View Poll Results: Should we attack the REBELS for uising WMD?

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES!

    2 6.90%
  • NO!

    22 75.86%
  • There are no good guys, including the USA in this matter.

    5 17.24%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

  1. #11
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    I dont know who the bad guys are. They both seem pretty bad.


  2. #12
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 11:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    607

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

    Should we kick the rebels asses?

    Now, who is the bad guy?

    If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!

    I dont know if the rebels did use chimecal weapons but there is doubt that Assad's forces used. Idf inform that while BB was in a meeting with Kerry, the day after USA joined and coniform that Assad used chimecal weapons against the rebels.
    Its hard to tell what is the red line because Obama didnt set a clear limits for the use of chimecal weapons, i think Obama made him an escape route from attacking in Syria with vague defenition of the red line.

    Right now Assad is the bad guy because he have military supremacy over the rebels.

  3. #13
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    Dave, we only buy about 2000 barrels of oil a year from Syria. It's nothing. I have no idea why we even bother with it.
    Based on what we know now, I say we should stay out. And yes, although we are not big consumers of Syrian petroleum, the people of the Middle East see themselves as one people. It is very likely many of the fighters in Syria are from other parts of the Middle East. Oil is at the root of the problems we've had with the Middle East since the Embassy Hostage Crisis and oil has been the problem ever since. Even North Korea's nuclear threat can be traced back to oil. Pakistan, although technically not the Middle East, is almost in the neighborhood. They also share a common religion and through it share a bond of brotherhood. It was elements within the Pakistani military and intelligence services who were secretly harboring Osama Bin Laden. In order to "level the playing field" with respect to America's superpower status, a Pakistani government scientist went on a nuclear proliferation tour right under our noses after 9/11 and gave nuclear weapons technology to every rouge dictatorship who were not friendly with America. This list of dictatorships included North Korea; traceable back to oil and the Middle East. I'd rather see us take serious and emergency measures to end the power oil holds over the global economy.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  4. #14
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Based on what we know now, I say we should stay out. And yes, although we are not big consumers of Syrian petroleum, the people of the Middle East see themselves as one people. It is very likely many of the fighters in Syria are from other parts of the Middle East. Oil is at the root of the problems we've had with the Middle East since the Embassy Hostage Crisis and oil has been the problem ever since. Even North Korea's nuclear threat can be traced back to oil. Pakistan, although technically not the Middle East, is almost in the neighborhood. They also share a common religion and through it share a bond of brotherhood. It was elements within the Pakistani military and intelligence services who were secretly harboring Osama Bin Laden. In order to "level the playing field" with respect to America's superpower status, a Pakistani government scientist went on a nuclear proliferation tour right under our noses after 9/11 and gave nuclear weapons technology to every rouge dictatorship who were not friendly with America. This list of dictatorships included North Korea; traceable back to oil and the Middle East. I'd rather see us take serious and emergency measures to end the power oil holds over the global economy.
    I will not argue about the influence of oil on the world economy. Unfortunately, it's all we have at present for the vast, vast majority of our energy needs. We do not rely on Syria for oil. In fact, the only thing we are able to rely on from Syria is trouble. I am not anxious for involvement in Syria's problems, and I wish Obama would've kept his mouth shut about what constitutes a red line. I imagine he does now, too. I do not see oil as a source of evil, but rather the people who use it as a weapon at the expense of the innocent. We have enough oil here that we don't have to get any oil from the ME.

  5. #15
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    I will not argue about the influence of oil on the world economy. Unfortunately, it's all we have at present for the vast, vast majority of our energy needs. We do not rely on Syria for oil. In fact, the only thing we are able to rely on from Syria is trouble. I am not anxious for involvement in Syria's problems, and I wish Obama would've kept his mouth shut about what constitutes a red line. I imagine he does now, too. I do not see oil as a source of evil, but rather the people who use it as a weapon at the expense of the innocent. We have enough oil here that we don't have to get any oil from the ME.
    I agree. If we would just allow ourselves to become energy independent as a nation, then the remainder of the industrialized world would have to take care of issues in the ME to ensure their access to those resources...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,092

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    The BRAD BLOG : Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons

    "Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons"

    "From Reuters tonight:
    U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
    "Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
    "This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

    So, it was the rebels, according to actual named sources, not the Syrian regime which may have used the sarin gas that set off the chain of events described above over the past week and a half?"

    Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

    Should we kick the rebels asses?

    Now, who is the bad guy?

    If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!

    she seems a nice italian
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  7. #17
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    I agree. If we would just allow ourselves to become energy independent as a nation, then the remainder of the industrialized world would have to take care of issues in the ME to ensure their access to those resources...
    This has been clear for decades now, and if anything, the case for energy independence becomes more compelling every day.

  8. #18
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    I will not argue about the influence of oil on the world economy. Unfortunately, it's all we have at present for the vast, vast majority of our energy needs. We do not rely on Syria for oil. In fact, the only thing we are able to rely on from Syria is trouble. I am not anxious for involvement in Syria's problems, and I wish Obama would've kept his mouth shut about what constitutes a red line. I imagine he does now, too. I do not see oil as a source of evil, but rather the people who use it as a weapon at the expense of the innocent. We have enough oil here that we don't have to get any oil from the ME.
    We should do a thread at some point of oil and its history at some point. Saddam and his mass murderous career, Al Qaeda, 2 wars in Iraq, 9/11, the Iranian hostage crisis, OPEC's control of the US economy despite only getting a fraction of our oil from OPEC because they set the global price, the Iran Iraq war, Iran Contra, the present Argentine UK standoff over the Falklands and Russia declaring the seabed under the North Pole in international waters its sovereign territory all trace their roots to oil. Yes, oil is all we have at present to meet out transportation needs but it doesn't have to be that way. We can add other options to the oligopoly and would have already except for deliberate efforts made over the decades to maintain oil as the only option for personal transportation by those with huge financial interests in making sure there was no competition.

    Now were are seeing advances electric cars and as is the case with new technologies, because they're on the market that technology is being improved upon. I firmly believe we are on the path to electric cars being the next big thing and hope and pray nobody slams the breaks on it just as its taking off, although I'm sure those who stand to make bank from oil having no competitor will do everything they can to including but not limited to PR campaigns convincing the public unlike all other new technologies electric cars will never improve nor become less expensive they today's level of development. I'm not on some environmentalist kick. I just think its time to defund the bloodshed and take control of the American economy back from OPEC and internationalists invested in the oil future's market and give it back to the American people.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  9. #19
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    We should do a thread at some point of oil and its history at some point. Saddam and his mass murderous career, Al Qaeda, 2 wars in Iraq, 9/11, the Iranian hostage crisis, OPEC's control of the US economy despite only getting a fraction of our oil from OPEC because they set the global price, the Iran Iraq war, Iran Contra, the present Argentine UK standoff over the Falklands and Russia declaring the seabed under the North Pole in international waters its sovereign territory all trace their roots to oil. Yes, oil is all we have at present to meet out transportation needs but it doesn't have to be that way. We can add other options to the oligopoly and would have already except for deliberate efforts made over the decades to maintain oil as the only option for personal transportation by those with huge financial interests in making sure there was no competition.

    Now were are seeing advances electric cars and as is the case with new technologies, because they're on the market that technology is being improved upon. I firmly believe we are on the path to electric cars being the next big thing and hope and pray nobody slams the breaks on it just as its taking off, although I'm sure those who stand to make bank from oil having no competitor will do everything they can to including but not limited to PR campaigns convincing the public unlike all other new technologies electric cars will never improve nor become less expensive they today's level of development. I'm not on some environmentalist kick. I just think its time to defund the bloodshed and take control of the American economy back from OPEC and internationalists invested in the oil future's market and give it back to the American people.
    I honestly think natural gas fired cars will happen before electric because the technology already exists and would be easy to implement. I do think the thread you mention would have some merit. I will not offer it, nor any other thread however. I simply don't have the time to do it properly. I also don't cite a lot of references and such just because 1)sources are available that can be construed as supportive of nearly any position; 2) I assume others here can read at least as extensively as I do; 3) I don't require any such reference in my requests of others - just say what you mean; and, 4) I'm lazy in that regard. Admittedly, that puts me at a distinct disadvantage with certain aggressive posters here. I don't care, and I honestly don't care to engage such posters because I've noted that many of them never had an original thought in their entire lives. If you decide to offer such a thread, I'll be supportive, and I'm certain many others will be as well. It's an interesting topic worthy of discussion.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    The BRAD BLOG : Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons

    "Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons"

    "From Reuters tonight:
    U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
    "Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
    "This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

    So, it was the rebels, according to actual named sources, not the Syrian regime which may have used the sarin gas that set off the chain of events described above over the past week and a half?"

    Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

    Should we kick the rebels asses?

    Now, who is the bad guy?

    If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!


    Syria doesn't have much oil.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •