• 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!

Should we go into Syria

Should we go into Syria

  • Yes, the red line has been crossed

    Votes: 23 13.9%

  • No way Jose, not our problem

    Votes: 143 86.1%
  • Total voters
    166
87.6% voting NO WAY JOSE!

I wonder how high it'll have to climb before that yahoo in the W.H. listens to reason?
 
ChrisL said:
I think it's a little late for that now. We're still just sitting there as far as I know.
Click to expand...



I think that you are right..Maybe something is happening behind the scenes that we don't know about yet..
 
NIMBY said:
Obama cannot move according to Boehner and Boehner refuses to convene the House.

He has more pressing business in Idaho trying to shore up a sitting Repub congressman who is being TEAparty primaried.

Thus, we hear Boehner promising a 'whale of a fight', no matter the issue.
Click to expand...



I don't think that he really needs Boehner or the Congress to get this done...
 
And he can't get them home anyway. They won't come back to D.C.

Obama had a conference call with 26 of them today. That's not good enough.

Would you trust M. Bachmann with state secrets?

He needs to listen to people like Republican Rep. Rogers, one who can be trusted.

Juanita said:
I don't think that he really needs Boehner or the Congress to get this done...
Click to expand...
 
Coin said:
If he had to move quickly, it was about 2 years ago. He had even the morale to strike on Syria. 2012 was most deadly year on Syria and still no one cared at all.
Attacking now is so pointless and have no more reasons/morale.
Besides of that no proves are yet on space if govern used chemical weapons.
What's the bad if Assad win over rebels?
Syrians themselves will judge the regime.
The Syrian rebels came from nowhere and Syrian people are not supporting them.
Click to expand...



I agree that we should have become more involved two years ago.. They say that they do have intelligence that the Syrian Regime launched the chemical weapons... We are going to strike to punish them and deter them and others from ever doing it again. No, it was the Syrian people themselves, who were protesting against the regime and were attacked and killed for doing so...They then became the rebels.. Unfortunately, other groups from outside the country have now become involved.. If the rebels lose, a whole lot of people died for nothing...
 
NIMBY said:
And he can't get them home anyway. They won't come back to D.C.

Obama had a conference call with 26 of them today. That's not good enough.

Would you trust M. Bachmann with state secrets?

He needs to listen to people like Republican Rep. Rogers, one who can be trusted.
Click to expand...



I thought that Rogers made a lot of sense today...
 
Juanita said:
The United States is neither weak nor vulnerable, we just appear that way to our enemies....Hopefully, that will change.
Click to expand...

In terms of the challenges of the 21st century we are definitely weak and vulnerable relative to our size. Our economic relations (particularly with China) are extremely toxic, but we are dependent on them and can't resist their aggressive push for power in East's political and and economic system (or in Latin America and the Middle East). Anti-Americanism is an influential and often defining attribute of our allies' political dynamics that affects their ability to cooperate with us. The burden of defense and global economic stability falls with us and the outcomes are always criticized. The socio-economic elite manipulate our economic dependencies to lobby more influence and push fiscally reckless "pro growth" agendas and stick the common man with the bill.

We have lots of new powerful enemies, lots of old ones, massive amounts of debt, no real economic future, few real allies, etc. The new theatres of war, cyber-electronics and industrial espionage, are comparatively cheap methods of combat that level the playing field between formerly uneven powers.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
In terms of the challenges of the 21st century we are definitely weak and vulnerable relative to our size. Our economic relations (particularly with China) are extremely toxic, but we are dependent on them and can't resist their aggressive push for power in East's political and and economic system (or in Latin America and the Middle East). Anti-Americanism is an influential and often defining attribute of our allies' political dynamics that affects their ability to cooperate with us. The burden of defense and global economic stability falls with us and the outcomes are always criticized. The socio-economic elite manipulate our economic dependencies to lobby more influence and push fiscally reckless "pro growth" agendas and stick the common man with the bill.

We have lots of new powerful enemies, lots of old ones, massive amounts of debt, no real economic future, few real allies, etc. The new theatres of war, cyber-electronics and industrial espionage, are comparatively cheap methods of combat that level the playing field between formerly uneven powers.
Click to expand...



Actually, I agree with a lot of what you said and we are already at war in cyberspace, but actual war is not behind us as yet...
 
Syria will be third muslim country in a row. Iran will most likely be the fourth muslim country. The fifth I can't say for sure. Maybe trouble makers are all in muslim countries.
 
Morality Games said:
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? People have been criticizing Bush for setting policies that exposed our limitations and weaknesses since the build up to the Iraq War. It's a staple part of his legacy that his wars were unsuccessful efforts at creating two pro-West democracies, one of which is being pushed into Iran's camp by its newly empowered Shi'a majority and the other of which is being overtaken by the Taliban at a grassroots level. At best, Iran will be partitioned between Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds so that the entire population and its industries don't wind up in Iran's court, and the Taliban will focus on drugs rather than Islamic radicalism.
Click to expand...
Even if there was going to be a dirty war, Bush knew how to make it worth and how to handle it.
Ofc it is easier now to judge him after the many events happen and you received the feedback.

But consider yourself on that time, before Iraq war started and how your opinion has changed.
Obama is worst decision making leader.
He doesn't know to make the right decision at the right moment.

Syria is not the right decision, nor the right moment.

Iraq wasn't the right decision, but it was in the right moment.
 
The foreign ministry of Dardania has declared that the UN should urgently examine and intervene if necessary to the crisis in Syria where it is suspected that chemical weapons may have been used (see references).

I think Assad so contrary to his innocent looks is a criminal to have used gas against civilians. We dealt with Milloschevich in 1999 and now liberated I think now we can join the liberation train to liberate other countries. I think it is Assad's turn to go. The difference between 1999 and 2013 is more freeing allies (i.e., us included) will be after him now.

References:

Hoxhaj: International community to intervene in Syria - News - Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Kosovo

Hoxhaj: Siria ngjall kujtimet e Kosovës - Top Channel
 
obvious Child said:
Indeed. This is partially also why we need to suck China into these agreements. Giving them more power at the same time tying their hands. Russia however, I still feel won't play by the rules. China still has much to prove and knows it can do so by being a good global partner.
Click to expand...

eh, I would more suspect that China has about zero willingness to take any action that would be seen as countenancing the governments do not rightfully exercise total sovereignty within their borders - so long as they continue to be ruled by the CCP they cannot ideologically afford to become involved in actions like this.
 
ChrisL said:
This whole posting is doing nothing but white washing the situation cpwill.
Click to expand...

I am not white washing anything. This whole posting - which you refuse to answer specifically because you cannot - is merely a refutation of the claims you are making, which are being driven by emotion rather than reason.

We all know oil is going to run out eventually, whether that be in 20, 30, 40 years or more. It will happen, and most countries are increasing their use of fossil fuels, not decreasing.
Click to expand...

Sure it will. But the Peak Oil fantasists have been predicting imminent collapse since the early 1900s, and exploitable reserves today are larger than they have ever been. The idea that it's going to drive a collapse in 2030 is about as intellectually legitimate as the claim by many of the same people that we were all going to freeze to death in the 70s, starve to death in the 80s, and choke to death in the 90s.

It would be a good idea to stop dealing with ME affairs and start working on alternative energy forms and drilling here at home.
Click to expand...

It sure would. It would also be a good idea for everyone to agree to give up our militaries, and never wage war again. Unfortunately, the tragedy of the human condition does not allow for us to pursue the perfect to the point of refusing to pursue the better.
 
cpwill said:
Sure it will. But the Peak Oil fantasists have been predicting imminent collapse since the early 1900s, and exploitable reserves today are larger than they have ever been. The idea that it's going to drive a collapse in 2030 is about as intellectually legitimate as the claim by many of the same people that we were all going to freeze to death in the 70s, starve to death in the 80s, and choke to death in the 90s.
Click to expand...

Actually, the first time the US government issued a warning that we would exhaust all proven oil reserves within 10 years was in 1866 - nearly a century and a half ago. Doomsayers do not have a very good record of accuracy, but P. T. Barnum was correct when he observed there is a sucker born every minute.
 
Diogenes said:
Actually, the first time the US government issued a warning that we would exhaust all proven oil reserves within 10 years was in 1866 - nearly a century and a half ago. Doomsayers do not have a very good record of accuracy, but P. T. Barnum was correct when he observed there is a sucker born every minute.
Click to expand...

studies have shown that either the oil reserves are much larger than originally estimated or they are replenishing themselves abiotically at a much faster rate than previously thought. oil wells in russia, pumped dry in the 60 are now producing again.

Oil Fields Are Refilling...Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth
 
iacardsfan said:
Obama attacked Bush (and the GOP) about their foreign policy. Obama blamed the wars he acquired as the reason for the huge debt. Obama continuously says he wants peace. Yet he is doing the same exact thing that Bush did. He is not promoting peace. And he has no excuse to blame Bush for the debt when he is doing the same exact thing. Fix America before we fix other countries. We are bombing Syria because Syria bombed Syria. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

We are going to drop missiles on civilians to save civilians. Oh, the logic of empire.
 
There is no shortage of oil and never will be.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
the logic of the empire
Click to expand...
That'll teach them pesky rebels
maxabd.jpg
 
cpwill said:
I am not white washing anything. This whole posting - which you refuse to answer specifically because you cannot - is merely a refutation of the claims you are making, which are being driven by emotion rather than reason.
Click to expand...

It isn't a refutation at all! :lol: Read it again. You agreed with everything I said, except you keep insisting that we have more than enough sources of oil. Yeah, sure for the time being we have enough. I am talking about in the future.

Sure it will. But the Peak Oil fantasists have been predicting imminent collapse since the early 1900s, and exploitable reserves today are larger than they have ever been. The idea that it's going to drive a collapse in 2030 is about as intellectually legitimate as the claim by many of the same people that we were all going to freeze to death in the 70s, starve to death in the 80s, and choke to death in the 90s.
Click to expand...

And according to my link, the model has been followed and has been pretty much right on target so far.

It sure would. It would also be a good idea for everyone to agree to give up our militaries, and never wage war again. Unfortunately, the tragedy of the human condition does not allow for us to pursue the perfect to the point of refusing to pursue the better.
Click to expand...

We don't HAVE to go into Syria at all. The ONLY reason Obama is going is to save face.
 
Juanita said:
I think that you are right..Maybe something is happening behind the scenes that we don't know about yet..
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think there are always things going on that we don't know about. So much for transparency. :roll:
 
It should be obvious even to a child?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom