1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Syria: they're using chemical weapons...

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by cashmcall, May 2, 2013.

  1. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    386
    Some are pushing for involvement in Syria since the mess began. When are we ever going to learn that when your enemies are destroying each other, the best course of action is usually nothing.

    Using chemical weapons, says you. Better living through chemistry, says I.
    - Bashar Assad.. not funny...
     
  2. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    Which side used them? I hear the chemical weapons are scattered all over the place. It wouldn't surprise me to find out the rebels found some and used them to blame on the U.S.
     
  3. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    354
    Location:
    USA
    That makes no sense at all. If the rebels used them, it would be to make it appear as if Assad used them, so that the US would be forced to get more involved -- and by extension help the rebel cause.

    If Assad used them, and we do nothing, especially after the President stated that their use was a "red line", then we lose all credibility. You don't think that matters in regards to Iran? North Korea? The President boxed himself into a corner by establishing this "red line" and now seems intent on walking it back as fast as he can. Does not seem like much now, but the blowback we get in the loss of credibility down the road is going to massive.
     
  4. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around
    agreed BO screwed the pooch on this. its what he does.the world is used to it now and play him like a fiddle.
     
  5. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    your right. that is what I meant to say, blame Assad, not the U.S.
     
  6. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    386
    “When the contest is only with native rulers, and with such native strength as those rulers can enlist in their defence, the answer I should give to the question of the legitimacy of intervention is, as a general rule, No. The reason is that there can seldom be anything approaching to assurance that intervention, even if successful, would be for the good of the people themselves… The liberty which is bestowed on them by hands other than their own will have nothing real, nothing permanent.”
    John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 — 8 May 1873)
     
    Gipper likes this.
  7. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    This is most absurd. We are BANKRUPT and yet, some Americans think we need to get involved in yet ANOTHER civil war in a Muslim nation, full of Muslims who HATE America. CRAZY!!!

    To say nothing of the BLOWBACK from radical Islamists whenever we stick our big noses into Muslim nation's business. BLOWBACK results in innocent dead and wounded Americans, because of our constant foreign interventions and not from lose of credibility. (See Boston Bombing and Benghazi for proof...if you need more proof, just ask).

    BO is a fool. We all know that. But if he intervenes in Syria, he compounds his mistakes. When will we ever learn?

    And to the Neocon who claims America has lost credibility because we won't intervene, after placing a line in the sand, wake up! We lost credibility long ago...at least as long ago as our betrayal in the Vietnam War. The world knows American promises are worthless.
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    354
    Location:
    USA
    We crossed this line when we established a "red line". You don't think Iran, North Korea, Russia, China are watching how we respond now very closely? Do you think Iran is going to take any "red line" seriously that we establish in regards to their nuclear program if we ignore our own red lines because we don't have the stomach to stick to them? If that is the case -- don't establish the red line to begin with.

    Their are two options available to us. A world that is lead by the United States, or a world in which the United States is a follower. Which is it that we would prefer? The Boston bombing, and other terror attacks, are but a blip on the radar compared to what a nuclear armed Iran will mean for the Middle East. They are blip on the radar in regards to a rising China, or a Russia that is reasserting itself. These things matter, and sticking our head in the sand and ignoring it doesn't make it go away -- it just makes it worse. There is no retreating to our borders at this point -- that ship sailed decades ago.

    The President is not a fool. I keep hearing this narrative, but the simple fact is he is a brilliant campaigner, who has put our party on the defensive for years and easily won reelection in a horrible economic environment.

    As for compounding mistakes in Syria -- it depends on what "intervention" we do. No one says we have to follow the Iraq model -- but the simple fact is that our own intelligence (and others) believe Assad used these weapons on a small scale. I know the White House is terrified of an Iraq type mistake on this, but at some point you have to accept that the intelligence (however flawed) is all you have, and you have to make a decision. There are many other options available to "intervene" without a large presence.

    If it is as you claim (which I don't believe it is), then it is of the utmost importance to regain credibility -- by doing what we say we are going to do. Credibility is the most important thing in international relations.
     
  9. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around

    i agree that we are in regain mode as opposed to maintain but be that as it may, id say strenght is the most importent thing. of course doing what you day you will.do is or can demonstrate strenght.

    BO is in a critical juncture of his own making and what happens next has the potential to make the.rest of his term a nightmare.
     
  10. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around
    oh... and having handlers who get you elected doesnt exclude one from being a fool. just sayin...
     
  11. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    We can go back to Iran when the Shah was disposed to see how our involvement in other countries doesn't work out to our benefit or security.

    We managed to ignore Rwanda and Darfur, why the ME?
     
  12. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    386
    The Muslim world is counting on us/President to remain as morally weak as we currently are, because they know that if we began to show any kind of strength towards them, if we began to show a willingness to say the things that must be said, then we would be preparing ourselves to do the things that must be done. If we can just get this right, we could start the beginning of the end of this thousand-year reign of terror begun by the bad guy who turned an entire part of the world into hell....
     
  13. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    How do you propose to change the hearts and minds of fifteen hundred years of Tribalism and Islamic Jihad? I think we have already proven what we can do if we are attacked. I do think we had a chance in Iraq. We took down the entire government. The problem for us was not putting everything we had into it, to build it from the bottom up. We would have also needed to stay at least one full generation, if not two, to uproot the elements that are keeping it from going forward democratically on it's own.

    We can't even uproot the evil that's going on in this country.
     
  14. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    386
    Your guess is as good as any ones ... Islam has crippled whatever ability Muslims might have had to compete with the civilized world, and the fruits of Western civilization reminds them of it every single day.
     
  15. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    386
    Islam fancies itself our would-be destroyer, but they’re only parasites feeding off of a West that is morally weak at this moment in history. In the words of Ayn Rand:When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice