would agree, the right exists. I, however, feel it shouldn't be exercised too strenuously.

That leaves military decisions in the hands of a particular perspective, which is not good for multifaceted democratic solutions.

Also, us "brainwashed warmongers" need the support of the un-fettered.
 
I disagree with that. Even someone who never served has the right to be a hawk.

Personally, I think anyone enjoying the freedoms of America, that did not serve, is much like a welfare rat. Living off the work of others.

But I digress.
 
In principle, I concur. But you have to look at what we are dealing with. We are dealing with an evil culture, by any logical standards. I am not one to promote genocide of any culture. I say we just let them live in their desert and go about their business of killing each other. I have no inclination to come to any understanding with any archaic culture such as those over in the middle east. They are dangerous and deadly. I prefer to just isolate them and leave them to their own demise.

Islamic culture should not be defined by the fanatics who kill their own people any more then defining Christian culture by the atrocities of the inqusition.
 
Personally, I think anyone enjoying the freedoms of America, that did not serve, is much like a welfare rat. Living off the work of others.

You should find something else to be elitist about because that's weak.
 
Islamic culture should not be defined by the fanatics who kill their own people any more then defining Christian culture by the atrocities of the inqusition.

Then they need to fix their own people. It ain't my obligation. Hell, we can't even fix our OWN people that have given them reason to hate us. They would LOVE to have the head of an American in their trophy case. They don't distinquish which one's of us are bad or good. You get what you give I suppose.
 
That leaves military decisions in the hands of a particular perspective, which is not good for multifaceted democratic solutions.

Also, us "brainwashed warmongers" need the support of the un-fettered.

You're quite right - I hadn't looked at it in that regard.

I have to say though that it irked me when, during the discussions about the escalation in Afghanistan, the commanders on the ground asked for x number of troops and Obama decided they could do with less. That part of civilian oversight bothers me but I suppose it's a necessary evil.
 
You should find something else to be elitist about because that's weak.

Just sayin'.... And if the shoe fits......

Next time one of you rightwingers wanna complain about some lazy person sitting on the front porch all day drinking 40's and living off a government check, keep in mind that, if you did not serve, that's how I look at you. That goes for leftwingers too.
 
Personally, I think anyone enjoying the freedoms of America, that did not serve, is much like a welfare rat. Living off the work of others.

But I digress.

Unlike in Israel, Canadians are not required to serve in the military as part of their youth. I was born after WWII and was too young to serve in Korea and too old to enlist after 9/11. Unlike in the US, we haven't had wars for every generation to "enjoy". I don't consider myself a "welfare rat", having never lived a day off the avails of the government or others, other than in my youth when my parents looked after me. It is an attitude like yours, I would say, that causes many people to distrust military leadership. If a person is called by their country to serve and they refuse to when they are able, then that is something to criticize.
 
Just sayin'.... And if the shoe fits......

Next time one of you rightwingers wanna complain about some lazy person sitting on the front porch all day drinking 40's and living off a government check, keep in mind that, if you did not serve, that's how I look at you. That goes for leftwingers too.

You don't have to sign any contract to defend your country if any foreign armies invade us. Why should one serve if one doesn't believe in the cause of the war? You can be a macho man and go beat up someone who doesn't deserve your attention it but it doesn't make you a good man. I seen how racist my friends became after they served and no thank you. Sounds like high school with deadly force.
 
If a person is called by their country to serve and they refuse to when they are able, then that is something to criticize.

I'm not so sure. I'm against a draft. In the case of Israel, it's kinda different because the survival of the country is clearly on the line. Vietnam, not so much.
 
Racism is neither abstract nor intellectual.
It most certainly was in the early 20th century. Prior to WWII, eugenics was considered a progressive movement led by Ivy League intellectuals - on the forefront of science with all the promise to improve the human race. There were academic journals devoted to the subject. Scholars devoted their careers toward "racial improvement." This was a "new science for breeding better men" wrote the editors of Scientific American:

Suppose that Ada Juke or her immediate children had been prevented from perpetuating the Juke family. Not only would the State have been spared the necessity of supporting one thousand defective persons, morally and physically incapable of performing the functions of citizenship, but American manhood would have been considerably better off, and society would have been free from one taint at least.

How compelling! Laws were passed allowing forceful sterilization of anyone deemed "unfit" to produce offspring. Even the SCOTUS was swayed by such rationality, judging that society would be much better off preventing certain people from breeding rather than having to wait years to "execute their degenerate offspring" or to have to provide for "imbeciles" who would otherwise starve. But if the goal is to improve society, why stop with morons, homosexuals, epileptics, and criminals? The immigration act of 1924 was enacted to severely limit the number of Southern and Eastern Europeans (i.e. Italians and Jews) allowed to enter the US - further constraining the gene pool to only the most desirable of characteristics.

Much of the justification used for Hitler's conquests and later his extermination of millions began in the halls of universities as our best and brightest intellectual minds endeavored to create a better world through eugenics.
 
It most certainly was in the early 20th century.

Sure, and human rights once meant that women could live on a piece of property without a man. Live in the now. Intellectualism is not about apology.

You glorify the past when the future dries up.

 
Last edited:
didnt both sides claim they had chemical weapons? And didnt both sides say they would use them?
What a cluster****
 
...and what would you propose?

What I proposed long ago when this thing started. As soon as the situation degenerated into civil war and Assad started massacring his people we should have secured the WMD sites we knew about and destroyed or removed the stores. Then we should have announced that we wish to protect the civilian populace from Assad (as we did in Libya) and bombed the crap out of some of his strategic sites in order to strip away his C4I and IADS capabilities. This would have left us much better positioned against Iran, and removed a serious threat.
 
What I proposed long ago when this thing started. As soon as the situation degenerated into civil war and Assad started massacring his people we should have secured the WMD sites we knew about and destroyed or removed the stores. Then we should have announced that we wish to protect the civilian populace from Assad (as we did in Libya) and bombed the crap out of some of his strategic sites in order to strip away his C4I and IADS capabilities. This would have left us much better positioned against Iran, and removed a serious threat.

So our job is to be the policemen of the world?
 
White House warns of 'consequences' if Syria has used a chemical weapon - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

The White House on Tuesday warned there would be “consequences” for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad if it has crossed President Obama’s “red line” and used a chemical weapon. Press secretary Jay Carney declined to confirm reports that a chemical weapon has been used for the first time in Syria’s civil war, saying only that the White House is "looking carefully at the information as it comes in."

The White House did not rule out the possibility that the Assad regime waged the attack, and warned there would be "consequences" if they are found to have done so.


"We have been very clear about our concern that as the Assad regime is increasingly beleaguered … that it will consider the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people," Carney said, stressing that the administration was "obviously treating this as a serious issue."




Have to see what happens from here..
 
Personally, I think anyone enjoying the freedoms of America, that did not serve, is much like a welfare rat. Living off the work of others.

But I digress.

Except that we arent living off others. We are working and paying taxes and contributing to the country and following the laws. Would you call a teacher a welfare rat? A fireman? A businessman who pays for the military? These are all people the country needs to function, much like soldiers. Even politicians, bleh.
 
So our job is to be the policemen of the world?

To an extent. We maintain a minimum level of security guarantee in order to underwrite a global trade structure that allows us to live our first-world life. Along the way on occasion it's good that we can help other populaces do things like avoid getting gassed by their own governments. However, in this instance doing the Right Thing overlapped with doing the Smart Thing and protecting US allies / Defending US Interests.
 
What I proposed long ago when this thing started. As soon as the situation degenerated into civil war and Assad started massacring his people we should have secured the WMD sites we knew about and destroyed or removed the stores. Then we should have announced that we wish to protect the civilian populace from Assad (as we did in Libya) and bombed the crap out of some of his strategic sites in order to strip away his C4I and IADS capabilities. This would have left us much better positioned against Iran, and removed a serious threat.

...and how do we secure his "wmd" sites? Invade? Interesting you would propose this and use the term "wmd" on this particular anniversary. It begs the question: didn't you learn anything?

You do realize that "as we did in Libya" is a huge assumption that we are dealing with a similar situation. If you think that, you are running contrary to the experts on this matter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-than-libya-big-players-involved-in-conflict/

Also, please note that this particular line of thought seriously impairs your credibility in ever expressing to outrage about debt and deficits. Do you know how expensive it is to bomb and occupy?

So we are clear, I respect your opinion that an active military solution in Syria is warranted; I respect the opinions that say debt and deficits are a major economic problem that must be addressed immediately. I don't respect the idea of holding both opinions (not saying you do)...
 
Last edited:
...and how do we secure his "wmd" sites? Invade?

No. Raid. Or destroy. Or raid and destroy. But ensure that the weaponry cannot be used or reconstituted. Sort of like someone did to the Syrian nuclear facility a few years back.

Interesting you would propose this and use the term "wmd" on this particular anniversary. It begs the question: didn't you learn anything?

You do realize that "as we did in Libya" is a huge assumption that we are dealing with a similar situation. If you think that, you are running contrary to the experts on this matter.

Dempsey: Syria 'much different' from Libya, 'big players' involved in conflict | Fox News

The funniest thing about this is that you don't know why this is funny.

Also, please note that this particular line of thought seriously impairs your credibility in ever expressing to outrage about debt and deficits. Do you know how expensive it is to bomb and occupy?

I would say I am roughly aware of the supply issues relevant to precision guided munitions stores. It's not my specialty. But perhaps we can play the cost game. Which is likely to be more expensive? 125 BLU-109's? Or cleaning up the mess of an AQ-affliate associated with the Syrian resistance getting their hands on a working Bio-weapon production line?

So we are clear, I respect your opinion that an active military solution in Syria is warranted; I respect the opinions that say debt and deficits are a major economic problem that must be addressed immediately. I don't respect the idea of holding both opinions (not saying you do)...

I do. What you should note before you decide not to respect people is that not every military solution is "invade with 175,000 dudes".
 
Back
Top Bottom