Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Syria: Anybody support US military action there?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:24 PM

Here's the thread,  who thinks we should involve ourselves and why? I vote a big NOOOOOOOO....



#2 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:30 PM

I bet the finger kid wants war. He probably thinks Assad is the devil. 



#3 burritoman

burritoman

    Bounty Hunter

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 12:00 AM

It is probably the worst idea ever. If we were going there to do something it would be different, but this is a civil war. Let them fight their own war.

 

Getting involved is nothing more than Progressive Agenda.


3DS Friend Code: 2492-4618-0670 Always looking for new Pokemon!

 

 

Get free stuff with my Swagbucks Referral Link: http://swagbucks.com/refer/cookieparty


#4 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 12:36 AM

It is probably the worst idea ever. If we were going there to do something it would be different, but this is a civil war. Let them fight their own war.

 

Getting involved is nothing more than Progressive Agenda.

 

Tell me more about this "Progressive Agenda" you speak of.


dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#5 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 10 September 2013 - 12:49 AM

I think the war is a bad idea.  I think the fear is that they'll just fire off a ton of poison gas and kill massive amounts of people.  That's definitely not acceptable from a humanitarian point of view (it's essentially bug spray made for people) but lets be realistic here, the only reason this attack is being considered is because it would completely eliminate the last of Iran and Russia's influence in the middle east.  This has nothing to do with what's humane or the rules of war.  If that was the case we'd have stopped repeated genocides in Africa over the years. 

 

Given that this isn't actually to help people, I don't think we should do it.  Obama has painted himself into a corner and I think they've found a way out, and that's with Syria "giving up" it's nerve agents.  It's a good way for us to save face and not waste a shit-ton of money.  Let Russia keep their puppet state, do we really need another?



#6 burritoman

burritoman

    Bounty Hunter

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 01:08 AM

In short--

 

We have adopted this idea that we can be the world's police and stop everyone from fighting.

 

We want to go in and try to solve everyone's problems, and all it does is make more problems. We will be worse off and less safe if we go and try to solve the problems for these people.

 

Is getting Assad out of there worse than having terrorists or truly evil people running the country?

 

Some pretty good information about the situation:

 

http://www.glennbeck...ill-each-other/

 

I'll get some more information for you about the Progressive Agenda if you'd like to learn more about it.


3DS Friend Code: 2492-4618-0670 Always looking for new Pokemon!

 

 

Get free stuff with my Swagbucks Referral Link: http://swagbucks.com/refer/cookieparty


#7 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 10 September 2013 - 01:21 AM

This war isn't actually a progressive idea...

Believe it or not, most people don't want this war - most people from all political party's.

#8 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 01:24 AM

starshiptroopers2.jpg

 

Yes, I would like to know more.


dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#9 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 01:29 AM

I'm against it, and I was surprised at being on the same side as the mainstream, but I think I have, as usual, a more offensive opinion than most.

I just don't give a shit what happens in the Middle East. I think these conflicts are a failure of cultural diversity after Imperialistic nations and empires changed borders a million years ago without a care in the world. And they are STILL fighting over nonsense. Sustained conflicts in the Middle East are, in my view, a sign of their culture is inferior (along with their treatment of women, another good sign!). You achieve prosperity through peace, and even if that's not completely true, it probably helps.

A good primer on this is on the Washington Post site: http://www.washingto...rrassed-to-ask/
 

Syria has artificial borders that were created by European colonial powers, forcing together an amalgam of diverse religious and ethnic groups. Those powers also tended to promote a minority and rule through it, worsening preexisting sectarian tensions.

Zakaria’s argument is that what we’re seeing in Syria is in some ways the inevitable re-balancing of power along ethnic and religious lines.

Isn't multiculturalism great? And they go on to explain that when the majority gets into power again, they end up violently punishing the former minority rulers. Jesus, who is really in the right in the Middle East anyway? They all want to kill each other! I say LET THEM.

It's too expensive to intervene anyway. Better to say, "Gee we wish we could help but we are just broke right now. Maybe next time?"

#10 panzerfaust

panzerfaust

Posted 10 September 2013 - 05:31 AM

Isn't the plan of action simply a series of tactical missile strikes against chemical weapons factories? I don't think the U.S. has any intention of actually getting involved on the ground over there. It's just important to respond firmly to the use of chemical weapons. It's not an intervention that will turn the tides of the civil war, it's just to prevent Assad from going that route again, which also sets an example. That doesn't sound too outrageous to me.


UjCoyFa.png


#11 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 05:42 AM

Isn't the plan of action simply a series of tactical missile strikes against chemical weapons factories? I don't think the U.S. has any intention of actually getting involved on the ground over there. It's just important to respond firmly to the use of chemical weapons. It's not an intervention that will turn the tides of the civil war, it's just to prevent Assad from going that route again, which also sets an example. That doesn't sound too outrageous to me.

If you truly believe that we are getting involved in the sole purpose of stopping a chemical attack, then you are sadly mistaken. War is about money, power and influence. If we are really that ethical as a country then we would be involved in every other conflict in the world where innocent blood is spilled regardless of type of weapons used. In my opinion it is just a pebble stone towards taking out Iran.  



#12 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:48 AM

It's just important to respond firmly to the use of chemical weapons.

Why? The guy apparently killed 100,000 with conventional weapons.

Two crazy factions are fighting each other, neither have the moral high ground.

#13 Dr Mario Kart

Dr Mario Kart

    SD/2D Defense Force

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:52 AM

I'm for it, with the scope of the mission being not regime change and not even to get rid of the weapons, but to degrade delivery capacity.  Mostly bombing runways.  We havent quite reached that threshold of last resort yet though.

 

Either we have an international standard against the use of certain weapons or we dont.  Its fine if we dont, but we shouldnt go around then pretending that we do.  The number of people that have died in the conflict due to conventional weapons doesnt change that the world doesnt want these kinds of weapons being used.  They've somehow come to the conclusion that the less of these weapons there are, the better - cant imagine why.

 

Is it our job to police the world?  Yes, actually it is.  If you have the capacity, you have the responsibility.  

Now, I'm actually for disbanding our military and NOT having that capacity.  But that is a separate issue.



#14 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 10 September 2013 - 11:27 AM

Why? The guy apparently killed 100,000 with conventional weapons.Two crazy factions are fighting each other, neither have the moral high ground.

While I'm opposed to the war,, chemical weapons are not, despite claims to the contrary, the same as conventional weapons. They're basically weapons of mass murder. You could fire them off into a city and kill everyone there. It's not going after the fighters, it's targeting everyone in the region hit. The only reason "only" ~1,500 died is because hey didnt use much.

This is why you keep hearing about the kids hat died, they killed every person in a several block radius.

#15 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 05:19 PM

Man, this is a really tricky one for me. I know a dozen people originally from Syria, and a handful that live there now. Much of the general public is terrified by Assad and hates him and his indiscriminate killing. Syria is absolutely no threat to the US. With Iraq, we were lied to in saying they were a threat to us, so even though that was an unnecessary and horribly conducted war, we were brought into it under lies.

 

In Syria, this dictator is a murderous pig, and can't die soon enough. But like in sports when evaluating whether to fire a coach or not:is there a better person who can do the job? In Egypt the answer was a resounding no. Who knows what it will be in Syria. We know what we've got, we know he's no threat to us or Israel (who gives a shit about Israel, but that's obviously the second thing war mongers always have to throw in to justify action in the middle east.)

 

If the true intent of the mission was to go in and capture or kill Assad, but we were being told it was to remove chemical weapons, then I think I favor it. Even the damn Saudis are funding the rebels though, which is absolute insanity, because eventually the chickens will come home to roost, and Saudi will be the next one to have armed rebels try to overthrow a dictatorship/monarchy. Then does the US get more involved in that fight to help our allies the Saudis? Whew.

 

Bleh...I could ramble on for an hour. This is really a tough, tough call. Good might come out of action, or things could get worse. If we don't intervene things will stay bad, but probably not escalate and get worse. I don't support, or even like Obama, but this is a really hard, complicated decision.



#16 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:51 PM

Actually this is a failure of human society and governments as a whole....

 

Today leaders who do evil are condone and no longer tried and held accountable...  Kills Jews and to this day the USA + Western World is still hunting and imprisioning these ex-soliders.. Oh and they killed Hitler and put his generals on trial

 

Yet when we prove that a gov't is using chemical weapons, thats not enough to justify holding a their leader/generals accountable.   I'm pretty sure Al-Queda or whoever these freedom fighters are didn't get or produce nerve gas. 

 

At the end the only people that condone and accept evil are the RICHIES in the world, any gov't changes would affect their personal wealth and holdings.   This is as much as a war in which RICH people ( WALL STREET ) do not want.

Some of Assad biggest supporters are all RICH and manintain HUGE personal holdings.



#17 dilemna

dilemna

    CAG in Training

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:34 PM

I don't know what to do, neither does Obama. It's not my job to know what to do though.


I'm not opposed to some trolling and I'm guilty of it myself.

 


#18 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:41 PM

Actually this is a failure of human society and governments as a whole....

 

Today leaders who do evil are condone and no longer tried and held accountable...  Kills Jews and to this day the USA + Western World is still hunting and imprisioning these ex-soliders.. Oh and they killed Hitler and put his generals on trial

 

Yet when we prove that a gov't is using chemical weapons, thats not enough to justify holding a their leader/generals accountable.   I'm pretty sure Al-Queda or whoever these freedom fighters are didn't get or produce nerve gas. 

 

At the end the only people that condone and accept evil are the RICHIES in the world, any gov't changes would affect their personal wealth and holdings.   This is as much as a war in which RICH people ( WALL STREET ) do not want.

Some of Assad biggest supporters are all RICH and manintain HUGE personal holdings.

You should go to Syria and take out Assad. Lead by example. 



#19 Dnipro Cojiro

Dnipro Cojiro

    The name's Hartman, Tyler Hartman.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:32 AM

I do, if they gassed people they should be gassed. 


eRntJ5i.jpg


#20 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:00 AM

Isn't the plan of action simply a series of tactical missile strikes against chemical weapons factories? I don't think the U.S. has any intention of actually getting involved on the ground over there.


325899593.jpg
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#21 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:44 AM

The lib in me says absolutely not. The prior service in me says absolutely. 

 

A muddy situation with no real tactical reason to get involved only gets us in trouble. That's exactly the kind of thing I railed against Bush for. You have a goal or you don't. Politicians being pussies only ever adds to the body count. You war totally or you don't, and the graveyard of stupid ideas leading to crap wars that never end is stuffed to the gills in American history. Let's not add another. 

 

The time for debating whether or not chemical weapons are acceptable is not after 400 children have been murdered in their fucking beds. Everyone in the world knows the score. If you use weapons classified as WMD, you are a dead man walking. Assad and his leadership should be fucking smoked like yesterday. Don't like being targeted directly? Better not use them in the future and that goes for the rest of you dickbag tinpot assholes that think you can nerve gas kids in their beds. 


Posted Image

#22 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2013 - 08:08 PM

The lib in me says absolutely not. The prior service in me says absolutely. 

 

A muddy situation with no real tactical reason to get involved only gets us in trouble. That's exactly the kind of thing I railed against Bush for. You have a goal or you don't. Politicians being pussies only ever adds to the body count. You war totally or you don't, and the graveyard of stupid ideas leading to crap wars that never end is stuffed to the gills in American history. Let's not add another. 

 

The time for debating whether or not chemical weapons are acceptable is not after 400 children have been murdered in their fucking beds. Everyone in the world knows the score. If you use weapons classified as WMD, you are a dead man walking. Assad and his leadership should be fucking smoked like yesterday. Don't like being targeted directly? Better not use them in the future and that goes for the rest of you dickbag tinpot assholes that think you can nerve gas kids in their beds. 

 

 

http://history1900s....sseincrimes.htm

 

Saddam's regime used chemical weapons on civilians, so being anti Bush's war yet pro Obama's is a bit hypocritical. Of course the situations are not exactly the same, but interventionism on a case by case basis with civilians being murdered seems weird to me. Why do certain people get justice from the "all mighty" US and other tragedies are not even news worthy? What if a foreign power deemed it justice to intervene in our country after Waco?

 

"The incident began when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) attempted to raid the ranch. An intense gun battle erupted, resulting in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians. Upon the ATF's failure to raid the compound, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the standoff lasting 51 days. Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out. During the attack, a fire engulfed Mount Carmel Center and 76 men, women, and children,[8][9] including David Koresh, died.

Controversy ensued over the origin of the fire; a government investigation concluded in 2000 that sect members themselves had started the fire at the time of the attack. Timothy McVeigh cited the Waco incident as a primary motivation for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing."

 

It appears that most gov't, even ours, eliminate unwanted civilians. It also creates plenty of that "blowback" that we discussed in a previous thread. Even if we limit our actions to lobbing missiles at suspected chemical sites, don't innocents die? If Russia uses chemical weapons next, do we lob a few Tomahawks at them? Or does our "justice" only reach countries that can not attack us back, or that we deem too uncivilized to handle their own affairs.

 

 

So 2 posters are for it, 3 maybes, and the rest against.



#23 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2013 - 08:16 PM

http://history1900s....sseincrimes.htm

 

Saddam's regime used chemical weapons on civilians, so being anti Bush's war yet pro Obama's is a bit hypocritical. Of course the situations are not exactly the same, but interventionism on a case by case basis with civilians being murdered seems weird to me. Why do certain people get justice from the "all mighty" US and other tragedies are not even news worthy? What if a foreign power deemed it justice to intervene in our country after Waco?

 

"The incident began when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) attempted to raid the ranch. An intense gun battle erupted, resulting in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians. Upon the ATF's failure to raid the compound, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the standoff lasting 51 days. Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out. During the attack, a fire engulfed Mount Carmel Center and 76 men, women, and children,[8][9] including David Koresh, died.

Controversy ensued over the origin of the fire; a government investigation concluded in 2000 that sect members themselves had started the fire at the time of the attack. Timothy McVeigh cited the Waco incident as a primary motivation for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing."

 

It appears that most gov't, even ours, eliminate unwanted civilians. It also creates plenty of that "blowback" that we discussed in a previous thread. Even if we limit our actions to lobbing missiles at suspected chemical sites, don't innocents die? If Russia uses chemical weapons next, do we lob a few Tomahawks at them? Or does our "justice" only reach countries that can not attack us back, or that we deem to uncivilized to handle their own affairs.

 

 

So 2 posters are for it, 3 maybes, and the rest against.

 

LOL leave it to a right winger to defend a child molesting cult member....

 

Oh wait cause Koresh loves guns and was pro-gun , so we can disregard his other crimes !!!

 

You seriously think another country is going to come to defend a pretty guilty child molesting cult leader...

 

I thought right wingers are anti-crime and hate all criminals/law-breakers.... I guess they just have bleeding hearts for pro-gun supporting loving child molestors



#24 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2013 - 08:48 PM

LOL leave it to a right winger to defend a child molesting cult member....

 

Oh wait cause Koresh loves guns and was pro-gun , so we can disregard his other crimes !!!

 

You seriously think another country is going to come to defend a pretty guilty child molesting cult leader...

 

I thought right wingers are anti-crime and hate all criminals/law-breakers.... I guess they just have bleeding hearts for pro-gun supporting loving child molestors

You think I was defending Koresh? Not my intention at all. The purpose was to show that our gov't has been involved in the killing of innocents in recent history just as the Assad regime has. Collateral damage. I'm sure the "rebels" in Syria are the only true targets, the other men, women, and children  were just in  the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you feel that other countries should intervene in our sovereign affairs within our borders? Don't forget that we are the only country to use "true" WMD.......twice. Maybe we should just sit out on global judgements for awhile and straighten out our own mess back home....



#25 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:06 PM

You think I was defending Koresh? Not my intention at all. The purpose was to show that our gov't has been involved in the killing of innocents in recent history just as the Assad regime has. Collateral damage. I'm sure the "rebels" in Syria are the only true targets, the other men, women, and children  were just in  the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you feel that other countries should intervene in our sovereign affairs within our borders? Don't forget that we are the only country to use "true" WMD.......twice. Maybe we should just sit out on global judgements for awhile and straighten out our own mess back home....

 

Oh we have alot to be sorry for, and we have yet to face justice for using a atom bomb on civiilians purely based on racial sterotypes and pure racism.

 

We didn't use a nuke on Germany cause, while they were bad real bad but they were still "white people"  and in war white on white violence is kept "respectable"...lol



#26 panzerfaust

panzerfaust

Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:02 PM

wut


UjCoyFa.png


#27 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:08 PM

Oh we have alot to be sorry for, and we have yet to face justice for using a atom bomb on civiilians purely based on racial sterotypes and pure racism.

 

We didn't use a nuke on Germany cause, while they were bad real bad but they were still "white people"  and in war white on white violence is kept "respectable"...lol

Are you being serious? 



#28 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 11 September 2013 - 11:10 PM

How does any prior action or lack there of by a former President and Congress have anything to do with today?  I'm reading some people making some pretty bad arguments against the war.  I don't think we should go to war because I feel it will be of no benefit to the country and will cost us money that we shouldn't spend on a war that doesn't help us.  The argument that we shouldn't go to war because we didn't before implies that the country should always do what it did in the past.  That's absolutely a strawman argument. 



#29 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:19 AM

I finally came to the conclusion that Finger_Shocker is a god damn idiot.

#30 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:38 AM

How does any prior action or lack there of by a former President and Congress have anything to do with today?  I'm reading some people making some pretty bad arguments against the war.  I don't think we should go to war because I feel it will be of no benefit to the country and will cost us money that we shouldn't spend on a war that doesn't help us.  The argument that we shouldn't go to war because we didn't before implies that the country should always do what it did in the past.  That's absolutely a strawman argument. 

I agree with your reasons totally. The fact that people are for Syrian military action yet against the Iraqi war is not an argument, just an observation. I think our policy should be "attack us or an ally and we come get you." Period. Then we have to limit our allies to countries not intervening in other sovereign nations affairs through military means. We being one of the countries most guilty of this right now. Let the UN actually have to do its job instead of just pouring money we don't have into it. Chemical weapons are bad. Beating and murdering women is bad. Slave shop labor practices are bad. Are we gonna invade and conquer every country that has bad policies?