"I have not made a decision"

this is what happens when you play world cop. you have to either help everyone all of the time, or help nobody.

what message is it sending to places like egypt and the occupied territories when we say war is an option in syria but nowhere else??

you can not interfere in a civil war without helping the rebels and harming the syrian regime. if we strike we are taking sides with the rebels.

seems that nobody has learned this lesson...only overthrow your government when you know you can. the rebels can't finish the job without help from other countries.

it sounds cold, and i guess it is. but if you start a civil war that you can't finish, that is on you and your side. not ours. it is nobody else's fault but your own.

unsung wrote:

I agree with that. It should also be said that arming the rebels is arming al-Qaeda. I thought they were our enemy.

i thought that too.

i don't know who to believe anymore.

and that to me is the most distressing part of all of this.

we are about to blow up a country and interfere in their internal fight, and all the media wants to talk about is miley cyrus rubbing her ass on everything.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this is what happens when you play world cop. you have to either help everyone all of the time, or help nobody.

what message is it sending to places like egypt and the occupied territories when we say war is an option in syria but nowhere else??

you can not interfere in a civil war without helping the rebels and harming the syrian regime. if we strike we are taking sides with the rebels.

seems that nobody has learned this lesson...only overthrow your government when you know you can. the rebels can't finish the job without help from other countries.

it sounds cold, and i guess it is. but if you start a civil war that you can't finish, that is on you and your side. not ours. it is nobody else's fault but your own.

But it's not about helping the rebels, if obama wanted to do that there would have been action when this all kicked off. its about punishing assad for using chemical weapons

i posted this elsewhere but i feel its a good take on why action should be taken.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... 8138828%7C


also it's not going to be war.

and it's not going to be just the U.S.A

satansbed wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this is what happens when you play world cop. you have to either help everyone all of the time, or help nobody.

what message is it sending to places like egypt and the occupied territories when we say war is an option in syria but nowhere else??

you can not interfere in a civil war without helping the rebels and harming the syrian regime. if we strike we are taking sides with the rebels.

seems that nobody has learned this lesson...only overthrow your government when you know you can. the rebels can't finish the job without help from other countries.

it sounds cold, and i guess it is. but if you start a civil war that you can't finish, that is on you and your side. not ours. it is nobody else's fault but your own.

But it's not about helping the rebels, if obama wanted to do that there would have been action when this all kicked off. its about punishing assad for using chemical weapons

i posted this elsewhere but i feel its a good take on why action should be taken.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... 8138828%7C


also it's not going to be war.

and it's not going to be just the U.S.A

if it is about punishing assad, then the international community needs to be involved. but russia will use its veto at the un. we will feel like the rest of the world feels every time the US uses its UN veto power to protect israel in spite of the world consensus....

then let france and britain handle this shit themselves.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

then let france and britain handle this shit themselves.

this sounds vaguely familiar!!!!


My contention is, both of these countries were colonialists in this region.

THEY fucked shit up way back then, including Britain for not establishing a Palestinian state when Israel was created.,

France has already proven themselves in this arena going it alone. Have at it Frenchy!!!

ajedigecko wrote:

satansbed wrote:

ajedigecko wrote:

President Bush had the support of congress to remove sadamn.

This one...he will not get support.

...he will spit on the Constitution again.

The last war Congress declared was World War II. Everything since—Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq (again!) and Libya—has been fought with something less than a full-throated declaration of war by the U.S. Congress

Bush had their support...informally.

He and congress could not wait 10 months to act - formally.

..
Congress empowered President Bush by authorizing use of force with the 'Wars Power Act'. Bush made the case on the false premise that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq was necessary due to the eminent threat of an Iraqi attack using Weapons of Mass Destruction. That whole, 'Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud' thing.
Congress is granted the power to declare war... but, they can... and have... passed that on to the Executive Office to wash their hands of the consequences.

satansbed wrote:

But it's not about helping the rebels, if obama wanted to do that there would have been action when this all kicked off. its about punishing assad for using chemical weapons

i posted this elsewhere but i feel its a good take on why action should be taken.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... 8138828%7C


also it's not going to be war.

and it's not going to be just the U.S.A

Punishing Assad for using chemical weapons? That's a pretty big leap you're making there....on what are you basing that statement?

From the economist article:
The American president and his allies have three choices: do nothing (or at least do as little as Mr Obama has done to date); launch a sustained assault with the clear aim of removing Mr Assad and his regime; or hit the Syrian dictator more briefly but grievously, as punishment for his use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Each carries the risk of making things worse, but the last is the best option.

Three choices, hey? Black, white, and...red? I love this kind of vague, simplistic view...esp coming from a supposedly reputable source like the Economist. Do nothing, remove Assad, or 'hit' him briefly but grievously. What exactly gives the US the right to do this on their own, or with Western allies? A country on the other side of the world, along with their allies the next continent over, get to determine the fate of this nation, why? As if its ok if other western powers (Britain and France) are ok with it? That's the extent of the fucking international community?
What would we be saying if Russia was considering military intervention in ANY country outside of the former USSR? No matter what the justification, the West and all its citizens would lose their collective shit. I guess the logic would be that NATO possess the only righteous bombs. In reality, we have NO moral high ground to base condemnation of either side in Syria. At the same time we're all freaking about sarin gas, a WHO report on birth defects in Iraq is being stalled. Fallujah hospital reports a nearly 15% rate of severe birth defects. 15%. Think about that. Its higher than the rates were in Japan after the atomic bombs. This report was supposed to be released well over six months ago. Israel burns and suffocates Gaza with white phosphorous and nary a word. Both DU and white phosphorous can be argued as WMD's.
Punish Assad? That sounds like some fucking twisted macho bullshit to me. Like we need to teach this guy a lesson by bombing his country, likely killing way more civilians than the chemicals did.
This intervention is not necessarily about removing Assad tho, no. But I highly doubt its about simply punishing him. What does that kind of obtuse language even mean? The likely goal of this is to splinter Syria into several countries, divided by religious and ethnic lines. The western geopolitical term for this kind of mass murder is 'Balkanization'..... The goal is to create chaos throughout eurasia, central asia, and north africa. Look to the policymaker's long-term philosophies on geopolitics. Think tanks,strategists, trade organizations.... THAT is where you will find the true global policy goals being debated, not in congress. These people and their openly stated, but rarely publicized aims transcend any one specific industry...it transcends and one politician, party, or platform. And that's why we see no change in foreign policy between the parties. It is about dominance of the current capitalist system. All this narrow-focus bullshit about specific terrorist attacks, chemicals, interventions, regime change, rebels, partisan bickering/impeachment blah blah blah....nothing more than strategic maneuvers in the 'New Great Game'.
"Policing the world" has nothing to do with policing. The US and NATO do not roam the world a neutral force for good, protecting innocents and fighting for justice. The West is NOT NEUTRAL in Syria, and the interest in intervention has nothing to do with saving Syrians. The 'responsibility to protect' is a total sham - all that is being protected is Western primacy.

we have been arming "al quada" or groups that would go on to become al qaeda since the reagan years at least.

anyone remember the mujahadeen??