Syrian Strike Vote

[Aquitaine]

As someone who was active in the anti-war movement as far back as the mid-60's, I find this kind of denigration as disgusting as it is childish.

To be fair, Willy tends to give similar nicknames to most countries, I don't think it was intended to be an insult to the US.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be fair, Willy tends to give similar nicknames to most countries, I don't think it was intended to be an insult to the US.

You're correct. Our humorless friend is only just now noticing this?

 

[DallasApple]

I wont vote.I would like to see what the UN determines (concludes) in their investigation first.

 

[BSM1]

[

quote=Aquitaine;3482979]In short?
NO.

[/QUOTE]

Ditto..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're correct. Our humorless friend is only just now noticing this?

No ... your humorless friend is well aware of it.

 

[Valjean]

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.

So we must kick some *** to maintain our street cred? We will come off as despots and invaders; modern day Visigoths.

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.

No-one's advocating isolationism, rather, non-interventionism.
Face it. Our "interests in the area" are exploitative. Any "enemies" we have are the result of theft, exploitation and throwing our weight around.

Checking on MSNBC to get that perspective, the most commonly proffered reason is that it would be a disaster if Obama drew the "red line" & then didn't follow thru. This sounds more like face saving than anything else. Now reasons will be sought to justify a decision already made. Sound familiar?

Exactly. We must kill people and ruin lives to save face. Our enemies must be made to fear us.
It's the Christian thing to do.reach:

I wont vote.I would like to see what the UN determines (concludes) in their investigation first.

What?! A voice of caution and prudence?
Are you sure you're in the right thread?

 

[Assad91]

As someone who was active in the anti-war movement as far back as the mid-60's, I find this kind of denigration as disgusting as it is childish.

What does the anti-war movement have to do with anything? You seem pretty pro-war now.

And is it really childish to point out the hyporisy of supplying chemical weapons to be used against Iranians, but then get angry over Assad *allegedly* using them?

If the evidence comes back that it was the rebels who used the chemicals, would you support bombing the rats?

 

[esmith]

I have a question for all those who vote "Yes" on this poll: when are you going to enlist?

Watch you tongue youngster or I will send you to your room without supper. There are probably those here on this forum that have served this country during times of conflict. I for one served for over 20 years and it was prior to and during the Vietnam conflict. And for you Jayhawker Soule, I defend you right to protest but I hope you were not one of those that, how should I say, insulted those of us in uniform either physically or verbally.

Now to the original question. It all depends on what President Obama intends to do if he gets approval from Congress. If he does use military action and does not attack Assad's military assets but just sends a "warning" I vote NO. You do realize that the weapons that he promised to give to the rebels has not happened as of yet. I find it very unfortunate that the President has put himself and the country in a position that could have dire consequences. Basically he has put the country in a position that if nothing is done it shows that the US is not willing to live up to the commitments that have been made or promised. What would those of you that vote NO say if Assad continues and even escalates his use of WMD, or Iran continues on the path to a nuclear armed Iran. It is highly likely that Israel would not stand for it and would probably take independent action. What could happen if that occurs? What if North Korea decides that the US would not act if it attacked South Korea? All of this and possible more could happen if the US is perceived as weak all because of one "Red Line". I'm sure that there are many that says "so what" it does not directly endanger the US. This is a world economy and what happens affects the entire world. I will have to say this...The American people voted for President Obama and he is the President and represents the US no matter how much you disagree with his policies. This vote should not and can not be for political reasons. So, I say I will have to listen to what is debated and what actions that the President wants to take before I vote YES or NO.
Oh, and one more thing, I want President Obama to address the nation and both House of Congress in joint session on why he feels that we should take military action. If he doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to do that he doesn't have the right to ask Congress to make his decisions

 

[YmirGF]

Not "No!"
I voted, "HELL NO!"


... plus there is the possibility that this was the work of various Muslim factions (read war lords) against another Muslim faction (read war lord) to drum up world support for the imported "rebels" who fighting against Assad. Oddly, we have no proof as to who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons... though that doesn't seem to matter much to some...

 

[FanaticStudy]

We shouldn't "strike" Syria. That's about as useless as it gets. If we want to commit, it needs to be all the way, with the clear goal of gaining control of the chemical weapons stockpiles.

I think we could get a little more relaxed, if the Syrian regime could guarantee the safety and control of the weapons stockpiles, but since this is not the case, politicians and nations will be nervous about this.

But I'm certainly conflicted about this, since I've been deployed myself, I know the suffering of allies and enemies alike in an armed invasion.

 

[Assad91]

We shouldn't "strike" Syria. That's about as useless as it gets. If we want to commit, it needs to be all the way, with the clear goal of gaining control of the chemical weapons stockpiles.

If that happened, do you think UK will ask for a refund?

 

[metis]

So we must kick some *** to maintain our street cred? We will come off as despots and invaders; modern day Visigoths.

The above interpretation of what I'm suggesting is completely wrong. It's not a matter of punishment but a matter of degrading Assad's ability to kill more thousands, plus making him wary of the fact that if he's downgraded enough, this leaves him more vulnerable to the rebels.

No-one's advocating isolationism, rather, non-interventionism.
Face it. Our "interests in the area" are exploitative. Any "enemies" we have are the result of theft, exploitation and throwing our weight around.

There's no doubt we've made many mistakes in that area and have been exploitative, but this is a different matter that we are dealing with. Secondly, there are M.E. countries that feel that we should attack, but much of this is taking place behind closed doors because they fear reprisals against them.

Let me ask you a few questions? If we do nothing, is there any point as Assad undoubtedly uses more chemical weapons where you would be inclined to intervene? How about if he uses them against some neighboring countries? What about if he begins to equip various terrorist groups internationally? What about if they were to be used against your fellow Hindus? The intelligence report that was recently declassified says that Assad literally has tons of sarin, so is there any point whereas you would say "Enough!" and decide maybe it's necessary to downgrade his ability to kill more?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You seem pretty pro-war now.

Where do I "seem pro-war?" (BTW, I voted no.)

 

[Assad91]

Where do I "seem pro-war?" (BTW, I voted no.)

Your post implied otherwise, but if thats the case, I take back what I said

 

[Falvlun]

What would those of you that vote NO say if Assad continues and even escalates his use of WMD, or Iran continues on the path to a nuclear armed Iran.

Is there any reason why we can't revisit the issue if such an escalation occurs? I didn't know that voting no on a strike right now meant that we weren't allowed to pursue military action in Syria for all eternity.

 

[Alceste]

No. Nobody should "strike" anybody.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think if people in other countries want to kill each other, we should mind our own business and let them.

 

[esmith]

Is there any reason why we can't revisit the issue if such an escalation occurs? I didn't know that voting no on a strike right now meant that we weren't allowed to pursue military action in Syria for all eternity.

Would not a vote of "no" send a message to Assad that the US and it looks like the majority of the world doesn't care what he does in Syria as long as he doesn't directly attack them? Would he then not be more apt to use any weapon he so desired if a situation arose that he thought could only be solved by using WMD? Basically his thoughts could be "I did it once and nothing happened so I'll do it again". By the way I am still undecided, just playing the devils advocate.

 

[4consideration]

Is there any reason why we can't revisit the issue if such an escalation occurs? I didn't know that voting no on a strike right now meant that we weren't allowed to pursue military action in Syria for all eternity.

I agree with this.

My vote of "No" means "No, not now." It does not mean not ever, or not under any circumstances.

 

[Falvlun]

I think if people in other countries want to kill each other, we should mind our own business and let them.

I am all for stopping humanitarian atrocities to the best of our abilities. The problem, however, is reality. Our motives are never purely humanitarian. In many cases, like this one, there is no clear cut good or bad guys. And, importantly, our "aid" will very probably kill the very innocents and civilians we are trying to save, and will likely further destabilize the political arena, which again, just makes things worse for those we are ostensibly trying to help.