Are the republicans voting against syria for the right reasons?

lizzie said:

I personally oppose it for the same reasons I opposed the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They aren't real wars, and we haven't been attacked by the military forces of a sovereign nation. I don't support nation-building and interfering in other sovereign nations' affairs with military force.

Click to expand...

So you do think we should have just let Qaddafi butcher millions of people in Benghazi? Do you think it was right to simply let the Rwandan Genocide happen?

Playing the world's Police man is a bad job, but the alternative is worse.

Hard Truth said:

Barbara Lee has come out against an attack on Syria. Perhaps my qualifier of "opposed the wars in Afghan AND Iraq" is too restrictive for federally elected officials, but for the grass roots war opponents during the Bush II years, most opposed both wars, and most now oppose war with Syria.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd certainly like all of Congress to go on record with this one and hopefully they will.

obvious Child said:

So you do think we should have just let Qaddafi butcher millions of people in Benghazi?

Click to expand...

I don't presume that Qadafi was going to "kill millions of people in Benghazi" in the first place. Do you have any sort of evidence that he was planning to do that?

Muhammed said:

I don't presume that Qadafi was going to "kill millions of people in Benghazi" in the first place. Do you have any sort of evidence that he was planning to do that?

Click to expand...

He was sending armed forces over to Benghazi after killing plenty of civilians on the way. Do you really think they were going to have tea and crumpets? He flat out stated "We will show no mercy." We have that ON TAPE. And his forces weren't exactly those to show discretion. Taureg thugs who rape and murder aren't exactly going to care.

Why did you short quote me and leave out the Rwandan Genocide? How about the Sebrenica? Was that okay?

My Repub congressman Kinzinger has been a Yes from day one. He is active Air National Guard and a Veteran, is young and still flies a plane to Iraq. His reasoning is similar to that of Repub Cotton from ARK who is going against Pryor, a NO, for the Senate. I only support Pryor to keep the Senate. This is politics both ways.

obvious Child said:

So you do think we should have just let Qaddafi butcher millions of people in Benghazi? Do you think it was right to simply let the Rwandan Genocide happen?

Playing the world's Police man is a bad job, but the alternative is worse.

Click to expand...

99percenter said:

I oppose the syrian war and i hope it gets voted down, but i fear that that some republicans might be voting against it just because they don't want to give obama any sort of political victory. I believe some of republicans like ron paul truly do oppose the war, but there are quite a few republicans who supported iraq and will vote against syria. what do you guys think?

Click to expand...

Personally, I do not care what reason any Republican or Democrat has for voting against a Syrian attack. As long as it gets voted down.

But you could ask the same question of the Democrats with a different twist, are the Democrats voting for the strike against Syria only because the president is from their party?

Perotista said:

As long as it gets voted down.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that war crimes should go unpunished?
Do you believe that dictators should be able to kill, rape, and maim their populations in large numbers without consequence?
Do you believe that we should simply let mass killings outside of accepted international legal norms happen?

No one wants to get involved in Syria (except maybe whoever makes those cruise missiles), but I happen to believe that the world is better off with America as the world's police rather than without.

obvious Child said:

Do you believe that war crimes should go unpunished?
Do you believe that dictators should be able to kill, rape, and maim their populations in large numbers without consequence?
Do you believe that we should simply let mass killings outside of accepted international legal norms happen?

No one wants to get involved in Syria (except maybe whoever makes those cruise missiles), but I happen to believe that the world is better off with America as the world's police rather than without.

Click to expand...

What I believe is there is not good options, helping the rebels may very well lead to a government run by AQ or one of their affiliates, it could very easily lead to an Islamic republic ala Iran. It very well could be the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Maybe the question should be, should America help topple a evil dictator and perhaps install a government much worse than the Assad one? The AQ elements of the rebels are better organized and have better fire power, those who favor an Islamic state have more fervor and better arms. I am afraid in the case of Syria, every option available seems to be a lose, lose option.

We, America did nothing when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran, we were in fact helping him with vital intel. We did nothing when the Pathet Lao government and the Vietnamese used nerve gas and Biological weapons against the Hmong in Laos trying to exterminate them. We basically have done nothing in Africa.

Perhaps doing nothing is the only option left where in the long term the United States might benefit, if not benefit, not having a hand in bringing a worse government than there is now. Time will tell.

obvious Child said:

Do you believe that war crimes should go unpunished?
Do you believe that dictators should be able to kill, rape, and maim their populations in large numbers without consequence?
Do you believe that we should simply let mass killings outside of accepted international legal norms happen?

No one wants to get involved in Syria (except maybe whoever makes those cruise missiles), but I happen to believe that the world is better off with America as the world's police rather than without.

Click to expand...

War crimes - the victor determines what is or isn't war crimes.
No I do not believe dictators should be able to do any other things you mentioned - but I also believe the United States can't be the policeman of the world anymore. That we should only get involved in war when our national security is threaten.
Mass killings America did nothing when Pol Pot in Cambodia killed 3 million of his own people out of a country of 7 million. We let the Vietnamese move in to put a stop to that killing field. Then in America's infallible wisdom, we then supported Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge against the very Vietnamese who put a stop to all the killing Pol Pot had done. We were back a man and a group that just finished killing approximately 40% of their own people.

I'll pass on Syria until there is a better option

Perotista said:

War crimes - the victor determines what is or isn't war crimes.

Click to expand...

Actually, we pretty much have setup a whole court to deal with war crimes. Its no longer the victory of a war, but the international community who has decided this.

No I do not believe dictators should be able to do any other things you mentioned - but I also believe the United States can't be the policeman of the world anymore. That we should only get involved in war when our national security is threaten.

Click to expand...

Then you do believe that they should be allowed to get away with it.

Mass killings America did nothing when Pol Pot in Cambodia killed 3 million of his own people out of a country of 7 million. We let the Vietnamese move in to put a stop to that killing field. Then in America's infallible wisdom, we then supported Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge against the very Vietnamese who put a stop to all the killing Pol Pot had done. We were back a man and a group that just finished killing approximately 40% of their own people.

Click to expand...

The Cold War skewed morals to the point they didn't matter. It was merely supporting whoever was fighting the Soviets. We backed Mozambique after they switched sides yet had no change in actual policies.

obvious Child said:

He was sending armed forces over to Benghazi after killing plenty of civilians on the way. Do you really think they were going to have tea and crumpets? He flat out stated "We will show no mercy." We have that ON TAPE.

Click to expand...

Actually he is on tape saying that the rebels were Al Qaeda and he was correct. No mercy should be given to Al Qaeda IMO.

Why are you such a big fan of AQ?

Muhammed said:

Actually he is on tape saying that the rebels were Al Qaeda and he was correct.

Click to expand...

Except that the rebels weren't Al Qaeda for the most part. Stop making things up and stop short quoting me.

You seem exceedingly desperate to avoid discussing historical instances of where the world either stepped in to prevent mass slaughter or let it go.

Why is that?