• 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!

US suspects Syria used chemical weapons [W:284]

Did Obama say that "the use of any chemical weapons in Syria would change the calculus", or did he not?

What do you think he meant by that?

Empty threat?
Strong letter?
....
Nothing?

Now, all the sudden it's about the amount used?

Obama is feckless, and the world knows it.

Still better than actually getting involved....
 
We don't need to be involved. We can provide help without getting in. Main thing is that we want whoever wins to be at least a little bit grateful.:cool:
Regardless who wins, if we get involved, we will be classed by the zealots as an enemy, and invite more 9/11 type incidents. Even the winner is not going to want their people to think they are grateful to us. They have too many religious zealots against anyone who isn't of their faith.

We need a clear reason to be involved, else stay out.
 
We don't need to be involved. We can provide help without getting in. Main thing is that we want whoever wins to be at least a little bit grateful.:cool:

If we provide help...we are involved. We should give nothing. All we should do is hope for the best outcome without getting the least bit involved. We don't know who the rebel groups are or if they harbor any ill-will towards us...this is a Syrian battle...they must fight...it is not ours to win.
 
Regardless who wins, if we get involved, we will be classed by the zealots as an enemy, and invite more 9/11 type incidents. Even the winner is not going to want their people to think they are grateful to us. They have too many religious zealots against anyone who isn't of their faith.

We need a clear reason to be involved, else stay out.

If we provide help...we are involved. We should give nothing. All we should do is hope for the best outcome without getting the least bit involved. We don't know who the rebel groups are or if they harbor any ill-will towards us...this is a Syrian battle...they must fight...it is not ours to win.

Among Sunni Muslims this is a big deal. They are going to win, and we want to be part of that. The Shia (Iran, Hezbollah) are going to lose. We want that to happen. A weaker Hezbollah in Lebanon makes Israel feel safer and decreases the likelihood of middle east war. We want that too. In ROI terms we stand to gain 10 to 1. It's worth doing.:cool:
 
Among Sunni Muslims this is a big deal. They are going to win, and we want to be part of that. The Shia (Iran, Hezbollah) are going to lose. We want that to happen. A weaker Hezbollah in Lebanon makes Israel feel safer and decreases the likelihood of middle east war. We want that too. In ROI terms we stand to gain 10 to 1. It's worth doing.:cool:

No it isn't. It isn't worth it at all. We could end up screwed like we were in Libya and Egypt. Israel can take care of themselves. I do not care about protecting a country that is fully capable of destroying all its enemies. Middle East affairs are theirs to fight...not ours.
 
they suspected saddam had weapons of mass destruction and then they took back their words after saddam'S death

why did that think this way

because saddam claimed he developed such weapons

so saddam is trustable

:mrgreen:
 
No it isn't. It isn't worth it at all. We could end up screwed like we were in Libya and Egypt. Israel can take care of themselves. I do not care about protecting a country that is fully capable of destroying all its enemies. Middle East affairs are theirs to fight...not ours.

We have not been screwed in either Libya or Egypt. It is short-sighted and dangerous to let the Israelis feel isolated. :cool:
 
We have not been screwed in either Libya or Egypt. It is short-sighted and dangerous to let the Israelis feel isolated. :cool:

What is dangerous is to continue down this path and pretend we have the money to accomplish it all. What is short-sighted is going down this path without realizing the long-term implications on our deficit. We simply can't afford things anymore in our own country. We shouldn't be sending money ANYWHERE else until we fix our problems here.
 
We have not been screwed in either Libya or Egypt. It is short-sighted and dangerous to let the Israelis feel isolated. :cool:

On the other hand supplying the Muslim Brotherhood with billions in dollars and arms could also make Israel feel isolated.
 
What is dangerous is to continue down this path and pretend we have the money to accomplish it all. What is short-sighted is going down this path without realizing the long-term implications on our deficit. We simply can't afford things anymore in our own country. We shouldn't be sending money ANYWHERE else until we fix our problems here.

The course I advocate costs next to nothing.:cool:
 
On the other hand supplying the Muslim Brotherhood with billions in dollars and arms could also make Israel feel isolated.

When we are the primary suppliers to both, who do you suppose gets the better briefings?:cool:
 
The course I advocate costs next to nothing.:cool:

The cost should be nothing like our involvement. $16 Trillion in the hole means that we shouldn't be spending money overseas. We shouldn't be an empire when we're meant to be a republic
 
The cost should be nothing like our involvement. $16 Trillion in the hole means that we shouldn't be spending money overseas. We shouldn't be an empire when we're meant to be a republic

Sometimes a little well timed spending saves much more in the long run.:cool:
 
That Arab Spring thing is a breath of fresh air.
 
Still better than actually getting involved....

Why was it ok with Libya? Obama shouldn't have let his big mouth write checks he had no intention of cashing. All he did, is make America look weak to enemies in the region as well as allies.
 
On the other hand supplying the Muslim Brotherhood with billions in dollars and arms could also make Israel feel isolated.

Giving money to Egypt to the tune of around 2 billion a year for military and economic aid was part of the Camp David Accords during President Carter to bring peace between Israel and Egypt.
 
Why was it ok with Libya? Obama shouldn't have let his big mouth write checks he had no intention of cashing. All he did, is make America look weak to enemies in the region as well as allies.

In a way I applaud President Obama for taking his time here. From what I read around 20% of those fighting the Aasad regime have AQ connections vs. Aasad which is backed by Iran. Syria could very well be a lose, lose situation regardless what we do and even if we do nothing. It could boil down to do we want an Iranian back Aasad or a AQ backed new government that disposes Aasad. Not very good choices.

But I do agree, the perception is there throughout the Middle East that once that red line was crossed, the U.S. would retaliate. Most hoped for a no fly zone while others were looking for something akin to Desert Storm.
 
Giving money to Egypt to the tune of around 2 billion a year for military and economic aid was part of the Camp David Accords during President Carter to bring peace between Israel and Egypt.

Back then, Mubarak was considered an ally of ours, and a protector of Israel. Times and regimes change. How does the Muslim Brotherhood feel about Israel?
 
Back then, Mubarak was considered an ally of ours, and a protector of Israel. Times and regimes change. How does the Muslim Brotherhood feel about Israel?

Let's say, from what I have read, they are not at all happy with Israel and would like to snuff her out.
 
Let's say, from what I have read, they are not at all happy with Israel and would like to snuff her out.

That's what I thought, too. Are we still giving them money we have to borrow to give to them? The outline is getting blurry on who are our friends these days. No wonder Israel is getting nervous....
 
That's what I thought, too. Are we still giving them money we have to borrow to give to them? The outline is getting blurry on who are our friends these days. No wonder Israel is getting nervous....

A while back there was a discussion on TV about cutting off the aid to Egypt because of the Muslim Brotherhood. One of the reasons given for not doing so was it was part of the Camp David Accord and if the aid was cut, it would be a violation of the treaty. So if that discussion was correct, then that is the reason. Yes friends and enemies change over time. Then our old enemies become our friends and our old friends become our enemies. Plenty of examples, think Japan and Germany WWII, the USSR our ally then the cold war and roles were reversed. Vietnam is becoming a fairly good friend now.
 
A while back there was a discussion on TV about cutting off the aid to Egypt because of the Muslim Brotherhood. One of the reasons given for not doing so was it was part of the Camp David Accord and if the aid was cut, it would be a violation of the treaty. So if that discussion was correct, then that is the reason. Yes friends and enemies change over time. Then our old enemies become our friends and our old friends become our enemies. Plenty of examples, think Japan and Germany WWII, the USSR our ally then the cold war and roles were reversed. Vietnam is becoming a fairly good friend now.

How short-sighted of the Treaty writers, who should have recognized that nothing ever stays the same, as you cited above! So, in theory, we could be attacked by someone with whom we have a Treaty, and our hands would be tied by a piece of paper? :wow:
 
How short-sighted of the Treaty writers, who should have recognized that nothing ever stays the same, as you cited above! So, in theory, we could be attacked by someone with whom we have a Treaty, and our hands would be tied by a piece of paper? :wow:

It has happened hundreds of times in history. The attack --ahem-- invalidates the treaty.:cool:
 
It has happened hundreds of times in history. The attack --ahem-- invalidates the treaty.:cool:

It's comforting to know there are some loopholes! I was beginning to show signs of utter despair ... :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom