Situation in Syria

Situation in Syria

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 57 83.8%
  • a:2:{i:2348;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:2348;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882215";s:5:"title";s:3:"Yes";s:5:"vo

    Votes: 11 16.2%

  • Total voters
    68

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.

Ronald Reagan

All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy.

Scott Alexander
 
Last edited:

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
I know the russian reports supported that so tifwiw

well, he did say most data........

It's not that I don't believe it's possible, it's just that the only "evidence" I have heard of is the alleged phone intercepts with the government folks over there talking about having done it.
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
This is a civil war. We should not get involved. It's becoming more and more apparent that the rebels are no better than the current regime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/w...rian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0

The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men.

The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.

“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports | Reuters

Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.
 

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
its not as black and white as that. For instance Hezbollah is on the side of Asad in this conflict. They are the traditional enemy of Israel, a key US ally in the region.
Invoking Israel isn't going to get any extra sympathy from me. I don't consider Israel a great ally to have. A lot of our strife in that region of the world comes from being Israel's lapdog. Zionism is a cancer that plagues American politics and far too often elections hinge on who promises more of the farm to Israel.
 

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
People kill people everyday and yet we don't always intervene. In Africa tin pot dictators kill their own people all the time and we don't intervene. People are painting this to be some epic struggle of good vs. evil but I just don't see it. The entire middle east is a den of vipers and supporting one group of vipers over the other doesn't appeal to me at all. I refuse to throw my support behind a group of al-Queada operatives.

U.S. policy towards Syria is bafflingly inconsistent. If U.S. leaders are so concerned about regimes slaughtering thousands of their own people, did they notice what just happened in Egypt? If they are so exercised over about weapons of mass destruction, are they aware that Israel has two hundred nuclear warheads, with delivery systems? Will American warships in the region be making those other stops on their liberating mission?

Most puzzling of all, though, is why the United States seems so determined to eradicate Christianity in one of its oldest heartlands, at such an agonizingly sensitive historical moment.

Syria has always been a complex place religiously. Although the country has a substantial Sunni Muslim majority, it also has large minority communities—Christians, Alawites, and others—who together make up over a quarter of the population. Those communities have survived very successfully in Syria for centuries, but the present revolution is a threat to their continued existence.

Sadly, Westerners tend to assume that Arabs are, necessarily, Muslims, and moreover, that Muslims are a homogeneous bunch. Actually, 10 percent of Syrians are Alawites, members of a notionally Islamic sect that actually draws heavily from Christian and even Gnostic roots: they even celebrate Christmas. Locally, they were long known as Nusayris, “Little Christians.” Syria is also home to several hundred thousand Druze, who are even further removed from Sunni orthodoxy.

And then there are the Christians. If Christianity began in Galilee and Judea, it very soon made its cultural and intellectual home in Syria. St. Paul famously visited Damascus, and for centuries Antioch was one of the world’s greatest Christian centers. (The city today stands just over the Turkish border.) A sizable Christian population flourished under Islamic rule, and continued under the Ottomans. Muslim and Christian populations always interacted closely here. A shrine in Damascus’s Great Mosque claims to be the location of John the Baptist’s head.

Christian numbers fluctuated dramatically over time. A hundred years ago, “Syria,” broadly defined, was home to a large and diverse Christian population, including Catholics, Orthodox, and Maronites. In the 1920s, the French arbitrarily carved out the country’s most Christian sections and designated that region “Lebanon,” with its capital at Beirut.
Syria’s Christians Risk Eradication | The American Conservative
Toppling Assad will bring about anti-Christian persecution and I refuse to act like intervening on the behalf of Islamic extremists is some noble cause or ideal.
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
The UN accused the rebels of using chemical weapons in the past, so is it too far-fetched to assume they didn't use them again?

UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use - Telegraph

"According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas," del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor, said in an interview with Swiss radio late on Sunday.

"We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas," she added.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,965
Reaction score
6,453
I have not seen inconsistency in our foreign policy for decades --- stupid decisions as to HOW to pursue policy yes [a la Iraq et al].

Although there is a lot of good-heartedness in the American people, I have not seen where this plays a primary role in our actions. Executive branches of our government might assess "the Great American Heart" on some situation and act because of internal politics, but that is not the primary driver.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

What we do at the international level is "make the world safe for commerce" --- BIG Global commerce, and especially the American stake in it. We need a stable Middle East, so we are deeply concerned about Syria. Powerful "stable" thugs are in full control of Congolese copper and chromium mining areas, so let that be. ... time after time... there it is: economics? Strike/Act. Not a commerce problem and the American public, as usual ignorant? Just keep a silent eye on it [and weapon-up the thugs].

We will act in some way in Syria because of our regional interests in commercial stability, our self-concerns about containing al-Quaida, and will use the politics to get everyone [especially the majority of the voting public] into "our" corner.
 

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
I have not seen inconsistency in our foreign policy for decades --- stupid decisions as to HOW to pursue policy yes [a la Iraq et al].

Although there is a lot of good-heartedness in the American people, I have not seen where this plays a primary role in our actions. Executive branches of our government might assess "the Great American Heart" on some situation and act because of internal politics, but that is not the primary driver.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

What we do at the international level is "make the world safe for commerce" --- BIG Global commerce, and especially the American stake in it. We need a stable Middle East, so we are deeply concerned about Syria. Powerful "stable" thugs are in full control of Congolese copper and chromium mining areas, so let that be. ... time after time... there it is: economics? Strike/Act. Not a commerce problem and the American public, as usual ignorant? Just keep a silent eye on it [and weapon-up the thugs].

We will act in some way in Syria because of our regional interests in commercial stability, our self-concerns about containing al-Quaida, and will use the politics to get everyone [especially the majority of the voting public] into "our" corner.
This post reminds me of this:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
-2 time Medal of Honor winner Major General Smedley Butler USMC.

Though that speech was delivered in 1933 it so aptly sums up current American foreign policy. All of the highminded humanitarian bulls**t that our "leaders" feed us is just a ruse. We don't get into war to save lives, we get into wars to grease the wheels of globalist banksters and special interests, and to appease Israel. If Obama and John "I threw away my medals and ribbons" Kerry want war let them go to Syria and fight. Maybe Kerry can take his pal Hanoi Jane and Obama can take his new buddy John McCain.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Ok guys, vote in the new poll Lovethee just added to the top of this thread. I'm curious what others think.

I don't WANT to bomb Syria, but I feel if we don't, we are telling people of the world that the USA will no longer stand up to tyranny and for what is right. The jackass gassed children and we can't just ignore that because it's the easy way out.

Well that's funny. We didn't hear progressives saying anything of that sort about Iraq in 2003.

Does Syria pose an imminent threat to the US? No.

What happened to the US not policing the world?

If it's the loss of human life that bothers you, then we're also compelled to order military action against a ton of other countries/ regions. But we aren't doing that because our Nobel Peace Prize winning president hasn't brought up those atrocities.

The last time we stood up to "tyranny" George Bush was labeled a war mongering 21st century of Hitler. But now we have to act? Please.

Progressives have no principle.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Well that's funny. We didn't hear progressives saying anything of that sort about Iraq in 2003.

Does Syria pose an imminent threat to the US? No.

What happened to the US not policing the world?

If it's the loss of human life that bothers you, then we're also compelled to order military action against a ton of other countries/ regions. But we aren't doing that because our Nobel Peace Prize winning president hasn't brought up those atrocities.

The last time we stood up to "tyranny" George Bush was labeled a war mongering 21st century of Hitler. But now we have to act? Please.

Progressives have no principle.

You're pretty much labeling Bob as a progressive and then saying he has no principles. You should either reword your comment or simply shut up, because Bob has always handled himself with nothing but mutual respect and courtesy in the political threads. If you can't handle the discussion without insults, then don't read them.
 

irish1958

Príomh comhairleoir
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
112
The only thing in Syria keeping the Islamic thugs off the Christian citizens (and any remaining Jews) is the Assad government. Letting those neonazi rebels take over and helping them do it is the height of naive stupidity, IMHO.
Both are bad, but the "rebels" are worse. And as a Christian, I think much worse.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Well that's funny. We didn't hear progressives saying anything of that sort about Iraq in 2003.

Does Syria pose an imminent threat to the US? No.

What happened to the US not policing the world?

If it's the loss of human life that bothers you, then we're also compelled to order military action against a ton of other countries/ regions. But we aren't doing that because our Nobel Peace Prize winning president hasn't brought up those atrocities.

The last time we stood up to "tyranny" George Bush was labeled a war mongering 21st century of Hitler. But now we have to act? Please.

Progressives have no principle.

Are you a progressive? I'm an American that won't sacrifice my principles out of fear.

We (USA) get somethings wrong, but we get many more right.

I believe as Americans we have a huge responsibility because of our great fortunes to help when and wherever we can.

The day we start to turn our heads because of fear, finances etc.is the beginning of our end.
 

pumpdog20

Well-known member
Messages
4,742
Reaction score
3,153
Invoking Israel isn't going to get any extra sympathy from me. I don't consider Israel a great ally to have. A lot of our strife in that region of the world comes from being Israel's lapdog. Zionism is a cancer that plagues American politics and far too often elections hinge on who promises more of the farm to Israel.

You know, any counter-terrorist briefing I ever went to in my time in the army, always had Israel as someone not to trust.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
You're pretty much labeling Bob as a progressive and then saying he has no principles. You should either reword your comment or simply shut up, because Bob has always handled himself with nothing but mutual respect and courtesy in the political threads. If you can't handle the discussion without insults, then don't read them.

1) My post was in response to his but you'll notice I didn't point the finger solely at Bob. That's why I used progressives, as in the entire progressive movement, when I noted their blatant hypocrisy in this mess.

2) If you're offended, go pound sand. There was no name calling, nothing vulgar, no bad language, etc. There's been a whole lot worse thrown around here in the past months.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Are you a progressive? I'm an American that won't sacrifice my principles out of fear.

We (USA) get somethings wrong, but we get many more right.

I believe as Americans we have a huge responsibility because of our great fortunes to help when and wherever we can.

The day we start to turn our heads because of fear, finances etc.is the beginning of our end.

I am not a progressive. There is no progress in progressivism. You didn't answer any of my questions. I'll go again:

1) If the Obama supporters are behind him on military action in Syria, why don't they just come out and say, "Ya know what, George Bush was a war-mongering Hitler but we believe whatever President Obama does is the right thing to do."

2) What is our end game in Syria? And who else is jumping in this $hitshow with us?

3) Does Syria pose an imminent threat to the US?

4) If we're talking about human rights and "international norms" like our president is, then why aren't we applying the same principle and using military action against North Korea, Cuba, and half of Africa?

Do I want to help those people? Darn right I do. Do I want to hunt down and wipe out the pigs who beheaded the priests and dragged nuns into the streets? Yeah, like no other.

Do I want to flirt with WWIII with China and Russia positioning themselves the way they are? No.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
1. This has nothing to do with democrats, republicans, present or past presidents, unless your just trying to make excuses.

2. Our only game in Syria will be to degrade the capabilities of the bastard that gassed his own people.

3. Syria itself is a minor threat. The US not responding would be letting millions of people down and an act of cowardice. A huge sign of weakness.

4. We are in some way involved at different levels, in every one of those and many more.

Russia and China won't do Jack$hit.
 

sparkyND

New member
Messages
328
Reaction score
15
1. This has nothing to do with democrats, republicans, present or past presidents, unless your just trying to make excuses.

2. Our only game in Syria will be to degrade the capabilities of the bastard that gassed his own people.

3. Syria itself is a minor threat. The US not responding would be letting millions of people down and an act of cowardice. A huge sign of weakness.

4. We are in some way involved at different levels, in every one of those and many more.

Russia and China won't do Jack$hit.

Be careful of what you wish for.

2) Getting rid of the current Syrian regime, that is the Al-Asad and his cronies, will not solve any problems. First, bombing without US troops on the ground does not guarantee that the Al-Asad regime will be ousted. History does not prove it; from World War II all the way to the Gulf War, without ground forces or threat of it there, airpower alone has failed to achieve the intended goals. Not saying that it is not possible but that the track record does not suggest that it is something guaranteed. Either we have a combination of bombing AND ground forces (whether our or allies), this is not the right proposition. Blind reliance on weapons will not get us far not only in Syria but anywhere else in the future without clearly thinking and planning the political objectives that are to be achieved by doing so. (see my post on my Thomas Mahnken) Second, the rebel group is not a unified entity. Thus, if the current government is ousted there is absolutely no guarantee that there will be stability in the aftermath of US. strikes. Gassing your own populace is terrible but the turmoil afterwards the fall of the current regime is just as bad of a proposition as there is. Thus, the proposed means and the intended objective does not solve any of the current problems (or at least comes with qualifications) of the Syrian civil war.

3) This is the same logic that got us involved in Vietnam during Kennedy and LBJ years. "Our credibility is at stake with our allies and the international community." Remember that the domino effect idea was prevalent in our thinking during the Cold War. First, we do not owe anyone anything other than working for our national interest. As you state there is minimal national or strategic interest in Syria. Syria is a minor threat. Thus, we do not owe it to either humanity or any other country/people to use force or demonstrate resolve. Second, you always have to fear escalation of further involvement once you have one foot in, again Vietnam. Not saying that this is the case but the chances that we could will be increased. Issues of credibility and prestige are not that important (or should not be that important) when it comes to the use of force. In fact, this should be the last consideration of all things Thucydides and Machiavelli presented: power, greed and honor.

In conclusion, I understand your concerns but we have to think hard not only about what we are trying to achieve but what will be the aftermath of the use of military force in Syrian.
 

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
1. This has nothing to do with democrats, republicans, present or past presidents, unless your just trying to make excuses.

2. Our only game in Syria will be to degrade the capabilities of the bastard that gassed his own people.

3. Syria itself is a minor threat. The US not responding would be letting millions of people down and an act of cowardice. A huge sign of weakness.

4. We are in some way involved at different levels, in every one of those and many more.

Russia and China won't do Jack$hit.
Rebels have attacked a Christian village in the war torn country of Syria, beheading priests and brutally killing others. Not surprisingly, the rebels have ties to al Qaeda.
Syrian Rebels Attack Christian Village, Behead Priests - Katie Pavlich

And these are the bastards you propose to support with military action. I don't understand the logic of "chemical weapons>>>>>all other killing." Is Assad a good guy? No probably not but he's the only thing keeping the areas Christians relatively safe. Furthermore we can't even prove that it was Assad who gassed his own people and not the rebels. The rebels have been charged with using chemical weapons in the past anyway.

We're going to end up doing a lot more harm than good, just like Iraq. This isn't about "good vs. evil" man there is no good over there. If we topple the Assad regime we can kiss goodbye Christianity in Syria.

The day we start to turn our heads because of fear, finances etc.is the beginning of our end.
This has nothing to do with fear either. The beginning of our end? We've already started that process. This proposed military action is a sham, we don't go to war for principles. You want to know why we go to war:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/djwPqAJ_3GY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
WE ARE NOT GOING TO WAR PEOPLE!

We are going to stick a few well targeted missiles up someone's ***. There is a huge difference.

Stop soiling yourselves and act like Americans :)
 
Last edited:

dublinirish

Everestt Gholstonson
Messages
27,319
Reaction score
13,088
So if Christians are getting killed its a problem but if it is innocent Muslim children then its no big deal?
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
WE ARE NOT GOING TO WAR PEOPLE!

We are going to stick a few well targeted missiles up someone's ***. These is a huge difference.

Stop soiling yourselves and act like Americans :)

OK. What then? Do we let the people fend for themselves? If so, what's the point in bombing them in the first place? What's the ideal outcome if we bomb Syria? It hasn't been proven that Assad used chemical weapons. However, it has been proven that the rebels have. The intelligence that is being put out is flawed (as it was before the invasion of Iraq).
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
OK. What then? Do we let the people fend for themselves? If so, what's the point in bombing them in the first place? What's the ideal outcome if we bomb Syria? It hasn't been proven that Assad used chemical weapons. However, it has been proven that the rebels have. The intelligence that is being put out is flawed (as it was before the invasion of Iraq).

1 message as follows: Use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and we will stick a tomahawk missile up your a$$. End message.
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
1 message as follows: Use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and we will stick a tomahawk missile up your a$$. End message.

You didn't answer my questions.

Check this out:

Rep. Alan Grayson: Syria Intelligence Manipulated - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who is aggressively lobbying against a military strike on Syria, says the Obama administration has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country's two-year civil war.

Grayson made the accusation in an interview published Wednesday by The Atlantic and offered more detail in a Thursday discussion with U.S. News. He says members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims that Syrian leader Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons.

What information is the administration withholding and why?
 
Top