He doesnt seem interested in asking.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Syria: they're using chemical weapons...
- Thread starter cashmcall
- Start date
Werbung:
"Their interests" are not present. Not unlike Libya. Thats kind of the issue. We have acted when oir actual interests were effected.
Bullshit our interests are not present. Unless being credible on the world stage is no longer in our interest. In Libya we didn't establish red lines and then do nothing when crossed.
If you have a kid, and you tell them that they cannot cross the street by themselves, and they do anyway -- what is your respone? Is it to shrug your shoulders and say oh well, my bluff got called. Your kid will base future behaviour on your reaction. As will his siblings (other nations in the world).
Gipper
Well-Known Member
No. Killing for the sake of backing up a dumb statement by a dumb POTUS...is well dumb...it is crazy dumb. Doing nothing is exactly the right option. You will only compound the problem by DOING something.
If you believe this administration about ANYTHING, you are a fool. If BO claims he has proof that chemical weapons were used by Assad, will you believe him?
Lies lies and more lies...that is the history of statists who push a nation to war.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Comparing going to war and disciplining a small child, is well CRAZY.
Killing and warring needs to stop. We have no interest in Syria. NONE. But then your definition of American interests and mine are entirely at odds.
It is not crazy, its getting the point across. Do you take anything North Korea says seriously? Why? Because they lack credibility to carry through on their threats.
Certainly the world would be a better place without war...but as long as the world is inhabited by humans, there will be war.
A report is scheduled for release today -- lets see what it says. But if your point is simply that you will never believe anything the government says, then how can anyone take you seriously and expect you to look at evidence in an objective manner?
Here is the report:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...n-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21
Some exerpts:
The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting.Our classified assessments have been shared with the U.S. Congress and key international partners
We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.
Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred
We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...n-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21
Some exerpts:
The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting.Our classified assessments have been shared with the U.S. Congress and key international partners
We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.
Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred
We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
History tells us that our government has lied us into war many times. Why would one ever believe that THIS TIME they are telling the truth?
Lets see...
1. All these interventions have gained us nothing but dead and wounded soldiers.
2. We as a nation are bankrupt.
3. Much of the world hates us because of our constant military interventions.
4. Terrorism against Americans increases when we intervene in other nation's business.
5. Intervening in Syria could lead to a larger war involving Israel and Iran. Leading to many dead innocent people.
6. Bombing supposed targets will kill people and very likely will kill innocent people.
reputation is not interests. you have interests in things not specifically yours. im not arguing that reputation is unimportant as gip feels but you are tripping yourself up in yourexamples.
The intel is the intel...we can believe it or not I suppose. But what else do you have to go on?
I obviously would take issue with most of these statements.
Not directly...no, you might not equate something like keeping shipping lanes open to something more abstract like our credibility abroad. However, the two are directly related. Without credibility on the international stage, nothing else matters. We can say "its in our interest to keep shipping lanes open", but if no one believes we will do anything if challenged on the point, it doesn't mean anything.
It is in our national interest to have a reputation (good or bad it doesn't matter) that we do what we say we will do. Look at the theory of mutually assured destruction. That only worked because the other side believed you would use nuclear weapons without hesitation in response. If the Soviets didn't believe that, what was going to stop them from rolling through Europe? Certainly not us.
It worked because we had credibility on the issue -- and that was it.
How so?
I do not believe it in America interest to intervene in Syria. While using chemical weapons on civilians is wrong it has been practice in every war. The USA did it with agent orange in Vietnam.
Who are we to dictate to a Middle East country our so call moral stance. In the example given these are not our children but children of another nation.
The UNmight have some moral authority but unless it supports the intervention it will not work
Who are we to dictate to a Middle East country our so call moral stance. In the example given these are not our children but children of another nation.
The UNmight have some moral authority but unless it supports the intervention it will not work
we have demonstrated that we will defend our interests, we are hit and miss already on things not really part of our interests (all overit in Libya, who knows on eqypt and total crapshoot in Syria). that whole post described how so. apples and oranges in a nutshell.
Werbung:
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
I don't think people don't know we won't defend our interests. They follow our politics and know who is feckless and who isn't.
Carter was weak, but Iran gave up the hostages the minute Reagan was elected. Gadhafi gave up his nuclear ambitions when Bush went into Iraq.
Obama's mid-east policy sucks. Samantha Powers pushed him into Libya. She helped author the UN policy of "Responsibility to Protect". Obama used that as his authorization to depose Gadhafi. Clinton bombed the crap out of the Christians in Bosnia and blew up an aspirin factory in Somalia. Democrats are a joke.
Carter was weak, but Iran gave up the hostages the minute Reagan was elected. Gadhafi gave up his nuclear ambitions when Bush went into Iraq.
Obama's mid-east policy sucks. Samantha Powers pushed him into Libya. She helped author the UN policy of "Responsibility to Protect". Obama used that as his authorization to depose Gadhafi. Clinton bombed the crap out of the Christians in Bosnia and blew up an aspirin factory in Somalia. Democrats are a joke.
Similar threads
