• 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!

Obama's Responsibility for Syrian Casualties and Refugees

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BHO did not cause the Syrian civil war, but by his lassitude he made it much worse.

No, Mr. President, staying out of Syria didn’t save lives. It cost them.


Establishing a no-fly zone might have prevented the deaths of 300,000 Syrians.




By his own estimation, Barack Obama may have finally earned his Nobel Peace Prize. Speaking to a small gathering of journalists last week, the president said that by not sending ground forces to the Middle East over the last few years, he had saved 100 lives per month and many billions of dollars. The math is odd, but as long as he’s at it, let me cite the casualty that’s in plain sight: the straw man he slayed.


Almost no one ever proposed that U.S. troops be deployed in Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East. I say “almost” because there is no accounting for Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), but as for the rest of the government, nobody of consequence ever publicly proposed putting substantial numbers of U.S. service members in the Middle East.


What was widely proposed was something else — establishing a no-fly zone to ground Bashar al-Assad’s gunships and maybe taking a shot or two at a key government installation. Had that been done early on, then a number Obama did not mention might have been avoided: upward of 300,000 Syrian deaths, not to mention a refugee crisis of such magnitude (4 million people) that it has stirred the sleeping dog of European fascism. . . .


 
Jack Hays said:
BHO did not cause the Syrian civil war, but by his lassitude he made it much worse.

No, Mr. President, staying out of Syria didn’t save lives. It cost them.


Establishing a no-fly zone might have prevented the deaths of 300,000 Syrians.




By his own estimation, Barack Obama may have finally earned his Nobel Peace Prize. Speaking to a small gathering of journalists last week, the president said that by not sending ground forces to the Middle East over the last few years, he had saved 100 lives per month and many billions of dollars. The math is odd, but as long as he’s at it, let me cite the casualty that’s in plain sight: the straw man he slayed.


Almost no one ever proposed that U.S. troops be deployed in Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East. I say “almost” because there is no accounting for Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), but as for the rest of the government, nobody of consequence ever publicly proposed putting substantial numbers of U.S. service members in the Middle East.


What was widely proposed was something else — establishing a no-fly zone to ground Bashar al-Assad’s gunships and maybe taking a shot or two at a key government installation. Had that been done early on, then a number Obama did not mention might have been avoided: upward of 300,000 Syrian deaths, not to mention a refugee crisis of such magnitude (4 million people) that it has stirred the sleeping dog of European fascism. . . .
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. When he wanted to bomb Syria, the whole right wing became doves. Now it's his fault for not being hawkish enough.
 
rocket88 said:
Now I'm confused. When he wanted to bomb Syria, the whole right wing became doves. Now it's his fault for not being hawkish enough.
Click to expand...

1. I do not recall it that way.
2. It doesn't matter; he's the President.
3. Richard Cohen is hardly right wing.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. I do not recall it that way.
2. It doesn't matter; he's the President.
3. Richard Cohen is hardly right wing.
Click to expand...

1. Then your ability to recollect is selective.
2. So you're admiting to what rocket is saying.
3. The comment wasn't about Richard Cohen, it was about the right-wing response to the Syrian Civil War.
 
reinoe said:
1. Then your ability to recollect is selective.
2. So you're admiting to what rocket is saying.
3. The comment wasn't about Richard Cohen, it was about the right-wing response to the Syrian Civil War.
Click to expand...

The complaint about the RW is just the usual whining, and unworthy of a President. The point is that Richard Cohen has nothing to do with the RW.
 
Thats a really big "might", and also ignores many of the geopolitical actors in the arena.........
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Thats a really big "might", and also ignores many of the geopolitical actors in the arena.........
Click to expand...

". . . The lives Obama claims to have saved were never at risk to begin with. But plenty of lives were lost because so little was risked, and it was all done so late. The dead of Syria rebuke him — not for failing, but for not even trying."
 
First of all, it's laughable, but predictable that Cohen and the op believe that there's anything that Obama or any president could have done to prevent all 300,000 deaths in Syria. Secondly, 300,000 is all deaths, not just civilians trying to avoid the clashes between the government and the belligerents that are fighting. Third, Obama made repeated attempts to secure a UNSCR authorization to project force in Syria, and failed. As a result, the British parliament withdrew their support for it. A GOP led congress failed to provide authorization going on recess instead. 70% of Americans opposed US military involvement in Syria. So the op is junk.
 
Montecresto said:
First of all, it's laughable, but predictable that Cohen and the op believe that there's anything that Obama or any president could have done to prevent all 300,000 deaths in Syria. Secondly, 300,000 is all deaths, not just civilians trying to avoid the clashes between the government and the belligerents that are fighting. Third, Obama made repeated attempts to secure a UNSCR authorization to project force in Syria, and failed. As a result, the British parliament withdrew their support for it. A GOP led congress failed to provide authorization going on recess instead. 70% of Americans opposed US military involvement in Syria. So the op is junk.
Click to expand...

Had BHO wished to go, he could have gone.
 
Jack Hays said:
He could have been President.
Click to expand...

He is, and has been. I'm not interested in the belligerence that you project. I saw enough of that in Iraq and Libya.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
No.

Tunisia was the country where the Arab spring movement originated and spread to Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Syria.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, I realize that, but I don't understand the connection you're making. Obama didn't co-opt anything in Tunisia. He did however look the other way as Saudi Arabia brutally suppressed an Arab Spring protest in Bahrain, because they have no interest in democratic reforms on their border, he did support the Muslim Brotherhood in deference to Mubarak, he did take advantage of the Libyan Arab Spring to pursue an illegal regime change there, has taken advantage of supposed Arab Spring protests in Syria to pursue a long term USFP ambition of regime change there. Maybe you could be more specific of how my not mentioning Tunisia is relevant.
 
Montecresto said:
Well yeah, I realize that, but I don't understand the connection you're making. Obama didn't co-opt anything in Tunisia. He did however look the other way as Saudi Arabia brutally suppressed an Arab Spring protest in Bahrain, because they have no interest in democratic reforms on their border, he did support the Muslim Brotherhood in deference to Mubarak, he did take advantage of the Libyan Arab Spring to pursue an illegal regime change there, has taken advantage of supposed Arab Spring protests in Syria to pursue a long term USFP ambition of regime change there. Maybe you could be more specific of how my not mentioning Tunisia is relevant.
Click to expand...

what happened in tunisia happened in egypt, libya, and syria.

tunisia's dictator, Ben Ali, was forced to flee to saudi arabia.

also, tunisia has not suffered a cival war because of the arab spring.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
also, tunisia has not suffered a cival war because of the arab spring.
Click to expand...
Precisely because the Obama administration was not involved. Had Obama been involved then terrorists groups would have received funding and equipment.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
what happened in tunisia happened in egypt, libya, and syria.

tunisia's dictator, Ben Ali, was forced to flee to saudi arabia.

also, tunisia has not suffered a cival war because of the arab spring.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute any of that. But I'm sorry, I just still don't get the point you're driving at. :shrug:
 
Jack Hays said:
BHO did not cause the Syrian civil war, but by his lassitude he made it much worse.

No, Mr. President, staying out of Syria didn’t save lives. It cost them.


Establishing a no-fly zone might have prevented the deaths of 300,000 Syrians.




By his own estimation, Barack Obama may have finally earned his Nobel Peace Prize. Speaking to a small gathering of journalists last week, the president said that by not sending ground forces to the Middle East over the last few years, he had saved 100 lives per month and many billions of dollars. The math is odd, but as long as he’s at it, let me cite the casualty that’s in plain sight: the straw man he slayed.


Almost no one ever proposed that U.S. troops be deployed in Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East. I say “almost” because there is no accounting for Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), but as for the rest of the government, nobody of consequence ever publicly proposed putting substantial numbers of U.S. service members in the Middle East.


What was widely proposed was something else — establishing a no-fly zone to ground Bashar al-Assad’s gunships and maybe taking a shot or two at a key government installation. Had that been done early on, then a number Obama did not mention might have been avoided: upward of 300,000 Syrian deaths, not to mention a refugee crisis of such magnitude (4 million people) that it has stirred the sleeping dog of European fascism. . . .
Click to expand...

What is wrong with this whole way of thinking is the idea that we Americans are responsible for the world. A lot of terrible things have been happening in the world for hundreds of years yet you do not hold America responsible for not stopping them. What we are responsible for is stopping any threats to our nation and our citizens. Anything beyond that is charity from the goodness of our hearts and must only be done if it does not undercut American interests (e.g. budget).
 
distraff said:
What is wrong with this whole way of thinking is the idea that we Americans are responsible for the world. A lot of terrible things have been happening in the world for hundreds of years yet you do not hold America responsible for not stopping them. What we are responsible for is stopping any threats to our nation and our citizens. Anything beyond that is charity from the goodness of our hearts and must only be done if it does not undercut American interests (e.g. budget).
Click to expand...

We could have had a large impact for good at little cost and even less risk.
 
Jack Hays said:
We could have had a large impact for good at little cost and even less risk.
Click to expand...

The Middle East like Africa has a violent backwards culture. If we fix one problem, another is going to pop up. That is why we could never really win the Iraq War. These countries need to take the time to culturally develop. Think of the European dark ages.

The best thing we can do is educate and inform.
 
distraff said:
The Middle East like Africa has a violent backwards culture. If we fix one problem, another is going to pop up. That is why we could never really win the Iraq War. These countries need to take the time to culturally develop. Think of the European dark ages.

The best thing we can do is educate and inform.
Click to expand...

Ah. So you have spent much time there? I have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom