• 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!

'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Iron Yank said:
What kind of parents let there kids go to the playground in the middle of a war? Honestly are we expected to buy this hogwash....
Click to expand...

Blame the victims. Unbelievable.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Bob N said:
I agree with your assessment on being the world's policeman but I see nothing wrong with an air strike to remove chemical weapons. :shrug:
Click to expand...

But their not going to strike chemical weapon depots due to humanitarian concerns, they say. Surely you realize this is "regime change", what they say not withstanding.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Zyphlin said:
IF we act, I hope it's narrow and quick.

I also hope that the next time a Republican is in power and has to make such a decision we don't have a stream of democrats proclaiming that "if we break it we bought it and must fix it" as we heard out one side of the mouth from some people as out the other side they were condemning the "occupation" of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ultimately I wouldn't be surprised if we take military action. Despite both sides trying to act like they're so different, both sides readily will make use of the military. The Left, on average, likes to use it for "peace keeping" or "humanitarian" or "human rights' type of reasons where as The Right, on average, likes to use it for "national defense" or "american interest". Ones perhaps more altruistic in it's approach while the other more regarding our state-interest...but they both have a fair bit open to its use. The difference is the worth each side places on such actions, good or ill.
Click to expand...


Don't forget, it requires authorization from the security council. Without it, it's illegal action. Regardless of what the warmongers to this thread would like to believe.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Captain Adverse said:
You lost me, sorry. If we're talking about this particular area...it was Bush Sr. who took us into Iraq, then Clinton was Pres. and he didn't take us anywhere that I recall...then Bush Jr. took us back into Iraq AND added Afghanistan...now we're at Obama in Syria....what did I miss?
Click to expand...

Clinton lead the liberation army to cover the Balkans. This eventually created conditions for Dardania as an independent country. This is what you missed, this is where Clinton "took you."
 
Jredbaron96 said:
'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com
Thoughts? Questions? Invitations to dinner?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I am afraid Obama has done us a real blooper.
Three cruise missiles won't mean a thing and we can hardly send so many, that we can be sure to take the Bad Guy out.
So what does it mean, when the president of the US draws a Red Line?

On German public radio (Deutschlandfunk) they did a commentary this morning on the impotency of the US.

The damage is done and the US did not win.

So, I guess we go through the ritual, destroy all major Syrian bases. At least the world might understand that R2P has to be enforced by the UN and not left to the members. I had thought Bush had made it obvious enough. But the international community let this happen and did nothing.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com



Thoughts? Questions? Invitations to dinner?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...
Yeah, we need to let the UN do their job, and take the finger off the button for once. If it is determined that illegal chemical weapons were used on civilians, trials will be held, and justice will be served. The rule of law exists to be followed, not kicked to the side because our dumbass presidents think that we need to **** every horse in the stable.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Krhazy said:
1. Person expresses disapproval of putting "boots on the ground."

2. Person says another person should be gassed.

Seriously, who is being more dehumanizing here?
Click to expand...

Well, please don't hesitate to put your boots on the ground in Syria if you feel that it's appropriate to consider men and women who are put in harms way and die in combat...and you too consider them nothing more than boots on the ground.

If you're trying to make a moral comparison...it's just not working with me.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Mason66 said:
As far as the military is concerned a troop is no different than a tank or truck.

It is too bad you don't like that but that is the way it is.
Click to expand...

If you hold the same regard as your opinion of what the military labels our troops...human beings, men and women who put their life on the line...and who you say has no more value that a truck...then I suggest you volunteer yourself...inside your boots to go to Syria.

It's too bad that you don't have any more respect for our fellow citizens and people who die for us. That is really too bad. It's more than bad, actually.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

NIMBY said:
The article has clear context. Clipping 3 paragraphs here and 3 paragraphs there to make a political point, not so much. I'll go with Congressman Mike Rogers. We do not have a functional Congress that can be trusted with state secrets.
Click to expand...

Morning Nimby. :2wave: Yes it has clear context like you stated. But I would disagree with you on that part of a political point. Plus it made the point here too.

Which was with regards to your response.

Changing the tangent from Boehner and those that sent letters to Obama.....to now a statement by Rogers about congress can't be trusted. Is completely different then what you had stated about Boehner taking up a vote in the House .
rolleyes.png
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Painter said:
If only people saw the uninsured as human beings too, we'd have one hell of a Country.
Click to expand...

That's not going to happen. We clearly see a "if one can't pay" to save him or herself from disease and/or gross accident then they deserve to die or suffer...kinda mentality with quite a few in this country. And many who believe that to be true...are the ones who also claim to live the model christian lives.

In other words, life is only valuable if you can afford it...regardless of the circumstances.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Removable Mind said:
That's not going to happen. We clearly see a "if one can't pay" to save him or herself from disease and/or gross accident then they deserve to die or suffer...kinda mentality with quite a few in this country. And many who believe that to be true...are the ones who also claim to live the model christian lives.

In other words, life is only valuable if you can afford it...regardless of the circumstances.
Click to expand...


blah...blah...blah..and they want dirty air and water, close schools, let the elderly and handicapped die in the street, people to starve...more poverty, unemployment....blah..blah...keep hammering those talking points.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

P. Kersey said:
blah...blah...blah..and they want dirty air and water, close schools, let the elderly and handicapped die in the street, people to starve...more poverty, unemployment....blah..blah...keep hammering those talking points.
Click to expand...

Good morning, P. Kersey. :2wave:

Yep, there is one good group...libs...and the rest are simply nasty people no one should associate with. You've got it pegged! :lamo:
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I have yet to hear any explanation of what vital American interests are at stake in Syria that would warrant an act of war. Radical Islamists vs. Murderous Dictator, both our foes. Seems to me what we should be dropping is bread/humanitarian aid not bombs in countries like Turkey and Jordon where thousands of refugees have fled and are living in tent cities. We seem to have a fairly decent relationship with both those countries. Our relationships would be strengthened by our willingness to help in the burden that thousands of refugees can place on any country and for building relations with a people in that region who most often despise us.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

P. Kersey said:
blah...blah...blah..and they want dirty air and water, close schools, let the elderly and handicapped die in the street, people to starve...more poverty, unemployment....blah..blah...keep hammering those talking points.
Click to expand...

As they say, life's a bitch and then you die. There's no current answers to a lot of social problems. Not that answers don't exist, but that our society and others around the world haven't come to have a consensus on how to define problems.

If a social problem isn't clearly defined, meaning the full dynamics of the problem in layman terms, which are used to educate the grander population so that they can better grasp all of the elements necessary to under the problem...then solutions won't ever be effectively created to serve as being capable of producing long-term positive impacts.

Usually whoever effectively defines problems also are usually involved in creating solutions. Our government (as well as others) tell the citizens a version of problems, which they in turn create solutions. But the citizens don't really understand what the hell is going on. They don't understand the true dynamics of a problem...so they don't know if solutions are viable or not...or if they are capable of being effective. In other words most people can't really evaluate solutions (good, bad, or indifferent) governments create for citizens. Consequently, governments are pretty self-will-run-riot. Governments today operate on self interest way more than on the interests of the people they should be serving. And this includes special interests groups, which operates inside of governments.

Life is complicated....
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

polgara said:
Good morning, P. Kersey. :2wave:

Yep, there is one good group...libs...and the rest are simply nasty people no one should associate with. You've got it pegged! :lamo:
Click to expand...

Hi ya! ( I almost said "mate") Hope you're well today.

I should have just kept my mouth shut but my BS detector was pegged on that one.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Removable Mind said:
If you hold the same regard as your opinion of what the military labels our troops...human beings, men and women who put their life on the line...and who you say has no more value that a truck...then I suggest you volunteer yourself...inside your boots to go to Syria.

It's too bad that you don't have any more respect for our fellow citizens and people who die for us. That is really too bad. It's more than bad, actually.
Click to expand...

Just because you are ofended by a term does not make it wrong.

The fact that tropos are human beings does not enter into the decisión as to whether they are sent into a particular situation.

They must do what needs to get done.

As a part of the military you are part of a big machine.

Didn't they stamp out that individualism in you, or did they fail in that?
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

We gave our verbal backing of the rebels since the beginning of the Arab spring after Assad began cracking down by force. Backing off that commitment now would be like Bush the Elder telling Iraq's people to rise up against Saddam after the Gulf War and then sitting back as they were decimated.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

ecofarm said:
I support the overthrow of Assad and the instituting of a transitional democratic government beholden to the UN.

You wanted reasons, see signature below.
Click to expand...

Actually, my understanding from some Syrian folks is that if Assad gets taken out that the people doing so are Al Qaeda and their intent is to replace Assad's secular government with Sharia Law. I think the only way to put in a secular democratic government would be an all out UN invasion by all of the NATO countries.

I suspect that Obama will do some surgical strikes, that Iran and Syria will attack Israel, and that Israel and USA will respond with an attack roughly the size of Operation Desert Storm. And not to sound all "Area 51 black helicopter", but is it possible that Obama knows this is what the end game will be and this is something that Obama and the Pentagon already are thinking they want?
 
EdwinWillers said:
"Obama weary" world begs to differ.
Click to expand...

I am sure is is extremely weary of war. He inherited two that were in progress, and he has to be thinking he would have had a better shot at fixing the economy if that money wasn't spent on war. I read that by the time Afghanistan and Iraq are done and we finish paying off the creditors, that by 2030 the total cost of those two wars will be somewhere around $4 trillion to $8 trillion. The two studies that came up with that were Harvard University and Brown University so who really knows - but the logic behind those numbers sounded feasible to me. If we take the median and say $6 trillion - I have to assume $6 trillion would have made Obamacare a non-issue financiallly and also would have been a nice start at paying down the national debt and injecting cash back into Social Security.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Snappo said:
Actually, my understanding from some Syrian folks is that if Assad gets taken out that the people doing so are Al Qaeda and their intent is to replace Assad's secular government with Sharia Law. I think the only way to put in a secular democratic government would be an all out UN invasion by all of the NATO countries.
Click to expand...

I don't see occupation required. We have two options:

1. Cripple Assad to the point the Russians allow Assad to be overthrown (with a guarantee of their port, ships remain). A transitional democratic government emerges with the support of the UN, schools and roads instead of bombs, development.
2. Destroy the chem sites and the S300s. The people are crushed, dictatorship continues. Sorry, Syrians, maybe next time.


I suspect that Obama will do some surgical strikes, that Iran and Syria will attack Israel, and that Israel and USA will respond with an attack roughly the size of Operation Desert Storm. And not to sound all "Area 51 black helicopter", but is it possible that Obama knows this is what the end game will be and this is something that Obama and the Pentagon already are thinking they want?
Click to expand...

The Iranian regime would not risk making it to nukes when so close, for anyone. Assad will not be able nor allowed to strike anyone. If a transition government occurs, the Russians will be given pipeline contracts to reduce their economic (the sale of bombs for civilians) loss.
 
Last edited:
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

ecofarm said:
I don't see occupation required. We have two options:
1. Cripple Assad to the point the Russians allow Assad to be overthrown (with a guarantee of their port, ships remain). A transitional democratic government emerges with the support of the UN, schools and roads instead of bombs, development.
2. Destroy the chem sites and the S300s. The people are crushed, dictatorship continues. Sorry, Syrians, maybe next time.
Click to expand...

1. There will be no transitional democratic government. No disrespect intended, but what fantasy world would that happen in? Guaranteed fact: If or when Assad goes, the people fighting Assad will take over (unless we did a ground invasion and took out both Assad and Al Qaeda). Al Qaeda is the one taking over since they are the ones fighting Assad right now; and they want Sharia Law and not a democratic government.
2. This is not a UN action. This is USA and France acting alone and without UN approval. The other major players like Russia, China, UK, and Italy are not going along with the Pentagon program on this one.
3. Do we know where the chemical sites all are? We didn't know where the WMD's were back when Saddam moved the WMD's out of Iraq and into Syria between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom; so how do we suddenly know where they are now? And I am sure there were thousands of tons of those WMD's. Enough for Saddam to kill 80,000 Kurds and I bet Assad just did a tiny amount this time to see if they still worked after all these years. He is probably sitting on enough of Saddam's leftovers to kill hundreds of thousands more.
4. Iran said they will attack Tel Aviv as soon as USA attacks Damascus. There no doubt would be a response to that from both USA and Israel.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Snappo said:
1. There will be no transitional democratic government. No disrespect intended, but what fantasy world would that happen in?
Click to expand...

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt...

Guaranteed fact: If or when Assad goes, the people fighting Assad will take over (unless we did a ground invasion and took out both Assad and Al Qaeda). Al Qaeda is the one taking over since they are the ones fighting Assad right now; and they want Sharia Law and not a democratic government.
Click to expand...

That's hysterical nonsense.

2. This is not a UN action. This is USA and France acting alone and without UN approval. The other major players like Russia, China, UK, and Italy are not going along with the Pentagon program on this one.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'll realize that no one will go to war for Assad.

3. Do we know where the chemical sites all are? We didn't know where the WMD's were back when Saddam moved the WMD's out of Iraq and into Syria between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom; so how do we suddenly know where they are now? And I am sure there were thousands of tons of those WMD's.
Click to expand...

Chems sites are not difficult to identify. Are you saying he's been hiding stuff from inspectors?

I think very little was moved to Assad. Assad could and has produced chems. Do you have a citation for the 'thousands of tons'.

Enough for Saddam to kill 80,000 Kurds and I bet Assad just did a tiny amount this time to see if they still worked after all these years. He is probably sitting on enough of Saddam's leftovers to kill hundreds of thousands more.
Click to expand...

Saddam killed 200k Kurds, but that has nothing to do with his overstock.

4. Iran said they will attack Tel Aviv as soon as USA attacks Damascus. There no doubt would be a response to that from both USA and Israel.
Click to expand...

Be real, the Iranian regime will not risk making it to nukes for Assad. Pretending that the Iranian regime would abandon all hope of becoming a nuclear power for Assad is flat-out stupid.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Snappo said:
Actually, my understanding from some Syrian folks is that if Assad gets taken out that the people doing so are Al Qaeda and their intent is to replace Assad's secular government with Sharia Law. I think the only way to put in a secular democratic government would be an all out UN invasion by all of the NATO countries.
Click to expand...

The closest analogy seems to be Yugoslavia. There is a term called "Balkanization" that refers to the fragmentation of an area into separate ethnic groups (i.e. the Balkans). Much of the sectarian strife in the Middle East as a whole can be assigned to the arbitrary borders created by the colonial powers that divided the region without respect for which areas were populated by which types of people.

Thus we have a country that can be divided into Alawites, Sunni, Christians, and other groups. Presently they can only be held together by an authoritarian dictatorship, like Saddam did, but Assad's grip is slipping.

What might happen is that surgical strikes will further weaken Assad's grip, maybe not enough to tilt the field against him, but enough to level the odds with the opposition. If that stalemate of power subsists for some time, it may convince Assad to try and reach a negotiate settlement, with Russia and Iran backing him and the West and other Arab nations backing the rebels. In that case, hostilities could be ended diplomatically, either by carving up the country or by some transitional government and exile for Assad.

The truth is no one knows, but what has been done up until now certainly hasn't worked.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com



Thoughts? Questions? Invitations to dinner?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

my first thought was.... it's incredibly arrogant for him ot say nobody ends up being more war-weary than himself.... millions of Vets who are actually waging the war are more war weary than he is

now, if he said " nobody is more golf-weary /vacation-weary/ photo-op weary/ speech-weary than I am".. I might buy it.. but war weary?... not a chance.

a very good "narrow , limited act" would be putting a bullet in Assads head... but we won't be going that route... we'll keep protecting enemy leaders like they are divine kings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom