Author Topic: Syria: The Next Stop?  (Read 21476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #90 on: August 30, 2013, 04:15:28 AM »
Short memories; Obamas predecessor did. He employed it's leader!...



What are you referring to?








... Egypt last/this year, tomorrow wherever. You're too fixated on Muslims; they're simply the bogeyman of this generation...



Geez, that like saying people in the 1940s were 'fixated' on the Nazis.  As if that was foolish and they shouldn't have been.  And that the Nazi's were merely 'bogeymen'. 

You are a moral relativist.  As long as it doesn't cost you anything and makes you feel good.  I swear if we imported a bunch of cannibals and they voted  'the right way', you'd be supporting them and denying that people were disappearing in your neighborhood.




I'm fixated on Islamic Terror and it's sympathizers - which seems to be most or nearly all he rest of them.  Go watch the clips again of traffic stopped in Arab capitals while people get out of cars and taxis to dance and celebrate in the street when they got word of the Twin Towers falling.  That's really all the evidence a reasonable person should need.  No matter that they have a Muslim neighbor who seems pleasant.    And not that there isn't tons more evidence.

I'm happy for them to live in their shithole counties, stoning each other, cutting body parts off each other, slitting each others throats, massacring each other.  But they don't belong in open free civilized societies.  They don't belong here in the West.  Not when Islam is a justice system, a government system, puts strict requirements and demands on society and the culture, as well as being a religion, and - and this is important - anyone that doesn't agree is an infidel and should be killed. 

I get that since you don't take religion and the rest seriously - and I don't either - you can't imagine that these people do.  No matter how much evidence is right under your own nose in the UK, and in the news on a daily basis. 

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #91 on: August 30, 2013, 04:24:15 AM »


Being 'popular' is not the same as decision makers in the government working with a long time ally.

Britain continued to work closely with the Bush administration until the very end of his term.

And misinformation yes, lied to, no.  That's from the Left wing revisionist playbook.    The fact is every major intelligence agency in the world said Iraq had WMDs - the CIA, UK, French, Russian, Israeli, Saudi, all of them. 

All except the ones who had interviewed the alleged insiders who claimed there were WMD's...The Germans interviewed them and after nearly two years decided he was full of shit..and told the CIA. One of their top men came to the same conclusion but was countermanded by the Bush administration; who oddly cannot recollect the conversation! Quelle surprise!

There was a very good BBC programme about it...here's the summary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21786506
Quote
Much of the key intelligence used by Downing Street and the White House was based on fabrication, wishful thinking and lies.

Quote
Lord Butler
Lord Butler says he was unaware of some intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD
As Gen Sir Mike Jackson, then head of the British Army, says, "what appeared to be gold in terms of intelligence turned out to be fool's gold, because it looked like gold, but it wasn't".

Quote
The House and Senate Intelligence Committee members were shown the intel - Rs and Ds alike - and it was shared with our allies.  And they shared whatever they had. 

Indeed; but the respective UK and US admins were very selective in what they wished to see as fact;the problem being, they willfully disregarded the facts.
Quote
We know he had poison gas (a WMD), because he used it on the Kurds.  And on the Iranians before that.  Which is reason enough to attack if I am reading today's headlines correctly.  There were miles of semi trailers on the road from Baghdad to Damascus when war was inevitable but before it started.  Who knows what was in those trucks.  The questions are what happened to the rest to it, and to what extent were the amounts exaggerated.

And in 2001, Condi Rice declared that SH was impotent and incapable of getting close to developing anything approaching WMD..As Iraq was under severe sanctions it was virtually impossible that was going to change in the next few years-if at all..Because I'm sure you'd have pointed out how the Bush admin at the time had failed to maintain the sanctions that would prevent such arming.
Quote
Maybe it was all a big conspiracy among the various intel agencies, but to say it was just a lie made up by Bush is not true.  No matter how much people hate him and no matter how much they want him to have been worse than Obama.

It was a lie; and over here Blair did his part too. I loath them both, they both did immeasurable damage to the standing of the US and the UK (and probably the west in general).. After the atrocities in september 2001, no-one felt the empathy of pain like we did in the UK (We'd had the PIRA since the late 60's after all), and I sat in pubs watching TV with grown men weeping opening as the carnage unfolded over and over again.  What buggered it afterwards, was a) picking the wrong target to exact revenge/justice b) basing that target on lies and misinformation. No-one doubts that in such a situation panic ensues and hundreds of thousends of separate threads make up the tapestry; but making a mistake in that aftermath isn't just having to redo the homework, in this case it resulted in invasion in two sovereign states and many many thousends of people being killed. Often in dreadful ways as a result of the depleted uranium and phosphorous weapons WE used to 'liberate' civilians! It's a plot that Kubrick would have thrown out as too fanciful as a prequel to Dr Strangelove.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #92 on: August 30, 2013, 04:27:32 AM »
If poison gas was used in Syria, and we have yet to see evidence, I wonder what kind it was.  There were all kinds of rumors that Saddam's WMDs were taken to Syria. Could this gas have been Saddam's left-overs? Chemical analysis should tell us, but will the politicians pass the information along?


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #93 on: August 30, 2013, 04:40:04 AM »


What are you referring to?

Look up Bin Laden and the Bush family ties....



Quote
Geez, that like saying people in the 1940s were 'fixated' on the Nazis.  As if that was foolish and they shouldn't have been.  And that the Nazi's were merely 'bogeymen'. 

No, the Nazis were a political entity; Muslims are a religion. AQ is made up of Muslims, Muslims are not as an entity subscribed to AQ.. The same way not everyone who is a Christian thinks that Christian zealots who murder abortion surgeons are just in what they do.
Quote
You are a moral relativist.  As long as it doesn't cost you anything and makes you feel good.  I swear if we imported a bunch of cannibals and they voted  'the right way', you'd be supporting them and denying that people were disappearing in your neighborhood.

Thank you for your assessment as to what I am...I'll take it on board and revise my relative morality, or something.



Quote
I'm fixated on Islamic Terror and it's sympathizers - which seems to be most or nearly all he rest of them.  Go watch the clips again of traffic stopped in Arab capitals while people get out of cars and taxis to dance and celebrate in the street when they got word of the Twin Towers falling.  That's really all the evidence a reasonable person should need.  No matter that they have a Muslim neighbor who seems pleasant.    And not that there isn't tons more evidence.

And all Americans are too stupid to not know that a baseball "World series" doesn't involve the world..or that the world doesn't end at the western or eastern seaboards; Oh hang on, they're not.
Quote
I'm happy for them to live in their shithole counties, stoning each other, cutting body parts off each other, slitting each others throats, massacring each other.  But they don't belong in open free civilized societies.

You won't find me arguing that one. But to be objective, is stoning any worse than the electric chair? Should eiteh rbelong in a society that calls itself civilised? Some would say no.

Quote
  They don't belong here in the West.  Not when Islam is a justice system, a government system, puts strict requirements and demands on society and the culture, as well as being a religion, and - and this is important - anyone that doesn't agree is an infidel and should be killed. 
Hmm, remind me again...The bit about "So help me God"..when was the last openly atheist who was elected president?? And how bibles are used as an object of provenance in courts of justice. All the more ludicrous when we consider the amount of priests found with the choir boys eh? Or politicians found wanting after swearing to uphold the best (and only the best) principles of their office?
Quote
I get that since you don't take religion and the rest seriously - and I don't either - you can't imagine that these people do.  No matter how much evidence is right under your own nose in the UK, and in the news on a daily basis.

Oh I take them very seriously; I think they're wrong on many aspects (believing in an invisible and unprovable deity being the main one) but I accept they have that right to do so. I naturally take AQ very seriously, as we're in a far more vulnerable position than we were say 15 years ago.


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #94 on: August 30, 2013, 04:44:21 AM »
If poison gas was used in Syria, and we have yet to see evidence, I wonder what kind it was.  There were all kinds of rumors that Saddam's WMDs were taken to Syria. Could this gas have been Saddam's left-overs? Chemical analysis should tell us, but will the politicians pass the information along?

Sarin apparently.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #95 on: August 30, 2013, 04:46:16 AM »
... picking the wrong target...



I'm with you on that.  I'll go further and say we are going to look back and wish Hussein, Khadafy, Mubarak, and Assad were still in charge.

The Taliban were moving towards handing bin Laden over, we should have waited.  They probably sealed their fate with the assassination of Massoud.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #96 on: August 30, 2013, 04:52:53 AM »
If poison gas was used in Syria, and we have yet to see evidence, I wonder what kind it was.  There were all kinds of rumors that Saddam's WMDs were taken to Syria. Could this gas have been Saddam's left-overs? Chemical analysis should tell us, but will the politicians pass the information along?

Was it sarin? The weapons could have been smuggled from Iraq, although it's impossible to say for certain. We know that Saddam Hussein had and used them. His forces used them on Iranian forces, as well as Kurds. We also don't know, for sure, who's responsible for the recent mass murder. The rebel forces could have framed Assad. As Pat Buchanan asked in his editorial on Syria, who benefits? It's hard to see why Assad would do something like this, knowing what could or would happen in response. Yorkshire Pud brought up a chilling thought too. An unwise military action, with no real helpful outcomes, could lead to a calamity that's much worse than the original crime. It could be anything from an intraregional conflict to an international conflagration. China and Russia performed naval exercises not too long ago, and relationships with both countries have tremendously chilled. Israel is in a terrible position too as it's targeted by Iranian-backed Hezbollah and the rest of her enemies. The "Syrian government could give chemical WMD to terrorists" argument is suspicious, as Obama's reasoning on this is eerily similar to excuses for the Iraqi fiasco. Come on; you could make a case that the rebel forces are more likely to use them against us in the future, but a foolish attack on Assad could make it more likely that *his* side would use them.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #97 on: August 30, 2013, 04:56:48 AM »
Quote

In a statement on Thursday, the White House said President Barack Obama's decision-making "will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States".

It stressed that the president "believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States".

No mention of the best interests of the Syrian civilians being killed...Sick isn't close.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23894173

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #98 on: August 30, 2013, 05:07:32 AM »
Look up Bin Laden and the Bush family ties....


Thank you for bringing this debunked horseshit into the conversation.  You so easily parse all the various strands of the followers of Islam in an attempt to make them seem palatable, yet lump everyone in these two extended families into one unit of al-Qaeda supporters.

Yes, the Bushes and bin Ladens have business ties.  No, Osama was not part of any dealing with the Bushes or even his own family after he turned into a crazy.





... No, the Nazis were a political entity; Muslims are a religion...


Scroll up and see what else Islam encompasses.  It is not merely a religion.





... Muslims are a religion. AQ is made up of Muslims, Muslims are not as an entity subscribed to AQ.. The same way not everyone who is a Christian thinks that Christian zealots who murder abortion surgeons are just in what they do...



Millions murdered by thousands is the same as a handful murdered by a few.

Moral relativism





... But to be objective, is stoning any worse than the electric chair?....



One is justice, one is not.

Moral relativism



... Hmm, remind me again...The bit about "So help me God"..when was the last openly atheist who was elected president?? And how bibles are used as an object of provenance in courts of justice...



Wow, this has been explained to you over and over.  Tradition is a far cry from those who would impose Sharia by any means.

Moral relativism





... Oh I take them very seriously; I think they're wrong on many aspects (believing in an invisible and unprovable deity being the main one)...




The benevolent modern Christians are the same as the thuggish murdering Muslims.

Moral relativism

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #99 on: August 30, 2013, 05:09:01 AM »
I'm with you on that.  I'll go further and say we are going to look back and wish Hussein, Khadafy, Mubarak, and Assad were still in charge.

The Taliban were moving towards handing bin Laden over, we should have waited.  They probably sealed their fate with the assassination of Massoud.

We should have stayed out of the Muslim countries from the very start. For instance, Iran and Iraq checked each other with neither country gaining control of the Middle East. All of the military actions could be seen as pieces of a puzzle. The interventionists wished for regional influence, but things did not go according to plan. The loss of lives and money are unspeakable. These losses were avoidable, and we evidently learned nothing from them. Many Americans are abandoning hope that we'll avoid an insane path as there's talk of acting alone and starting a series of avalanches. You wonder if the neoconservatives, as well as the "Democratchiks", have a private wish for Armageddon. The networks (all of them) might bang the war drums with few hard, necessary questions, and it wouldn't be shocking to see McCain on all of them, talking about how we need to get tough with Putin (shades of the Georgian situation).

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #100 on: August 30, 2013, 05:24:54 AM »
We should have stayed out of the Muslim countries from the very start. For instance, Iran and Iraq checked each other with neither country gaining control of the Middle East. All of the military actions could be seen as pieces of a puzzle. The interventionists wished for regional influence, but things did not go according to plan. The loss of lives and money are unspeakable. These losses were avoidable, and we evidently learned nothing from them. Many Americans are abandoning hope that we'll avoid an insane path as there's talk of acting alone and starting a series of avalanches. You wonder if the neoconservatives, as well as the "Democratchiks", have a private wish for Armageddon. The networks (all of them) might bang the war drums with few hard, necessary questions, and it wouldn't be shocking to see McCain on all of them, talking about how we need to get tough with Putin (shades of the Georgian situation).



It seems like no one in DC has any clue when it comes to foreign policy.  Not for a long time now.

Come to think of it, I don't have confidence in the leadership of either party in the House or Senate, or anyone in the administration to do anything intelligent in any area, foreign or domestic.   


Look at the Secretaries of State we've had since, say, James Baker:

Warren Christopher - party hack
Madeleine Albright - stupid, useless
Colin Powell - probably the best of the lot, underperformer considering his experience as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Condi Rice - expert on the USSR in a post Soviet era, rolled up by Cheney
Hilary Clinton - Incompetent, inexperienced
John Kerry - the only thing saving him from being the worst is Madeleine Albright


And the Presidents?  Bush I was knowledgeable, experienced and did a good job.  Clinton, Bush II, and Obama were/are complete failures.



Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #101 on: August 30, 2013, 06:24:30 AM »
Sorry, but it is completely irrational to adopt a policy of geo-political isolationism in 21st century. Power voids will  be filled. Frankly, I find it much more appealing to fill said voids with Western-based centers of power, e.g. USA, NATO allies, etc..

This neo-lib notion of ''live and let live'' is, at best, ludicrous, and at worst, highly perilous. Think; 2 world wars and 9/11.  You'd think folks would learn from history,  but the Pauls (Rand & Ron) have managed to gain traction by playing heavily and favorably to a war weary nation.

With all that said, Syria should be patiently monitered. Unfortunately, Dear Leader established a f****** 'red line', so he HAS  to act. And the only way to pull it off, is to hit hard enough to destroy Assad's air capability, along with much of his armor. That will level the playing field, ensuring a nice long bloody stalemate.



Sent from my HTC MyTouch 4G slide...please excuse any typos

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #102 on: August 30, 2013, 06:29:06 AM »
. That will level the playing field, ensuring a nice long bloody stalemate.


As long as it also involves you in the field presumably? After all, you're just as innocent as the other civilians caught up in it.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #103 on: August 30, 2013, 07:22:30 AM »
No, the Nazis were a political entity; Muslims are a religion.
Here's one place we have a basic disagreement.  Islam is a political entity as well as a religion.  We in the post-Enlightenment West see church and state as separate (though, of course the Queen is Defender of the Faith, but most Western countries don't have such a mix).  In Islam, religion and state are the same thing.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #104 on: August 30, 2013, 09:22:57 AM »
Here's how I see it:

If you're against intervention in Syria, then you'd better have been against going into Iraq as well or be honest enough to say that your views were changed by that mis-adventure. One cannot hold two views that oppose each other and be taken seriously.

I get sick of hearing all this childish grousing about Obama for doing things Bush did when nary a peep was heard from these folks during the previous administration. Talk about being disingenuous.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #105 on: August 30, 2013, 10:47:04 AM »
Here's how I see it:

If you're against intervention in Syria, then you'd better have been against going into Iraq as well or be honest enough to say that your views were changed by that mis-adventure. One cannot hold two views that oppose each other and be taken seriously.

I get sick of hearing all this childish grousing about Obama for doing things Bush did when nary a peep was heard from these folks during the previous administration. Talk about being disingenuous.

Although I agree with you, as I was against invading Iraq the second time. The Syrian catastrophe is different in it being a civil war, that started two and half years ago before the involvement of Islamic extremists. It was the rising of the people against an oppressive regime. A regime  that was tolerated by the west for it's own purposes, not least of all because of the closeness with Saudi Arabia. It was also a friendly country in the first and second Iraq wars, and used as a country to escape to by soldiers who had been captured.

The civilians are still dying, now. Through no fault of their own. And all we have is talk by politicians of military intervention. Not a word about humanitarian aid. Obama has already said through his spokesmen that he'll do whatever it takes in the US's best interests..The US is okay, they haven't had their population killed on a daily basis for the last two and a half years. What Russia, Iran and the US governments are playing is a very dangerous game, and all they're interested in is perpetuating is death. It can't be a problem; because if it was, something would have been done long before now. It's too late now. Russia supplied the formula for Sarin and Mustard gas, not Iraq: Russia's hands have blood on them, but I doubt Putin will lose any sleep. Neither will Obama if yet more shit rains down on Syria. Because shit, it surely will be.

Just found this, makes interesting reading. No wonder if we can't come to a consensus!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23847169

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #106 on: August 30, 2013, 11:32:51 AM »

And the Presidents?  Bush I was knowledgeable, experienced and did a good job.  Clinton, Bush II, and Obama were/are complete failures.
Holy Crap.  I think I found something we agree on.  Except that until Obama's term is over I give him an "incomplete" instead of a failure.  I hold out hope that Israeli/Palestinian talks can yield statehood and that he can restart relations with ANZAC that have been too frosty.  Plus I think he's going to call out Putin's bluff with Vlad's half ass deployment of, what, one missle cruiser to the Mediterranean?  Otherwise I'm not satisfied with the wind down of Iraq, Afghanistan, or his conciliatory approach to China.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #107 on: August 30, 2013, 11:35:18 AM »
Just found this, makes interesting reading. No wonder if we can't come to a consensus!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23847169
And, to make it further sick, I heard it posited on On Point today that it may be in the US interest to keep stalemate in Syria, so Assad is pre-occupied fighting Islamist factions and can't mess around in Lebanon or with Israel/Palestine.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #108 on: August 30, 2013, 11:50:42 AM »
And, to make it further sick, I heard it posited on On Point today that it may be in the US interest to keep stalemate in Syria, so Assad is pre-occupied fighting Islamist factions and can't mess around in Lebanon or with Israel/Palestine.

OF COURSE it`s in our best interest. You just won`t hear that from the milquetoast politicians. Not even the Hawks will speak of it. But, I assure you, there is nothing  so desirable as to see rival terror factions decimating themselves while that disgusting pig, Putin, pours what tiny resources he has, into the scrap.

Let`s party like it`s 1988!

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #109 on: August 30, 2013, 11:57:45 AM »
As long as it also involves you in the field presumably? After all, you're just as innocent as the other civilians caught up in it.

Oh, grow-up and put your big boy panties on. This is the real world we`re talking about.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #110 on: August 30, 2013, 12:37:15 PM »
Oh, grow-up and put your big boy panties on. This is the real world we`re talking about.

Ahh yes the REALWORLD™. I'm glad you brought that up. In the realworld people like you are content to have people you don't have to see suffer because you're alright Jack. Your excuse is "Well they don't care about me", how do you know? From what you've seen and read in the media you despise? I've traveled to many places, and the almost overwhelming desire of the common man and woman is just to live their lives in peace..Get up, go to work, send the kids to school, eat good food and drink clean water, and have a safe place to live. Not too much to ask is it? Who will you be expecting to help you if your world fell apart tomorrow? Your children burned with napalm? Your family either killed or driven from their homes, or both? Especially if it had been orchestrated on the sidelines from countries whose only wish was their self interest.

Big boy panties...yeah, I wonder if you'd piss yours if you were in the average Syrian's position now.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #111 on: August 30, 2013, 01:36:07 PM »
Ahh yes the REALWORLD™. I'm glad you brought that up. In the realworld people like you are content to have people you don't have to see suffer because you're alright Jack. Your excuse is "Well they don't care about me", how do you know? From what you've seen and read in the media you despise? I've traveled to many places, and the almost overwhelming desire of the common man and woman is just to live their lives in peace..Get up, go to work, send the kids to school, eat good food and drink clean water, and have a safe place to live. Not too much to ask is it? Who will you be expecting to help you if your world fell apart tomorrow? Your children burned with napalm? Your family either killed or driven from their homes, or both? Especially if it had been orchestrated on the sidelines from countries whose only wish was their self interest.

Big boy panties...yeah, I wonder if you'd piss yours if you were in the average Syrian's position now.


You make some very vacuous assumptions there, Braveheart. You`d be wise to remain a willing subject of your Utopian fantasyland, nestled deep inside your tiny little mind, and let the grown-ups deal with the boogermen of the world.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #112 on: August 30, 2013, 01:47:10 PM »

You make some very vacuous assumptions there, Braveheart. You`d be wise to remain a willing subject of your Utopian fantasyland, nestled deep inside your tiny little mind, and let the grown-ups deal with the boogermen of the world.


Yes, the way you don't! Or maybe you do; Superman costume?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #113 on: August 30, 2013, 03:27:05 PM »
this web site 95% trying to convince someone they're wrong and 5% fuck you. or the other way around

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #114 on: August 30, 2013, 07:54:34 PM »
... The Syrian catastrophe is different in it being a civil war, that started two and half years ago before the involvement of Islamic extremists. It was the rising of the people against an oppressive regime. A regime  that was tolerated by the west for it's own purposes...



Were we supposed to attack Syria at some point and depose the Assads?  What day should we have done that? 

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #115 on: August 31, 2013, 01:26:52 AM »
Sorry, but it is completely irrational to adopt a policy of geo-political isolationism in 21st century. Power voids will  be filled. Frankly, I find it much more appealing to fill said voids with Western-based centers of power, e.g. USA, NATO allies, etc..

This neo-lib notion of ''live and let live'' is, at best, ludicrous, and at worst, highly perilous. Think; 2 world wars and 9/11.  You'd think folks would learn from history,  but the Pauls (Rand & Ron) have managed to gain traction by playing heavily and favorably to a war weary nation.

With all that said, Syria should be patiently monitered. Unfortunately, Dear Leader established a f****** 'red line', so he HAS  to act. And the only way to pull it off, is to hit hard enough to destroy Assad's air capability, along with much of his armor. That will level the playing field, ensuring a nice long bloody stalemate.



Sent from my HTC MyTouch 4G slide...please excuse any typos

We should be informed and involved. There's nothing wrong with that. Military interventionism is not the way to go, though. How has this bellicose policy helped us since 2000? What have we gained in Afghanistan and Iraq to excuse the obscene loss of blood (all people) and treasure? We should mind our own business. We're not the world's policeman. What if Russia stuck its nose in our affairs, or what if it attacked some country that displeased it? We should stay out of foreign conflicts unless we are *truly* threatened. We certainly should not bomb sovereign states if they're not attacking or invading us. If we need to declare war, Congress should do it, as the Constitution mandates. We don't live in a monarchy where the king can do whatever he wants. Allusions to appeasement and Chamberlain won't cut it. That dog won't hunt. It's a canard, as there is absolutely no one like Hitler now, and there is nothing like World War II now. Interventionists use that transparent ploy to make rational individuals look like supporters of tyranny for opposing the warmongers' adventurism.   

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #116 on: August 31, 2013, 01:32:04 AM »
Here's how I see it:

If you're against intervention in Syria, then you'd better have been against going into Iraq as well or be honest enough to say that your views were changed by that mis-adventure. One cannot hold two views that oppose each other and be taken seriously.

I get sick of hearing all this childish grousing about Obama for doing things Bush did when nary a peep was heard from these folks during the previous administration. Talk about being disingenuous.

That's a fair question. Ask its flip side to Obama and various Democrats (excluding Kucinich, who's principled). Ask Biden why his views changed so much since Bush was in office. I agree with your point about keeping single standards.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #117 on: August 31, 2013, 04:45:40 AM »
It's a horrible thing to say, but it comes down to a cost vs. benefit analysis. Syria is not a country filled with a majority of the people that want freedom and democracy. It's far more murky. Like Egypt, it's a country that has people that want an Islamist government, people that have a motive to want Assad in power, people that are simply scared that a democratic government would be ineffectual in dealing with ethnic violence, al-Qaeda, and ten other kinds of unsavory.

So what would an intervention, even minimal, cost in Syria? A lot. Millions leading to billions, all borrowed. What is the benefit? I can't see one in "punitive" attacks. You can't bomb a chemical stockpile without releasing the chemicals on whomever is nearby, so that one is out. You can't favor either side, because they both suck as far as western interests are concerned. You can't accomplish anything by dropping a few more bombs into a civil war that's going to continue to be atrocious no matter what you do. So what does Obama expect to get out of it? As far as I can tell we'd be spending whatever amount so Obama can save face on his "red line" comment.

Yeah, it's sad that terrible things happen in the world. But it's only sad because there were pictures. For the atrocities that occur on earth that don't have pictures, or the media is unwilling to air them, they just go on with relatively few in the public knowing enough to care. So do I really want to spend that debt so Obama can save face for his statements? Not particularly, no. Are there cases where we should intervene? Sure, an Islamist government should not have the power to cripple civilization with a nuclear weapon--but that's of a degree much higher than this Syria situation.

I just can't see the point. You can drop some bombs--and doubtless kill civilians--in retaliation for killing civilians, but the end result is the same in either case: you kill civilians. Just let them fight it out on their own and only bother with it if they present a real threat to us which they currently do not.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #118 on: August 31, 2013, 05:51:34 AM »
Here's a link to a story by a journalist who has actually been in Syria several times in the past few months.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579044642794711158.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Quote
The conventional wisdom holds that the extremist elements are completely mixed in with the more moderate rebel groups. This isn't the case. Moderates and extremists wield control over distinct territory. Although these areas are often close to one another, checkpoints demarcate control. On my last trip into Syria earlier this month, we traveled freely through parts of Aleppo controlled by the Free Syrian Army, following roads that kept us at safe distance from the checkpoints marked by the flag of the Islamic State of Iraq. Please see the nearby map for more detail.
It's an interesting article.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #119 on: August 31, 2013, 12:57:58 PM »
So (ha) is Barack Obama now Gavrilo Princip?