Daghouse.com

I say nay.

Enough with being the world police.

i guess it depends. if they just bomb them and don't send in ground troops, that is not really something that would matter too much, unless iran retaliated. syria exports oil, but they are not a heavy hitter like the middle east is. i don't think we should be sending the rebels any aid though(if you google and find one of the rebels cutting the heart out of his enemy and eating it whole, that kind of sums them up), plus they are al qaeda affiliated in some respects. i think most of this comes down to obama looking like a bitch after he "drew a line in the sand" with his no chemical weapons talk and has yet to follow up on it, plus he has been made a fool of in his foreign policy since he got into office. i guess bush I used that as part of the reason for desert storm, so i see this playing out the same way. it just gets complicated with iran and israel.

xxxMidgexxx wrote:I say nay.

Enough with being the world police.

This (and for other reasons, too).

Nuke 'em.

i say, let congress decide. they can't agree that grass is green or that the sun rises in the east...so put the onus on them...and it will never get done. (especially as long as the pig-ignorant republicans are holding serve.)

Who would ever vote yay?

It will mean 200,000 or more civilian dead...1000 to 10000 maimed or killed
on our end and massive profits for all our weapons manufacturing and yet more map reconfiguring.

Our permanent war economy (since 1941...or ever 1897) has won us nothing but hatred and contempt. Once we trash Syria and put our puppet in...who will be next?

Theres always a "next" war...why is this ok?

GAHHHH the human species is a total parasite and will never actually evolve.

tango fistula wrote:Who would ever vote yay?

It will mean 200,000 or more civilian dead...1000 to 10000 maimed or killed
on our end and massive profits for all our weapons manufacturing and yet more map reconfiguring.

Our permanent war economy (since 1941...or ever 1897) has won us nothing but hatred and contempt. Once we trash Syria and put our puppet in...who will be next?

Theres always a "next" war...why is this ok?

GAHHHH the human species is a total parasite and will never actually evolve.

My thoughts exactly (great post), but the above assumes a ground invasion, which thankfully isn't being considered at the time. I'm completely opposed to any military action and agree that they would win us nothing but more hatred and contempt, but an air strike like what's being discussed just isn't of that magnitude.

Interestingly, the best thing I've seen about this has been from the Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-wha ... -be,33662/

JGJR wrote:

tango fistula wrote:Who would ever vote yay?

It will mean 200,000 or more civilian dead...1000 to 10000 maimed or killed
on our end and massive profits for all our weapons manufacturing and yet more map reconfiguring.

Our permanent war economy (since 1941...or ever 1897) has won us nothing but hatred and contempt. Once we trash Syria and put our puppet in...who will be next?

Theres always a "next" war...why is this ok?

GAHHHH the human species is a total parasite and will never actually evolve.

My thoughts exactly (great post), but the above assumes a ground invasion, which thankfully isn't being considered at the time. I'm completely opposed to any military action and agree that they would win us nothing but more hatred and contempt, but an air strike like what's being discussed just isn't of that magnitude.

i think half of the reason why obama is considering this is that it would win america back some "brownie points" with the international community if we bombed someone over the use of chemical weapons instead of the last two wars where we had other things to gain besides "instituting democracy across the globe." like i said, i think he kind of put his foot in his mouth with the whole syria cannot cross this red line thing. if he takes no action, he looks weak and will be called a hypocrite. if he bombs the country, people will call him a war monger and the second coming of Bush II. we have dropped bombs on afghanistan before in 98(i believe it was the year) in retaliation for embassy bombings without committing to ground troops, but the whole iran thing makes this a lot more precarious.

It's Always hard to post something on this matter for me, cause I know my opinions are quite radical on such matters, btw, let's say that I completely disagree with international police operations, as to me they're just a polite way to call a war on another country...
just to say, two wrongs don't make a right.

There are no good guys in this conflict.

yourenotevil wrote:"brownie points"

^Racist.

yourenotevil wrote:

JGJR wrote:

tango fistula wrote:Who would ever vote yay?

It will mean 200,000 or more civilian dead...1000 to 10000 maimed or killed
on our end and massive profits for all our weapons manufacturing and yet more map reconfiguring.

Our permanent war economy (since 1941...or ever 1897) has won us nothing but hatred and contempt. Once we trash Syria and put our puppet in...who will be next?

Theres always a "next" war...why is this ok?

GAHHHH the human species is a total parasite and will never actually evolve.

My thoughts exactly (great post), but the above assumes a ground invasion, which thankfully isn't being considered at the time. I'm completely opposed to any military action and agree that they would win us nothing but more hatred and contempt, but an air strike like what's being discussed just isn't of that magnitude.

i think half of the reason why obama is considering this is that it would win america back some "brownie points" with the international community if we bombed someone over the use of chemical weapons instead of the last two wars where we had other things to gain besides "instituting democracy across the globe." like i said, i think he kind of put his foot in his mouth with the whole syria cannot cross this red line thing. if he takes no action, he looks weak and will be called a hypocrite. if he bombs the country, people will call him a war monger and the second coming of Bush II. we have dropped bombs on afghanistan before in 98(i believe it was the year) in retaliation for embassy bombings without committing to ground troops, but the whole iran thing makes this a lot more precarious.

If this is true, then the Obama administration is miscalculating in a big way. All it would do is increase hatred of the U.S. in the Middle East and furthermore, if the UK with a Tory prime minister is against this, then no way re: standing in the international community.

And BTW, the U.S. bombed no-fly zones constantly in Iraq between the first and second wars there (in the '90s).

This is a good read, too.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ia/279086/

so basically Obama said "I have a drone" (like an Italian newspaper posted today playing on M.L.K. I have a dream)... this made me laugh loud thinking of Southern Lord ofefring him a deal for a new record
beside jokes, I don't think that Killing people is the answer to people killings

[quote="Michele] I don't think that Killing people is the answer to people killings [/quote]

If you were Obama, how would you handle the situation in Syria? (This question is open to everyone. It seems like an exceedingly difficult situation so I'm curious as to how people would handle it if they were the president).

Honestly, I don't think Obama got a specific role in this, I mean, ONU could have a role maybe, but why the USA should have a decisional role coming to another state outside a war involving them?
This is somethign hard to understand for me. I mean, the self-imposed role of World judge assumed by USA since the last century.
Please, feel free to explain this to me without getting mad for my honest speech

btw, right by now Obama is talking on the news and looks like he decided for Yay... as usual...

Michele wrote:Honestly, I don't think Obama got a specific role in this, I mean, ONU could have a role maybe, but why the USA should have a decisional role coming to another state outside a war involving them?
This is somethign hard to understand for me. I mean, the self-imposed role of World judge assumed by USA since the last century.
Please, feel free to explain this to me without getting mad for my honest speech

I'm not mad at you. I don't know how I'd handle it. If the U.S. doesn't intervene, it's almost certain that nobody will, so Assad will continue to use chemical weapons on the opposition and a lot of innocent people will die. If the U.S. does intervene, a lot of innocent people will die as well, and whoever ends up in power may be worse than Assad.

xxxHunterxxx wrote:whoever ends up in power may be worse than Assad.

that's exactly my point, looks at Egypt, there was a revolution everybody was welcoming calling it a freedom spring, than the situation got worse and the Occidental world started to fear for an Islamic extremists turn in the so called free Egypt, so right by now we have a new revolution going on and the world is encouraging a new change... so who can decide what's better for a nation? and moreover, can we assume the right to decide from the outside on another Coutnry?
That's so hard to understand as it looks like a no-solution in between interfere on a sovran country and defend freedom inside it.

I wonder what Ian would do?

Killing people is wrong. And here comes the argument.

Michele wrote:

xxxHunterxxx wrote:whoever ends up in power may be worse than Assad.

that's exactly my point, looks at Egypt, there was a revolution everybody was welcoming calling it a freedom spring, than the situation got worse and the Occidental world started to fear for an Islamic extremists turn in the so called free Egypt, so right by now we have a new revolution going on and the world is encouraging a new change... so who can decide what's better for a nation? and moreover, can we assume the right to decide from the outside on another Coutnry?
That's so hard to understand as it looks like a no-solution in between interfere on a sovran country and defend freedom inside it.

Yep. Egypt might well be better off if we had intervened on behalf of the original regime. Or it could be worse. We'll never know.

JGJR wrote:

yourenotevil wrote:

JGJR wrote:

tango fistula wrote:Who would ever vote yay?

It will mean 200,000 or more civilian dead...1000 to 10000 maimed or killed
on our end and massive profits for all our weapons manufacturing and yet more map reconfiguring.

Our permanent war economy (since 1941...or ever 1897) has won us nothing but hatred and contempt. Once we trash Syria and put our puppet in...who will be next?

Theres always a "next" war...why is this ok?

GAHHHH the human species is a total parasite and will never actually evolve.

My thoughts exactly (great post), but the above assumes a ground invasion, which thankfully isn't being considered at the time. I'm completely opposed to any military action and agree that they would win us nothing but more hatred and contempt, but an air strike like what's being discussed just isn't of that magnitude.

i think half of the reason why obama is considering this is that it would win america back some "brownie points" with the international community if we bombed someone over the use of chemical weapons instead of the last two wars where we had other things to gain besides "instituting democracy across the globe." like i said, i think he kind of put his foot in his mouth with the whole syria cannot cross this red line thing. if he takes no action, he looks weak and will be called a hypocrite. if he bombs the country, people will call him a war monger and the second coming of Bush II. we have dropped bombs on afghanistan before in 98(i believe it was the year) in retaliation for embassy bombings without committing to ground troops, but the whole iran thing makes this a lot more precarious.

If this is true, then the Obama administration is miscalculating in a big way. All it would do is increase hatred of the U.S. in the Middle East and furthermore, if the UK with a Tory prime minister is against this, then no way re: standing in the international community.

And BTW, the U.S. bombed no-fly zones constantly in Iraq between the first and second wars there (in the '90s).

the prime minister was def for it, he even tweeted about it, i guess parliament didn't feel the same way(and the public poll was 74 percent against any type of involvement in military action). i also have a feeling it is more to do with UK having plans to shrink its active army roster from 100k to 84,000 soldiers by 2020, as they have cut way back on the defense budget. they also currently have 8000 troops in afghanistan and supply the largest number of troops to the Coalition forces after the U.S. i think they just don't want to get deeply involved in something that could escalate to ground troops being involved.

Michele wrote:Honestly, I don't think Obama got a specific role in this, I mean, ONU could have a role maybe, but why the USA should have a decisional role coming to another state outside a war involving them?
This is somethign hard to understand for me. I mean, the self-imposed role of World judge assumed by USA since the last century.
Please, feel free to explain this to me without getting mad for my honest speech

We've taken on the role as defacto military for a good portion of the world. We spend more on our military than every country combined by far. I think that causes us to think we are somehow obligated to weigh in on shit like this (but don't be poor and lacking in resources because we won't give two shits if you commit atrocities).

Eisenhower was right.

" In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. "

and yeah, there are really no good guys in this... But there are innocents and as usual they are bearing the brunt of it all.