SYRIA Today [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : SYRIA Today


JBJ16
08-24-2013, 02:01
http://www.therevoltingsyrian.com/post/58902680033/the-chemical-attack-massacre-of-damascus

Is the world aware of this?

NeverMore1701
08-24-2013, 02:17
Sounds like a problem for the Syrian people.

Tiro Fijo
08-24-2013, 02:20
And I say so what? We've spent BILLIONS in that part of the World that is a Hellhole and after we finally depart for good it will be as if we were never there, save for the eqpmt. left behind. Their religion embraces, as well as encourages, this type of savagery. Let them kill each other.

The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.

DanaT
08-24-2013, 02:23
I feel so bad for these people.

JBJ16
08-24-2013, 02:26
The ugly side of war. Assad has taken the gloves off.

Rabbi
08-24-2013, 02:28
I would say we are damned sure aware of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23822440

We are moving military assets in that direction.

Tiro Fijo
08-24-2013, 03:57
Egypt is a perfect example of "damned if you do & damned if you don't". If we topple Assad then they get Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood. See Egypt. :wavey:

We have surely been running arms to Syrian insurgents for some time and many speculate that was the real reason over the State Dept's lies over Benghazi as it was the shipping point via Turkey to Syria. Arms that will inevitably be used against us and/or Israel. America needs to wake up and accept that fact that you cannot reason with savages. Keep your enemies weak and they are never so weak as when they are fighting internecine wars. They will never like us nor accept us no matter what we do as we are Infidels according to their belief. Let 'em rot.

DanaT
08-24-2013, 04:15
Tiro. You have some points that have some level of validity, but it is simply wrong to use chemical weapons against children no matter what religion the children's parents are.

DaleGribble
08-24-2013, 04:51
We don't need American troops on the ground there, it's not our war and their are no "good guys" for us to support. Either way it's a bad outcome.

We just need to use a drone to kill Assad and his cabinet and then back off. Tell the world we did it, because quite frankly, anyone that does some messed up **** like that deserves killing and we'll drop a missle on anyone else that thinks about it and then call it a day.

DaleGribble
08-24-2013, 04:57
Tiro. You have some points that have some level of validity, but it is simply wrong to use chemical weapons against children no matter what religion the children's parents are.

I agree, it's wrong regardless of politics. We should have a standing policy, use chemical weapons and the U.S. military kills you and your entire administration, no refunds or exchanges allowed and no questions asked.

Instead we have a President that makes empty threats. :upeyes:

happyguy
08-24-2013, 04:57
We need to go in and straighten them out.

After all, our policies have been great success in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, and Egypt. :upeyes:

Regards,
Happyguy :)

DaleGribble
08-24-2013, 05:06
We need to go in and straighten them out.

After all, our policies have been great success in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, and Egypt. :upeyes:

Regards,
Happyguy :)

I agree. We have a long history of failing at nation building and it's a losing proposition. We don't need to fight their war, rebuild their cities and tell them how to live.

Big Dog Dad
08-24-2013, 05:08
I don't see any other country coming to this country helping us solve our problems, and we sure do have a lot of problems. Why should Americans get killed in a country with people who hate us. I don't give a **** if both sides in Syria wipe each other off the face of the earth. Take care of the citizens (legal ones anyway) in this country first!

-=BDD=-

walt cowan
08-24-2013, 05:10
Obama gave the order. now ask what keeps him from doing the same thing here?

Restless28
08-24-2013, 05:50
We need to go in and straighten them out.

After all, our policies have been great success in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, and Egypt. :upeyes:

Regards,
Happyguy :)

If there is money to be made, the M.I.C. will send Ameicans to war.:steamed:

dryfly
08-24-2013, 05:52
McCain is banging his drums kinda loudly now.
We have 4 warships/carriers now in position over there.
The writing is on the wall ....
I think we will hit some airfields and installations and offices...then Obummer will come on TV and said he did it for the children in Syria.

DanaT
08-24-2013, 06:04
If there is money to be made, the M.I.C. will send Ameicans to war.:steamed:

We agree. Now, lets try to come to agreement how encompassing the M.I.C. definition is....

Restless28
08-24-2013, 06:11
We agree. Now, lets try to come to agreement how encompassing the M.I.C. definition is....

The government is included. Sanctimonious politicians like to bring home the bacon.

Mo Brooks and Richard Shelby are great examples. They decry Democrat spending on social programs, but think nothing of spending on unnecessary defense programs.

Welfare is welfare.

DanaT
08-24-2013, 06:17
The government is included. Sanctimonious politicians like to bring home the bacon.

Mo Brooks and Richard Shelby are great examples. They decry Democrat spending on social programs, but think nothing of spending on unnecessary defense programs.

Welfare is welfare.

Be careful. If you start saying things like "unnecessary defense programs", you may quickly come to the idea that welfare is welfare is govt spending on "unnecessary programs". If you drop one word....

Restless28
08-24-2013, 06:21
Be careful. If you start saying things like "unnecessary defense programs", you may quickly come to the idea that welfare is welfare is govt spending on "unnecessary programs". If you drop one word....


:supergrin:

Ragnar
08-24-2013, 06:21
http://www.therevoltingsyrian.com/post/58902680033/the-chemical-attack-massacre-of-damascus

Is the world aware of this?

Yes. The more important question is "does the world care"?


Frankly, we have no interests in Syria and need to stay the hell out. Neither side is our friend.

ChiefWPD
08-24-2013, 07:32
Tiro. You have some points that have some level of validity, but it is simply wrong to use chemical weapons against children no matter what religion the children's parents are.

I concur. The use of chemical weapons against children is barbaric.

And, as a practical matter, there is nothing constructive that we, as a nation, can do about it.

We're firmly in the ''grey zone.'' There is no good response.

WarCry
08-24-2013, 08:12
So if you're walking down the street and see a woman being attacked and/or raped, you just keep walking because there's no interest for you in that area to protect, right?



I am NOT advocating world policing. We've stayed out of the Syrian civil war, sitting by and letting them sort it out for themselves for over 2 years now. But the use of chemical weapons like this is something that raises the game to a whole different level.

It seems those on the right want a strong military, no scaling back, by God, or you'll be hammered as "against the troops!". The left gets hammered for being "weak" on military force, but then when they want to use it, they get hammered for getting involved in stuff. Where, pray tell, would those on the right like our strong military to deploy, or be used? Or is it a matter that we want the loaded gun to be kept locked and ready but never, EVER use it anywhere. I mean, we know what would happen, what would be said, if it was used in the US, right? So I'm honestly asking: When and where SHOULD the military be used, if not for cases like genocide and weapons of mass destruction being used?

Maybe another another dictatorial leader that hasn't directed any specific action against the US that we don't like? We can get tied up in another 10-year war?

Ragnar
08-24-2013, 08:16
I am NOT advocating world policing. We've stayed out of the Syrian civil war, sitting by and letting them sort it out for themselves for over 2 years now. But the use of chemical weapons like this is something that raises the game to a whole different level.

How is chemical weapons "different"? Is it OK if they kill thousands with machetes but not OK if they do it with gas?

We have no abiding interests in Syria. Stay out.

DaleGribble
08-24-2013, 08:29
How is chemical weapons "different"? Is it OK if they kill thousands with machetes but not OK if they do it with gas?

We have no abiding interests in Syria. Stay out.

Yes, chemical weapons are different as a practical matter. Their use demonstrates an unmistakable loathing of human life and it demonstrates the ability to deploy them. We have interests in the region (Turkey, Israel and thousands of Americans) that would be irrevocably harmed by the use of chemical weapons against them if we do not act.

See Benjamin Netanyahu's speech in front of Congress on the value of preemption if you don't understand the importance of it.

Assad has demonstrated that he is dangerous to the stability of an entire region and he needs to be killed and his regime toppled, ASAP.

Bruce M
08-24-2013, 08:34
I think they are barbaric. And I think being barbaric has much more to do with what is done rather than with what it is done.

douggmc
08-24-2013, 08:36
How is chemical weapons "different"? Is it OK if they kill thousands with machetes but not OK if they do it with gas?

We have no abiding interests in Syria. Stay out.

+1

I feel awful for innocents killed, but the above is on target (and his post before that).

1-We need to stop being the worlds police. Let another country take care of it ...if it if it is worthy of action. There are plenty of other countries that can project the power (France, UK, etc) needed to intervene. Maybe we can add some intel or logistical support.

2-we don't even know WHO employed the chemical weapons. Not sure if we even ever will be able to sufficiently prove who. Their is "talk" that I've picked up that points to plausibility of the rebels doing it. I've seen videos of fake massacres being set up (or maybe it was a fake of a fake) For media to photograph, etc. Point being we don't know who is doing what. They are bad actors on both sides.

3-As others have alluded, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. As Egypt and other examples of "Arab spring" have illustrated ... The "democratically" elected replacements for the Mubareks and Assads, et al. are arguably worse then the dictator. They simply are not ready to self-govern democratically in most cases. Not sure what the solution is.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

RHVEtte
08-24-2013, 08:37
So if you're walking down the street and see a woman being attacked and/or raped, you just keep walking because there's no interest for you in that area to protect, right?

Yep. Hate to say that, but that's the world we live in now. If you intervene, then you're responsible and the lynch mob will come out of the woodwork.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

ArtyGuy
08-24-2013, 08:41
Can Syria destabilize the region? Sure. Does that negatively impact us? Sure. However, there are plenty of other nations, ones much closer to the problem, that have much more at stake than us. They can roll their sleeves up first and put their military in harms way before we put ours in harms way. We train many of those militaries and through FMS, they have very good equipment in their units. They can shoulder the burden.

douggmc
08-24-2013, 08:42
Yep. Hate to say that, but that's the world we live in now. If you intervene, then you're responsible and the lynch mob will come out of the woodwork.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Exactly. If we intervene, we own it. Period.

The reality is, as unfortunate as it is, cases of genocide on the same (or worse) scale are happening all the time. Queue Africa. The world is a dangerous place ... we enjoy or Starbucks and complain about trivial Shiite ... Myself included.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

cyphertext
08-24-2013, 08:52
We have interests in the region (Turkey, Israel and thousands of Americans) that would be irrevocably harmed by the use of chemical weapons against them if we do not act.

See Benjamin Netanyahu's speech in front of Congress on the value of preemption if you don't understand the importance of it.


So let the Turks and the Israelis handle their own regional conflicts. They should be quite capable without putting our boots on the ground.

Zombie Surgeon
08-24-2013, 08:53
I'm not sure the Syrian government is responsible for this. There have between enough cases before when radical islamists murdered civilians in the areas controlled by them, then blamed it on their opponents.



Sent from my free Obamaphone you creepy *** cracka' iz payin' fo'

douggmc
08-24-2013, 08:58
So let the Turks and the Israelis handle their own regional conflicts. They should be quite capable without putting our boots on the ground.

Sweet Jesus no ... The Israelis need to stay out of it all costs short of "clear and present" danger to them.

Yes ... That is arguably a subjective measurement (clear and present), but one sure fire way of starting a ****storm with virtually every Muslim country/regime in the region (Shiite or Sunni) is for Israel to start attacking Syria.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

WarCry
08-24-2013, 09:10
Yep. Hate to say that, but that's the world we live in now. If you intervene, then you're responsible and the lynch mob will come out of the woodwork.


You make your choice and you live with it. Much as Samuel Mudd set Booth's leg, sometimes you do what's right even if it's not popular or could even lead to prosecution.

I won't judge anyone for saying they would walk past a woman being attacked, but perhaps the fact that concern over possible civil suit type of issues overrides decent humanity in protecting someone is a really big factor in the "all about me" society we find ourselves in right now.

douggmc
08-24-2013, 09:16
You make your choice and you live with it. Much as Samuel Mudd set Booth's leg, sometimes you do what's right even if it's not popular or could even lead to prosecution.

I won't judge anyone for saying they would walk past a woman being attacked, but perhaps the fact that concern over possible civil suit type of issues overrides decent humanity in protecting someone is a really big factor in the "all about me" society we find ourselves in right now.

The analogy is poor. Doesn't hold up ... For many reasons. Sorry ...




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Ragnar
08-24-2013, 09:49
So let the Turks and the Israelis handle their own regional conflicts. They should be quite capable without putting our boots on the ground.

Exactly. The Turks aren't helpless little flowers. If Syria is a threat to them they can take care of it.

WarCry
08-24-2013, 10:13
I still haven't heard anyone say what they WOULD like for us to do with the military. We can't use them domestically, so I guess the answer is that we just pay billions and billions of dollars annually for them to sit on their bases, run around in the woods playing soldier (i.e. training) just in case someone ever decides to get pushy with us?

That doesn't seem like a great use of resources to me. The whole world could burn around us, and we would sit on our hands and say "not my problem."

Didn't work in Europe in the 20s and 40s, why would it work now?

HalfHazzard
08-24-2013, 10:31
I still haven't heard anyone say what they WOULD like for us to do with the military. We can't use them domestically, so I guess the answer is that we just pay billions and billions of dollars annually for them to sit on their bases, run around in the woods playing soldier (i.e. training) just in case someone ever decides to get pushy with us?

That doesn't seem like a great use of resources to me. The whole world could burn around us, and we would sit on our hands and say "not my problem."

Didn't work in Europe in the 20s and 40s, why would it work now?

Your argument for action in Syria (maybe) is that the folks who say no would then have to prove a reason for having the military, and since they can't, they're wrong so we should intervene.

Did I misinterpret?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

douggmc
08-24-2013, 10:57
I still haven't heard anyone say what they WOULD like for us to do with the military. We can't use them domestically, so I guess the answer is that we just pay billions and billions of dollars annually for them to sit on their bases, run around in the woods playing soldier (i.e. training) just in case someone ever decides to get pushy with us?

That doesn't seem like a great use of resources to me. The whole world could burn around us, and we would sit on our hands and say "not my problem."

Didn't work in Europe in the 20s and 40s, why would it work now?

Our military budget and cost effectiveness is a different topic/debate.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

DaleGribble
08-24-2013, 11:06
So let the Turks and the Israelis handle their own regional conflicts. They should be quite capable without putting our boots on the ground.

If Israel sent troops into Syria it would make OIF look like a weekend exercise. That's the last thing the Arab world needs.

The best outcome for this country is to bomb Assad to pieces and let the UN and a "coalition of the willing" handle it from there.

Bad guy dead, France, GB & Canada can send in troops and spend their money trying to turn terrorists into respectable leaders while we finish up elsewhere.

ArtyGuy
08-24-2013, 11:18
I still haven't heard anyone say what they WOULD like for us to do with the military. We can't use them domestically, so I guess the answer is that we just pay billions and billions of dollars annually for them to sit on their bases, run around in the woods playing soldier (i.e. training) just in case someone ever decides to get pushy with us?

That doesn't seem like a great use of resources to me. The whole world could burn around us, and we would sit on our hands and say "not my problem."

Didn't work in Europe in the 20s and 40s, why would it work now?


By your logic, we would need a much, much larger military because I can point to a hundred countries where terrible things are happening to innocent people. The fact is, we have to pick and choose where we want to intervene. As an active duty guy, with multiple combat tours--which isn't chest thumping by the way, it's just to say I understand what it means to commit troops-- I don't see a single reason to get involved. There are many countries in that region that also have militaries. They can use theirs before we use ours. Syria is not a major threat to our interests and it most certainly isn't a threat to our national security.

Andrew Tacquard
08-24-2013, 11:36
By your logic, we would need a much, much larger military because I can point to a hundred countries where terrible things are happening to innocent people. The fact is, we have to pick and choose where we want to intervene. As an active duty guy, with multiple combat tours--which isn't chest thumping by the way, it's just to say I understand what it means to commit troops-- I don't see a single reason to get involved. There are many countries in that region that also have militaries. They can use theirs before we use ours. Syria is not a major threat to our interests and it most certainly isn't a threat to our national security.

Security is not always the reason we get involved. It might be linked to some of the reasons, but I'd say usually it is in a long list. It sure makes it easy to sale to the general public. We commit assets when other means of diplomacy fail, and we want to change someone else's mind. If want Syria to change their mind on chem weapons and other means of diplomacy fail, we will commit. We rarely fight for "freedom". The military is a means to force diplomacy. I agree the use of chemical weapons is barbaric, and hopefully something is done; until we have a reason to commit for ourselves we won't. The reason can be to make us look better, stability in the region, Israel, etc. And as said above there are horrible things on par to this occurring elsewhere in the world. Same as always, to compare look at Laos after we left, or the millions killed by Stalin one of our allies in ww2. Nothing new.


Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Ohub Campfire mobile app

Andrew Tacquard
08-24-2013, 11:38
I meant Cambodia

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Ohub Campfire mobile app

Ragnar
08-24-2013, 12:17
I still haven't heard anyone say what they WOULD like for us to do with the military. We can't use them domestically, so I guess the answer is that we just pay billions and billions of dollars annually for them to sit on their bases, run around in the woods playing soldier (i.e. training) just in case someone ever decides to get pushy with us?

Yes, just in case someone is a threat to our national interests. Syria doesn't fit that category. Iraq and Afghanistan probably didn't either. Libya certainly didn't.


That doesn't seem like a great use of resources to me. The whole world could burn around us, and we would sit on our hands and say "not my problem."

Not correct. There are certain national interests that are impacted by conflicts in Europe and Asia, but Africa and most of the Middle East can burn to the ground before the USA is impacted as a nation.

WarCry
08-24-2013, 12:17
Your argument for action in Syria (maybe) is that the folks who say no would then have to prove a reason for having the military, and since they can't, they're wrong so we should intervene.

Did I misinterpret?


Yes, you did. Intentionally, most likely, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

My argument is that we HAVE sat out of this civil war for two years - hands off, it's an internal affair.

But if we're not going to use the military to protect people from their own governments killing them with chemical weapns, then what ARE we going to use them for?




To turn the argument around, we invaded a sovereign nation - Iraq - over the use of chemical weapons internally - more than a decade earlier. The justification for that war was chemical weapons. The PROOF of chemical weapons was their use against the Kurds.

So we went to war in Iraq over the stockpiling of weapons. So, yes, I'm still waiting to hear a valid argument that says we should NOT go in and stop Syria from doing the same.

There are plenty of civil wars that we don't interfere with. I'm not saying that should change. But when it changes from a civil war to a genocide and chemical slaughter, that's a game-changer.



So, again, if not for cases like this, what should we be doing with the military?

Ragnar
08-24-2013, 12:22
Yes, you did. Intentionally, most likely, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

My argument is that we HAVE sat out of this civil war for two years - hands off, it's an internal affair.

But if we're not going to use the military to protect people from their own governments killing them with chemical weapns, then what ARE we going to use them for?



I think you've seriously misunderstood the mission of the US military. Its job is not to save puppies from dictators all over the world. If you want a police force you need to field a different kind of force.


To turn the argument around, we invaded a sovereign nation - Iraq - over the use of chemical weapons internally - more than a decade earlier. The justification for that war was chemical weapons. The PROOF of chemical weapons was their use against the Kurds.

So we went to war in Iraq over the stockpiling of weapons.



You've seriously misunderstood that one too. We went into Iraq for reasons far beyond chemical weapons.

Restless28
08-24-2013, 12:29
I think you've seriously misunderstood the mission of the US military. Its job is not to save puppies from dictators all over the world. If you want a police force you need to field a different kind of force.




You've seriously misunderstood that one too. We went into Iraq for reasons far beyond chemical weapons.

Oil...

WarCry
08-24-2013, 12:29
I think you've seriously misunderstood the mission of the US military. Its job is not to save puppies from dictators all over the world. If you want a police force you need to field a different kind of force.

I seem to recall the mission of the US military being whatever the commander in chief declares the mission to be. At least, that's what it was when I raised my hand and took the oath. Has that changed?

You've seriously misunderstood that one too. We went into Iraq for reasons far beyond chemical weapons.

Are you implying that the Bush administration, including his secretary of state, lied to the world for the reasons we went to war in Iraq? If you know something else, perhaps you should say so. I'm basing my information off the public record, as testified to in the UN on national television.

ArtyGuy
08-24-2013, 12:32
Security is not always the reason we get involved. It might be linked to some of the reasons, but I'd say usually it is in a long list. It sure makes it easy to sale to the general public. We commit assets when other means of diplomacy fail, and we want to change someone else's mind. If want Syria to change their mind on chem weapons and other means of diplomacy fail, we will commit. We rarely fight for "freedom". The military is a means to force diplomacy. I agree the use of chemical weapons is barbaric, and hopefully something is done; until we have a reason to commit for ourselves we won't. The reason can be to make us look better, stability in the region, Israel, etc. And as said above there are horrible things on par to this occurring elsewhere in the world. Same as always, to compare look at Laos after we left, or the millions killed by Stalin one of our allies in ww2. Nothing new.


Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Ohub Campfire mobile app

I agree with everything you say-- particularly that the military is a tool for political purposes (I believe I addressed that in my post-- maybe I wasn't clear). If you look at our current NSS, NDS, and NMS, I'm not sure I see a clear argument to commit forces- even if it is not ground troops. I'm not sure I see how supporting the opposition magically solves anything. I have to believe the removal of Assad only brings more issues. I have to believe there are quite a few groups who want to run the country and some groups are scared to death if certain groups are in charge, which will likely lead to more violence (Iraq anyone??). What then? If you help break it, you better be prepared to help fix it.

JMS
08-24-2013, 12:35
Yes, chemical weapons are different as a practical matter. Their use demonstrates an unmistakable loathing of human life and it demonstrates the ability to deploy them. We have interests in the region (Turkey, Israel and thousands of Americans) that would be irrevocably harmed by the use of chemical weapons against them if we do not act.

See Benjamin Netanyahu's speech in front of Congress on the value of preemption if you don't understand the importance of it.

Assad has demonstrated that he is dangerous to the stability of an entire region and he needs to be killed and his regime toppled, ASAP.

A. Where is the worldwide outrage for the 100k that Assad slaughtered before this most recent act?

B. if Syria even dared attack Israel with chemical weapons, it would be the end of Syria.

Restless28
08-24-2013, 12:38
Dick Cheney must be giddy.

HalfHazzard
08-24-2013, 12:41
What I said: Your argument for action in Syria (maybe) is that the folks who say no would then have to prove a reason for having the military, and since they can't, they're wrong so we should intervene.

What you said to "refute" how I interpreted it:But if we're not going to use the military to protect people from their own governments killing them with chemical weapns, then what ARE we going to use them for?

I think we'll use it to further our national interest when we can get a benefit from using it and defend the homeland.

We didn't go to Iraq for WMDs, we went for oil, remember?

In all seriousness, entering the conflict at this point in time is futile. Maybe we should have entered two years ago and maybe the time will be right in two more years. I think Dempsey made that clear last week.

Andrew Tacquard
08-24-2013, 12:57
(I believe I addressed that in my post-- maybe I wasn't clear).

I was adding to your post. I think there is a very large portion of the US that does not realize the US military is a branch of diplomacy. This is not unique to the US, pretty much since man walked upright and organized into groups this has been the case. This will not change, nor will we ever be without war.

Iraq, yep as Colin Powell said, WMD. I heard it, we all did. We relied upon some intel that might not have been complete (like it ever is). Sure oil was involved, as were gay rights, religious rights, woman's rights, etc. Probably more than anything we fight for our way of life. That might be bread for a couple dollars a loaf, decent steak at the grocery store, the ability to own a firearm, etc. Oil is important to the world, and anyone who believes otherwise, I feel, is very naive. If the pumps were shut off today, all modern countries would probably collapse within a week. I cannot think of one thing that does not require oil.

phil evans
08-24-2013, 13:20
Obama's incompetence will kill a bunch of Americans trying to help Syria become a sewer which is just a little bit cleaner.
Our culture is so different that we will never attain any satisfaction/accomplishment in any thing we do in or for the middle east.

Ragnar
08-24-2013, 14:45
I seem to recall the mission of the US military being whatever the commander in chief declares the mission to be. At least, that's what it was when I raised my hand and took the oath. Has that changed?



Are you implying that the Bush administration, including his secretary of state, lied to the world for the reasons we went to war in Iraq? If you know something else, perhaps you should say so. I'm basing my information off the public record, as testified to in the UN on national television.

Iraq was less about WMD (which, by the way, they did find) and more about changing the strategic center of the middle east. George Friedman wrote an excellent analysis of it.

Amazon.com: America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies (9780767917858): George Friedman: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511ftC%2BtZ7L.@@AMEPARAM@@511ftC%2BtZ7L

douggmc
08-24-2013, 15:25
Oil...

... and ego.

... and to patronize/placate a post-9/11 frenzied, nationalistic public to distract them from the real problem.

:wavey:

eyelikeglasses
08-24-2013, 15:45
I'm basing my information off the public record, as testified to in the UN on national television.

And that is why you are wrong.

eyelikeglasses
08-24-2013, 15:47
Assad wasn't the one who released the chemical weapons. It was the FSA/rebels/al-Queda/B.S.

DanaT
08-24-2013, 15:58
Assad wasn't the one who released the chemical weapons. It was the FSA/rebels/al-Queda/B.S.

I dont know which side is doing it. But gassing kids is beyond reprehensible.

The issue is I cannot say that the rebels wouldnt gas children to further their agenda. I cannot say Assad wouldnt do it.

The problem is I believe both side would so neither hold the moral high ground.

WarCry
08-24-2013, 16:01
And that is why you are wrong.

Actually, I'm not wrong. That might not have been the primary reason, but it was A reason. Anyone who actually argues that "We didn't find them, they obviously didn't have them" is just stupid. We KNOW they had them - we know they USED them. We might not have found as much as we expected, but that's not to say they weren't there or weren't EVER there.

My point is that, publicly, at least, it was uses as a valid reason to go to war in Iraq. Now they're being used in Syria, and people are saying "nope, not worth the effort."


It's incredibly sad to me that the majority of those saying "not worth the effort" are saying so because of the guy sitting in that round-shaped room in DC. That works both ways, BTW, not just in this instance. The people who said we shouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan were also wrong (I still believe Iraq was a mistake, in timing at least, if not in scope).

eyelikeglasses
08-24-2013, 16:10
Actually, I'm not wrong. That might not have been the primary reason, but it was A reason. Anyone who actually argues that "We didn't find them, they obviously didn't have them" is just stupid. We KNOW they had them - we know they USED them. We might not have found as much as we expected, but that's not to say they weren't there or weren't EVER there.

My point is that, publicly, at least, it was uses as a valid reason to go to war in Iraq. Now they're being used in Syria, and people are saying "nope, not worth the effort."


It's incredibly sad to me that the majority of those saying "not worth the effort" are saying so because of the guy sitting in that round-shaped room in DC. That works both ways, BTW, not just in this instance. The people who said we shouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan were also wrong (I still believe Iraq was a mistake, in timing at least, if not in scope).

The reason people are saying "nope", isn't because it's "not worth the effort". It's because we've heard this story before, and it wasn't true the first couple times around.:shocked:

HalfHazzard
08-24-2013, 16:28
The reason people are saying "nope", isn't because it's "not worth the effort". It's because we've heard this story before, and it wasn't true the first couple times around.:shocked:

It's his guy this time, so he supports it.

It's still a bad idea to get into Syria right now, regardless of the guy in the office.

And I agree, NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.

WarCry
08-24-2013, 16:32
It's his guy this time, so he supports it.

It's still a bad idea to get into Syria right now, regardless of the guy in the office.

And I agree, NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.

I actually would have supported the move on Iraq if we hadn't already been engaged in Afghanistan. That was my only real beef. It's no longer a world where we can engage in two long-term, full-scale deployments without straining personnel and equipment.

If anything, we should have moved on Iraq sooner, but once we engaged in Afghanistan, it wasn't a good idea to jump in elsewhere.

Right now, we're working on the exit from Afghanistan, so it's not the same as it was in 2003.

Glock30Eric
08-24-2013, 16:37
It's Rebels that used chemical. If you didn't know that we are supplying all weapons to the same rebel that used the chemical. It's a failed attempt to false flag the attack.

F350
08-24-2013, 17:38
As long as it stays within the Syrian borders and it is Muslim killing Muslim, I say "Sit back, enjoy the show and pass the popcorn".

bill123
08-24-2013, 17:48
Assad is Russia's boy. Do we think they will do nothing ? I think the rebels probably used the gas. They get the most benefit from it. As for Egypt, wouldn't we like our military to do the same when things are out of hand (like now)

KalashniKEV
08-24-2013, 18:06
So, ummmm... hey Syrian Rebels... how's that plan to die-in-large-numbers in front of TV cameras until some Western country gets rid of your President working out?

Are they there yet?

czsmithGT
08-24-2013, 18:18
I would say we are damned sure aware of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23822440

We are moving military assets in that direction.

We moved a heap of military assets OUT of that direction just 5 days ago to take up station in the Arabian Sea. The Truman carrier battle group just exited the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal along with two cruisers and two guided missile destroyers.

As far as I know we do not currently have a Carrier group in the Med sea. That would make it kind of tough to enforce a no-fly zone or effectively take out Syria's 3 chemical weapons depots.

Ragnar
08-24-2013, 19:50
Assad is Russia's boy. Do we think they will do nothing ? I think the rebels probably used the gas. They get the most benefit from it. As for Egypt, wouldn't we like our military to do the same when things are out of hand (like now)

No, you don't want that. The Egyptian military was self-defined as the guardian of democracy. Then they started shooting people in the streets. The people who support that haven't figured it out yet, but any military that will shoot the "bad" guys will also shoot you if you get uppity.

The Egyptian military has done the deed and now they have to own it. Its not going to get better.

You do not want the US military to be put in that position.

Rabbi
08-24-2013, 20:16
We moved a heap of military assets OUT of that direction just 5 days ago to take up station in the Arabian Sea. The Truman carrier battle group just exited the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal along with two cruisers and two guided missile destroyers.

As far as I know we do not currently have a Carrier group in the Med sea. That would make it kind of tough to enforce a no-fly zone or effectively take out Syria's 3 chemical weapons depots.

Regardless of what we did 5 days ago, we are doing things now in response. My statements stands.

As for a no fly zone, We have enough land assets in the region to deal with that.

czsmithGT
08-24-2013, 20:59
Regardless of what we did 5 days ago, we are doing things now in response. My statements stands..

Weak things. But whatever- I don't want to see us involved in this mess any more than Obama and Putin do. Let the French take care of it along with the mighty UN- assuming our UN Ambassador is done with her vacation which she needed after 16 days on the job.

DanaT
08-25-2013, 02:22
As long as it stays within the Syrian borders and it is Muslim killing Muslim, I say "Sit back, enjoy the show and pass the popcorn".

But they arent. They are gassing children. Children, until they can freely chose their religion are not muslim.

Tiro Fijo
08-25-2013, 02:30
But they arent. They are gassing children. Children, until they can freely chose their religion are not muslim.


http://www.peacecorps.gov/learn/howvol/


http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/


Step up to the plate, Big Boy. :wavey:

Fred Hansen
08-25-2013, 03:14
Comrade Zero will fix it. He has a No-Bell Peace Pryze!

DanaT
08-25-2013, 03:22
http://www.peacecorps.gov/learn/howvol/


http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/


Step up to the plate, Big Boy. :wavey:

Are you trying to imply that children of muslims deserve death by gassing because they are children of muslims?

My statement was a stand alone statement that said that muslim on muslim killing was not OK when it involves children.

Next up. The peace corps do nothing to stop the gassing of children.

The French foreign legion is likewise doing nothing and wont. The only time the French have intervened lately has been Mali. Would you like to wager a guess what national interest France had in ensuring Al Queda did not take control of Mali?

So what is your point?

Rabbi
08-25-2013, 03:30
Are you trying to imply that children of muslims deserve death by gassing because they are children of muslims?

My statement was a stand alone statement that said that muslim on muslim killing was not OK when it involves children.

Next up. The peace corps do nothing to stop the gassing of children.

The French foreign legion is likewise doing nothing and wont. The only time the French have intervened lately has been Mali. Would you like to wager a guess what national interest France had in ensuring Al Queda did not take control of Mali?

So what is your point?

Just to put some facts on the table, the French led the charge and made the first military move on the Libyan revolution just 2 years ago.

DanaT
08-25-2013, 03:57
Just to put some facts on the table, the French led the charge and made the first military move on the Libyan revolution just 2 years ago.

And why would the French have an interest in Libya? (Hint, same reason as Mali and nothing to do with Syria).

Rabbi
08-25-2013, 04:00
And why would the French have an interest in Libya? (Hint, same reason as Mali and nothing to do with Syria).

That has nothing to do with this exact statement you made.

The only time the French have intervened lately has been Mali.


Your were incorrect and that was the scope of my statement.

DanaT
08-25-2013, 04:11
Just to put some facts on the table, the French led the charge and made the first military move on the Libyan revolution just 2 years ago.

You must have different info than I do.

Americans and British first launched attacks on March 2, 2011 with cruise missiles from subs. There were initially a coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and USA that enforced a no fly zone. NATO took over on 24 march.

The Charles de Gaulle was not deployed until the 20th of March to Libya.

I am not sure what you mean by "led the charge" but if you consider coming 18 days after the USA "leading the charge", OK, so be it.

DanaT
08-25-2013, 04:13
That has nothing to do with this exact statement you made.




Your were incorrect and that was the scope of my statement.

No. France didnt intervene or lead the charge. They were part of coalition and came 18 days after the USA started and were part of NATO operations.

The French intervened in Mali. No-one else.

But there is a reason why the French were willing to participate in both.

Rabbi
08-25-2013, 04:39
No. France didnt intervene or lead the charge. They were part of coalition and came 18 days after the USA started and were part of NATO operations.

The French intervened in Mali. No-one else.

But there is a reason why the French were willing to participate in both.

Your exact words.

The only time the French have intervened lately has been Mali.

You were wrong. Everything else is a detail, (which you are also wrong about but I will post that in another post so you cant keep confusing issues)

Tiro Fijo
08-25-2013, 04:41
My point is that you have shown a propensity to gnash your teeth as well as wring your hands over this subject. I gave you two options since you want to help Muslims so badly. I know that once they are in the majority Sharia Law will be the name of the game and for that it is better that they kill their own than us having to do it.

Rabbi
08-25-2013, 04:42
Timeline to military action in Libya.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

19 March 2011: French[69] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces with strikes against armoured units south of Benghazi and attacks on Libyan air-defence systems, as UN Security Council Resolution 1973 called for using "all necessary means" to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack, imposed a no-fly zone, and called for an immediate and with-standing cease-fire, while also strengthening travel bans on members of the regime, arms embargoes, and asset freeze

Ragnar
08-25-2013, 07:06
But they arent. They are gassing children. Children, until they can freely chose their religion are not muslim.

Muslim religious tradition, and the writings of Muhammad, say that a child born to a muslim father is also muslim.

You might wanna do some research. :supergrin:

JMS
08-25-2013, 08:03
I dont know which side is doing it. But gassing kids is beyond reprehensible.

The issue is I cannot say that the rebels wouldnt gas children to further their agenda. I cannot say Assad wouldnt do it.

The problem is I believe both side would so neither hold the moral high ground.

I'm torn about Syria as well. Part of me knows that if Israel was attacked and the images we saw were of dead Israeli children, they would be dancing in the streets all over the Middle East. On the other hand sitting back and doing nothing puts us on the same level as them, i.e., they would never step in and do anything, but does that make non intervention right?

Seeing what Assad has already done, including his family history of slaughtering their people, I'm pretty confident that he was behind the chemical attack vs. the rebels. Listening to Syrian state television for true facts, would be no different than listening to North Korean run media and assuming they were being 100% truthful or even 1%.

HalfHazzard
08-25-2013, 08:12
I'm torn about Syria as well. Part of me knows that if Israel was attacked and the images we saw were of dead Israeli children, they would be dancing in the streets all over the Middle East. On the other hand sitting back and doing nothing puts us on the same level as them, i.e., they would never step in and do anything, but does that make non intervention right?

Seeing what Assad has already done, including his family history of slaughtering their people, I'm pretty confident that he was behind the chemical attack vs. the rebels. Listening to Syrian state television for true facts, would be no different than listening to North Korean run media and assuming they were being 100% truthful or even 1%.

If you think all of the people fighting Assad are a better alternative to Assad, you're mistaken. Every conflict in that part of the world draws the traveling islamo-facists hell bent on making a government that greatly restricts basic human rights under the guise of "we're following Islam."

Whatever action we take (short of a all out declaration of war) will not prevent new struggles between islamo-facists and more moderate muslims, there is no point in getting involved. The involvement necessary to obtain an outcome favorable to the US take too much political courage for politicians that possess anything but courage.

Our political leaders have already publicly stated that a "permanent wartime footing" is untenable and we have to move "forward." That should be indication enough of our current commitment against the islamo-fascist crowd that would gladly kill us if they could.

sourdough44
08-25-2013, 08:14
Bad as it may be, is it worth young Americans dying for? My answer is no.

JMS
08-25-2013, 08:28
If you think all of the people fighting Assad are a better alternative to Assad, you're mistaken. Every conflict in that part of the world draws the traveling islamo-facists hell bent on making a government that greatly restricts basic human rights under the guise of "we're following Islam."

Whatever action we take (short of a all out declaration of war) will not prevent new struggles between islamo-facists and more moderate muslims, there is no point in getting involved. The involvement necessary to obtain an outcome favorable to the US take too much political courage for politicians that possess anything but courage.

Our political leaders have already publicly stated that a "permanent wartime footing" is untenable and we have to move "forward." That should be indication enough of our current commitment against the islamo-fascist crowd that would gladly kill us if they could.

I'm not a fan of Islam (at all). Half of my family is in Israel, where I happened to be born as well. However attacking your own citizens, including young children who have done nothing wrong except being born in the wrong place is unacceptable. The world stood by during the Holocaust as well, if we are to sit back and shrug our shoulders, it makes us just as complicit.

I don't care who is left in charge over there at the end of the day, I do know that Assad, his family and his leadership need to be taken out via drones and planes, no reason to set foot on their soil.

KommieforniaGlocker
08-25-2013, 09:09
But the rebels are being backed by Alqaeda and Assad is being backed by Hezbollah. So you have terrorists inflicting terror. I think we should stay the hell out of it, we helped out the Taliban in the 80's when they were fighting the Soviets and look how they repayed the favor.

WarCry
08-25-2013, 09:17
But the rebels are being backed by Alqaeda and Assad is being backed by Hezbollah. So you have terrorists inflicting terror. I think we should stay the hell out of it, we helped out the Taliban in the 80's when they were fighting the Soviets and look how they repayed the favor.

And we have stayed out of it. But when WMDs start flying, something needs to be done. If they were chucking nukes back and forth, don't you think we'd wanna step up and stop that?

DanaT
08-25-2013, 09:18
I'm not a fan of Islam (at all). Half of my family is in Israel, where I happened to be born as well. However attacking your own citizens, including young children who have done nothing wrong except being born in the wrong place is unacceptable. The world stood by during the Holocaust as well, if we are to sit back and shrug our shoulders, it makes us just as complicit.

I don't care who is left in charge over there at the end of the day, I do know that Assad, his family and his leadership need to be taken out via drones and planes, no reason to set foot on their soil.

Agreed.

A drone a missile strike tells others if you cross a line and do this, we will take YOU out. The one thing all this dictators are afraid of, is they personally will be taken out.

We have the ability to take out Assad.

KommieforniaGlocker
08-25-2013, 09:29
And we have stayed out of it. But when WMDs start flying, something needs to be done. If they were chucking nukes back and forth, don't you think we'd wanna step up and stop that?

Okay lets go in there and "liberate" them, this is a war between Shia and Sunni Muslims, this is nothing new. When Muslims not are it trying to kill infidels, and any one they deem killable they kill each other. This is the way it has been since the times of Jesus. When the slaughter is over in Syria there will be another war somewhere else where kids will be killed. I guarantee it, my fellow Americans need not die for them, our men and women in service are too valuable to be sent in to some "Muslim bloodbath of the week."

happyguy
08-25-2013, 10:46
Currently the only state in the ME that is a potential threat to us is Iran. Everything else is just a distraction, in my opinion.

We should keep our powder dry.

One day soon we are going to need it.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

happyguy
08-25-2013, 10:51
Arabs, Islamists, and Persians...they don't fight by the same rules we do. They are fighting by the same rules they have for the past 1500 years.

Not sure why people are shocked and incensed. It's just how it is in that part of the world.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

eyelikeglasses
08-25-2013, 11:01
Arabs, Islamists, and Persians...they don't fight by the same rules we do. They are fighting by the same rules they have for the past 1500 years.

Not sure why people are shocked and incensed. It's just how it is in that part of the world.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

But... but... we're Team America: World Police!

Ragnar
08-25-2013, 11:27
Agreed.

A drone a missile strike tells others if you cross a line and do this, we will take YOU out. The one thing all this dictators are afraid of, is they personally will be taken out.

We have the ability to take out Assad.

You make it sound so easy. Yet it took months to find Saddam, years to find Bin Laden, and we still haven't found Mullah Omar (the Taliban leader).

Assad isn't gonna stand in an open field and let our intel guys and drones find him in an afternoon.

eyelikeglasses
08-25-2013, 13:48
http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html

Quote:

"London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.'

eyelikeglasses
08-25-2013, 13:50
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130825

Quote:
"(Reuters) - A U.S. military response to alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria appeared more likely on Sunday after Washington dismissed the Syrian government's offer to allow U.N. inspection of the sites as "too late to be credible."

What the...

Glock30Eric
08-25-2013, 14:30
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130825

Quote:
"(Reuters) - A U.S. military response to alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria appeared more likely on Sunday after Washington dismissed the Syrian government's offer to allow U.N. inspection of the sites as "too late to be credible."

What the...

Clearly a false flag by USA to convince Americans to support USA invade Syria. It won't end pretty. More terrorist and likely a WW3, very likely more crap laws in USA for security measure, maybe a reason why Snoweden decided to reveal the secrets with an attempt to save USA from this foreseen crisis.

bill123
08-25-2013, 15:15
[QUOTE=Ragnar;20567964]No, you don't want that. The Egyptian military was self-defined as the guardian of democracy. Then they started shooting people in the streets. The people who support that haven't figured it out yet, but any military that will shoot the "bad" guys will also shoot you if you get uppity.

We are all bad guys to the government

wjv
08-25-2013, 19:19
And if Obama orders an attack, will we see all the "anti-war" protests like we saw during the Bush administration?

happyguy
08-25-2013, 19:26
And if Obama orders an attack, will we see all the "anti-war" protests like we saw during the Bush administration?

Only if they are allowed to take leave from their new government jobs.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Glock30Eric
08-25-2013, 19:59
President Lincoln committed a "genocide" on the Southern states. None of countries came in to stop the war between the states.

Americans bombed Vietnams with orange agents and no countries came to stop horrible bombings by USA.

I think we should leave the Syria war alone and let them figure themselves out. It doesn't matter if the nuclear weapons were used by them.

We had enough of being a police of Earth. We cannot afford that. Some other countries has to take that position from now on.

happyguy
08-25-2013, 20:05
President Lincoln committed a "genocide" on the Southern states. None of countries came in to stop the war between the states.

Americans bombed Vietnams with orange agents and no countries came to stop horrible bombings by USA.

I think we should leave the Syria war alone and let them figure themselves out. It doesn't matter if the nuclear weapons were used by them.

We had enough of being a police of Earth. We cannot afford that. Some other countries has to take that position from now on.

Maybe we could bring back plundering.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

JBJ16
08-27-2013, 06:03
President Lincoln committed a "genocide" on the Southern states. None of countries came in to stop the war between the states.

Americans bombed Vietnams with orange agents and no countries came to stop horrible bombings by USA.

I think we should leave the Syria war alone and let them figure themselves out. It doesn't matter if the nuclear weapons were used by them.

We had enough of being a police of Earth. We cannot afford that. Some other countries has to take that position from now on.


Who benefits from this chem attack? Definitely not the Assad govt. since it will be the pretext for a military intervention by US and NATO.

Wasn't the Syrian govt. set up for a false flag by other interested parties?

Glock30Eric
08-27-2013, 06:30
Who benefits from this chem attack? Definitely not the Assad govt. since it will be the pretext for a military intervention by US and NATO.

Wasn't the Syrian govt. set up for a false flag by other interested parties?


I have been saying this on GT and it seems GT doesn't care, or they ignored me.

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 12:23
And I quote:

“The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to [war] without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment....The Constitution is clear. And so am I.” — Joe Biden, in 2007.

What has changed now Joe?

WarCry
08-27-2013, 12:29
And I quote:

“The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to [war] without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment....The Constitution is clear. And so am I.” — Joe Biden, in 2007.

What has changed now Joe?

Define war.

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 12:36
Define war.

war1 [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
5.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 12:37
Define war.

Define lies.

WarCry
08-27-2013, 14:06
war1 [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
5.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

Now explain Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkan states, Gulf I, Gulf II, Afghanistan. Because all of those fit your definition posted, but none of them were wars declared by Congress. They were all military engagements, but not a single one of them is a war.


So you either have a problem with the definition of war, or you simply have a problem because of the guy sitting in the big chair. Which is it?

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 14:21
So you either have a problem with the definition of war, or you simply have a problem because of the guy sitting in the big chair. Which is it?

How about a "Police Action"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/police+action?s=t

WarCry
08-27-2013, 15:01
How about a "Police Action"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/police+action?s=t

Which is a fitting definition of what any conflict in Syria might be.

But your quote from Joe Biden said war, not military engagement of any kind.

So what's the story? Are you expecting something from the VP based on the quote you posted? Moving the goalpost to include "police action" in his quote, even though he didn't say that, just so you can feel righteously indignant?

Or are you ready to simply say that your posted quote from Biden really has nothing at all to do with actions that may come in Syria?

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 15:08
But your quote from Joe Biden said war, not military engagement of any kind.


Which war was Joe talking about?

And any luck with the definition of "lies"?

happyguy
08-27-2013, 15:09
It's already been established that you can prosecute a war as long as you call it something else like a police action, kinetic military action, or peacekeeping mission.

Same as you can continue to fund a government that is the result of a coup de tat as long as you don't call it that.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 15:14
It's already been established that you can prosecute a war as long as you call it something else like a police action, kinetic military action, or peacekeeping mission.

Same as you can continue to fund a government that is the result of a coup de tat as long as you don't call it that.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Bazinga!:cool:

WarCry
08-27-2013, 15:37
Which war was Joe talking about?

And any luck with the definition of "lies"?

You posted the quote in a thread about Syria. You posted it as if you were expecting Biden to lead an impeachment if we deployed into Syria. Then you change the game when I post that you're wrong because his quote is about congress declaring war, and that hasn't happened is well over half a century, so the quote you posted in the thread about Syria, dealing with impeachment over non-declared wars, is completely irrelevant, because the US military has been deployed countless times in the exact same situations over the past 6+ decades.

So, would you care to explain why you bothered posting an irrelevant quote?

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 15:44
You posted the quote in a thread about Syria. You posted it as if you were expecting Biden to lead an impeachment if we deployed into Syria. Then you change the game when I post that you're wrong because his quote is about congress declaring war, and that hasn't happened is well over half a century, so the quote you posted in the thread about Syria, dealing with impeachment over non-declared wars, is completely irrelevant, because the US military has been deployed countless times in the exact same situations over the past 6+ decades.

So, would you care to explain why you bothered posting an irrelevant quote?

Because there is a direct correlation between that statement (made by our Vice President) and our administrations proposed actions in Syria.:wavey:

WarCry
08-27-2013, 16:07
Because there is a direct correlation between that statement (made by our Vice President) and our administrations proposed actions in Syria.:wavey:

Except that there's not. You yourself posted a separate definition of a police action that better fits the actions proposed for Syria.

You also still haven't explained why Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War 1, Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq should all be ignored, even though they are the same as action being proposed in Syria, and none of them were wars.

So, what correlation do you see in that quote that WOULD apply to Syria but that you don't think applies to the others?

I'm not saying their isn't one, I'm saying I think you're trying to project something based on your own political beliefs rather than the facts at hand.

You're the one who posted the quote, I'm just waiting to see if you can show (rather than simply "declare") relevance to the Syrian situation, and I wan to see how you justify every other military action that's LIKE Syria, but you don't support action IN Syria.

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 16:37
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-under-constitution-unilaterally-authorize-military

Quote:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 16:39
You also still haven't explained why Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War 1, Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq should all be ignored, even though they are the same as action being proposed in Syria, and none of them were wars.

So, what correlation do you see in that quote that WOULD apply to Syria but that you don't think applies to the others?



No one said those should be ignored.

WarCry
08-27-2013, 16:53
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-under-constitution-unilaterally-authorize-military

Quote:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

So, now you're changing the quote from what you originally posted to try and justify what you posted before.

Also, this one doesn't say anything about impeachment, which seemed to be what you were implying earlier, that you were waiting for Biden to lead the charge on impeachment for any action in Syria.

But when you can't support the case you tried to make in the first place, you resort to obfuscation, redirection, and avoidance. You are an expert an internet debate.

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 17:02
So, now you're changing the quote from what you originally posted to try and justify what you posted before.

Also, this one doesn't say anything about impeachment, which seemed to be what you were implying earlier, that you were waiting for Biden to lead the charge on impeachment for any action in Syria.

But when you can't support the case you tried to make in the first place, you resort to obfuscation, redirection, and avoidance. You are an expert an internet debate.

Nope, sorry buddy. The first quote stands. I'm just showing the double standard our administrators are trying to operate under.

WarCry
08-27-2013, 17:46
Nope, sorry buddy. The first quote stands. I'm just showing the double standard our administrators are trying to operate under.

But only because you say so, because I STILL haven't seen you put up any sort of proof that supports that being an applicable quote, and MUCH contradictory evidence, some of which you provided yourself.

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 17:55
But only because you say so, because I STILL haven't seen you put up any sort of proof that supports that being an applicable quote, and MUCH contradictory evidence, some of which you provided yourself.

I... will... type... slow...ly. Those quotes, show the duplicity of our administration. Do you see how the statements I quoted from them, show that they don't feel like they have to operate like other administrations. See, they made those statements to condemn the previous administration, before they were elected. Now, that they are in power, they are being hypocritical by doing the actions they previously spoke against.

WarCry
08-27-2013, 18:18
I... will... type... slow...ly. Those quotes, show the duplicity of our administration. Do you see how the statements I quoted from them, show that they don't feel like they have to operate like other administrations. See, they made those statements to condemn the previous administration, before they were elected. Now, that they are in power, they are being hypocritical by doing the actions they previously spoke against.

So you're saying they shouldn't act like Reagan did in Grenada? Bush in Panama? Bush in Kuwait? Clinton in Somalia? Clinton in the Balkans? Bush II in Afghanistan? Bush II in Iraq?

Because every. Single. One. of those Presidents has done exactly what you're complaining about the current administration planning to do in Syria.

And you still haven't explained why you posted the Biden quote. Are you expecting Biden to lead an impeachment proceeding based on the quote you shared? What is YOUR intention in posting that quote? Making a point? You've not made it yet. That's what I was waiting for.

Obviously, you're going to continue to dodge and ignore that question. Because of that, I'll not come back into this thread. You can say you "won" the argument. I'd rather deal with people who converse honestly, and you've proven that's not you.

Carry on.

eyelikeglasses
08-27-2013, 18:23
So you're saying they shouldn't act like Reagan did in Grenada? Bush in Panama? Bush in Kuwait? Clinton in Somalia? Clinton in the Balkans? Bush II in Afghanistan? Bush II in Iraq?

Because every. Single. One. of those Presidents has done exactly what you're complaining about the current administration planning to do in Syria.

And you still haven't explained why you posted the Biden quote. Are you expecting Biden to lead an impeachment proceeding based on the quote you shared? What is YOUR intention in posting that quote? Making a point? You've not made it yet. That's what I was waiting for.

Obviously, you're going to continue to dodge and ignore that question. Because of that, I'll not come back into this thread. You can say you "won" the argument. I'd rather deal with people who converse honestly, and you've proven that's not you.

Carry on.

The other Presidents got approval from Congress.

I posted the Biden quote because I think it is a pretty ironic statement in today's world. I don't expect Biden to do anything, that's kind of his M.O.

Any other questions?

G-Lock808
08-28-2013, 00:11
Why is a large amount of people dying from chemical weapons any different than a large amount being blown the hell up by conventional bombs/shells or gunfire?

I think it's a horrible thing that happened but I don't see the difference between the two and don't think this is some tipping point in terms of th US getting involved.

Vincent Black
08-29-2013, 08:47
Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean: report
AFPAFP – 5 hrs ago
Related Content

The "Moskva", a Russian rocket cruiser, moors at Havana's harbour, on August 3, 2013. Russia will "over the next few days" be sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean as the West prepares for possible strikes against Syria, the Interfax news agency said on Thursday. (AFP Photo/Adalberto Roque)View Photo

The "Moskva", a Russian rocket …

Russia will "over the next few days" be sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean as the West prepares for possible strikes against Syria, the Interfax news agency said on Thursday.

"The well-known situation shaping up in the eastern Mediterranean called for certain corrections to the make-up of the naval forces," a source in the Russian General Staff told Interfax.

"A large anti-submarine ship of the Northern Fleet will join them (the existing naval forces) over the next few days.

"Later it will be joined by the Moskva, a rocket cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet which is now wrapping up its tasks in the northern Atlantic and will soon begin a Transatlantic voyage towards the Strait of Gibraltar."

In addition, a rocket cruiser of the Pacific Fleet, the Varyag, will join the Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean this autumn by replacing a large anti-submarine ship.

However, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency cited a high-ranking representative of the naval command who said the changes to the country's forces in the region were not linked to the current tensions over Syria and called them "a planned rotation."

Camdenbullit52
10-30-2013, 21:52
No oil in Syria.....piss on em!