• 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!

Should we go into Syria

Should we go into Syria

  • Yes, the red line has been crossed

    Votes: 23 13.9%

  • No way Jose, not our problem

    Votes: 143 86.1%
  • Total voters
    166
haymarket said:
It is reassuring to see over 85% of respondents here against intervention in Syria. And they seem to be joined in public opinion polls across the land. Have we learned nothing from Viet Nam and other more recent events? It seems that while politicians on both sides of the aisle have not learned properly, much of the American people have. And that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Congress has learned that it can act as it damn well pleases, with the assurance of immunity from a somnambulant constituency.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Congress has learned that it can act as it damn well pleases, with the assurance of immunity from a somnambulant constituency.
Click to expand...
Congress has become the crazy talkative neighbor, who we just want to leave us alone.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Congress has learned that it can act as it damn well pleases, with the assurance of immunity from a somnambulant constituency.
Click to expand...

Well, things are not always under the control of the people as they should be. Think about the "punishments" congressmen and women give one another, such as Charlie Rangel and his "censure" and he tried to fight even that. Anytime one of them does something wrong, they basically give one another a slap on the wrist and say "bad!" They also give themselves raises, etc. Once one is elected, it's not an easy process to get them out of office either, and then you have the dumbasses who will keep voting for the same guys each time.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, things are not always under the control of the people as they should be. Think about the "punishments" congressmen and women give one another, such as Charlie Rangel and his "censure" and he tried to fight even that. Anytime one of them does something wrong, they basically give one another a slap on the wrist and say "bad!" They also give themselves raises, etc. Once one is elected, it's not an easy process to get them out of office either, and then you have the dumbasses who will keep voting for the same guys each time.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
cpwill said:
I wouldn't say we should stay far from it - I maintain that we can help provide security at the borders of our allies, protect fleeing refugees, and (if possible) deter WMD use. But yeah, I'd be pretty skeptical about arming the rebels at this point. I'd rather just bomb the regime.
Click to expand...

The problem is, there's no side in the fight that we'd want in power, no matter who wins, we lose. That's really how it is throughout the Middle East. We are not going to get any U.S. friendly regimes and by going in at all, on any side, we're just going to piss them off even more.

Let them kill each other.
 
2na7d7d.jpg
 
Here's a very good comment piece by a very respected correspondent. This is exactly what I believe to be the correct course of action - beefed up diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. As the piece says, "it's not much, but it's better than bombing". These are Jenkins key points:

  1. No reasonable person denies that Assad used sarin in Damascus a fortnight ago.
  2. Obama and Kerry are right that international law must be enforced, bringing war criminals to justice. The US isn't generally in favour of this, doesn't support the ICC; but now appears to be changing its stance. Good!
  3. Missile strikes do not bring about régime change. They punish a population for the actions of a government that they do not necessarily support.
  4. Shifting objectives from, "a surgical, punitive strike" to a massively destructive one is against the very international law the US claims to be wishing to enforce.
  5. Obama and the US doesn't have the will or the means to invade, so what function would bombing serve?
Here it is in full.
 
Andalublue said:
Here's a very good comment piece by a very respected correspondent. This is exactly what I believe to be the correct course of action - beefed up diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. As the piece says, "it's not much, but it's better than bombing". These are Jenkins key points:

  1. No reasonable person denies that Assad used sarin in Damascus a fortnight ago.
  2. Obama and Kerry are right that international law must be enforced, bringing war criminals to justice. The US isn't generally in favour of this, doesn't support the ICC; but now appears to be changing its stance. Good!
  3. Missile strikes do not bring about régime change. They punish a population for the actions of a government that they do not necessarily support.
  4. Shifting objectives from, "a surgical, punitive strike" to a massively destructive one is against the very international law the US claims to be wishing to enforce.
  5. Obama and the US doesn't have the will or the means to invade, so what function would bombing serve?
Here it is in full.
Click to expand...

1. agree
2. agree
3. agree
4. agree
5. partially agree. we don't have the will, but we do have the means... all those Soldiers, Marines and equipment we pulled out of Iraq
 
I'm honestly baffled by this administration.

Why does he want to attack Syria? There has to be some ulterior motive.
 
Josie said:
I'm honestly baffled by this administration.

Why does he want to attack Syria? There has to be some ulterior motive.
Click to expand...
The motive there for the US is always the same, keep the oil flowing.
 
We need to stop trying to solve everybody problems.There's way more than enough problems, here in the United States to be solved! Jobs,Immigration, Leadership in both the House of Representatives, and the Senate.To name a few.
 
Josie said:
I'm honestly baffled by this administration.

Why does he want to attack Syria? There has to be some ulterior motive.
Click to expand...

He's trying to look like a strong and effective leader. IMO, this all boils down to the fact that he opened his big fat mouth and made threats and now he has to carry through and do something.
 
TiredOfLife said:
The motive there for the US is always the same, keep the oil flowing.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can make that correlation, especially in this instance.
 
Guess TOL needs a course on where the oil flows from? (hint, it ain't Syria)
 
TiredOfLife said:
It ain't Wall Street either but they are very interested.
Click to expand...
I'm just sad that Ohbammer hasn't managed to set the whole place alight yet, anything to distract from the train wreck that's just down the tracks?

2qk192h.jpg
 
TiredOfLife said:
Bumps in the road. Think long-term.
Click to expand...

If you were thinking long-term, you would realize oil is a finite resource and that you'd better get working on some alternative energy forms unless you want to be owned by OPEC. Let's face it, the only people who profit when the price of oil rises are the members of OPEC. Why on earth some of you think America or Americans ever profit from oil is beyond my comprehension.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in Baghdad, Iraq, with the signing of an agreement in September 1960 by five countries namely Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They were to become the Founder Members of the Organization.

These countries were later joined by Qatar (1961), Indonesia (1962), Libya (1962), the United Arab Emirates (1967), Algeria (1969), Nigeria (1971), Ecuador (1973), Gabon (1975) and Angola (2007).

From December 1992 until October 2007, Ecuador suspended its membership. Gabon terminated its membership in 1995. Indonesia suspended its membership effective January 2009.

Currently, the Organization has a total of 12 Member Countries.

The OPEC Statute distinguishes between the Founder Members and Full Members - those countries whose applications for membership have been accepted by the Conference.

The Statute stipulates that “any country with a substantial net export of crude petroleum, which has fundamentally similar interests to those of Member Countries, may become a Full Member of the Organization, if accepted by a majority of three-fourths of Full Members, including the concurring votes of all Founder Members.”

The Statute further provides for Associate Members which are those countries that do not qualify for full membership, but are nevertheless admitted under such special conditions as may be prescribed by the Conference.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
If you were thinking long-term, you would realize oil is a finite resource and that you'd better get working on some alternative energy forms unless you want to be owned by OPEC. Let's face it, the only people who profit when the price of oil rises are the members of OPEC. Why on earth some of you think America or Americans ever profit from oil is beyond my comprehension.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in Baghdad, Iraq, with the signing of an agreement in September 1960 by five countries namely Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They were to become the Founder Members of the Organization.

These countries were later joined by Qatar (1961), Indonesia (1962), Libya (1962), the United Arab Emirates (1967), Algeria (1969), Nigeria (1971), Ecuador (1973), Gabon (1975) and Angola (2007).

From December 1992 until October 2007, Ecuador suspended its membership. Gabon terminated its membership in 1995. Indonesia suspended its membership effective January 2009.
Click to expand...

Alternative energy is fine but until it is feasible we should be going after our oil instead of buying terrorist oil.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Alternative energy is fine but until it is feasible we should be going after our oil instead of buying terrorist oil.
Click to expand...

It's not "fine." We NEED to have alternative energy if we ever want energy independence.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Alternative energy is fine but until it is feasible we should be going after our oil instead of buying terrorist oil.
Click to expand...
I'm mixed on that.

One thought is this. As long as oil isn't excessively expensive, why shouldn't we deplete theirs first? save ours for when everyone else runs out.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm mixed on that.

One thought is this. As long as oil isn't excessively expensive, why shouldn't we deplete theirs first? save ours for when everyone else runs out.
Click to expand...

Yes indeedy DO! heck thar's prolly more than three centuries worth of fossil fuels left in the earth. You don't have to be a grown up to realize we've not only found a multitude of ways to make burinin' dinosaurs cleaner (i.e. old enough to remember first hand what it looked like to live in a city shrouded in smog like the Chinese cities currently are) but also gaining greater efficiency in their use. I must disagree with the concept of not using our domestic sources, recent estimates show that we've MORE than enough to fuel our economy until a REAL alternative energy source(s) becomes available.

Heck if I was King for a day (ok decade) instead of pushing stoopid corn to ethanol I'd have the coal industry be granted Tax Free status I'd promote gasification of coal AND build another 103 nuclear power plants to more than double our electric power generation capabilities. This would offset the coal being used for gasification instead of used in electricity production.

My government instead of attacking domestic energy production would PROMOTE it. Every gallon of domestically produced petrol whether from coal or onshore and offshore drilling (I'd let the Canadians with their Athabasca oil sands in on the deal too) would be tax free to the producer and the consumer! And I'd abolish the EPA to boot! My stated goal would be fidy cent a gallon non-EPA messed up gasoline ASAP seriously do ya know how they make em reformate gas now? If auto manufacturers could develop a drivetrain that used turbo-charging to get power and at least 65 MPG I'd let them sell those cars without ANY taxes too! How about 130 octane pump gas going into a car that ran 29 psi boost (2 bar)?

yup elect me and you'll wave good by to the Mid-East if the EU wants their oil let them fight for it America has reached energy independence and the new Mustangs and Camaros have 800+ horsepower too boot (AOG step away from the espresso machine)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom