tomato1236
Ninja Master
Next poll: Strike the U.S. Government? Yes No
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Syrian Strike Vote
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
The US economy still on life support, the world leaders laughing at the American president and the middle east in the most volatile shape it has been in for decades - if ever. Yep, looks OK, alright.
Um, OK. At least there are still some true believers.
What, pray tell, did Hillary actually do? That "reset" with Russia certainly seems to be working. And Iran has begun to dismantle their nuclear weapons program... No, wait. They are still on track and laughing at the ineptitude of the most brilliant president - evah.
Can you name anything that Hillary did as Secretary of State that stands out? (I'll wait.)
Well, I don't recall anyone saying that Obama was trying to overthrow the government, unlike all the screaming about Bush being seconds away from declaring martial law. That said, Obama has grown rather fond of using his executive powers. Some find that shift a tad alarming especially given his comments about Bush doing the same thing.
The thing is that Assad didn't just get those weapons. He has had them for years. The world didn't stomp on others who used chemical weapons. Why Assad? (Hint: It's because he can't really defend himself against a full American assault.) America would never dream of taking such action against a nation it's own size. Better to bully the little kids.
I do agree he is a character, but then most narcissist are. It's sort of a hallmark of the genre.
He is bumbling though the first leg of his second term. He is fixated on the history books now. He only has a small window of opportunity to really make his mark and he knows it. It's all about his ego. Try to deal with it.
Take it however you like it. Seriously.
Edit: If Obama was serious and wasn't just a Chihuahua barking at the window, he would have just launched a few drones weeks ago. Given that he has exterminated many individuals over the past few years with drone attacks makes one wonder what all the barking is about now.
Last edited:
Draka
Wonder Woman
Sounds good. Also there could be the "Ha ha ha ha ha ha I just made you look like a complete jackwad U.S." thing.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Odd that the various surveillance programs didn't see that one coming, eh?
Draka
Wonder Woman
What? Who? Did something happen? Did you say something? Was something missed? I didn't see. :cover:
Are you serious? Obama and his administration have been over in Russia trying to figure this stuff out. This was very likely a jointly drafted plan.
Just a bunch of negativity. Hello, the USA exists is a republic and elects presidents. Narcissists aren't evil. Character still matters, and the president has it.YmirGF said:
A good job.
They've been laughing at us for two centuries, and we laugh at ourselves yet here we are. The middeast is as volatile as ever, and it pretty much has been since before any of us were born.
If he were a Chihuahua he would be the cutest president of all time, cuter than Teddy.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
How could a "joint plan" take the Administration by surprise? And why would Obama have to warm to the idea if Americans were in on the drafting? :help:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Pretty pathetic gruel by any measure.
The whole thing's an act.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Further evidence of Obama's genius, no doubt.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
It strikes me as somewhat bemusing that killing hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons is a situation somehow less reprehensible or perhaps less necessary to intervene in than killing a thousand with chemical weapons.
Still the russian initiative was very clever (and significantly challenges the preconception that america needs to be the one to do something - to be 'in charge') yet the french have perhaps topped even that by their efforts to ensure that the russian proposal becomes binding on syria (though I do not seem to note any binding on either the UN or member states - a curious omission, though perhaps merely one that better reflects the lac of comprehensiveness in my sources than the content of the proposal itself).
I have to say America's unwillingness to engage in serious diplomacy has cost them here - this was an immense loss of face - not Assad's use of weapons, but rather the movement of two of the permanent seats on the UN Sec council to not simply ignore america but to obstruct a course of action proposed by the US president. At the same time China has previously opposed moves against Syria while the UK was unable to establish a mandate for involvement, along with France and Russia That is four of the five permanent members of the UN security council.
There has been talk that Obama needed to propose strikes to save face; now Congress and the Senate have been placed in a situation where the best way for America to save face is to write off efforts to strike Syria as being the president's alone - i.e. to reject the move emphatically.
Still the russian initiative was very clever (and significantly challenges the preconception that america needs to be the one to do something - to be 'in charge') yet the french have perhaps topped even that by their efforts to ensure that the russian proposal becomes binding on syria (though I do not seem to note any binding on either the UN or member states - a curious omission, though perhaps merely one that better reflects the lac of comprehensiveness in my sources than the content of the proposal itself).
I have to say America's unwillingness to engage in serious diplomacy has cost them here - this was an immense loss of face - not Assad's use of weapons, but rather the movement of two of the permanent seats on the UN Sec council to not simply ignore america but to obstruct a course of action proposed by the US president. At the same time China has previously opposed moves against Syria while the UK was unable to establish a mandate for involvement, along with France and Russia That is four of the five permanent members of the UN security council.
There has been talk that Obama needed to propose strikes to save face; now Congress and the Senate have been placed in a situation where the best way for America to save face is to write off efforts to strike Syria as being the president's alone - i.e. to reject the move emphatically.
I I find it disgusting and morally reprehensible that you are bemused.
Dang, you're easily offended. I think he's quite reasonable to be perplexed by the double
standard regarding death. You didn't think he meant "amused" instead of "bemused", did you?
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
InformedIgnorance said:
Same here. Does it really matter that much how the civilians are being slaughtered by their own government?
But of course, with "chemical weapons" the label "WMD" cab be used, and thus Assad becomes the next "Middle-Eastern dictator with WMDs" after Ahmadinejad and Hussein, followed by the typical calls for war in their respective countries.
How can us "Westerners" keep falling for this crap?
Good question. Semites have been killing their own since Noah. They hate their family members, but will join to fight against outsiders that try to stop their Family Feud. Semites love war and death.
I say let have their wars and deaths.
I haven't voted one way or the other myself, but I have a question for those who voted no: Why would military action against Syria have to turn it into another Iraq? The military intervention in Libya, for example, didn't turn it into something like that, and it seems to have even been welcomed by Libyans. What reasons are there to assume Syria would be different?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That wasn't the issue as it was very obvious that we didn't want to get involved into a civil war for several reasons as you well know. The issue of the use of sarin is different, plus we have leverage on Assad because he well knows that if we downgrade his air force and radar facilities, he's more prone to a rebel takeover.
Negotiating with Assad would have been a total waste of time. Where's he gonna go? Is he likely on his own to destroy his own chemical arsenal, especially in his situation and especially since he knows his goose is probably cooked without them?
Loss of face to whom? We don't control the U.N. and never have.
It's not a "save face" situation even if some perceive it as such mainly because the tons of sarin that Assad has is a threat to the entire region, including our allies there, and possibly including us down the line. Obama has played his cards right thus far, but we'll have to see what happens next as I'm not assuming much of anything at this point.
Because most or all of the deciding factors are pretty similar: lack of proper civic support or follow-up, strong internal conflict (except that there it is a Shia minority oppressing a Sunni majority instead of vice-versa as in Iraq), lack of significant common traditions, recent and recurrent major interference from European (and now American) countries that do not have a true commitment to either the place or the people.
It did turn out real bad in Iran, although it took a long time. There is little reason to expect it to go much better anywhere else.
Yet.
Libya is an outlier. Qadaffi was much too obviously insane and tyrannical, and wore his Messiah Complex on his sleeve. He relied on brute force far too much for his own good.
Even then, I do not dare to assume that its near future will be remarkably better or different from those of Egypt, Iraq, Afeghanistan and Syria. On the contrary, I fully expect it to face similar problems sooner rather than later.
Last edited:
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
American The issue of the use of sarin is different[/quote]My bemusement was with regards to an inability to determine how this is a valid assertion.
The weird thing is he doesnt need chemical weapons against the rebels, they are getting crushed regardless. TBH I am struggling to understand why he would bother except perhaps as a method to instill fear.
Assad is not a threat to the region, he is certainly a threat to his own people but to the region no; let alone to Israel if he were left alone or to the US in ANY circumstances save divine or alien intervention. You ARE kidding right?
Apparently it wasnt a complete waste of time since he agreed to it (whether or not he follows through is entirely different)
The weird thing is he doesnt need chemical weapons against the rebels, they are getting crushed regardless. TBH I am struggling to understand why he would bother except perhaps as a method to instill fear.
Of America, to the entire international community, the russian initiative has challenged preconceptions about just how pivotal america's role should be in international affairs. Though you are right in that America doesnt control the UN, there was a time when it was a rubber stamp for the west, that is proving to be less the case in the last 15 years.
Looking back on this there were actually a few ways that congress can look to save face for america, so I was probably a little abrupt there.
Assad is not a threat to the region, he is certainly a threat to his own people but to the region no; let alone to Israel if he were left alone or to the US in ANY circumstances save divine or alien intervention. You ARE kidding right?