• 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!

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

Is there only one bad guy in Syria or two? Or more? Is there any course Obama can take and please you?

Why did Reagan/Bush ignore Saddam trash his Kurds? Where did Iraq get their weapons during the 80's when they fought Iran?

Yeah there is a course Obama can take.....stay out of it and wait to see. Syria will break into 3 regions. We need to see who rises to the top. We don't know all the players now. We do know that Al Nusra has 29 Oppositions groups and civilian committees behind them. Then there is the MB and the Salafists. Then AQ. That's what we know so far.....Oh and that Al Nusra stated there wont be any Democracy and they don't recognize the National Council and the FSA.

Reagan didn't......go back and check the History. Reagan won the Cold war due to his ME Policy. He cost the Russians Iraq and that's from the Russians themselves.
 
I'm not hearing about Saddam, the Kurds and Reagan and now don't expect to. You bring up the Russians without context. Am I to read that we gave Saddam the weapons to defend himself from Iran/Russia? But you can't say that? So we gave Saddam and therefore Assad the chemical weapons?

Yeah there is a course Obama can take.....stay out of it and wait to see. Syria will break into 3 regions. We need to see who rises to the top. We don't know all the players now. We do know that Al Nusra has 29 Oppositions groups and civilian committees behind them. Then there is the MB and the Salafists. Then AQ. That's what we know so far.....Oh and that Al Nusra stated there wont be any Democracy and they don't recognize the National Council and the FSA.

Reagan didn't......go back and check the History. Reagan won the Cold war due to his ME Policy. He cost the Russians Iraq and that's from the Russians themselves.
 
Is there only one bad guy in Syria or two? Or more? Is there any course Obama can take and please you?

Syria is a **** storm no geopolitical wonk or military wonk will ever figure out. It's much like Lebanon in the 1975 through 1990 and kinda like Libya and Egypt now. Now though the fact you have funneling of terrorist money and "forces" into these areas.. we (US Government) needs it to be Assad doing it and not them (Syrian Free Army) because we've been backing those little ****tards, training them all in hopes of dealing a blow to Iran and it would be the nightmare we don't want.. Terrorist with chemical weapons.

And that Heinz Kerry with it was Assad and could only be Assad because do deny it is unconscionable just show desperate they are. If they had ANY, ANY evidence it would have leaked already as Pentagon and the CIA has more leaks then Bradley Manning's thumb drive.
 
Last edited:
I'm not hearing about Saddam, the Kurds and Reagan and now don't expect to. You bring up the Russians without context. Am I to read that we gave Saddam the weapons to defend himself from Iran/Russia? But you can't say that? So we gave Saddam and therefore Assad the chemical weapons?


Here is how History plays it out. ;)

Four events were decisive.
1. The Reagan administration cemented Egypt, the largest and most important Arab country, into the U.S. alliance system.
2. Reagan oversaw the weakening of the Soviet’s strongest Arab ally, Iraq.
3. Middle East events forced the Soviet Union toward an (ultimately doomed) reconstruction of its economy.
4. Then the final shove: In 1985, the Reagan administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production.

Between 1985 and 1986, Saudi Arabia increased oil production from two million barrels a day to five million barrels. The oil price tumbled as oil supply surged: from US$30 a barrel to US$20 in just a few months.

The effect on the Soviet economy was devastating. Oil was the Soviet Union’s main – practically only – exportable product, the most important source of hard currency for the economically stagnant regime.

As former Soviet prime minister Yegor Gaidar details in a 2006 book, the Saudi action cost the Soviet Union $20 billion a year, money that had been used to pay for food imports from the West. How to close the sudden financial gap? The Soviets borrowed from Western banks.

As the Soviet economy stalled, borrowing needs increased. By 1989, the Soviet Union needed US$100-billion to avoid food shortages. That desperate need for Western loans precluded any Soviet intervention when first Poland and then the rest of the Warsaw Pact shook off Soviet rule in the spring, summer and fall of 1989.

The Reagan administration’s Middle East policy broke the Soviet empire. But no political achievement lasts forever. The price of oil has soared again, re-empowering Russia and other bad actors like Venezuela and Iran.

The Reagan policy has run its course, as all policies do. But no statesman is expected to solve the problems of all time. The 40th President of the United States magnificently surmounted the problems of his time. We honor Ronald Reagan most not by replicating him, but by emulating him: by doing not what he did, but as he did. He was the right leader for his time. Modern conservatives need to discover the right leadership for their time.....snip~

How Reagan’s Mideast Policy Won the Cold War
 
Oh btw... Al-Nusra Front fighters (defacto part in my opinion of the Syrian Free Army) were caught in May with 2kg of Sarin Gas in Turkey.

What The Media Isn

Gotta love Ben Swann.
 
Heinz Kerry
Do you feel better calling him Heinz Kerry? What is that supposed to signify? LIke Hussein Obama? At least Kerry wasn't a Chicken-$$$$ chicken-hawk like the co-POTUSs last decade.
 
Unless America is ready to go to war with Russia attacking Syria would not be wise.

This is another Bay of Pigs in a sense. This is a USSR/USA showdown.

I hope cooler heads prevail.

To be fair, I have heard just as much sensible dialog arguing against the idea, that it was the Syrian government that gassed the people, as I have suggesting they did. We all know what happens when we go in half-cocked on faulty intel.

And I see the same old faces trying to sell us this war that sold us the last 2.

I thought Obama was supposed to be the "cool, collected" president with the big brain. Time will tell.

But folks, here's the big one. This will be one doozey of a war.

Most likely, Russia will just use Syrian blood for the war. They will just make sure they have all they need to do as much damage to the US. Then when we come out of it bloody and bruised with our stocks depleted..... check mate.

I don't know why people aren't looking past their nose on this but we have seen it happen before.

How many children do you have to offer up? Mine are all grown. My grand kids won't be old enough for at least 10 years. I'm thinking about just taking the tax hits and cashing in my life investments. Maybe get a small home near the beach with a boat slip around Tarpon Springs.

They say you can't fix stupid. Sometimes I just think it is our American destiny to be stupid. Look at our cities. Look at our leaders. Look at neighbors demonizing neighbors.

I believe I'm just going to let the cards fall where they may and spend my days fishing for speckled trout and redfish.



I

I think we can all agree that there's no eay Obama will commit troops to the Syria affair.
 
Do you feel better calling him Heinz Kerry? What is that supposed to signify? LIke Hussein Obama? At least Kerry wasn't a Chicken-$$$$ chicken-hawk like the co-POTUSs last decade.

Woah, Woah.. I am just noting he's a rich SoB who while down range in the past tends to carry water. Reminds me alot of Colin Powell, who's political career was sandbagged by carrying water for Bush. Powell should have been the first black President but because he took one for the team, he's used as a tv personality now instead of actually making a difference.
 
Woah, Woah.. I am just noting he's a rich SoB who while down range in the past tends to carry water. Reminds me alot of Colin Powell, who's political career was sandbagged by carrying water for Bush. Powell should have been the first black President but because he took one for the team, he's used as a tv personality now instead of actually making a difference.

Gen. Powell is much more than you say, to the detriment of Republicans cheating on Voting Rights. He is now the conscience of a Nation and correctly predicts that new Voting Wrongs laws will backfire.
 
I have never supported a war. I was neutral about Kosova because it was a approaching a genocidal situation.

I´ll be writing letters, posting opinions and protesting etc against this war. Nothing good can come from it.

I respect your honesty. I really do.

It may seem odd, but I respect Dennis Kucinich for being that type of honest Leftist. I disagree with him about virtually everything, but he is the one Leftist who tells the unvarnished truth about his (and his party's) desires. From there you can have an honest discussion about differences, and the public has information it can decide on.

Too bad you and Kucinich are the rarest of breeds among Leftists.

Too bad there aren't more of your kind on the Left. You are a rare breed.
 
Well, now that we have already proven not all "the left" is the same, so your claim of hypocrisy has already failed, you still forget that different events are different, so your hypocrisy claim fails even more.

You play a cute game... but that's all it is is a game.

This is about the hypocrisy of the left. They beg for us to enter a war we have ZERO national interest in and which is in the Europeans backyard. They vote to send troops to war for political expediency (a treasonous act if you ask me), and then stab them in the back when our troops need the support most, also for political expediency.

You complain about loss of life in the act of bringing down a despot who had 12-years and 17 UN Resolutions. A despot who had WMD, used them and were not accounted for to the satisfaction of UN Inspecteurs because as Hans Blix stated... Saddam was playing games.

There was no public outcry for the million plus who died because we did nothing except throw meaningless sanctions against the wall, of that number 500,000 children.

You folks are hypocrites.

Obama laid down a thin Red Line. He has painted himself into a corner, so you better start painting those signs, practicing your chants and storing fuel to burn American flags. But alas... we know Leftists... they wrote the book on War and Hypocrisy.
 
You play a cute game... but that's all it is is a game.

This is about the hypocrisy of the left. They beg for us to enter a war we have ZERO national interest in and which is in the Europeans backyard. They vote to send troops to war for political expediency (a treasonous act if you ask me), and then stab them in the back when our troops need the support most, also for political expediency.

You complain about loss of life in the act of bringing down a despot who had 12-years and 17 UN Resolutions. A despot who had WMD, used them and were not accounted for to the satisfaction of UN Inspecteurs because as Hans Blix stated... Saddam was playing games.

There was no public outcry for the million plus who died because we did nothing except throw meaningless sanctions against the wall, of that number 500,000 children.

You folks are hypocrites.

Obama laid down a thin Red Line. He has painted himself into a corner, so you better start painting those signs, practicing your chants and storing fuel to burn American flags. But alas... we know Leftists... they wrote the book on War and Hypocrisy.

So you still think that different things are the same, and you seem to like to anthropomorphize ideology, which is funny.
 
So you still think that different things are the same, and you seem to like to anthropomorphize ideology, which is funny.

Very weak, but I see you're clinging bitterly to your lame defense of leftists protesting to have America go to war where we have no national interest and in the backyard of the brilliant Europeans, and smashing America, it's troops and its then very popular president for trying to neutralize a despot we all believed had WMD and also believed was very possible he could hand some off to terrorists.

The Germans had a paper about the massive costs of life and commerce that would happen if a little tiny bit of Saddam's WMD was unleashed on the western world. But of course... Saddam would never have cooperated with terrorists. He was an upstanding despot that would only use WMD on his own people.
 
Very weak, but I see you're clinging bitterly to your lame defense of leftists protesting to have America go to war where we have no national interest and in the backyard of the brilliant Europeans, and smashing America, it's troops and its then very popular president for trying to neutralize a despot we all believed had WMD and also believed was very possible he could hand some off to terrorists.

The Germans had a paper about the massive costs of life and commerce that would happen if a little tiny bit of Saddam's WMD was unleashed on the western world. But of course... Saddam would never have cooperated with terrorists. He was an upstanding despot that would only use WMD on his own people.

So you still do not realize that different things are different. I find that fascinating.
 
Saddam didn't do anything even approaching level of destruction seen in either the Al-Anfal campaign or whats happening in Syria after the establishment of the safe haven system. I would agree that these attacks were used as part of a long list of 'reasons Saddam Hussein is bad' but they were'nt the primary justification for the invasion, that intervention had already happened over a decade earlier and was largely supported across the political spectrum despite taking place (in part) under a Republican president. Surely you see the different in urgency here?

Furthermore intervention in Syria will look a lot more like Kurdistan 1992 than Iraq 2003, no one worth their salt is considering an armed occupation.

No. If fact, I think it's a lot less urgent now. Our country has not just been on the receiving end of a major terrorist attack where thousands of our people were killed. Syria has not been shooting at members of our military on an ongoing basis as Iraq had. Syria has not threatened it's neighbors or invaded it's neighbors like Iraq had. Our head of our CIA has not, to my knowledge, briefed our President on Syria being a huge threat to us as happened during Iraq.

No one is considering an armed occupation? Then why do anything? A bigger mess is all that will be creating by a massive bombing campaign.
 
No. If fact, I think it's a lot less urgent now. Our country has not just been on the receiving end of a major terrorist attack where thousands of our people were killed. Syria has not been shooting at members of our military on an ongoing basis as Iraq had. Syria has not threatened it's neighbors or invaded it's neighbors like Iraq had. Our head of our CIA has not, to my knowledge, briefed our President on Syria being a huge threat to us as happened during Iraq.

No one is considering an armed occupation? Then why do anything? A bigger mess is all that will be creating by a massive bombing campaign.

See Libya See Iraqi Kurdistan. Also one would have thought that 9/11 being two years before Afghanistan would have been a greater priority.
 
Do you feel better calling him Heinz Kerry? What is that supposed to signify? LIke Hussein Obama? At least Kerry wasn't a Chicken-$$$$ chicken-hawk like the co-POTUSs last decade.

Well.....truthfully you can still call Kerry a Chicken hawk.....moreover the Neo Lib is the one that was writing Legislation for nation building in Egypt and Afghanistan. Then getting Johnny Quest McCain to sign along with him.
 
Here is how History plays it out. ;)

Four events were decisive.
1. The Reagan administration cemented Egypt, the largest and most important Arab country, into the U.S. alliance system.
2. Reagan oversaw the weakening of the Soviet’s strongest Arab ally, Iraq.
3. Middle East events forced the Soviet Union toward an (ultimately doomed) reconstruction of its economy.
4. Then the final shove: In 1985, the Reagan administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production.

Between 1985 and 1986, Saudi Arabia increased oil production from two million barrels a day to five million barrels. The oil price tumbled as oil supply surged: from US$30 a barrel to US$20 in just a few months.

The effect on the Soviet economy was devastating. Oil was the Soviet Union’s main – practically only – exportable product, the most important source of hard currency for the economically stagnant regime.

As former Soviet prime minister Yegor Gaidar details in a 2006 book, the Saudi action cost the Soviet Union $20 billion a year, money that had been used to pay for food imports from the West. How to close the sudden financial gap? The Soviets borrowed from Western banks.

As the Soviet economy stalled, borrowing needs increased. By 1989, the Soviet Union needed US$100-billion to avoid food shortages. That desperate need for Western loans precluded any Soviet intervention when first Poland and then the rest of the Warsaw Pact shook off Soviet rule in the spring, summer and fall of 1989.

The Reagan administration’s Middle East policy broke the Soviet empire. But no political achievement lasts forever. The price of oil has soared again, re-empowering Russia and other bad actors like Venezuela and Iran.

The Reagan policy has run its course, as all policies do. But no statesman is expected to solve the problems of all time. The 40th President of the United States magnificently surmounted the problems of his time. We honor Ronald Reagan most not by replicating him, but by emulating him: by doing not what he did, but as he did. He was the right leader for his time. Modern conservatives need to discover the right leadership for their time.....snip~

How Reagan’s Mideast Policy Won the Cold War

Venezuela and Iran are bad actors, really. And the US of course is a good actor. You have the talking points down. Rah Rah Reagan!
I didn't see anything about a tripling of our national debt in his eight years or Iran/Contra in that very pro-Reagan rant.
 
Venezuela and Iran are bad actors, really. And the US of course is a good actor. You have the talking points down. Rah Rah Reagan!
I didn't see anything about a tripling of our national debt in his eight years or Iran/Contra in that very pro-Reagan rant.

Well, I wasn't asked about that. I was asked about Iraq and then I gave the reason why he won the cold war and why Iraq was beholden to Russia. I doubt any can say he didn't out spend the Russians either.

Of course Iran and Venezuela are bad actors......like I have always said to tell them. Never step up on the Stage unless one is willing to be the exhibit. Myself.....I don't think the Lightweights have any Right in flapping those tongues. Especially since they can't step up to the plate and even take a swing at the ball.
 
Well, I wasn't asked about that. I was asked about Iraq and then I gave the reason why he won the cold war and why Iraq was beholden to Russia. I doubt any can say he didn't out spend the Russians either.

Of course Iran and Venezuela are bad actors......like I have always said to tell them. Never step up on the Stage unless one is willing to be the exhibit. Myself.....I don't think the Lightweights have any Right in flapping those tongues. Especially since they can't step up to the plate and even take a swing at the ball.


Can you rephrase your Venezuela/Iran criticism. And if Iran is a bad actor, how isn't the US as well.
 
See Libya See Iraqi Kurdistan. Also one would have thought that 9/11 being two years before Afghanistan would have been a greater priority.

See Libya? LOL. In my lifetime, I have witnessed our country commit several horrible blunders in foreign policy/action. Libya comes in second place right after the Bay of Pigs disaster and it has the potential to be far worse than that. Nothing has been solved in Libya, additional problems have been created. Gaddafi is dead and Obama has managed to turn that into a mistake with global ramifications. Why should any leader of a country that the US is having issues with do as the US wants, when if it does, the President of the US may still have the foreign leader killed? That's what happened with Gaddafi. Foreign leaders will not miss that point, at all. Damed if you do, damned if you don't: might as well do as you wish.

As far as what's happening in Libya on the ground right now, the country is in chaos. Government officials from Chad and Algeria have long said many of Gaddafi's weapons ended up in the Islamic Maghreb (Al Qaeda light), some SAM's included. The current government in Libya doesn't control all of the country and where it does it has ties to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which of course has links to Al Qaeda.

No, the world could have done without this added headache.
 
Can you rephrase your Venezuela/Iran criticism. And if Iran is a bad actor, how isn't the US as well.

Sure.....neither Iran or Venezuela should be trying to affect our interests in any adverse way. As they are unable to take us on in anything. So they definitely should not be out on the World Stage flapping those tongues. Talking any type of Smack talk.....at all, and definitely not making any threats.


Now we may have been a bad actor thru sheer incompetency. But we have never really tried to be the Bad Guys or the Bad Actors with purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom