The Syria Question


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

The Syria Question

Postby Marlow » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:59 pm

gh can delete this if it gets contentious (sigh - it probably will), but do we sit idly by as more children are gassed to death, or by intervening, do we court an escalation of int'l tensions?

I have no idea what the right step is here. I feel that we need need full UN backing before we do (not that the UN even represents anything utile now).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21078
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Syria Question

Postby lonewolf » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:09 pm

Syria is a Hobson's choice. There is no acceptable solution. I can argue all the alternatives and not believe in any of them.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8812
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: The Syria Question

Postby Marlow » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:11 pm

lonewolf wrote:Syria is a Hobson's choice. There is no acceptable solution. I can argue all the alternatives and not believe in any of them.

Oh, that's depressing. If you, at 117 years old, don't have enough experience to guide you here, what hope do we have that WASHINGTON POLITICIANS possibly could?!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21078
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Syria Question

Postby lonewolf » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:22 pm

Aye, theres the rub.. so much experience I know there is no good way out. :(
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8812
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: The Syria Question

Postby Pego » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:35 pm

I see absolutely nothing to be achieved by our military intervention.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: The Syria Question

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:39 pm

Why was it okay for Assad to kill people with conventional weapons but wrong for him to do it with chemical weapons? Dead is dead, and the weapons makes used no difference to the family of the victims.

Also, the only way civil wars are ever settled conclusively is by fighting until one side says "uncle". Syria hasn't come close to matching the 600,000 that were killed in the American Civil War before the South said "uncle", so the U.S. should be willing to make a major contribution to the rebel effort, otherwise, it's wasting American blood and treasure. But the White House says that it doesn't want to overthrow Assad, because they are afraid that his replacemnt might be worse. So they're contemplating attacking the side that they want to win because they're displeased with their method of killing, not the killing itself. Does this make any sense?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:43 pm

lonewolf wrote:Syria is a Hobson's choice. There is no acceptable solution. I can argue all the alternatives and not believe in any of them.

But there is an acceptable solution - spare American blood and treasure, let this thing play out and then deal with the winners. If Syria's Arab/Muslim neighbors, especially the ones with sizeable militaries outfitted with the latest American hardware (eg. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia), value their blood and treasure too much to intervene, why is it our business?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby kevinsdad » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:40 pm

Making a missile strike more problematic is the fact that the same evidence the U.S is using to prove the Syrian government's use of gas also allows an inference that the gas attacks may have been carried out w/o said government's knowledge or consent. Seems like something that ought to be resolved before we commit to another Middle East intervention.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/ ... spies.html
kevinsdad
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby Marlow » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:19 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:let this thing play out

At what (preventable) cost in human tragedy?
(Not that I'm saying we get involved, but then again, do we lose our souls if we do not?) :(
Marlow
 
Posts: 21078
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Syria Question

Postby jeremyp » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:41 pm

I'm afraid that Obama has put himself in the macho box by using the phrase "red line." We sit back while 100,000 people are ripped apart by bombs but we now take umbrage? Personally I wish he'd wiped out the Syrian Air Force in 2011, but then look at Libya! Somalia on the Mediterranean. This is a lose/lose situation.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: The Syria Question

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:42 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:let this thing play out

At what (preventable) cost in human tragedy?
(Not that I'm saying we get involved, but then again, do we lose our souls if we do not?) :(

If the people within a nation have irreconcilable differences, how can our bombs brake up the stalemate? Keep in mind that we're not telling Assad not to kill the rebels, but just don't kill them with chemical weapons.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:49 pm

jeremyp wrote:I'm afraid that Obama has put himself in the macho box by using the phrase "red line." We sit back while 100,000 people are ripped apart by bombs but we now take umbrage?.

So you think we should waste American blood and treasure just so Obama can save face? Obama has been drawing red lines throughout his entire presidency, starting with his warning in his Cairo speech to Netanyahu to quit building settlements, but every single one of his red lines has been walked over without consequences. I don't fault Obama for not backing up his tough talk, I fault him for talking too much. In 2003, W backed up his tough talk and look where that got us.

jeremyp wrote:Personally I wish he'd wiped out the Syrian Air Force in 2011, but then look at Libya! Somalia on the Mediterranean. This is a lose/lose situation.

If it's lose/lose, why do you wish he would have attacked Syria in 2011?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby lonewolf » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:49 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:Syria is a Hobson's choice. There is no acceptable solution. I can argue all the alternatives and not believe in any of them.

But there is an acceptable solution - spare American blood and treasure, let this thing play out and then deal with the winners. If Syria's Arab/Muslim neighbors, especially the ones with sizeable militaries outfitted with the latest American hardware (eg. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia), value their blood and treasure too much to intervene, why is it our business?

I searched for a better word than acceptable.. did not find one.
Doing nothing is not acceptable if one believes it is necessary for humanitarian reasons. Intervening is not acceptable if one one opposes another escalating war.
A few perfunctory, ineffectual, facesaving missles will not affect the eventual outcome.
As I said, I could take either side of any/all of those arguments.
It is a lose/lose situation for the West whichever side prevails.
I do not have a magic solution.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8812
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: The Syria Question

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:08 pm

Let's put this in perspective. In 1860, the U.S. had a population of 31,000,000 and 600,000 died in our civil war. Syria has a population of 22,000,000 and so far 75,000 have died in its civil war.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby gh » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:15 pm

Marlow wrote:gh can delete this if it gets contentious (sigh - it probably will),....


Unless we have Syrian secret agents posting here, what could anybody possible say that I would find unpalatable? There are no board strictures against decrying despotic regimes (well, unless you believe Washington, DC, is the site of one).
gh
 
Posts: 46299
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Syria Question

Postby beebee » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:46 pm

We have sub zero credibility in the Middle East, thanks to two of the worst Americans in our Nation's history(war criminals W and Cheney)
beebee
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Syria Question

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:50 pm

beebee wrote:We have sub zero credibility in the Middle East, thanks to two of the worst Americans in our Nation's history(war criminals W and Cheney)

Obama hasn't been any better with his reckless use of drones and I say that as someone who voted for him.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby beebee » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:14 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
beebee wrote:We have sub zero credibility in the Middle East, thanks to two of the worst Americans in our Nation's history(war criminals W and Cheney)

Obama hasn't been any better with his reckless use of drones and I say that as someone who voted for him.


Obama couldn't be worst than those two genocidal mass murdering cocksuckers if he tried hard everyday. Hate those drones as well, but this was a complex disgusting shit stack left for him by the worst Government worker in U.S. history.
beebee
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Syria Question

Postby Dixon » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:17 pm

Violence in the Middle East is the Middle East. That is what they do, we need to realize that and leave them alone.

They will be fighting amoung themselves from here on out, just like they've always done, we have no business there.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby beebee » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:26 pm

Dixon wrote:Violence in the Middle East is the Middle East. That is what they do, we need to realize that and leave them alone.

They will be fighting amoung themselves from here on out, just like they've always done, we have no business there.


And the USA isn't a violent Nation?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
beebee
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Syria Question

Postby Dixon » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:29 pm

beebee wrote:
Dixon wrote:Violence in the Middle East is the Middle East. That is what they do, we need to realize that and leave them alone.

They will be fighting amoung themselves from here on out, just like they've always done, we have no business there.


And the USA isn't a violent Nation?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


All dogs will bite, then there's the pit bull.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby beebee » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:34 pm

Dixon wrote:
beebee wrote:
Dixon wrote:Violence in the Middle East is the Middle East. That is what they do, we need to realize that and leave them alone.

They will be fighting amoung themselves from here on out, just like they've always done, we have no business there.


And the USA isn't a violent Nation?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


All dogs will bite, then there's the pit bull.


We have 300 million guns in this country.

Btw, I love my Nation, but my eyes aren't closed.
beebee
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Syria Question

Postby Dixon » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:37 pm

beebee wrote:
Dixon wrote:
beebee wrote:
Dixon wrote:Violence in the Middle East is the Middle East. That is what they do, we need to realize that and leave them alone.

They will be fighting amoung themselves from here on out, just like they've always done, we have no business there.


And the USA isn't a violent Nation?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


All dogs will bite, then there's the pit bull.


We have 300 million guns in this country.

Btw, I love my Nation, but my eyes aren't closed.


My eyes aren't closed either, it they that had of been I couldn't have read all those books on violence and the Middle East. Do you watch the news, read the paper?

This isn't the place to really delve into this, trust me when I tell you, it's a whole different ball game over there.

See ya~~~~~~~
Dixon
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby beebee » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:50 pm

Fair enough...

For whatever it is worth, the U.S. France and Great Britain have infiltrated, interfered and done harm(for their oil) to many Middle Eastern Nations since after WWII. They hate and don't trust us for good reason.
beebee
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Syria Question

Postby Per Andersen » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:33 pm

The only reason I can see for some response by the US, Britain and France is the message it would send Iran. Iran must surely see a non-response as Assad calling Obama's bluff (the red-line stuff) and getting away with it. Doing nothing would probably mean full steam ahead with the Iranian nuclear program.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Syria Question

Postby shivfan » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:35 am

And while we express concern over the slaughter in Syria, let's not ignore the slaughter that's going on in Egypt, from the guns of the military coup....

Surely, we're not ignoring the Egyptian slaughter just because Sesi happens to be OUR dictator?
shivfan
 
Posts: 2586
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:30 am
Location: Just outside London

Re: The Syria Question

Postby mump boy » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:24 am

beebee wrote:Fair enough...

For whatever it is worth, the U.S. France and Great Britain have infiltrated, interfered and done harm(for their oil) to many Middle Eastern Nations since after WWII. They hate and don't trust us for good reason.


All of this only our interference started WAY before WWII, we basically drew the map in the middle east for our own purposes, creating countries that have no historic, religious or ethnic basis. We've them stuck our oar in to topple, prop up or destabilise different govt for our own agendas.

We have no idea which side we should be on in this conflict, Assad has been a friend to the west for years and suddenly he's the bad guy, who are the opposition ? what happens if they take power etc etc

If there can be a UN resolution and UN troops can go in as a peace keeping force then i'm all for it but US and UK troops once again getting involved in things that have nothing to do with them again is ridiculous.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: The Syria Question

Postby Marlow » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:49 am

gh wrote:
Marlow wrote:gh can delete this if it gets contentious (sigh - it probably will),....

Unless we have Syrian secret agents posting here, what could anybody possible say that I would find unpalatable? There are no board strictures against decrying despotic regimes (well, unless you believe Washington, DC, is the site of one).

beebee wrote:Obama couldn't be worst than those two genocidal mass murdering cocksuckers if he tried hard everyday. Hate those drones as well, but this was a complex disgusting shit stack left for him by the worst Government worker in U.S. history.

This . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21078
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron