Are we going to war with Syria?

Talking about misinterpreting what he is saying.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24051440

Here is a 3:37 video report from the BBC. We should let the UN handle this, because this war is very complicated which consist of many different variables without a concrete end.

 

told you guys that obama was going to STAND DOWN.

by hook or by crook

wouldn't have made sense to do anything but.

And if we hadn't, we would've had war with russia (and been in bed again with our old friends, the mujihadeen )

We're prolly in bed with them already against assad, but keeping the affair a secret :mrgreen:

Like I said, assad will win, but his win will be precarious, and ultimately he's goin down. After, they'll replace him with someone else the russians can live with

 

The part where you are wrong is you believe that the UN should be handling it but Obamas threat of force is clearly working. Also take a look at Iran's recent actions, the threat of force works. Go back in time and take a look at Gaddafi's actions when the US went to war with Iraq. Clearly the threat of force works, limiting our options with the UN is not going to cut it.

 

Good point

 

eh - where the threat of force really worked in this case was russia sending those ships to the gulf :mrgreen:

That sorta complicated obama's plans.

Personally, I like the U.N. having a fair amount of authority, rather than any one nation deciding who gets it and who doesn't. Call me naive, but I hope consensus and the rule of law begins to pull more weight in international affairs, rather than the u.s. being both the world's policeman (and in other instances, the world's biggest criminal).

e.g. coming down hard on assad for using chemical weapons today, backing saddam's using chemical weapons in yesteryear. Caring about syrians today, ignoring (or even facilitating) atrocities against kurds, chileans, rwandans, south africans, etc., etc., etc. in yesteryear

I like the idea of the u.n. (the whole u.n., not just the security council) having some say. It might help us one day, when we're herded off to the camps under a paul or guiliani presidency for example

 

Also, gotta say, obama flubbed this one big time. This recent debacle only means that assad is going to win. He'll turn over his chem weapons (maybe!), then bomb and blast the shit out of the syrian rebels to his heart's content, and the u.s., having painted itself into a corner, can't do anything about it

With regard to iran, it's the sanctions (and the change of power) that have lead to the new attitude, not some threat of force.

The u.s. has been saber rattling at iran for years. Has it worked? Not if you believe the saber rattler. According to u.s., iran was pursuing a bomb all through achmadinijad's administration.

The new guy just wants to fix iran's economy. Sanctions worked. Backed by the u.n.

 

No, we shouldn't go to war with Syria. The outrage comes from Syria having chemical weapons and its treatment of its citizens. But let me ask a simple question- does a mother who has their child killed by an AK-47 feel any better than a mother who's child was killed with Sarin gas? No! A mother still has a dead child. There is no good outcome going into Syria.

 

Completely agree

 

I definitely agree with from the bolden part wholeheartedly. It makes perfect sense.

 

And it would always work in a perfect world, not this one.

 

First of all there has not been a change of power in Iran. Iran's presidents have little power in comparison to the supreme leader. Secondly, Iran has been under sanctions for the entire amount of time that you claim the US has been saber rattling. Why would the sanctions start randomly working all of a sudden?

 

The difference is that if gas was used the mother and everyone else near the child at that time would also be dead. Let me ask you a question. How should a person cope with loosing their entire family within the span of one day?? I dont think the term mass destruction fully resonates with you and some others.

 

Right on.

We've gone back and forth in some gun threads about the relative lethality of certain firearms compared to others, but I don't know how anyone can make this relative equivalence between getting your family killed by an AK47, and learning your entire family died from a sarin gas attack.

Along with the other 500-700 people in your village.

A chemical weapons attack against U.S. civilians, or even U.S. soldiers, would almost warrant a nuclear response by our military, depending on the scope and range of the attack.

Firearms shouldn't even be brought up in a discussion of chemical weapons.

 

True, indeed, but at this moment of U.States history, it cannot afford to start another cold war or rattling the Russians or Chinese, which could again start not only a political but economic war as well. The ramifications is too great of a risk. Therefore cool heads need to prevail hence establishing consensus is required in this moment of history. What is funny when Saddam Hussain, was gassing his own people or the Kurds, you hardly heard anything from the past United States administration, since Saddam was considered a alley, and was a counterbalance of the Iranian, hypocrisy much!

Lets be honest with this, it is all about Israel and Saudi Arabia, wanting to counterbalance or isolate organizations such as Hezzbollah, and Iran. Again U.S is basically doing Israel and Saudi Arabia dirty work.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/511160/20131003/israel-saudi-arabia-gulf-alliance-iran-nuclear.htm

 

Bullets do not have a name on it.

 

I disagree. I think the thing we've all learned in the past 10+ years is that mass destruction is not solely chemical weapons. This can be guns, bombs, trains, or even airplanes flown into buildings. The loss feels exactly the same. There are corrupt and horrible leaders all over the world doing unspeakable things to its people. Do we get involved in every single fight?

What would have been a good outcome by going into Syria? Unless you fundamentally change the culture of a country...no change will ever come about. Syria has to make this change on their own. They must freely elect a leader that will care for them. As sad as it is to see the devastation, the United States has no place in this fight.

 

World powers gain credibility by supporting people's revolutions around the globe. That's also one of the ways we earn allies.

No one ever suggested the U.S. aim was to personally overthrow Assad. Bombing him was not a precursor to a full scale invasion. That was hysteria and misinformation spread by the media political pundits.

Obama wanted to supply rebels with arms and logistical support and cripple Assad's military capability, but Americans freaked out when they heard the words 'bomb' and the Middle East.

Whenever there are rebel factions attempting to overthrow a dictator like Assad, indirectly we are getting in that fight.

Isolationism is how maniacs like Hitler are allowed to germinate and spread from country to country.

This attitude is the reason why any Paul would be a poor POTUS.
They have a narrow concept of foreign policy; both father and son are perfectly willing to let the entire world go to hell just as long as the mayhem and bloodshed doesn't visit American shores.

The real world doesn't work that way.

 

That is untrue. Obama was calling for a military invasion from the United States. That is why he put it to vote in Congress. He wasn't just going to supply arms to the rebels. We supply arms everywhere already. He said our national security was at stake. Our security was not at stake. A CNN poll showed that 72% of Americans believe that American invasion would achieve no significant goals.

In the case of Hitler, we had many nations band together to overthrow him. Obama couldn't get one significant ally to back him up in this fight against Syria. The fact is that sometimes to be a good leader you have to know when not to fight.

 

President Obama did not call for boots on the ground if that is what you mean by military invasion. Hell must be freezing over because we actually agree that there was no immediate threat to our security. That being said, it was the threat of military force that has brought Assad to the point of considering international control of his chemical weapons which is currently taking place which I believe was the Presidents true intent all along.

President Obama showed true leadership by going to congress for buy in even though he could have ordered the strikes on his own authority.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...eberman-says-obama-had-legal-authority-strik/

Lastly France did give their support for the strikes, and they have been a significant ally.