21
Contributors
111
Replies
547
Views
4 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by HiHe
Featured Replies
  • > If US does not get involved, things are going to get ugly. Put your money where your mouth is -- join the Marines and be the first to go over there to put your life on the line. What makes you think it is US responsibility to resolve their … Read More

  • Does anyone recall the movie, Reds? Jack Reid is asked to give a speach on why the US is getting involved in World War 1. He stands up, says "Profits", then sits down. In the 1950s Eisenhower warned about the power of the military industrial complex. Very telling in the … Read More

  • > Classic intelligence failure I guess that's a mild way to put it. Even if you presume there was no nefarious aspect to it, it is still grossly incompetent. Intelligence has two aspects: the information gathered and the level of confidence about it. Getting the information wrong is not a … Read More

  • >don't worry, there will be no Christians and Jews left in Syria after the Islamists win Islam, the religion of peace. Read More

  • The "Myths of Islam" that AD referred to is the title of the webpage he gave a link to. And if you read that page, you'll see that the "myths" that the title refers to are the myths *about* Islam, i.e., the things people believe about Islam that aren't true, … Read More

1

I agree with AD. Having said that, I fully believe that the US will take military action. There's too much money to be made to stay out. If it's not Syria then it will be Iran. Have you noticed the same weasel words being used by Obama that Bush used when prepping for Iraq? The justification is not "Syria has done x", but rather "We believe Syria has done x". "We believe Iraq has WMDs". Sound familiar? And if, later, it turns out that there was no justification they'll just blame it on faulty intelligence.

0

The UK are discussing their actions now. They are waiting for the UN report before anything. I thought this summed it up.

"Can ever a British government have imagined sending its men and women to war with support of just 11% in public opinion?" - George Galloway

It would be ridiculous for anyone to send any missiles... especially as russia and china are backing syria, when russia have the most nuclear weapons in the world.

Right?

0

There is no posssible 'win' in a war with Syria/Egypt/Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan - there was a possible, incredibly tiny window of opportunity in Afghanistan back when Osama was trapped in the mountains, but so far we have lost every shot we took at interfering in other countries' affairs (at least since WWII) - we took a lot of shots. Hell, we are responsible for most of current shit going on over there.

0

Can you emagine a world without the great pyramids? What a pitty for humanity if those 2,000 year-old objects were destroyed in a war.

1

I personally think they should be left alone. . . .

Agreed. The West should get out of the habit of meddling. And the fact is, we simply cannot afford to do it anymore.

We should let somebody else take a turn shouldering the burden of settling conflicts. China sells their goods all over the world and is getting rich doing so. Why can't they pay the cost of policing a region for a change? Or Russia? They have a stake in the region too, but aren't talking about going in there to settle things. Perhaps they believe things will get settled--by themselves--without costing any Russian men or rubles. Either way, people are going to get killed.

And why are we now so concerned that people were killed by gas? Nobody would be as excited if the same number of people were killed by a big explosive device.

I wonder why some nations seem content to let others kill each other, while western nations feel the need to do something about it. Are those nations simply more cold-hearted than we are? Or do they know something we don't?

0

I personally think that Syria can not be left alone. The rotten idiot they call the president of syria is just killing them... US should get involved, maybe just kill him? If US does not get involved, things are going to get ugly.

4

If US does not get involved, things are going to get ugly.

Put your money where your mouth is -- join the Marines and be the first to go over there to put your life on the line. What makes you think it is US responsibility to resolve their problems? Hell, we can't even resolve our own problems.

Votes + Comments
Well said.
0

Obama wants a war, Al Qaeda gives him an excuse to attack a sovereign nation state.

And nobody thinks it weird that we're in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia are supporting the very people we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, supplying them with weapons that they're sending there to use against us?

0

What makes you think it is US responsibility to resolve their problems?

Isn't the US the world's biggest super power (aside from China)... we pretty much are responsible for what happens in the world because we always happened to get involved... besides, Syria can't take of themselves.

Hell, we can't even resolve our own problems.

Yeah... blame the idiots that call themselves "politicians"...

0

we pretty much are responsible for what happens in the world because we always happened to get involved

You mean you (US) make it your business, even if it's none of your business. There's a difference.

2

Does anyone recall the movie, Reds? Jack Reid is asked to give a speach on why the US is getting involved in World War 1. He stands up, says "Profits", then sits down. In the 1950s Eisenhower warned about the power of the military industrial complex. Very telling in the above article was the comment President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. Note, it is not what is in the best interests of the Syrian people.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

Just a crazy thought. Why not just enforce international law? Arrest Asad and his high command for war crimes, and put them on trial. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that could be the best course of action.

0

You mean you (US) make it your business, even if it's none of your business. There's a difference.

Yep, that's what i meant.

0

A supposed debate on CNN about what the US should do about Syria showed how "fair and balanced" the media is being. One side advocated bombing now while the opposing viewpoint was "we should have started bombing long ago". I'm reminded of the Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd cartoon. "Do you want to shoot him now or wait until you get home?"

<edit>The debate was on Aug 27</edit>

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

? Arrest Asad and his high command for war crimes

Easier said than done. How do you plan to get through his army in order to arrest him??

0

As soon as the news broke about the use of chemical weapons, Washington started demanding that UN inspectors be allowed in. Assad gave the official nod to the inspectors, then Washington stated that the inspections were pointless because Assad's consent was "too late to be credible". This in spite of statements by experts that chemical agents used in weaponry take years to dissipate. In one case, sarin was detected four years after it was used in Northern Iraq. It would seem that Washington made these demands expecting them to be refused, thereby using the refusal as an excuse for military action.

0

Easier said than done. How do you plan to get through his army in order to arrest him??

It could be easier said as it is done... the problem is that the US try to act "diplomatic" and supposedly "smart"... For example, didn't they say they find osama and his compound about 9 years prior of killing him... they could have killed him them.

1

Easier said than done. How do you plan to get through his army in order to arrest him??

It would certainly seem easier than full out war. Just saying.

Votes + Comments
Exactly!
0

I think that with the use of gas on his own people was crossing a Rubicon. What is done in response are the issues that arise. Chemical weapons are the first WMD; weapons that are indiscriminant - killing large swathes of people with no controls. The ban covers

asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare <

This is a Pandora's Box that is being opened; allowing a rogue nation to use a banned weapon gives any nation carte blanc to follow suit. A little gas attack here, maybe some poison there, then just a little bit of anthrax or smallpox and suddenly there are pandemics across the world.

0

A little gas attack here, maybe some poison there, then just a little bit of anthrax or smallpox and suddenly there are pandemics across the world.

If a war was started it would be a little nuclear bomb here and there...

0

I think that with the use of gas on his own people was crossing a Rubicon.

Has there been any definitive proof that shows which side was responsible for the use of the chemical weapons?

0

Has there been any definitive proof that shows which side was responsible for the use of the chemical weapons?

As far I know, there hasn't been any proof at all. The media doesn't really seem to care either way. From what I have gathered, it seems the only definitive fact is that a lot of people died suddenly. Cause unknown. The rest is speculation. I think it's reasonable to assume it was a (bio-)chemical attack of some kind, but the instigator could anywhere between Assad personally ordering it, and rebels having somehow gotten their hands on some chemical weapons and used them. Or, of course, anything in between, like a faction of the regime acting on its own, or some conspiracy by american neo-cons to create a pre-text for war.

EDIT: Apparently, there is a US report that concludes that it was indeed a government strike, most likely commanded by Assad / high-command. Link. I remain a bit skeptical, knowing the shameful track record of US intelligence agencies' failures to get a clue on anything in recent times, and their prominent role as war-mongerers. So, to take with a grain of salt.

Edited by mike_2000_17: breaking news

0

US wouldn't be wormongeres if all the little piss-ant sized nations like Syria would cut all that crap out. Actually, seems to me I recall this all being started by Syrian people themselves.

1

US wouldn't be wormongeres if all the little piss-ant sized nations like Syria would cut all that crap out. Actually, seems to me I recall this all being started by Syrian people themselves.

As Rep. Alan Grayson would put it:

"I don't know where we got this odd notion that every time we see something bad happen in the world, we should bomb it."

If you think Syria is a piss-ant sized nation, then why should we even bother to do anything. You cannot imply, in the same sentence, that every small country in the world should behave according to your wishes, and at the same time imply that it's their fault that you have to police them. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

0

You can't have the cake and eat it too

If you eat the cake you have the cake ;)

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.