Yes he does
He's mostly right, but not on everything
No, stay out of our affairs!
-UN must be allowed to work: Because it's worked so well thus far? So far all it's done is document the carnage of the civil war. Funny coming from Russia which has blocked most resolutions on Syria.
Russia blocks UN condemnation of Syrian fighting | The Times of Israel
Russia, China Block Another U.N. Resolution On Syria : NPR
-Attacking Syria will destabilize the region: Probably wouldn't destabilize it more than it already is other than backing Iran into a corner and hurting other Russian interests
-The opposition used chem weapons: Unfortunately, we the general public can never know this for certain. It is something that we have to rely on our gov't for accurate info.
-Diplomacy must be used instead of force: Again, we've been trying that since the beginning. Unfortunately our foreign policy with regard to Syria has been a mess since the beginning, but the UN hasn't helped much
-America is not exceptional: BS. Sure, we have our fair share of problems like any other country, but overall we are an exceptional country. I would say the cliche when politicians use the phrase is exceptionally lame.
This thing by Putin is ridiculous. It is an outright appeal to Americans to belittle themselves (which plenty are willing to do). This deal thing is extremely shaky and is probably more of a delaying tactic than anything else so Russia, Iran, and Syria have more time to figure out what to do and make preparations.
Moderator's Warning: *looks around* Lets keep it civil please. Remember, talk to the posts...not the poster.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
I don't think anyone would argue that selling arms to Assad helped to create a more stable situation in Syria.-Attacking Syria will destabilize the region
Israeli, American, French, and British intelligence all seems to disagree with that-The opposition used chemical weapons, not Assad
I would agree, but the usage of chemical weapons is not the only important issue here. Assad has been waging unrestricted warfare against his own people for two years now in order to prevent his toppling. Furthermore, we have interests at stake in Syria - the weakening of Iran, the removal of a dictator who has sponsored terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon to undermine us and Israel, respectively; as well as others - and so long as the harm done to human dignity is not disproportionate to the potential benefits of military action, I see no problem with doing whatever is necessary to promote our interests.-Diplomacy must be used instead of force
No country is better than any other country. However, American democracy is not only exceptional, but it is vastly superior to Baathist (aka National Socialist) ideology.-America is not exceptional
Obama looks weak because he is. The only good thing that has come out of this mess is we finally hear John Kerry blame someone else for atrocities other than our soldiers.
1. The U.N. can work, but it's those in the Security Council that act like little children, including Russia and the United States, ruin it.
2. U.S. Intervention can cause the Middle East to explode, with Iran and other countries joining in the fray. Risking that alone, is not worth it.
3. If you say we should rely on the government to make the right choice, I remind you that the news hyped about Saddam using chemical weapons on his people and had WMDs, That turned out to be a big lie.
4. All that I have heard from the President is, We should bomb this and bomb that, not very often have I heard, lets talk this out. He pushes for immediate force, not thinking very much into the problem at all.
5.The U.S. is just a normal country like everybody else, we shouldn't disregard another countries sovereignty just to further our agenda.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
He makes some valid points. I believe that intervining in the area is certainly the responsibility of the international community. Simply due to the fact that chemical weapons have been used. It would actually be less concerning if the Syrian government had used them but the charge that rebel forces used them is much more alarming and much more a reason for the international community to be involved. This means that somewhere, someone is either selling government weapons to the rebels, or they are unsecured weapons stolen from the government. We can't have these weapons loose and in the hands of rebel groups who often don't abide by international laws.
However, the solution is certainly not lobbing missiles into syria to destabalize the government. We would be repeating the mistake we made in Iraq by destroying what little infrastructure, law and order there is in syria and leaving a vacume which insurgents from outside the region are going to take advantage of. The syrian government may be tyranical, but what would replace it in the event we destroy its ability to fend off the likes of AQ and the remnents of the Taliban? The only military intervention that would be successful would be a full invasion with boots on the ground. Anything other than that will simply be ineffective and more damaging then just leaving it the way it is.
- There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
- Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
- Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.