• 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

Strike Syria

  • Yes.

    Votes: 10 15.2%
  • No.

    Votes: 49 74.2%
  • Abstain.

    Votes: 7 10.6%

  • Total voters
    66

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Anti-American conspiracy theorists will go on either way. Iraq was really all about oil and George Bush.

It better be. The alternatives are even worse to consider.


This time what's the conspiracy? They get more excited about criticizing America than criticizing chemical weapons used by an anti-American.

In this stance, they probably should do just that.


Libyan people are sure happier now.

Possibly. But I still can hardly commend the use of freaking drones.


Luis, I doubt your one of the hard-cores but I'm venting at others.

Depends on how you define hardcore. I am strictly opposed to military efforts without a darned good justification.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
It better be. The alternatives are even worse to consider.




In this stance, they probably should do just that.




Possibly. But I still can hardly commend the use of freaking drones.




Depends on how you define hardcore. I am strictly opposed to military efforts without a darned good justification.

Didn't you get the memo?
People who don't support the US' aggressive foreign policy and unnecessary conflicts are either Terrrrist sympathisers or anti-American conspiracy theorists!

Why do you hate America?
:facepalm:
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
Didn't you get the memo?
People who don't support the US' aggressive foreign policy and unnecessary conflicts are either Terrrrist sympathisers or anti-American conspiracy theorists!

Why do you hate America?
:facepalm:

Your continuing over-generalizations of Americans grow tiresome
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
Your continuing over-generalizations of Americans grow tiresome

I'm not generalising Americans in general mate, just some of the daft perspectives shared by certain people with certain agendas in said country. :yes:

A bit like when Bush (hint: not Americans) said: "You're either with us, or you're with the Terrrrists!".
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
Namaste

Actually, I do have an agenad(s) when it comes to polticized Islamic jihadees. Others have "read my file", I am no friend to them.

However, Obama has weakened US military might, it doesn't matter if the US can hit some target, it will have little effect, and frankly from the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood and elements of the "Arab Spring", I don't trust either side, it wouldn't surprise me if we "take out Asad" (I think that isn't going to happen this time, early "take outs" may have been successful but they are learning from the past and getting better at avoiding a buzz bomb), the Al Quydah elements could quickly get their hands on it. After all, before the fall of SH in Iraq, I recall phone calls coming in from Iraqis to an S.F. affliate that they are watching convoys of trucks taking chemical and biological weapons over the border of Iraq into Syria.

Chemical weapons are demonic. Eventually the effort will need to be international, but the world isn't exactly ready for that fight.

I say NO, Obama and the Dems need to rebuild the US miltary first.

Om Namah Sivaya
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
I'm not generalising Americans in general mate, just some of the daft perspectives shared by certain people with certain agendas in said country. :yes:

A bit like when Bush (hint: not Americans) said: "You're either with us, or you're with the Terrrrists!".

You seem to be including any of us who support a limited strike in that group though. That's unfair. I detest the "USA #1" mentality.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
You seem to be including any of us who support a limited strike in that group though. That's unfair. I detest the "USA #1" mentality.

But is it not arrogant for someone to think their country has a right to execute a "limited strike" (basically an act of war) on another smaller nation, for reasons other than actual necessary self-defence?

Doesn't that sense of entitlement for unnecessary bombardment echo the "USA #1" mentality? Since obviously the US is the "World's Police" right? Therefore they're #1 and can thus feel entitled to intervene in someone else's business, right?
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
But is it not arrogant for someone to think their country has a right to execute a "limited strike" (basically an act of war) on another smaller nation, for reasons other than actual necessary self-defence?

Doesn't that sense of entitlement for unnecessary bombardment echo the "USA #1" mentality? Since obviously the US is the "World's Police" right? Therefore they're #1 and can thus feel entitled to intervene in someone else's business, right?

No, not when the intention is to defend others from attack.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
From what I understand the Pentagon has been told to revise the strike plans over 50 times. General Scales said on Fox News this AM it reminded him of President Johnson crawling around on the floor determining which targets the Air Force during Vietnam. As this progress I am leaning very heavily on NO. Since it appears that it is now a political issue. It also appears that the military really doesn't like it due to all of the changing plans that eventually leads to "mission creep"
US military has revised Syria strike plan 50 times, source says | Fox News
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Why should I watch Fox "News" or take anything they say seriously? Remember, these are the same "geniuses" that were so absolutely certain Obama was going to lose.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Why should I watch Fox "News" or take anything they say seriously? Remember, these are the same "geniuses" that were so absolutely certain Obama was going to lose.

You don't have to, I'm sure someone will keep you informed on what is going on in the world; there are a few of us that watch FNC and other news sources.
Here are some headlines from Fox News.com Politics Editiors just in case your news source is AWOL

Congressional Black Caucus head tells members not to discuss Syria - Chairwoman Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, has asked members to “limit public discussion on the issue.” Caucus members seem to so far be obliging.

Moderate Dems call for delay - Sens. Joe Manchin D-W.Va., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., have proposed a resolution delaying the immediate use of force compelling the president to build more international and domestic support. “Given the case that has been presented to me, I believe that a military strike against Syria at this time is the wrong course of action,” Manchin said in a statement.

Obama pushing gay rights in Russia - “[President Obama] is rhetorically waving the gay-rights flag on his visit to Russia,” the Daily Caller reports, “…even as he is working to soften or bypass opposition from Russia’s president to a strike on Syria…[Obama will] take time to meet with Russian gay rights groups.” [Ed. note: It may not play in St. Petersburg, but the president’s gay-rights stand will help with the liberal base at home.]

[Noonan: “A great nation cannot go to war—and that's what a strike on Syria, a sovereign nation, is, an act of war—without some rough unity as to the rightness of the decision. Widespread public opposition is in itself reason not to go forward.]

BAIER TRACKS: ORGANIZING FOR INACTION ON SYRIA…
“It appears the administration is more worried about losing liberals than conservatives on the Syria vote (although initial head counts don't look great on either side). Thursday night, Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC making the case. Friday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power, will speak at the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank started by John Podesta.

There are already rumors on Capitol Hill that the administration isn't too fond of the broad language amended into the resolution by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chris Coons, D-Del., -- so much so that administration officials may try to get that language dropped with further amendments brought up by supporters. Looking at all of that, you could easily come to the conclusion that the administration is making a full-court press to shore up liberal votes, correct?

REPUBLICANS UNEASY ON REBELS
National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin reports the Obama administration is considering deploying U.S. military trainers to aid the Syrian rebels, likely at training camps in Jordan. But an official said obstacles exist in vetting trustworthy groups. Griffin also reports that military planners have been asked to revise their plans 50 times since President Obama began considering a “limited” strike.

INTERCEPTED: IRAN’S REVENGE INTENTIONS
WSJ: “The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to Shiite militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria. … U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned. U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.”

BROTHERHOOD DISSOLVED?
BBC - 'No decision' in Egypt on dissolving Muslim Brotherhood: “Egypt's government has denied state media reports that it has decided to dissolve the Muslim Brotherhood. A social solidarity ministry spokesman was quoted as saying it would revoke the Islamist group's non-governmental organisation status ‘within days.’ But a prime ministerial aide, Sherif Shawki, told the BBC the solidarity minister had not issued any decision.”
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You don't have to, I'm sure someone will keep you informed on what is going on in the world; there are a few of us that watch FNC and other news sources.
Here are some headlines from Fox News.com Politics Editiors just in case your news source is AWOL...

I actually do periodically watch it, but face it-- it's really a propaganda station. If there was no alternative, fine, but there's simply so much opinion they throw in the news that they can sucker people in if they don't pick up on other newscasts.

So why watch a "news" channel that is about as reliable as reading the National Enquirer is my point, especially since there are some much better ones to choose from. As for me, when I see something that someone quotes from Fox, I really don't waste my time reading it since all too often I've done the research to find out that they either were entirely wrong or they've slanted the news.

Let me suggest Reuters, A.P., BBC, or even CNN, the latter of which is at least more reliable than Fox. There's a lot more to this that could be mentioned based on my experience and that of a friend of mine who monitors Fox daily for a website, but I've made my point, so I'll move on.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I actually do periodically watch it, but face it-- it's really a propaganda station. If there was no alternative, fine, but there's simply so much opinion they throw in the news that they can sucker people in if they don't pick up on other newscasts.

What little bits and pieces of Fox News that I have seen do not seem to have a lot of opinion proper. But there is a heckuva lot of wishful thinking and self-delusion and propaganda.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Its what i picked up from you. If you think I am going to search through threads to find the exact post, then you'e sol

No, it's what you read into my comments without justification, and it says far more about you than about anyone else here ... :rolleyes:
 
Top