IsntLifeFunny Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 NM. The Russian port in Tartus is not a fully operational naval base, but it does have functioning capabilities to convert to one on short notice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 We are arming some of the rebels. Not the Al Qaeda factions however. The rebels are pretty diverse. Plus, for what it's worth, if the rebels win it would benefit us to have strengthened the factions that don't hate us. I'm not in support of arming the rebels, mind you, just rationalizing the benefits. I find it unlikely. The left truly knows no bounds of arrogance. How in the hell do you know who and who we aren't funding inside of the rebels? For that matter, let's just take you at your word. Oh, except that these factions fight side by side, so even if we 'only fund the moderates' they can simply hand the weapons to the extremist. My word, I just can't understand how people are this partisan. The right are just as bad, but it's not their turn in power. I told my pops the other day that we'll see if his new found appreciation for peace will last when it's the other guy in office. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 A lot of bad things happen in the world. We can't fix all of them, nor should we try. This is an internal civil war and there is no immediate threat to the US. US bombing is illegal by international standards. Killing innocent people with air strikes causes the US to lose the moral high ground, worsens our international image, and increases the chances that there will some form of retaliation. The consequences of even limited air strikes are unknown. It's very possible that US involvement inflames the situation and draws in other parties. You would figure this would be common sense. It seems to some here that common sense cannot be justified in the face of partisan politics. I absolutely guarantee you that if this was a Republican admin. this entire board would be frothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324755104579071330713553794.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 The left truly knows no bounds of arrogance. How in the hell do you know who and who we aren't funding inside of the rebels? For that matter, let's just take you at your word. Oh, except that these factions fight side by side, so even if we 'only fund the moderates' they can simply hand the weapons to the extremist. My word, I just can't understand how people are this partisan. The right are just as bad, but it's not their turn in power. I told my pops the other day that we'll see if his new found appreciation for peace will last when it's the other guy in office. What makes you think rebel groups share weapons? They may coordinate their actions, but I don't think that the different rebel factions are likely to arm each other. As for knowing which group is more friendly to us than another, I'd say it would be something that intelligence analysts do for a living. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 You would figure this would be common sense. It seems to some here that common sense cannot be justified in the face of partisan politics. I absolutely guarantee you that if this was a Republican admin. this entire board would be frothing. Seeing as how most liberals here have been against bombing them under Obama, I don't see how any liberal's opinion would be different under a republican president if he did the exact same things that the Obama admin has done. As for republican posters, those would probably change completely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Seeing as how most liberals here have been against bombing them under Obama, I don't see how any liberal's opinion would be different under a republican president if he did the exact same things that the Obama admin has done. As for republican posters, those would probably change completely. Even those against it have attempted to give political cover, which is the same for the other side in regards to attacking the admin, since it's a Liberal in office. That's politics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Even those against it have attempted to give political cover, which is the same for the other side in regards to attacking the admin, since it's a Liberal in office. That's politics. What is an example of liberals on this board giving Obama political cover despite the fact that they don't approve of an air strike? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 14, 2013 Report Share Posted September 14, 2013 Just look through the pages. It's all in black and white. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No1TitansFan Posted September 14, 2013 Report Share Posted September 14, 2013 Doing nothing is the best way to assure an Al Qaeda victory. There are currently millions of displaced Syrians who are angry at both Assad for attacking them and at the West for not coming to their aid as they did in Libya, which is what inspired them to begin the protests in the first place. The 2nd largest refugee camp in the world is now set up in Jordan just over the border; you couldn't set up a better recruiting ground for Al Qaeda, if that was your goal. Good read here http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/26/130826fa_fact_remnick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 14, 2013 Report Share Posted September 14, 2013 Just look through the pages. It's all in black and white. No, it is not. Specifically show an example of what you are saying liberals are doing to provide political cover for Obama despite their disapproval of his plan to bomb Syria. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 14, 2013 Report Share Posted September 14, 2013 I don't see many liberals on this board. Maybe Bink. Starkiller thinking of himself as liberal is one of the silliest things I have seen here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 14, 2013 Report Share Posted September 14, 2013 So what you are saying is that all liberals must think alike on every single topic (basically whatever you believe)? And that any deviation from that unwavering ideology makes them unworthy. Riiiiiiight... Are you trying to start a left wing Tea Party? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 14, 2013 Report Share Posted September 14, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/officials-us-wont-seek-un-approval-for-strike-if-syria-reneges-on-chemical-arms-pact/2013/09/13/a203b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html Update: There is an official agreement for a blueprint of removing the chemical warheads. Very good news overall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.