Syrian Strike Vote

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

You'd be better off just walking around naked muttering to yourself.

And you can have the pride in knowing that everything you do is more credible than FOX news.

 

[Revoltingest]

You'd be better off just walking around naked muttering to yourself.
And you can have the pride in knowing that everything you do is more credible than FOX news.

No, I've tried it, & my credibility fell below even the Westboro Baptist Church Tattler.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, I've tried it, & my credibility fell below even the Westboro Baptist Church Tattler.

Next time don't carry signs.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And I apologized.

... only to repeat your baseless claim later on. Such 'apologies' can only be viewed as hypocritical and worthless.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Seriously ppl wtf is with the personal direction this is taking.

It's an important issue regardless of what side of it you are on, if you feel it more important about your hurt feelings or butt pulled assertions then perhaps you might reconsider.

 

[Assad91]

... only to repeat your baseless claim later on. Such 'apologies' can only be viewed as hypocritical and worthless.

And when did I accuse you a second time after you clarified your position?

 

[Aquitaine]

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

Well then this is where we disagree, I think it reeks of self-entitlement and thus reminds me of the "USA #1" mentality. Would you have supported say, China or Russia in sending "limited strikes" against the USA/UK prior to their illegal invasion of Iraq, y' know to defend the Iraqis from aggression etc?

Plus if you wanna go down this road of "it's justified because ideally it's to stop civilians being killed by their own governments" then the US may as well just declare war on the entire Third World and bankrupt itself overnight (assuming the nation isn't already bankrupt). :cover:

 

[Aquitaine]

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

Been smelling Bush lately have you?

Must be a cunning linguist

Such gold! :biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And when did I accuse you a second time after you clarified your position?

Here is the thread ...

I love it when people talk out their ***

From the man who baselessly proclaimed ...

You seem pretty pro-war now.

It wasn't baseless when you have defended intervention before in baselessly claiming Bashar used chemical weapons

May I ask where?

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 ...

And I apologized. But seeing how you are reacting, I can tell it hurt your feelings.

So again, I am sorry.

Not get over it.

... only to repeat your baseless claim later on. Such 'apologies' can only be viewed as hypocritical and worthless.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, you two.....
Assad, be more careful about your accusations.
Jay, he apologized. Don't get all jiggy about a slight you think he might commit.
Now, here are some doves to encourage peace.

OK, they're not doves, but I preferred this pic with penguins.
They've no desire for war with Syria either.

 

[Aquitaine]

OK, you two.....
Assad, be more careful about your accusations.
Jay, he apologized. Don't get all jiggy about a slight you think he might commit.
Now, here are some doves to encourage peace.

OK, they're not doves, but I preferred this pic with penguins.
They've no desire for war with Syria either.

Reminds me of this piece of pure comedy:

[youtube]5IjmOSFtoJc[/youtube]
Penguin slaps other penguin - YouTube

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay, he apologized. Don't get all jiggy about a slight you think he might commit.

Work on your reading skills ...

 

[Revoltingest]

Work on your reading skills ...

I'll make ya a deal.
I'll work on me reading skills, & you work on making nice.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes.

Chemical weapons on civilians crosses a red line. We can damage their ability for future slaughter with strategic strikes that should result in very little or no loss of civilian lives. How can that be bad?

We're talking about a Libya-type involvement, not an Iraq-type involvement. I think the Libyan people are overjoyed by our involvement against their dictator's regime.

As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.

In an escalating crisis little regarded hitherto outside the oil markets, output of Libya’s prized high-quality crude oil has plunged from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now. Despite threats to use military force to retake the oil ports, the government in Tripoli has been unable to move effectively against striking guards and mutinous military units that are linked to secessionist forces in the east of the country.

Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.

From
HERE

This is the problem with such intervention: It doesn't solve anything. It gets rid of one crazy dictator or genocidal regime and replaces it with another, or simple anarchy, or terrorists. The people are no better off. In fact, what little stability they might have had is now completely gone. We have seen this time and again. It's time for us to wake up and read our history books.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is weird, from an outsider's perspective, is to hear actual promises and demands that no nation-building take place along with such interventions.

Misguided as the concept of nation is IMO, one can hardly be surprised to see that the destruction of a tyranny usually leads to militia warfare and civil unrest, not to peace.

 

[esmith]

What is weird, from an outsider's perspective, is to hear actual promises and demands that no nation-building take place along with such interventions.

Misguided as the concept of nation is IMO, one can hardly be surprised to see that the destruction of a tyranny usually leads to militia warfare and civil unrest, not to peace.

In reference to Egypt I assume?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As one whom has studied the Middle East for decades besides just being there (I'm an anthropologist), if we do not do something rather significant, we will come off as cowards, thus emboldening our enemies and telling our allies that we are not at all dependable. This area is not one for wimps, so the only realistic choice is which actions we should take. Severally damaging Assad's air force is a good start.

We simply have too many vested interests in that area, and it's not just oil, so for us to ignore what's happening over there would be counter-productive, and attempts at isolationism in the past usually backfired on us.

Or it could be acknowledging that we have too many domestic problems to take care of, too much debt to pay down, and our military bill is already beyond staggering. The American government is often hated by many in the Middle East because of their constant badgering and intervention, and this hatred is often extended towards the American public who many times hold the opinion the United States government needs to leave the Middle East alone.

 

[nazz]

Well then this is where we disagree, I think it reeks of self-entitlement and thus reminds me of the "USA #1" mentality.

I think that is simply a misperception on your part. And here is the evidence of that. Those same people who were chanting "USA, USA!" are against this intervention! Why? Because there is nothing rational or ethical about their response. It's all emotional. After 9-11 many Americans wanted revenge pure and simple. And they exacted their bloodlust on a people who had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 nor were any threat to them. Their attitude now is "who gives a crap about a bunch of towel heads slaughtering one another".

Let's remember that President Obama, the one calling for this strike, was opposed to the war in Iraq. The people calling for this strike are doing so on humanitarian grounds, not because of some self-inflated jingoistic national ego.

Would you have supported say, China or Russia in sending "limited strikes" against the USA/UK prior to their illegal invasion of Iraq, y' know to defend the Iraqis from aggression etc?

Absolutely not. And I explained why previously. I stated at the outset that in my view violence is only justified when it prevents a greater violence from occurring. That is why I consider almost all war immoral. The scenario you suggest would have led to greater violence as the US would have struck back at Russia and/or China. Assad has no real capability of striking back at the US.

Plus if you wanna go down this road of "it's justified because ideally it's to stop civilians being killed by their own governments" then the US may as well just declare war on the entire Third World and bankrupt itself overnight (assuming the nation isn't already bankrupt). :cover:

That's a bit of an exaggeration, no? We should do what we can, when we can. But again, we should only use violence if it is truly justified.

 

[LuisDantas]

In reference to Egypt I assume?

I was thinking mainly of Iraq, but it is a fairly universal and predictable scenario. It must have happened hundreds of times, with no exageration at all.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I abstain from voting because the UN has not yet released the results of its investigation and the U.S. has not yet made public the evidence which it claims proves the Assad regime is responsible for the chemical attacks.