• 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!

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

sorry what laws of your constitution have been broken? What laws have been swept aside? Last time I checked your president was putting this to a vote and the people who will be voting are elected officials. Also whats your evidence that Assad is well supported? I mean is it possible that the images we see of Syrians offering themselves up as human shields could be propaganda? No can't be dictatorships don't buy into the whole propaganda thing. Its convenient though that as soon as America look to step in the Syrian people apparently are rising up to support Assad but must be a coincidence... :roll:


The US COULD help to enforce a Cease Fire. FSA and Government troops who kill, after a date certain, should be tried for manslaughter/Murder. Syrian Military and police who committed crimes before the demonstrations got out of hand two years ago, should be tried for Torture, Political Arrest and murder. The US can assist with gathering evidence and testimony, and recorded conversations, that prove violations of the Cease Fire.

The Syrian Presidential election in May, 2014, need to have a cease fire in effect. The Syrian Presidential elections should be closely monitored.



"The United Nations and Syria have signed an agreement on how to enforce the country's fragile ceasefire.

Syrian forces are still shelling parts of the country even though the first team of peacekeepers has arrived.

Syrian and UN officials signed a deal defining the rules for peacekeepers monitoring the country's ceasefire.

A small team of unarmed observers is in Damascus.

But the United Nations is pushing to send in 300 monitors quickly to try to bring peace to the region.

Despite the week-old ceasefire between government and opposition forces -- explosions are still battering rebel towns like Homs.

“The past few days in particular has brought reports of renewed and escalating violence,” said Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General"


UN, Syria Sign Agreement To Enforce Ceasefire - KUTV.com




//
 
so contrary to what we have seen before you are saying that a concentrated missile campaign will be ineffective against Assad?

No I am actually telling you what the AP reported yesterday. So now when we take out those civilians. Will you be ready for the Next week of all the dead being put in the news and used by Assad?
 
No I am actually telling you what the AP reported yesterday. So now when we take out those civilians. Will you be ready for the Next week of all the dead being put in the news and used by Assad?

That's not new mate! Saddam did it in Operation desert fox and during the invasion and it was a tactic used in the Balkan war. America is very effective at these types of campaign in my opinion it suits their military better than ground invasions because from my own experience they are ineffective at handling counter insurgency. I have no worries about America being able to go forward with this and trying to avoid as much civilian casualties as possible. Will there be civilian casualties yes of course but the loss will be much greater if we do nothing and we allow Assad to continue with his indiscriminate bombing campaign.
 
That's not new mate! Saddam did it in Operation desert fox and during the invasion and it was a tactic used in the Balkan war. America is very effective at these types of campaign in my opinion it suits their military better than ground invasions because from my own experience they are ineffective at handling counter insurgency. I have no worries about America being able to go forward with this and trying to avoid as much civilian casualties as possible. Will there be civilian casualties yes of course but the loss will be much greater if we do nothing and we allow Assad to continue with his indiscriminate bombing campaign.

I didn't say it was New....."say what"? We can handle counter insurgency We just need to take off the kid gloves.

How will the loss be greater.....already the sectarian divide has spilled over the border. Moreover.....we can't even say the FSA will be in control should Assad be removed. That the real kicker. As Al nusra will kill Idris should he step inside Syria.
 
If the Saudi's could buy the life of one US soldier I'd listen to their desire to pay for us to inject our military into the civil war in Syria. Since that will never happen, the Saudi's can pound sand and they have plenty of it.
 
Exactly I really don't see what the problem is here.

Yeah, me neither :confused: I think it's people who already are upset at a situation simply interpreting every piece of new data in the worst light possible to justify increased or continued outrage.
 
sorry what laws of your constitution have been broken? What laws have been swept aside? Last time I checked your president was putting this to a vote and the people who will be voting are elected officials. Also whats your evidence that Assad is well supported? I mean is it possible that the images we see of Syrians offering themselves up as human shields could be propaganda? No can't be dictatorships don't buy into the whole propaganda thing. Its convenient though that as soon as America look to step in the Syrian people apparently are rising up to support Assad but must be a coincidence... :roll:

Well, I mean sense the bombing campaign hasn't yet begun, that would be none (with regards to Syria, that is) but though we have attacked countries in the past that didn't attack us, used false flags in other situations as a pretext to attack countries that hadn't attacked us, they have been broken, but I won't bother with an entire history lesson for you on that now. As to my evidence that Assad is well supported, I've only posted it multiple times on various threads on this topic, thought you said you'd been watching. As to propaganda, yes, there is propaganda coming from all asides, the truth is very difficult to ascertain on everything (another good reason not to start throwing bombs immediately) as to president Assad behaving like a dictator, sure, the US has propped them up when they "served our interests" and takin them down when they didn't. A significant amount of the Syrian people favour their current president over the Islamic extremists and jihadists that have documented civilian atrocities credited to them, the ones you wish to support. Why don't you work on getting Great Britain to go kick Assad's ass?
 
To my own disappointment I voted for president Obama and he's been a HUGE disappointment to me on a host of levels.

I'm the opposite. I voted Libertarian; but I have been quite happy with Obama over the 5 years he has been doing his job. OTOH, I think the problem lies with the partisan politics in the Senate and with the GOP and DNC party platforms.
 
Everyone knows vikings these days don't ride in longboats.

The Vikings will be lucky to win 3 games this year. They should grab Tebow.
 
I'm the opposite. I voted Libertarian; but I have been quite happy with Obama over the 5 years he has been doing his job. OTOH, I think the problem lies with the partisan politics in the Senate and with the GOP and DNC party platforms.

Two things....1. How do you reconcile being a Libertarian and being happy with an agenda that is filled with centralized governmental control? 2. Contrast is good in politics, it is what the founders set up to slow things down, and allow for reasoned deliberation, and compromise.

Now, as far as the Arab's willing to pay us like a hired hand to do their dirty work, I say no. History is filled with shady dealings, and blood money from this part of the world, even back to the bible. I think at this time, you have the Arab League saying no publically, but the Saud's and Qutar offering this slap in the face behind the scenes. We should say emphatically NO! "You go take care of him, and we will provide support for you to do that..." Why should we die for you?
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]The House’s Syria hearing: Live updates
This might change things.
Is our Army for hire?

Well hell, if they're going to pay for the party I guess we might as well drink right? :roll:

07-01-07c-2-barack_koolaid.jpg
 
I'm thrilled that we might have our allies bankroll our operation. Salaries, fuel, and munitions are expensive. Where is this outrage coming from?
 
I'm thrilled that we might have our allies bankroll our operation. Salaries, fuel, and munitions are expensive. Where is this outrage coming from?

Those counties have their own armies.
 
Everyone who was equally insulted by the Japanese doing the same in 1991 raise your hand?

My history recall sucks. What exactly happened in 1991? Perhaps a couple of key words I could use to google and educate myself?
 
My history recall sucks. What exactly happened in 1991? Perhaps a couple of key words I could use to google and educate myself?

First Gulf War.
 
They could just hire Blackwater i guess
 
My history recall sucks. What exactly happened in 1991? Perhaps a couple of key words I could use to google and educate myself?

:shrug: well, you could try : "Operation Desert Storm"
 
:shrug: well, you could try : "Operation Desert Storm"

Yeah, I thought it was some obscure skirmish that my aging brain couldn't recall, lol! That was a coalition with a lot of members, and quite a few of them contributed to the war cost, to drive out the invasion of one of our allies.

Syria isn't nearly the same. Syria is not an ally, there is no coalition, the UN doesn't give a damn, almost none of our allies give a damn, and I would not like to see Saudi Arabia purchasing our military on a mercenary basis strictly to protect its own natural interest.

So I guess in response to your question, no I didn't feel the same about Japan, France, UK, SA, UAE, Korea or any of the other coalition members that helped shoulder the cost of that action. :)
 
Yeah, I thought it was some obscure skirmish that my aging brain couldn't recall, lol!

:D it happens to all of us.

That was a coalition with a lot of members

Actually there were fewer than there were in the Coalition of the Willing that Bush II put together for Operation Iraqi Freedom. For consistencies' sake - what was your opinion at the time of "US Unilateralism" charges?

, and quite a few of them contributed to the war cost, to drive out the invasion of one of our allies.

Yup. And some of those contributions (for example, Japan's) came in the form of money, rather than military forces.

Syria isn't nearly the same. Syria is not an ally, there is no coalition

Actually other nations have agreed to be on board if we go. That's what you call "a coalition".

the UN doesn't give a damn,

The UN's response to Iraq invading Kuwait was to impose economic sanctions, and the only reason that we haven't done so for Syria is because Russia and China vetoed the bill. So when you say that (relative to Gulf War I) "The UN doesn't give a damn", what you are really saying is "Russia protects its ally and China doesn't want to set a precedent that other nations shouldn't approve of a government cruelly abusing its own people". That's not exactly the strongest of counterarguments.

almost none of our allies give a damn

by which you mean "Britain doesn't want to fight"? Who is France, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia?

and I would not like to see Saudi Arabia purchasing our military on a mercenary basis strictly to protect its own natural interest.

They're not. They are offering to defray our costs, since that is one of the objections against it, because our interests in this matter are aligned. If our interests were not aligned - then they would be seeking to purchase our military services on a mercenary basis - but this is something that we are looking to do anyway. They are no more purchasing our military on a mercenary basis than Japan or Germany did in 1991, or we did to Britain in 1943, or any other combined effort where one side has fiscally helped out a partner nation.

So I guess in response to your question, no I didn't feel the same about Japan, France, UK, SA, UAE, Korea or any of the other coalition members that helped shoulder the cost of that action. :)

No. Because you are confusing your support of the military campaign itself with the nature of the particulars of its' funding. ;)
 
...
No. Because you are confusing your support of the military campaign itself with the nature of the particulars of its' funding. ;)

Not true. I would not support going into Syria if we had half of Europe in a joint military coalition, and the U.N. joined hands and led them all in a rousing rendition of Kumbaya.

I do not and will not support going into Syria because it's none of our business, and if/when Assad, who is an evil bastard who deserves a bullet in the brain, falls, the regime will very likely be taken over Islamists aligned with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the like. It's not like the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya turned out well, since Islamists have either taken over those countries, or are still marching toward an Islamist coup. Syria would be no different.

It's none of our freaking business. Period. Unfortunately, Obama's red-line speech and subsequent dithering have put us in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. The repercussions of striking Syria could be significant, as have been all of our ME meddling since the day Bush invaded Iraq, condemning the war in Afghanistan to a 10-yr exercise in failure as a result.

I understand you are coming from a military mindset. I, however, am coming from a civilian mindset that is sick to death of belly bumping the world's dictators by spilling the blood of our soldiers. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :shrug:
 
Not true. I would not support going into Syria if we had half of Europe in a joint military coalition, and the U.N. joined hands and led them all in a rousing rendition of Kumbaya.

I believe you. What I am pointing out is that you are letting that support (or lack thereof) color you impression of the provision of financial vice order-of-battle resources to a combined military campaign. ;)

I do not and will not support going into Syria because it's none of our business, and if/when Assad, who is an evil bastard who deserves a bullet in the brain, falls, the regime will very likely be taken over Islamists aligned with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the like

:doh This is a bit.... er.... It's sort of like arguing that we shouldn't have fought WWII because it would have been the intellectual inheritors of the Enlightenment who won, either way.

It's not like the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya turned out well, since Islamists have either taken over those countries, or are still marching toward an Islamist coup. Syria would be no different.

It's none of our freaking business. Period. Unfortunately, Obama's red-line speech and subsequent dithering have put us in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. The repercussions of striking Syria could be significant, as have been all of our ME meddling since the day Bush invaded Iraq, condemning the war in Afghanistan to a 10-yr exercise in failure as a result.

the success/failure of the campaigns in both places is a matter for a separate thread - our ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of success (or, at least, try to) is impressive.

and what happens in Syria is definitely going to significantly effect our national interests. Especially given that the value of U.S. credibility is now on the line.

I understand you are coming from a military mindset. I, however, am coming from a civilian mindset that is sick to death of belly bumping the world's dictators by spilling the blood of our soldiers. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :shrug:

Think about that for a second. What the heck are YOU sick to death of? How many dictators have you belly bumped? How many times have you left your family for months on end to go to awful places where the scenery explodes and takes your friends with it? What, precisely, are you so tired of? Hearing about it on television?

I'll admit I have a military background, but I'm coming to this from a mindset of responsibility to protect - that's Samantha Powers, not George Patton. You know how everyone talked about oh how only if we had known in time about Rwanda? Oh if only we had known about the holocaust surely we would have joined WWII earlier? Well, we know about Syria. What is going on and going to be going on in that land is something that we and our descendants are going to be shamed of if we do not take steps now to stop or answer it. When we argue that the U.S. is a good guy, a force for good in the world, we are going to be asked "Well if that is so, what about Syria, where you didn't care?" and our response will be to hang our head and mumble about how "we didn't know..." well, we know. Claiming that we are rather tired of the whole "being America" thing right now and so can't be bothered is a piss-poor excuse.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom