• 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

It's manufactured support. Just like how "hundreds of nations" allied with the U.S. in Iraq. As for "Never again", I rolled my eyes so hard I got a sprain. But this does confirm something I mentioned earlier: establishment Democrats and Republicans love warmongering in equal measure.

Agree. Shouldn't we care more about being directly "misled"? Are we just too used to this kind of thing that we're numb to it?
 
Americans say NO, congress will come back and say NO, the UN (which we are a member of, hello!!) says NOOOOOOO!

It's both stupid, illegal and risky. Jesus Christ, we have not been attacked by Syria, and sooner or later China and Russia are going to shut us down on this practice of attacking countries that haven't attacked us. It is not weak to refrain, it's following rules and its SMART.

So far I have to agree....

Hell, even Nancy Pelosi's five year old grandson gets it.....

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.' I said, 'Well, I generally agree with that but you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they've killed hundreds of children there. ' And he said, five years old, 'Were these children in the United States?' And I said, 'No, but they're children wherever they are.'

Pelosi Uses Conversation With 5-Year-Old Grandson To Push For Attack On Syria | RealClearPolitics

Good Lord! When a five year old gets it, and his grandmother realizes only after she's related the story that it was a mistake to even tell the story, we are in real trouble....
 
It's difficult not to see the political ramifications no matter what Obama does. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes and have to make such a decision.

I agree, it looks bad politically no matter what he does. His focus should then be on what's best for us, and not politics.

I haven't made up my mind about Syria, so I might ask questions in order to have a better understanding from different perspectives to have a more informed opinion. Sometimes I might assert a position just to see how it stands up to scrutiny and opposing opinions. But really, my opinion on Syria is not written in stone and I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn and gain more information. I pretty much know most the reasons for not striking Syria, but didn't really know the reasons to strike. So thank you SBu for providing a reasoned and civil discussion and while we may not always agree, I look forward to having many more with you.

I was trying to lighten the tone of discussion. Sorry if it came across the wrong way. If you know all the reasons not to strike, and need to fish for possible reasons to strike, isn't that a tall tale sign that striking is not such a good idea?

Can a country that hasn't signed the chemical warfare agreement still be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity? If so, then why can't and why shouldn't the signed countries intervene when they are used? Where is the teeth in such agreement if the nations that signed do nothing?

Now this is an interesting question. I'm not sure. Would have to research this a bit more. My gut feeling is that law is always shades of gray. One can manipulate it to some degree and bring charges against almost anyone for anything. There isn't teeth in much that the international community does.
 
Americans say NO, congress will come back and say NO, the UN (which we are a member of, hello!!) says NOOOOOOO!

Membership in the UN means nothing. What good does it do if only the democracies are following the rules?
It's both stupid, illegal and risky. Jesus Christ, we have not been attacked by Syria, and sooner or later China and Russia are going to shut us down on this practice of attacking countries that haven't attacked us. It is not weak to refrain, it's following rules and its SMART.

China and Russia are probably less of a threat because that would involve a major war, which the US could possibly win. But they can't seem to win against piss-ant countries because they lack the will to go all the way. It would not do China or Russia and good to fight a real war. Traditional wars have become largely obsolete anyway. There are now many other ways to break a people's will.
 
So far I have to agree....

Hell, even Nancy Pelosi's five year old grandson gets it.....Good Lord! When a five year old gets it, and his grandmother realizes only after she's related the story that it was a mistake to even tell the story, we are in real trouble....

Maybe Nancy had a momentary acid flashback to her Haight Ashbury days. Wars still kill flowers and other living things.
 
So far I have to agree....

Hell, even Nancy Pelosi's five year old grandson gets it.....



Good Lord! When a five year old gets it, and his grandmother realizes only after she's related the story that it was a mistake to even tell the story, we are in real trouble....


That's hilarious except its very sad.
 
Membership in the UN means nothing. What good does it do if only the democracies are following the rules?


China and Russia are probably less of a threat because that would involve a major war, which the US could possibly win. But they can't seem to win against piss-ant countries because they lack the will to go all the way. It would not do China or Russia and good to fight a real war. Traditional wars have become largely obsolete anyway. There are now many other ways to break a people's will.

Wow, so you would risk a war with Russia and or China that by your own admission wouldn't be a slam dunk. Let me tell you something, in the end, we probably could beat one or both of them, BUT...............have you any idea the magnitude of the price tag in blood and treasure to secure that victory, IF we could? And a risk you'd like to take to attack a country that hasn't attacked us. We desperately need some retraining here in America.
 
Wow, so you would risk a war with Russia and or China that by your own admission wouldn't be a slam dunk.
You appeared to quote me but somehow interpreted it that i would risk a war with Russia and/or China.


Let me tell you something, in the end, we probably could beat one or both of them, BUT...............have you any idea the magnitude of the price tag in blood and treasure to secure that victory, IF we could? And a risk you'd like to take to attack a country that hasn't attacked us. We desperately need some retraining here in America.

Relax. There is not going to be a war with either country.
 
You appeared to quote me but somehow interpreted it that i would risk a war with Russia and/or China.




Relax. There is not going to be a war with either country.

We of course I agree its not likely, but you have ZERO ability to make such guarantees. Iran, and Syria have a mutual defence treaty and Russia and China are ally's to both of them. And Russia and Iran have already insisted that a US attack on Syria will mean escalation to a regional war. And your one sided view of who's killing civilians demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the Islamist extremists that the US is supporting, and the atrocities that the UN has documented!
 
We of course I agree its not likely, but you have ZERO ability to make such guarantees. Iran, and Syria have a mutual defence treaty and Russia and China are ally's to both of them. And Russia and Iran have already insisted that a US attack on Syria will mean escalation to a regional war. And your one sided view of who's killing civilians demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the Islamist extremists that the US is supporting, and the atrocities that the UN has documented!

Russia should stop making the conflict worse with its supplying the Assad regime with weapons. They are profiting from murder.
 
Russia should stop making the conflict worse with its supplying the Assad regime with weapons. They are profiting from murder.

So it's better to support the terrorists??
 
Wow, so you would risk a war with Russia and or China that by your own admission wouldn't be a slam dunk. Let me tell you something, in the end, we probably could beat one or both of them, BUT...............have you any idea the magnitude of the price tag in blood and treasure to secure that victory, IF we could? And a risk you'd like to take to attack a country that hasn't attacked us. We desperately need some retraining here in America.

We can't back down everytime Russia and China threaten to go to war, either.

Ok, look folks, this is why you don't vote for a dolt like Obama. This is all his doing. Everything that goes wrong, from here on out, is his fault. He's weak and he's too narcissistic to know it.
 
We of course I agree its not likely, but you have ZERO ability to make such guarantees.
There would probably have to be a reason, and there is no reason. That's why I feel extremely confident, despite weak American leadership.

Iran, and Syria have a mutual defence treaty and Russia and China are ally's to both of them. And Russia and Iran have already insisted that a US attack on Syria will mean escalation to a regional war. And your one sided view of who's killing civilians demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the Islamist extremists that the US is supporting, and the atrocities that the UN has documented!

Where did i express some 'one-sided view of who's killing civilians'? I believe you have me confused with another poster.
 
Russia should stop making the conflict worse with its supplying the Assad regime with weapons. They are profiting from murder.


The US has profited from its own share of murder. You could make the same argument against the US. The US should stop making this conflict worse with its supplying the Islamist extremists with weapons!
 
There would probably have to be a reason, and there is no reason. That's why I feel extremely confident, despite weak American leadership.



Where did i express some 'one-sided view of who's killing civilians'? I believe you have me confused with another poster.

Does that mean you acknowledge the fact that the extremists we are supporting are killing civilians themselves?
 
There you go there's no profit
no national security concerns
no clear winner
nothing nada zip zilch
this whole thing is just a means to distract everyone
while they pass amnesty
 
There you go there's no profit
no national security concerns
no clear winner
nothing nada zip zilch
this whole thing is just a means to distract everyone
while they pass amnesty


That's probably very true, or something close to it.
 
Obama is such a coward. He is playing both ends against the middle on the issue.. He can't make a decision so he throws it back at the congress.....If things go bad he can't blame them, if things go good he will try and take the credit. He does not have the guts to make the call himself like Clinton and Bush did.
 
Obama is such a coward. He is playing both ends against the middle on the issue.. He can't make a decision so he throws it back at the congress.....If things go bad he can't blame them, if things go good he will try and take the credit. He does not have the guts to make the call himself like Clinton and Bush did.

There is good reason why our Constitution doesn't actually allow one man to make the call himself.
 
Obama is such a coward. He is playing both ends against the middle on the issue.. He can't make a decision so he throws it back at the congress.....If things go bad he can't blame them, if things go good he will try and take the credit. He does not have the guts to make the call himself like Clinton and Bush did.

There IS NO decision to be made. Attacking Syria, a country that hasn't attacked us violates both our own law and international law. It's really crazy to even be considering it.
 
What would 'victory' in Syria look like? :lamo
 
There is good reason why our Constitution doesn't actually allow one man to make the call himself.
I guess you never heard of the War Powers Act that Clinton and Bush used..:confused:
 
There IS NO decision to be made. Attacking Syria, a country that hasn't attacked us violates both our own law and international law. It's really crazy to even be considering it.

I agree but it will happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom