Babagounj
Strength through joy
I place ever other politician in this country at a higher level than this coward .
Syria
- Thread starter 804brown
- Start date
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Why? Barack Obama is the least worst of all liberals, because he is mostly incapable of accomplishing anything. He should be your favorite.
Don't believe everything you read about Syria.
Sure looks like a 'false flag' operation.
Sure looks like a 'false flag' operation.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I tend to say that too but then politicians only get there by people voting so what does that say about the voters themselves in this country? Extremely hard to admire their citizenship handy work these days!
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
-John Adams-
Maybe the problem is people feel like they only have two choices, and they are both terrible. Not only is the country partisan, so are the media companies that inform them.
When I tell people I voted for a third party candidate the response is always the same. "Why would you waste your vote?"
People think elections are a game and they just want to be on the winning team.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
I doubt we will put troops on the ground there....
But if by "we'll be in Syria", you meant meddling where we have no business being, then we have "been" there for a long time; since the 1957 failed CIA coup attempt on the Syrian president, or the Israeli-Arab war in the late 60's, or Syria's cooperation with the US during the gulf war.
When will we learn to just leave them alone and let middle easterners fight their own wars. They did it pretty well on their own for a thousand or so years before Americans decided to intervene.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I applaud you for voting 3rd party. Anytime there is a concentration that limits choices or in this case appears to limit choices, it's never good and can lead to problems. As many of us can attest too IMO.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
That is probably the best option at this time. However, I think there does come a point where we have a moral obligation to take some sort of action against a regime that perpetrates genocide upon its own people with chemical weapons. I'm not saying we are at that point yet, but it is certainly on the horizon.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Our moral gauge has been broken for half a century. If we intervene in their mess, it will not be for moral reasons. It will be for some clandestine purpose that will no doubt be masked by the same "morals" you speak of. I am sick and tired of war, I will not support it, and I won't buy into the war for peace bs.
Are you sure the chemical weapons were used by Assad? Or was it the rebels? Some news sources are saying it was the rebels. Why would Assad use chemical weapons on the eve of UN inspectors arriving, and when he is winning?
When you say 'we', I would hope you mean NATO.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Good let's have Canada solve this mess.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Actually, I like that idea. Let our Canadian cousins go over there and kick ass, and we can stay the heck out of it altogether!
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Navy Destroyer Mahan, and three other destroyers are gonna sit off the coast of Syria while Obama weighs his military actions....
Meanwhile the Syrian president warns the US to stay out of it, saying the chemical weapons were actually used by the rebels.
Obama says if chemical weapons are used, the US will intervene. Then chemical weapons are used. Why would Assad use chemical weapons with that clear threat of US intervention? Aren't the rebels the ones who want the US to intervene? This is quite a convenient turn of events for the rebels.
I'm so confused as to why this is America's problem. Why are we the only ones considering butting in to their problems.
Meanwhile the Syrian president warns the US to stay out of it, saying the chemical weapons were actually used by the rebels.
Obama says if chemical weapons are used, the US will intervene. Then chemical weapons are used. Why would Assad use chemical weapons with that clear threat of US intervention? Aren't the rebels the ones who want the US to intervene? This is quite a convenient turn of events for the rebels.
I'm so confused as to why this is America's problem. Why are we the only ones considering butting in to their problems.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Whats he doing? What politicians do best, playing games with people's lives.
Iran is supporting the Syrian government, and the US is arming rebels that fight the Syrian government.
Iran has spent 10 billion, and promised 7 billion more to aid the Syrian government. That kind of spending is destructive to Iran considering their revenue is down to only 40 billion. US support of the rebels weakens Iran, giving them less leverage to continue their nuclear program.
The CIA thinks they are in a position to benefit from supporting the rebels also. It will give them a foothold in the country, and they will more than likely be training them not only to fight the Syrian government, but hezbollah and al qaeda after they defeat their current government.
The US militrary also thinks they can benefit. It will make the US look good to our allies in the middle east that would be very pleased with the failure of Iran's support, and the fall of the Syrian government. Our intervention obviously will make the rebels happy, and that will give the military an opportunity to strip rebel allegiance to dangerous factions of extremists muslims that have been supporting their cause.
In other words, the US leadership foolishly thinks the bloodshed in Syria is actually a good thing.
It is not short sighted like our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is equally as foolish.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
You make a very plausible point. We need to be aware of the possibility that this was indeed a "false flag" operation or a hoax, designed to engender sympathy for the rebels. It goes without saying that, in order for any sort of military action to be justified on our part, we must (a) be 100% certain that chemical weapons were in fact used (b) be 100% certain that the Assad regime was responsible and (c) have identifiable and legitimate targets that we can attack with minimal risk to ourselves and maximum possibility for success. Hopefully our NATO and other allies will participate also.
From the Financial Times:
