• 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!

'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

Woodman909 said:
The more I think about it, the more I say we should stay out of it altogether. Why should we give a rat's ass for them? Let them kill each other. It will mean fewer of these animals on the earth that want to kill us.

Yeah, I'm mean. Big Woop.
Click to expand...
Yep.

When the dust settles, the strongest leader will stabilize the country.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

reinoe said:
There's no profit in that. Better put some boots on the ground.
Click to expand...

While others watch Americans getting killed and playing Monday morning QB. Time for other boots on the ground, preferably those with a 'made in EU' insignia.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Unitedwestand13 said:
Two problems with that:

1: any UN involvement would have to require the approval of the security council, and since china and Russia would veto any attempt to get involved, there is no way to win approval.

2. If the security council does give a green light for action in syria, the United States would still have to contribute to any UN backed coalition, and we would most likely contribute 60% to 80% of the combat forces of the coalition.
Click to expand...

And how many of those would be Chinese and Russian boots? Also, the American military could not function as it should with a CofC like Obama. Every decision would be formed by opinion polls, and we have already seen his response in Benghazi and even during the Osama raid. Would any serious person really want Barrack Obama to lead them into a war?
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Anyone arguing for boots on the ground, I ask you this.

Would you volunteer?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yep.

When the dust settles, the strongest leader will stabilize the country.
Click to expand...

And when the dust settles, a period of grace sets in, then act if necessary. But the way it is now there is no clear vision of who we are supporting. ME Leaders have disappeared with who knows what taking their place.

After what happened in Iraq, Libya and Egypt in the ME it is time to take a more cautious approach.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Lord of Planar said:
Anyone arguing for boots on the ground, I ask you this.

Would you volunteer?
Click to expand...

I'm against it. So I don't fit the parameters you laid out.

But I'm one of those been there, done that types.

However with what's going on in the military nowadays, Syria or no Syria, I wouldn't sign the papers again.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Grant said:
If the UN decides then it should be the UN sending in the troops.
Click to expand...

I checked Friday's commodity prices on bananas and no change.

You can always tell if the UN plans to deploy blue helmets, the price of bananas increase. UN soldiers go no where without a large supply of bananas to trade for sexual favors from the young girls.


UN Troops Accused Using Bananas To Commit Sex Crimes Worldwide

>" The problem is, indeed, pervasive. Over the years, accusations have arisen in Cambodia, Mozambique, Somalia, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, East Timor, and Kosovo. Alleged offenses include sex-trafficking, prostitution rings, rapes, pedophilia, even abandoning "peacekeeper babies."

But the final straw was Congo, where, among other abuses, Moroccan and Uruguayan peacekeepers were accused of luring teenage girls into sex in exchange for bananas, cakes, and other food. "<

UN tackles sex abuse by troops - CSMonitor.com




>" Outrage is mounting around the world against United Nations “peace-keeping” soldiers as sex-crime allegations, ranging from charges of rape and exploitation in Haiti to wide-spread sexual abuse of children..."<
UN Troops Accused of Sex Crimes Worldwide
U.N. troops buy sex from teen refugees
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

NIMBY said:
Well, what are our policies since WW II? China and Russia/Soviets continue to oppose the USA in proxy wars all over the globe. Their prop-ups in N. Korea, Iran and now Syria. All who oppose the existence of Israel, across both aisles. I now return DP to the the Amash coalition.
Click to expand...

The REAL enemies are commies?
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

danarhea said:
Yea, it's horrible that Assad is gassing his own people, but it's none of our business, unless it threatens our own interests. Should the US strike Syria? Well, should we have bombed Hitler while he was gassing Jews? We didn't, not until after Pearl Harbor. THEN we declared war on Germany. How about Striking Cambodia while Pol Pot was murdering most of the population there? We didn't.
Click to expand...


That's very true. The hazard of going to war for a stupid reason like in Vietnam was that once we got out the country was war-weary, so intervening in Cambodia, where it was more justified, was ruled out of the question. Here we are today, war-weary over the stupidity of invading Iraq, and cautious of intervening in a more justified way in Syria. Don't wage wars for stupid reasons, you never know when you might need to wage war for a good reason.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

aberrant85 said:
That's very true. The hazard of going to war for a stupid reason like in Vietnam was that once we got out the country was war-weary, so intervening in Cambodia, where it was more justified, was ruled out of the question. Here we are today, war-weary over the stupidity of invading Iraq, and cautious of intervening in a more justified way in Syria. Don't wage wars for stupid reasons, you never know when you might need to wage war for a good reason.
Click to expand...
What's the "justified" reason we'd be in Syria? Is it because Al-Qaeda doesn't have enough power or is it because Syria has WMD and will strike the U.S. at any moment? Is it because our debt isn't high enough?
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Bob N said:
Right now maybe, but how about the future?
Click to expand...

You can't go around attacking nations because you think they may be a threat one day.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Montecresto said:
You can't go around attacking nations because you think they may be a threat one day.
Click to expand...
History shows that you can, but it's not my policy either.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Well if you mean that history shows that its happened, then yes of course I agree. But you must know that I meant its not right to do.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

reinoe said:
What's the "justified" reason we'd be in Syria? Is it because Al-Qaeda doesn't have enough power or is it because Syria has WMD and will strike the U.S. at any moment? Is it because our debt isn't high enough?
Click to expand...

At least more justified than Iraq. We invaded Iraq to punish Saddam for having non-existent weapons. With that objective, isn't it even more justified to punish a dictator for weapons he actually DOES have?
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

aberrant85 said:
At least more justified than Iraq. We invaded Iraq to punish Saddam for having non-existent weapons. With that objective, isn't it even more justified to punish a dictator for weapons he actually DOES have?
Click to expand...

I guess if you believe that two wrongs make a right. What we should have done before Iraq is what we're doing now...thinking about the consequences of our actions. Unfortunately the president doesn't have a proactive strategy. We're stuck reacting and stumbling.
 
aberrant85 said:
At least more justified than Iraq. We invaded Iraq to punish Saddam for having non-existent weapons. With that objective, isn't it even more justified to punish a dictator for weapons he actually DOES have?
Click to expand...

Yes, especially when the standard of proof is : chemical weapons were used therefore Assad is guilty.

To the op; Obama is not war-weary, or he would pull out the troops from some places.

As a general note; anyone who thinks this will be a limited air assault is a fool.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, especially when the standard of proof is : chemical weapons were used therefore Assad is guilty.

To the op; Obama is not war-weary, or he would pull out the troops from some places.

As a general note; anyone who thinks this will be a limited air assault is a fool.
Click to expand...

Call me a fool then because I think it will be a limited air assault and it will be done with congressial approval. Obama isn't the only one who is war weary....the majority of the American people are too. So it will be interesting to see how congress votes.
 
Moot said:
Call me a fool then because I think it will be a limited air assault and it will be done with congressial approval. Obama isn't the only one who is war weary....the majority of the American people are too. So it will be interesting to see how congress votes.
Click to expand...

So, Assad is just going to sit back and let the us attack his infrastructure without launching some form of retaliation??

That retaliation then gets used as justification for escalation. There's too much money to be made by having to restock used and destroyed weapon systems.

Edit: yes, most people are war weary, but Obama, if he were truly war weary would just declare that he's not going to get involved... And it's not the people that will decide, it's much more wealthy and influential interests that want this war.
 
People are forgetting something that's been mentioned already. If Obama wanted a limited strike he already has that authority. If the Congress grants him authority, even if he claims it's only for a limited strike, he then has Congressional approval to have an expansive military war. So after the U.S. strikes, Iran and Russia will just remain silent? Ok then.
 
Moot said:
Call me a fool then because I think it will be a limited air assault and it will be done with congressial approval. Obama isn't the only one who is war weary....the majority of the American people are too. So it will be interesting to see how congress votes.
Click to expand...

I think Congress will not authorize it. Obama doesn't have a strategy and the bad that can happen far outweighs the good. Most Americans have no cause to be war weary...maybe weary of talking about it or tired of seeing it on the news. Obama at least has cause to be weary of war, or at least weary of dealing with it.

Limited air strike is the worst thing we could do. It highlights our lack of conviction. The president basically said as much by admitting his war weariness. If we strike, our adversaries in the region will correctly diagnose it as a weak response to save face. They, in turn, will escalate. What do we do then? Lose more credibility?

We have only two options: 1) go in with overwhelming force to secure chem weapons (or achieve some other quantifiable objective), or 2) stay out completely

I vote 2, because we're not sure who are the good guys vice the bad guys in this. Likely both sides are both.
 
Russia already seems to be distancing itself from Syria, they've encouraged their citizens living there to leave and have not threatened retaliation against western aggression. Iran might do something, or Hezbollah or Syria against Israel. That's the nightmare scenario. Hopefully they just take a missile strike as a slap on the wrist, promise not to use CW again, and continue with the war without it spreading into the region.
 
reinoe said:
People are forgetting something that's been mentioned already. If Obama wanted a limited strike he already has that authority. If the Congress grants him authority, even if he claims it's only for a limited strike, he then has Congressional approval to have an expansive military war. So after the U.S. strikes, Iran and Russia will just remain silent? Ok then.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Why are we crawling to a powder keg? We should have either ran to it and blew out the fuse, or ran in the other direction.
 
BmanMcfly said:
So, Assad is just going to sit back and let the us attack his infrastructure without launching some form of retaliation??

That retaliation then gets used as justification for escalation. There's too much money to be made by having to restock used and destroyed weapon systems.

Edit: yes, most people are war weary, but Obama, if he were truly war weary would just declare that he's not going to get involved... And it's not the people that will decide, it's much more wealthy and influential interests that want this war.
Click to expand...

Retaliation? Assad has already cyber attacked three major US news organizations. One of the attacks caused the Dow Jones to drop 140 points in a matter of minutes. The "Syrian Electronic Army" is fast becoming a serious threat to the US. It's just a matter of time before they try to attack our transportion and/or electric grid. Rolling blackouts? Imagine huge swaths of the US going without electricity for weeks in the dead of winter. That is a serious threat imo, and shouldn't be ignored or taken lightly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom