View Poll Results: You're the Congressman, and Your Vote on Syria

Voters
81. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yea

    16 19.75%
  • Nay

    65 80.25%
  • Not Present

    0 0%
Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 146

Thread: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and why

  1. #91
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,174

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Your vote?

    Yea.
    Nay.
    Or Obama's favorite... Not Present.

    ###

    At the moment I'd vote no.
    This is all about Obama and covering his ass. He's looking to Republicans to save his ass. It's all political as everything is with this Amateur. First he says we can't tolerate this... then on Saturday before going golfing and everyone is expecting him to make a statement about upcoming bombings, he says he's going to Congress.

    Isn't it amazing how Obama left Kerry out to hang?

    The measures are half assed. A pin prick. Symbolic... Useless... and the problem is 100% of Obama's own making.

    Where is the coalition?

    Where is Obama's preparation after making the Red Line statement?

    Let the Arab League sort this out. We've sold them enough hi-tech equipment... we can assist with AWACs and the like.

    There is a reason to vote yea and it is because it's the US, and our credibility is on the line. But sorry, our credibility is damaged and the only thing that will restore it is having a mature adult as president, and the first opportunity for that it 2016.
    I vote Nay. Nobody's the good guys here and an attack isn't likely to get anyone's attention or accomplish anything. You don't jump into a civil war without taking sides, and there's no good side to be on.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #92
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Actually, in my recollection, Iraq was about WMD, yes, and Sadaam's unwillingness to live under multiple UN sanctions related to them. In addition, it was about Sadaam not living within the "Oil for Food" UN sanctions and France's double-dealing in that regard - one of the reasons why France vetoed action in Iraq at the time - they were grossly benefitting and feeding money to Sadaam outside the UN sanctions.
    Sure...but use of WMD's is just as much a breach of international law as Saddam not living up to UN resolutions.

    Iraq was about many things, not least of which was Sadaam boldly putting up bounties for terrorist's families, I believe it was $25,000 a suicide bomber, to attack Israel and other western targets. It was about an evil, dangerous, dictator ruling his country brutally and thumbing his nose at the UN. And in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush and his administration wasn't going to sit idly by while Sadaam potentially funded an attack with money from France.
    Assad co-operated with Iraq. Syria actually participates in state sponsored terrorism. Saddam if anything was an enemy to terrorist organizations. In fact Bin Laden supported groups in Kurd controlled areas that wanted to overthrow the regime.

    You don't believe the use of chemical weapons is "thumbing your nose" at the whole international community and the UN?

    These are different times - Assad, for all his evil, has not threatened any nation other than his own and has not participated in any action against another nation such as did Sadaam. There is no equivalency between Iraq in 2003 and Syria in 2013, but a foolish move into Syria could create even greater problems in the region - nobody supported Sadaam - Assad still seems to have some support in the region.
    Syria has been accused of carrying out terrorist plots to destabilize Lebanon. Syria has close ties to Hezbollah.

    I'm not sure how Saddam who has no history with ties to actual terrorist groups...in fact if anything he was a brutal dictator (like Assad obviously...he did gas his people) but ran a secular dictatorship. Assad on the other hand has a long history with terrorist groups and terrorist actions.


    You're right...there's no equivalence between Iraq and Syria...most of the supposed reasons for going into Iraq have were proven to be weak or non-existent. There's no doubt that Syria works with terrorist groups (except for Al queda) they have WMD's (they did just use them).
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  3. #93
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Hmmm. One could easily argue the stakes and potential costs are are astronomically higher in this situation than they were with Iraq, invasion or not.

    As you noted, the stakes and potential costs are completely different, as is the context.

    We'd just experienced the worst terrorist attack in our history by Al Quaida two years prior. The use of Iraq as a refuge/base of operations by them was an issue, as was their relationship to Saddam. Oil was an issue, their proximity to it. And of course Saddam's WMDs were an issue too - our enemies getting their hands on WMDs was a huge concern given what they'd just done to us and what their rhetoric constantly threatened.

    There are no such issues in our attacking Syria now - save for the ostensible reason that Obama foolishly and ill-advisedly drew a red line in the sand.
    I'm not sure how the stakes are higher. A long term occupation and nation building are pretty high stakes. We basically destabilized a very oil rich nation that borders Iran. That's some pretty high stakes.

    As for the ties between Saddam and terrorism....they are weak at best. The history of Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic groups is one of the Islamic groups trying to over throw Saddam and Saddam trying to prevent the groups from gaining any influence in Iraq.

    The Baathist Party is a secular arab nationalist party. It's not a theocratic regime. Saddam has never had a history of co-operating with terrorist groups. Syria on the other hand has a long history of co-operation with terrorist groups.

    Everything that's been mentioned about Iraq and has either proven to be either incorrect or close to incorrect is true of Syria.

    The confusion/fear after Iraq is the reason people followed along with the war in Iraq but it's not as if the war in Iraq is what has made us safer. It was Afghanistan and a 10 year campaign against Al Queda leaders. I want to point out Al Queda leaders didn't start showing in Iraq until after we invaded and they joined the those fighting out troops.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  4. #94
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Sure...but use of WMD's is just as much a breach of international law as Saddam not living up to UN resolutions.


    Assad co-operated with Iraq. Syria actually participates in state sponsored terrorism. Saddam if anything was an enemy to terrorist organizations. In fact Bin Laden supported groups in Kurd controlled areas that wanted to overthrow the regime.

    You don't believe the use of chemical weapons is "thumbing your nose" at the whole international community and the UN?



    Syria has been accused of carrying out terrorist plots to destabilize Lebanon. Syria has close ties to Hezbollah.

    I'm not sure how Saddam who has no history with ties to actual terrorist groups...in fact if anything he was a brutal dictator (like Assad obviously...he did gas his people) but ran a secular dictatorship. Assad on the other hand has a long history with terrorist groups and terrorist actions.


    You're right...there's no equivalence between Iraq and Syria...most of the supposed reasons for going into Iraq have were proven to be weak or non-existent. There's no doubt that Syria works with terrorist groups (except for Al queda) they have WMD's (they did just use them).
    Can't say I fully agree with your analysis, but I appreciate you sharing it.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  5. #95
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,266

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Actually I don't think we should be involved in Syria. You kind of entered a conversation mid stream. This is whether or not conservatives are "rational' for supporting Iraq and not supporting Syria.
    I apologize for perhaps misunderstanding your position somewhat, and if I am butting into something - sorry. Too late now. And no, we conservatives are never rational. I do believe that a comparison between Syria and Iraq could be instructive if you're just considering Obama's proposed action vs Bush in Iraq, and limiting the discussion to WMD's. The more applicable comparison is between Syria and Bosnia, all in all.

    Yes...Iraq was completely based on WMD's. The presentation to the UN was about Iraq WMD's. The sunday talk shows were filled with Administration members talking about Iraq WMD's.
    I would agree if the issue was strictly limited to UN resolutions. We had other additional reasons - the overt support of terrorist attacking Israel and other interests, and yes, the attempted assassination of a president - something we all know and love to talk about, among other things.

    If the use/ownership of WMD's is a cause for war...why wouldn't be a cause in this situation? How is it rational to call for an actual invasion yet not support strikes?
    It is serious. The Syrians, like the Iraqis were, are in violation of Protocol II of the Geneva Convention(s). I don't disagree that it does require a serious response after consideration. Why that is singularly focused on military strikes bothers me - there will be repercussions, and they may not come in a time and manner which we can predict. In all honesty, I reluctantly supported the Iraq invasion because I viewed it as an attempt to eliminate a problem or two and also allow a pivot of our forces to confront Iran. You'd be surprised at the number of conservatives that aren't blood thirsty neocons.

  6. #96
    Advisor Lukas105's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States of America
    Last Seen
    08-07-15 @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    368

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    It's a hell of a thing to go to war just to make the President feel better about himself and not look like an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I voted "Yea." I don't want us to do it, but I think we've been put into a position where we have to. When the chips are down, we can't afford not to back the Office of the Presidency.
    "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    Thomas Jefferson

  7. #97
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    I apologize for perhaps misunderstanding your position somewhat, and if I am butting into something - sorry. Too late now. And no, we conservatives are never rational. I do believe that a comparison between Syria and Iraq could be instructive if you're just considering Obama's proposed action vs Bush in Iraq, and limiting the discussion to WMD's. The more applicable comparison is between Syria and Bosnia, all in all.
    No apology needed. I just want to point out I don't support Syrian intervention. I'm just arguing that it's not "rational" which was the word used to support a ground invasion and occupation along with nation building and not support missile/air strikes for the use/ownage of WMD's.

    Sure...I agree it's humanitarian in nature like Bosnia but the humanitarian reason was also used as a reason for war in Iraq.

    In fact every box checked yes for Saddam (even if the link is weak) can be check for Assad.

    Ownership of WMD's and usage against his own people...check
    Breaking of international law...check
    Links to terrorist organization...check and I would argue the link is much closer between Syria than was the case with Iraq. I think the link with Iraq and terrorist groups is pretty weak.

    I would agree if the issue was strictly limited to UN resolutions. We had other additional reasons - the overt support of terrorist attacking Israel and other interests, and yes, the attempted assassination of a president - something we all know and love to talk about, among other things.
    Syria is a strong supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon. As for the attempted assassination of a president...Bush Sr was still President. He didn't launch an invasion into Iraq.

    It is serious. The Syrians, like the Iraqis were, are in violation of Protocol II of the Geneva Convention(s). I don't disagree that it does require a serious response after consideration. Why that is singularly focused on military strikes bothers me - there will be repercussions, and they may not come in a time and manner which we can predict. In all honesty, I reluctantly supported the Iraq invasion because I viewed it as an attempt to eliminate a problem or two and also allow a pivot of our forces to confront Iran. You'd be surprised at the number of conservatives that aren't blood thirsty neocons.
    I'm sure there are a lot of conservatives that don't follow under the umbrella of neo-con. My question is leveled at those that did support and continued to support the war in Iraq and don't support a strike against Syria. Sure there are un-intended consequences...which is why I don't support a strike. At the same time...there were a lot of unintended potential consequences involved with a land invasion and occupation of a country.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  8. #98
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,705

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    I'm sure there are a lot of conservatives that don't follow under the umbrella of neo-con. My question is leveled at those that did support and continued to support the war in Iraq and don't support a strike against Syria. Sure there are un-intended consequences...which is why I don't support a strike. At the same time...there were a lot of unintended potential consequences involved with a land invasion and occupation of a country.
    I supported the war in Iraq. Id support a war with Syria if the president can actually prove that Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Not some pathetic weak missile strike to show how tough you are or pretend you did something. No...real world end of days ****. Assad must fall IF the president can actually prove Assad did it.

    MY question is...what proof is there? And why didnt the president respond in march when rebels used chemical weapons? is the 'red line' only applicable to Assad? In which case...WTF?

  9. #99
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    What if the rebels were the ones who conducted the chemical attack? (just askin...)

    Obama, giving his ill-fated "red line" bombast basically told the rebels what they needed to do to bring the US into the fray.

    And it's not like the rebels couldn't have access to chemical weapons. Back in December they took control of a large military base near Aleppo, after which Panetta came out and stated the administration didn't believe Assad would use the weapons, that he "got the message." Back then the concern was Assad would, under pressure of rebel advances, prepare chemical weapons to repel them, but again Panetta was firm that he didn't believe he would. Of course, this [Syria] is another in a long series of Shia-Sunni conflicts throughout the region in which the killing of muslims by muslims is rationalized quite readily.

    Bottom line, we still don't have proof of what the administration is trying to hard so make us believe.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  10. #100
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukas105 View Post
    It's a hell of a thing to go to war just to make the President feel better about himself and not look like an idiot.
    I don't consider it "going to war." Maybe that's the difference.

    He drew a hard line in the sand. Probably was the right thing to do. It's only in hindsight that we wonder if it was. We can't allow other countries to use chemical warfare on their people. Hell, we shouldn't even allow unstable countries to possess chemical weapons. We've fought wars for less.

    From August 26th:

    Over the weekend, the group Doctors Without Borders announced that three Damascus-area hospitals it supports received an influx of 3,600 patients within three hours on Wednesday morning, 355 which reportedly died, according to the group.

    “[T]he reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent,” Dr. Bart Janssens, the group’s director of operations, announced via the Doctors Without Borders website Saturday morning.

    Symptoms included “convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress,” Janssens said.
    President Obama’s ‘Red Line’: What He Actually Said About Syria and Chemical Weapons - ABC News
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •