Should we go into Syria

ChrisL · Sep 4, 2013

Misterveritis said:
Whose lives? Why do you want to expend our blood and treasure when we have no dog in this fight?

What is our vital national interest? Are you really that willing to take actions that could result in killing our Russian friends? And what happens when they respond by sinking the warships that fire the cruise missiles?

If we take this idiotic action so the idiot in the White house (and you) can feel good about yourselves are you telling me that there will be NO MORE KILLING?

Of course there will still be killing. This is a job for the United Nations, not the United States. The government using chemical weapons on it's citizens breaks international law established by the UN in the Geneva convention.

The U.S. has no legal basis for its action in Syria, but that won’t stop us from going in anyhow. - Slate Magazine

The Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which Syria ratified) and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 (which Syria has not ratified) ban the use of chemical weapons, but do not authorize countries to attack other countries that violate these treaties. The United States has no more authority to attack Syria for violating these treaties than it does to bomb Europe for giving import preferences to Caribbean banana producers in violation of international trade law. At one time, countries could use military force as “countermeasures” against treaty violators, but only against violators that harmed the country in question—and Syria has not used chemical weapons against the United States—but in any event, that rule has been superseded by the U.N. Charter.

apdst · Sep 5, 2013

Misterveritis said:
Whose lives? Why do you want to expend our blood and treasure when we have no dog in this fight?

What is our vital national interest? Are you really that willing to take actions that could result in killing our Russian friends? And what happens when they respond by sinking the warships that fire the cruise missiles?

If we take this idiotic action so the idiot in the White house (and you) can feel good about yourselves are you telling me that there will be NO MORE KILLING?

The bad guys are watching; waiting for inaction, indecision and a lack of resolve that will embolden them to strike us.

AngryOldGuy · Sep 5, 2013

strike U.S.? hah time for another 9-11 ? Are we overdue?

Artevelde · Sep 5, 2013

NoC_T said:
Your wealth of expertise evidently emboldens you to rewrite that 'elementary grasp'. Russia was already motorised. Where did all the T-34s come from? American factories? 100,000 of them? Really? They didn't beat the Germans with American jeeps. lulz

You illustrate my point. You live under the delusion that with tanks alone an army can win a mechanized war. You simply have no clue.

Andalublue · Sep 5, 2013

ChezC3 said:
With the exception of the most loyal of lapdogs, I haven't seen anyone in any significant proportion support this endeavor. This crosses all demographics. So, with all signs pointing to the people's will being Stay the Hell out of Syria, and this being a Representative government, and if they do go into Syria despite what the people want how many of you are going to vote against your incumbent should he or she have supported what looks like will be an eventual certainty?

If you do, you've no one to blame but yourself.

Well, the same level of opposition existed in the run-up to Iraq. The boots hit the ground and the incumbent was duly returned to power.

I'm not sure this plays much to electoral politics as I'm not seeing much of a split of opinion between Reps and Dems on this matter.

NoC_T · Sep 5, 2013

Artevelde said:
You illustrate my point. You live under the delusion that with tanks alone an army can win a mechanized war. You simply have no clue.

Can't be bothered. Alright, man.

DDD · Sep 5, 2013

To answer the poll: Where is the "Not yet option?"

Let's see what happens in G20 first.

ChezC3 · Sep 5, 2013

Andalublue said:
Well, the same level of opposition existed in the run-up to Iraq. The boots hit the ground and the incumbent was duly returned to power.

I'm not sure this plays much to electoral politics as I'm not seeing much of a split of opinion between Reps and Dems on this matter.

and we see where that got us...

TheGirlNextDoor · Sep 5, 2013

apdst said:
The bad guys are watching; waiting for inaction, indecision and a lack of resolve that will embolden them to strike us.

Oh please. The quickest way to get "struck", is by going to another country and sticking our big fat noses in where it does not belong.

If you truly believe "the bad guys are watching" and that that will lead to us being "struck", then why the hell.... IN YOUR OWN WORDS, did 9/11 happen.

Who was taking inaction then?

Good Gawd. /facepalm

ChrisL · Sep 5, 2013

TheGirlNextDoor said:
Oh please. The quickest way to get "struck", is by going to another country and sticking our big fat noses in where it does not belong.

If you truly believe "the bad guys are watching" and that that will lead to us being "struck", then why the hell.... IN YOUR OWN WORDS, did 9/11 happen.

Who was taking inaction then?

Good Gawd. /facepalm

Where he is wrong is that this movement has absolutely nothing to do with us. If anything, by us involving ourselves, we would be making ourselves a target for future attacks, especially when we could actually be aiding groups who are far worse than this current regime.

People seem to forget that a lot of these groups want a Sharia run state, and we are going to help them create it. :roll:

TheGirlNextDoor · Sep 5, 2013

ChrisL said:
Where he is wrong is that this movement has absolutely nothing to do with us. If anything, by us involving ourselves, we would be making ourselves a target for future attacks, especially when we could actually be aiding groups who are far worse than this current regime.

People seem to forget that a lot of these groups want a Sharia run state, and we are going to help them create it. :roll:

Funny, I just said in another thread that by us INVOLVING OURSELVES, we are creating a threat to our own national security.

You would think by recent military history, these asses in charge of this country wouldn't be so quick to get involved.

Mr. Invisible · Sep 5, 2013

TheGirlNextDoor said:
Funny, I just said in another thread that by us INVOLVING OURSELVES, we are creating a threat to our own national security.

You would think by recent military history, these asses in charge of this country wouldn't be so quick to get involved.

Ma'am, those asses don't care. It isn't their kids getting sent to be killed or coming back injure or with PTSD.

TheGirlNextDoor · Sep 5, 2013

Mr. Invisible said:
Ma'am, those asses don't care. It isn't their kids getting sent to be killed or coming back injure or with PTSD.

I just talked to a friend of mine last night, whose son was killed in Iraq in 2006. He was 21, and had a wife and baby here. She was beside herself over this whole mess.

I live in a military town and know lots of army personnel and their families. To say the overall feeling is one of disgust over getting involved militarily is strong, would be an understatement.

Mr. Invisible · Sep 5, 2013

TheGirlNextDoor said:
I just talked to a friend of mine last night, whose son was killed in Iraq in 2006. He was 21, and had a wife and baby here. She was beside herself over this whole mess.

I live in a military town and know lots of army personnel and their families. To say the overall feeling is one of disgust over getting involved militarily is strong, would be an understatement.

Sorry to hear about your friend's son and his family.

These politicians are political elites that don't care about us, but it isn't just that. The economic elites don't care (look at how they crashed the economy and got bailed out with our money). No one cares at all.

EDIT: It's about time we bucked all of these fools and started caring for ourselves.

And people call me crazy for being an anarchist.

ChrisL · Sep 5, 2013

I wonder if our government is aware of this? These are the "people" we are aiding. :roll:

(BEIRUT) — Al-Qaida-linked rebels have launched an assault on a regime-held Christian village in the densely populated west of Syria and new clashes erupted near the capital, Damascus — part of a brutal battle of attrition each side believes it can win despite more than two years of deadlock.

As the world focused on possible U.S. military action against Syria, rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel in the village of Maaloula and shelled the community below Wednesday, said a nun, speaking by phone from a convent in the village. She spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

The attack came hours before a Senate panel voted to give President Barack Obama authority to use military force against Syria — the first time lawmakers have voted to allow military action since the October 2002 votes authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

The measure, which cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote, was altered at the last minute to support “decisive changes to the present military balance of power” in Syria’s civil war, though it ruled out U.S. combat operations on the ground. It was expected to reach the full Senate floor next week.

Read more: Al-Qaeda-Linked Syria Rebels Hit Christian Village | TIME.com

ChrisL · Sep 5, 2013

I wonder if our government is aware of this? These are the "people" we are aiding. :roll:

(BEIRUT) — Al-Qaida-linked rebels have launched an assault on a regime-held Christian village in the densely populated west of Syria and new clashes erupted near the capital, Damascus — part of a brutal battle of attrition each side believes it can win despite more than two years of deadlock.

As the world focused on possible U.S. military action against Syria, rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel in the village of Maaloula and shelled the community below Wednesday, said a nun, speaking by phone from a convent in the village. She spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

The attack came hours before a Senate panel voted to give President Barack Obama authority to use military force against Syria — the first time lawmakers have voted to allow military action since the October 2002 votes authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

The measure, which cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote, was altered at the last minute to support “decisive changes to the present military balance of power” in Syria’s civil war, though it ruled out U.S. combat operations on the ground. It was expected to reach the full Senate floor next week.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/09/05/al-qaeda-linked-syria-rebels-hit-christian-village/#ixzz2e1Ive0lS

Diogenes · Sep 5, 2013

DDD said:
But of course it did not turned out to be that way. Look the Jihadi's think that the West is fighting against their religion!!! So now they are stepping up and trying to defend religion when in fact it is all about politics!!!

True, it is about politics and not religion. The war is against Political Islam, not Religious Islam. Political Islam is merely another despicable political ideology like the Nazis, and it is unfortunate that so much of Religious Islam allows Islamists to use religion as a cover for their political ambitions. A few weeks before she was assassinated, Benazir Bhutto survived another assassination attempt and raged afterwards that "These are not Muslims! Muslims do not make war on women!"

Lord of Planar · Sep 5, 2013

TheGirlNextDoor said:
Funny, I just said in another thread that by us INVOLVING OURSELVES, we are creating a threat to our own national security.

You would think by recent military history, these asses in charge of this country wouldn't be so quick to get involved.

I too have said in at least two other places that we are inviting another strike, maybe like 911, if we pursue such a course.

conservanarchy · Sep 5, 2013

if we value our ability to be a world power and our ability to back up our talk we would invade.
that said the hornets nest that is now syria is a place that has forfieted all claims to legitimacy by killing its own people with international illegal weapons of sarin gas.
if we want to stabilize the area we need to be decisive something that the weak administration knows nothing of this is a consequentialistic debate...
what happens if we do nothing.

eace

Diogenes · Sep 5, 2013

apdst said:
The bad guys are watching; waiting for inaction, indecision and a lack of resolve that will embolden them to strike us.

Very true. But we have no leadership in this country for the next 41 months, and anything that Obama tries to do will only make the situation worse. The incompetence of this administration is truly astonishing.

Diogenes · Sep 5, 2013

AngryOldGuy said:
strike U.S.? hah time for another 9-11 ? Are we overdue?

We are not overdue yet, but give it another two years.

Diogenes · Sep 5, 2013

TheGirlNextDoor said:
Oh please. The quickest way to get "struck", is by going to another country and sticking our big fat noses in where it does not belong.

Unless we win decisively. But that can't happen with Obama in office.

Lord of Planar · Sep 5, 2013

conservanarchy said:
if we value our ability to be a world power and our ability to back up our talk we would invade.
that said the hornets nest that is now syria is a place that has forfieted all claims to legitimacy by killing its own people with international illegal weapons of sarin gas.
if we want to stabilize the area we need to be decisive something that the weak administration knows nothing of this is a consequentialistic debate...
what happens if we do nothing.
eace

Why are you suggesting that we back up stupidity with more stupidity? Is that the message you want to give to the world? that we are a stupid nation?

Lord of Planar · Sep 5, 2013

Diogenes said:
Unless we win decisively. But that can't happen with Obama in office.

I have to admit...

It would be funny watching an indecisive president try to be decisive...

Ooops... Edit...

Changed indicative to indecisive.

Diogenes · Sep 5, 2013

Lord of Planar said:
I have to admit...

It would be funny watching an indicative president try to be decisive...

Agreed.

Should we go into Syria