• 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

Why is any of this our problem?

I haven't followed this at all, but 10 bucks says the Europeans don't lift a finger, and the US gets dragged in to ANOTHER armed conflict that has nothing to do with us, and that AMERICAN young people die while the rest of the world sits around sipping tea waiting for us to make the world safer for them.

And then they will criticize us for it.

No, I want no part of this. America should focus on America, on making our economy better, etc. Who gives a **** about Syria.
 
SBu said:
Of course we are...but it's subtle and largely covert. What we're talking about doing now is overt and kinetic. It does change things.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see what you mean.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Why is any of this our problem?

I haven't followed this at all, but 10 bucks says the Europeans don't lift a finger, and the US gets dragged in to ANOTHER armed conflict that has nothing to do with us, and that AMERICAN young people die while the rest of the world sits around sipping tea waiting for us to make the world safer for them.

And then they will criticize us for it.

No, I want no part of this. America should focus on America, on making our economy better, etc. Who gives a **** about Syria.
Click to expand...

Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and one of the DNCs leaders...also huge supporter of Obama, says "dozens" of countries will be with us and saying "never again" with respect to the use of chem weapons. Sounds like this has more traction than I originally thought.
 
Who gives a **** about Syria. Not our problem. They got nothing we want. So let them fight it out. We don't want either side to win so we can't take sides.
 
SBu said:
Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and one of the DNCs leaders...also huge supporter of Obama, says "dozens" of countries will be with us and saying "never again" with respect to the use of chem weapons. Sounds like this has more traction than I originally thought.
Click to expand...

Doesn't every country that signed this chemical weapons agreement have an obligation to intervene when chemical weapons are used? Otherwise, what is the point of signing such agreements?

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Moot said:
Yes, I see what you mean.
Click to expand...

I just want to say this shouldn't be political. And people should be under no illusion that this could possibly draw us in to something bigger. I believe they are emboldened by the indecisiveness of our leaders (Obama has said after all...no boots on ground, no no-fly zone, only a shot across the bow, we are "war weary"). I think they see the opportunity to call our bluff.
 
SBu said:
Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and one of the DNCs leaders...also huge supporter of Obama, says "dozens" of countries will be with us and saying "never again" with respect to the use of chem weapons. Sounds like this has more traction than I originally thought.
Click to expand...
Great then those dozens of countries can send in their military might to take care of the problem. Leave ours alone.
 
Moot said:
Doesn't every country that signed this chemical weapons agreement have an obligation to intervene when chemical weapons are used? Otherwise, what is the point of signing such agreements?

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Moot! Why are you searching for any excuse to attack?! Haha. Notice that Syria didn't sign any international agreement concerning not using chemical weapons (it's even within the article you cited.). That is why pundits are saying "violating international "norms"" instead of law. Syria has violated no law because they have agreed to no such terms. We have not signed similar agreements with respect to cluster munitions. So if we use them, we can not be held to account.
 
SBu said:
I just want to say this shouldn't be political. And people should be under no illusion that this could possibly draw us in to something bigger. I believe they are emboldened by the indecisiveness of our leaders (Obama has said after all...no boots on ground, no no-fly zone, only a shot across the bow, we are "war weary"). I think they see the opportunity to call our bluff.
Click to expand...

It's difficult not to see the political ramifications no matter what Obama does. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes and have to make such a decision.

Moot! Why are you searching for any excuse to attack?! Haha. Notice that Syria didn't sign any international agreement concerning not using chemical weapons (it's even within the article you cited.). That is why pundits are saying "violating international "norms"" instead of law. Syria has violated no law because they have agreed to no such terms. We have not signed similar agreements with respect to cluster munitions. So if we use them, we can not be held to account.
Click to expand...

I haven't made up my mind about Syria, so I might ask questions in order to have a better understanding from different perspectives to have a more informed opinion. Sometimes I might assert a position just to see how it stands up to scrutiny and opposing opinions. But really, my opinion on Syria is not written in stone and I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn and gain more information. I pretty much know most the reasons for not striking Syria, but didn't really know the reasons to strike. So thank you SBu for providing a reasoned and civil discussion and while we may not always agree, I look forward to having many more with you.


Can a country that hasn't signed the chemical warfare agreement still be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity? If so, then why can't and why shouldn't the signed countries intervene when they are used? Where is the teeth in such agreement if the nations that signed do nothing?
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

head of joaquin said:
Yeah because we should be in a hurry to attack another country and throw the region into chaos, like Bush did..

Bottomline: Obama smart/Bush dumb.
Click to expand...

Smart people don't draw lines in the sand, draw more lines in the sand, tell the world we're going to attack then realize they screwed up and look to congress to save the day for them.

No. Obama is anything but smart.
 
Moot said:
...but didn't really know the reasons to strike.
Click to expand...

The reason why you can think of any of the reasons to strike is because there aren't any. Unless you want to include feel good reasons like "it's so terrible" or "Assad is a brutal dictator".

Moot said:
Can a country that hasn't signed the chemical warfare agreement still be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity? If so, then why can't and why shouldn't the signed countries intervene when they are used? Where is the teeth in such agreement if the nations that signed do nothing?
Click to expand...
Sure, just like you can sue someone for something stupid like a frivolous lawsuit. And that's exactly what striking Syria amounts to; a frivolous action undertaken by a nation or nations just to demonstrate that they can strike. If party A and B sign a contract why should Party C be forced to oblige by that contract?

P.S. Israel also hasn't completely signed up for any bans on chemical weapons.
 
SBu said:
Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and one of the DNCs leaders...also huge supporter of Obama, says "dozens" of countries will be with us and saying "never again" with respect to the use of chem weapons. Sounds like this has more traction than I originally thought.
Click to expand...

It's manufactured support. Just like how "hundreds of nations" allied with the U.S. in Iraq. As for "Never again", I rolled my eyes so hard I got a sprain. But this does confirm something I mentioned earlier: establishment Democrats and Republicans love warmongering in equal measure.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

ecofarm said:
Boots on the ground was never an option.

I made pea soup with potatoes and fried onions.
Click to expand...

head of joaquin;1062255024[B said:
]Obama smart.
Click to expand...
[/B] Bush dumb.

It comes down to that.
Click to expand...




Bush and the neocons decided to go to war in Iraq, then scatched around trying to round up some plausible excuses for their war of choice.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com



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

The emperor? War weary? I guess his actions contradict his words, as usual.

shrubnose said:
Bush and the neocons decided to go to war in Iraq, then scatched around trying to round up some plausible excuses for their war of choice.
Click to expand...

Really? Because about 40% of Democrats in the house and about 60% of the Democrats in the senate voted "yay!".
 
Moot said:
To me a 'limited strike' means "damaging the Syrian governments military and weapons enough to make it difficult to conduct more chemical weapons attacks."

What does it mean to you?




Do you have a link to your CIA claim?


The Syrian Electronic Army made another strike on US interests today.....

'Syrian Electronic Army' hacks Marines website - NYPOST.com
Click to expand...

Well I could have no way of knowing what a "limited strike" would mean. I'm talking about what the White house could mean by it. It never means anything. When Bush went to congress for funding on Iraq, they asked him how much, he said 80 billion dollars. They grasped their throats in shock but said, OK. But over a trillion dollars later!!! When asked how long the conflict would last Rumsfeld said could be six days, maybe six weeks but I doubt six months, and ten years later!!! My point is "limited strike" means absolutely nothing. It will ALWAYS be more, last longer and cost more. Anybody that disagrees with that hasn't been paying any attention.

As far as the CIA link. I've put it up in a couple of these numerous Syrian threads we've got going here.
 
Moot said:
What do you think might happen if the US does make a limited strike?
Click to expand...

It will be a sleight to the overwhelming majority of Americans, it will likely be against a no vote from congress and it will certainly be in violation of international law!!!! WHY.........does this notion find support here??
 
reinoe said:
It's manufactured support. Just like how "hundreds of nations" allied with the U.S. in Iraq. As for "Never again", I rolled my eyes so hard I got a sprain. But this does confirm something I mentioned earlier: establishment Democrats and Republicans love warmongering in equal measure.
Click to expand...

Me too!!! Support is all 'classified information"! That information was certainly never classified in the past. It's amateur hour!
 
Montecresto said:
Then IF ANYTHING we should be attacking the rebels.
Click to expand...

The idea seems to be that somebody should be attacked for what's going on in Syria, so lets do it some time soon so we can have some credibility.

They may find a reason for an action on Youtube.
 
Haven't we seen this all before in history? Even been told many of the same things ie: Limited in scope, etc?

Didn't JFK say "Our involvement in Viet Nam is to be limited in scope".....???? Hmmmm.
 
Grant said:
The idea seems to be that somebody should be attacked for what's going on in Syria, so lets do it some time soon so we can have some credibility.

They may find a reason for an action on Youtube.
Click to expand...


Right. But I was being facetious, Americans don't want it, congress is likely to say no, the UN already has said no repeatedly. It must be dropped. It's both illegal and very stupid. While I very much agree with those here that point out that Putin WILL NOT get involved militarily, all I have to say is there are NO guarantees. In 1936 Hitler was on the cover of Time Magazine as man of the year!!!! This whole thing is FOOLISH talk.
 
j-mac said:
Haven't we seen this all before in history? Even been told many of the same things ie: Limited in scope, etc?

Didn't JFK say "Our involvement in Viet Nam is to be limited in scope".....???? Hmmmm.
Click to expand...


Proper observation!
 
Montecresto said:
Right. But I was being facetious, Americans don't want it, congress is likely to say no, the UN already has said no repeatedly. It must be dropped. It's both illegal and very stupid. While I very much agree with those here that point out that Putin WILL NOT get involved militarily, all I have to say is there are NO guarantees. In 1936 Hitler was on the cover of Time Magazine as man of the year!!!! This whole thing is FOOLISH talk.
Click to expand...

I'm against it more for the stupidity than the legality. America should be free to decide what is in its own best interests, not the corrupt UN. I don't believe it is in the best interests of the US to attack Syria now because of the plodding President and all the hoops which were created.

The US will never gain any credibility under Obama, but America can regain credibility, perhaps, if they elect a leader who arrives in office and make a quick decision to respond to some international atrocity. Dithering after lines were drawn and crossed does no good at all. It screams weakness.
 
Grant said:
I'm against it more for the stupidity than the legality. America should be free to decide what is in its own best interests, not the corrupt UN. I don't believe it is in the best interests of the US to attack Syria now because of the plodding President and all the hoops which were created.

The US will never gain any credibility under Obama, but America can regain credibility, perhaps, if they elect a leader who arrives in office and make a quick decision to respond to some international atrocity. Dithering after lines were drawn and crossed does no good at all. It screams weakness.
Click to expand...

Americans say NO, congress will come back and say NO, the UN (which we are a member of, hello!!) says NOOOOOOO!

It's both stupid, illegal and risky. Jesus Christ, we have not been attacked by Syria, and sooner or later China and Russia are going to shut us down on this practice of attacking countries that haven't attacked us. It is not weak to refrain, it's following rules and its SMART.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom