• 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!

Syria fighting rages, more chemical attacks reported

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The U.S.-Russian initiative so far appears only to have intensified the violence, especially around Qusair and Damascus.
In Harasta, an eastern Damascus suburb largely under rebel control, dozens of people were afflicted by respiratory difficulties after an apparent overnight chemical attack, according to opposition sources. Video showed victims lying on the floor of a room, breathing from oxygen masks.

Syria fighting rages, more chemical attacks reported | Reuters
Click to expand...


So what happens when the President draws a red line, then ignores it? More chem attacks of course....Nothing will probably be done about this either....What a weak image Obama is projecting in that region.....Sad.
 
j-mac said:
So what happens when the President draws a red line, then ignores it? More chem attacks of course....Nothing will probably be done about this either....What a weak image Obama is projecting in that region.....Sad.
Click to expand...

I agree. The POTUS should never have made that statement bout drawing a red line. Now, he just looks weak and foolish.

If we were to take sides in Syria, whose side do you think we should take?

It's between a dictator, and a group loyal to AlQaeda.


From USA Today:

BEIRUT — A Syrian rebel group's pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda's replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group's influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
I agree. The POTUS should never have made that statement bout drawing a red line. Now, he just looks weak and foolish.

If we were to take sides in Syria, whose side do you think we should take?

It's between a dictator, and a group loyal to AlQaeda.


From USA Today:
Click to expand...
Pshhhhh. Probably just overthrow the dictatorship, kill off the rebels, and then appoint our own dictator.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I agree. The POTUS should never have made that statement bout drawing a red line. Now, he just looks weak and foolish.

If we were to take sides in Syria, whose side do you think we should take?

It's between a dictator, and a group loyal to AlQaeda.


From USA Today:
Click to expand...

Are all those fighting against Assad linked to AQ? I don't think you can say that with certainty....
 
j-mac said:
Are all those fighting against Assad linked to AQ? I don't think you can say that with certainty....
Click to expand...

Ohh suddenly it's not so clear that Obama should have backed the rebels, huh?
 
Deuce said:
Ohh suddenly it's not so clear that Obama should have backed the rebels, huh?
Click to expand...

He had no problem arming them in Lybia....Cost 4 patriotic Americans their lives in the end that he is currently lying about...But I am sure that is all fine with you right?
 
j-mac said:
He had no problem arming them in Lybia....Cost 4 patriotic Americans their lives in the end that he is currently lying about...But I am sure that is all fine with you right?
Click to expand...

I knew Sean so you can **** right off buddy.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I agree. The POTUS should never have made that statement bout drawing a red line. Now, he just looks weak and foolish.

If we were to take sides in Syria, whose side do you think we should take?

It's between a dictator, and a group loyal to AlQaeda.


From USA Today:
Click to expand...

How about neither.
 
Deuce said:
I knew Sean so you can **** right off buddy.
Click to expand...

Then why are you sticking up for the clown that got him killed? Obama might as well have pulled the trigger, personally.
 
j-mac said:
Are all those fighting against Assad linked to AQ? I don't think you can say that with certainty....
Click to expand...

Can we say with certainty they are not? However, it doesn't need to be all. Only a significant majority.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I agree. The POTUS should never have made that statement bout drawing a red line. Now, he just looks weak and foolish.

If we were to take sides in Syria, whose side do you think we should take?

It's between a dictator, and a group loyal to AlQaeda.


From USA Today:
Click to expand...

I say we just kill'em all and don't take a side.
 
With all these chemical attacks and both sides pointing fingers at each other im gonna wait for an independent investigation before i blame one side or the other.
 
apdst said:
Killing bad guys equates to genocide now? No wonder Libbos look so weak on national security.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the excuse all those who commit gencide make?
 
apdst said:
From one stupid comment to another. Gotta be some kind of record.
Click to expand...

You're just failing to grasp it. Genocide isn't done without giving a reason, claiming a threat, declaring your own righteousness. That's how it works.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're just failing to grasp it. Genocide isn't done without giving a reason, claiming a threat, declaring your own righteousness. That's how it works.
Click to expand...

no one suggested genocide! Grow up!
 
Dittohead not! said:
I agree. The POTUS should never have made that statement bout drawing a red line. Now, he just looks weak and foolish.

If we were to take sides in Syria, whose side do you think we should take?

It's between a dictator, and a group loyal to AlQaeda.


From USA Today:
Click to expand...

I agree, bad move to draw a "red line" against Assad and then when its crossed find that you have no reasonably course of action to punish him for it. At least he didn't pre-commit to a specific course of action ahead of time, ie he never said if you cross this red line we will start an air campaign or we will back the rebels even more. He just said don't cross it, but still to say that and to do nothing doesn't look good.

What we should be doing in Syria, and what I really hope we are doing, is backing the right rebel groups to ensure they can beat both the radicals and the dictator. That may not be a feasible option, aid can only go so far. Ideally we would have a situation like Libya where a fairly moderate government is already in place ready to replace the dictator, they only need that extra push of outside aid in the form of materials and air support. We can do what we can to try and create or foster such a group in Syria, but it doesn't look good for the moderates over there.

Either way I think the President is right not to move to replace Assad when there's no knowing who will ultimately replace him, or if even when he is removed that the fighting will stop, the rebel groups have already been fighting each other as well. But he jumped the gun to draw a red line and then take no real action after its crossed.
 
Wiseone said:
I agree, bad move to draw a "red line" against Assad and then when its crossed find that you have no reasonably course of action to punish him for it. At least he didn't pre-commit to a specific course of action ahead of time, ie he never said if you cross this red line we will start an air campaign or we will back the rebels even more. He just said don't cross it, but still to say that and to do nothing doesn't look good.
Click to expand...

I agree. I believe red lines should only be drawn where critical national interests are at stake. None are at stake in Syria.

It still remains to be seen who used chemical weapons, if in fact they were used. If the Assad dictatorship used them, it almost certainly reflected that regime's likely correct calculation that because no critical U.S. interests were involved, the U.S. would not resort to military intervention.
 
Deuce said:
I knew Sean so you can **** right off buddy.
Click to expand...


Yeah? If that is truly the case, and you were a friend, then I am sorry for your loss, however, your ideological predispositions aside, the real disrespect to his memory comes from those ordering him not to fight to save anyone that night. The real disrespect comes from those lying to his parents face about a stupid video, covering up their inaction that night, and ordering him into a severely dangerous zone without protection under cover of a misleading, and stupid policy of "normalizing" our foot print there so that it can provide cover for shipping arms supplied to Libya for their overthrow, and moving them through Turkey to Syria to covertly arm the rebels there.

And all that cover up, and wrong headed decisions so that Obama could proceed through the election cycle and not have to be held accountable for it....I didn't know Sean, but as former 101st, and one that considers anyone whom has or is serving this nation to be a brother, that pisses me right the **** off!!! So, if you are going to argue in favor of the administration that threw his life away like so much inconvenient debris, and didn't lift a finger to help him? Then no sir, I don't think I'll be "****ing off" today.
 
Why is up to the US to do something? Why not the UN or some other body?
 
Blue_State said:
Why is up to the US to do something? Why not the UN or some other body?
Click to expand...

I am sure that a strongly worded letter, ya know, like the ones they rifle off to NK all too often will surely work on Assad no? :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom