Syria became a perfect political football for President Obama

[IsntLifeFunny]

Are you kidding? You don't see the difference between Bush invading a country for no valid reason vs Obama presumably launching a few cruise missiles in response to the use of WMDs on civilians

 

I didn't say there wasn't a difference between the situations, so nice strawman. A war without cause against a sovereign nation is against international law. Iraq was illegal;Libya was illegal; Syria will be illegal under international law. Also, this war could lead to a much wider escalation. We are about to take the side of Al-Queda and Al-Nusra: two enemies that have carried out attacks on us and allies. This is a proven and undisputed fact.

 

Acting like my statement calling out the cowards is nothing but your bias. If you were against Iraq, especially before the war, then you should be against this. First, it's not our position to be the world police. If there was U.N resolution and a measure of war taken by congress, then so be it. Until then, this strike will break international law. Second, we are going to aid our enemies, which is not smart policy. Third, if we do strike the Assad regime, it is likely to do nothing but escalate the situation. Fourth, there is a lack of evidence proving this attack was carried out by the Assad regime. For every story you link with accusations, I can link accredited articles disputing the evidence (UN diplomats) that the attack was carried out by the Assad regime. This is not to even mention our precarious standing in the world and the potential loss of American and Syrians.

 

For all of the aforementioned reasons, I repeat my question: Where the fuck are all of the anti-war people that made such noise against the last regime for illegal wars now that it's there guy in office? It doesn't matter if the strategy, tactics, funding or length of the operation aren't similar. The one thing that is similar is that both actions are against international law and are (were) bad policy.

[Guest]

For all of the aforementioned reasons, I repeat my question: Where the fuck are all of the anti-war people that made such noise against the last regime for illegal wars now that it's there guy in office? It doesn't matter if the strategy, tactics, funding or length of the operation aren't similar. The one thing that is similar is that both actions are against international law and are (were) bad policy.

 

Where the fuck indeed. I will be the first to join Starkiller in pointing out that the pro-Iraq/anti-Syria critics are dickish hypocrites. But the reverse is also true. I will write something in depth on this issue later, but to say Syria and Iraq aren't comparable is ridiculously fool hardy. 

 

Honestly, it's pathetic that many people only give two shits about Syria because of how it relates to Obama regardless of which party they clam to support.

 

I don't think you have to be anti-war to be liberal, but I haven't met many who aren't. And, similarly, if you are the kind of person who is actually (ideologically) pro-war I think you can go fuck yourself. War is never a desired outcome. 

[Starkiller]

I didn't say there wasn't a difference between the situations, so nice strawman. A war without cause against a sovereign nation is against international law. Iraq was illegal;Libya was illegal; Syria will be illegal under international law. Also, this war could lead to a much wider escalation. We are about to take the side of Al-Queda and Al-Nusra: two enemies that have carried out attacks on us and allies. This is a proven and undisputed fact.

 

Acting like my statement calling out the cowards is nothing but your bias. If you were against Iraq, especially before the war, then you should be against this. First, it's not our position to be the world police. If there was U.N resolution and a measure of war taken by congress, then so be it. Until then, this strike will break international law. Second, we are going to aid our enemies, which is not smart policy. Third, if we do strike the Assad regime, it is likely to do nothing but escalate the situation. Fourth, there is a lack of evidence proving this attack was carried out by the Assad regime. For every story you link with accusations, I can link accredited articles disputing the evidence (UN diplomats) that the attack was carried out by the Assad regime. This is not to even mention our precarious standing in the world and the potential loss of American and Syrians.

 

For all of the aforementioned reasons, I repeat my question: Where the fuck are all of the anti-war people that made such noise against the last regime for illegal wars now that it's there guy in office? It doesn't matter if the strategy, tactics, funding or length of the operation aren't similar. The one thing that is similar is that both actions are against international law and are (were) bad policy.

First, both sides of the Syrian conflict are our enemies. We are aiding one side by doing nothing as much as we aid the other by doing something. Further, a missile strike isn't much of an assist to the rebels. Our goal doesn't need to be to aid the rebels. It can simply be to punish Assad for using WMDs. They are not going to overthrow his government any more than Bill Clinton tried to overthrow Saddam while he was in office.

Second, we all have a bias. And I am calling out your statements. Being antiwar doesn't have to mean being against military action. I'm not in favor of a war with Syria. I am, however, in favor of a military strike against Syria in response to their use of WMDs. Being against invading Iraq is not remotely equivalent to being against hitting Assad's forces with a few cruise missiles.

Hell, you can go back farther and find that people's opinions of the invasion of Iraq probably was opposite their opinion of the US involvement in Yugoslavia (or Somalia or Rwanda) under Clinton. Often, people who want to invade sovereign countries for BS reasons have no interest in humanitarian aid and ending genocides. I'm in the camp of preventing genocides. Preventing dictators from using WMDs on their own people falls in that camp.

As for whether or not the US should be the world's police, the fact is we basically are. That's the responsibility we were handed as the lone remaining superpower. The world mostly trusted us to do that up until Bush got into office and invaded Iraq, but the fact is that the US military is today what the British Imperial military once was. The sun never sets on the US military. We project power around the globe. I think that we should NOT be the world's police, and yet we are. Partly because we are the dominant military powerhouse on the planet, partly because no one else will do it, and partially because we have been (mostly) a stabilizing force around the world. And that's the best argument for doing it.

[Starkiller]

I don't think you have to be anti-war to be liberal, but I haven't met many who aren't.

As I pointed out above, it depends on your definition of "pro-war"

[IsntLifeFunny]

First, both sides of the Syrian conflict are our enemies. We are aiding one side by doing nothing as much as we aid the other by doing something. Further, a missile strike isn't much of an assist to the rebels. Our goal doesn't need to be to aid the rebels. It can simply be to punish Assad for using WMDs. They are not going to overthrow his government any more than Bill Clinton tried to overthrow Saddam while he was in office.

Second, we all have a bias. And I am calling out your statements. Being antiwar doesn't have to mean being against military action. I'm not in favor of a war with Syria. I am, however, in favor of a military strike against Syria in response to their use of WMDs. Being against invading Iraq is not remotely equivalent to being against hitting Assad's forces with a few cruise missiles.

Hell, you can go back farther and find that people's opinions of the invasion of Iraq probably was opposite their opinion of the US involvement in Yugoslavia (or Somalia or Rwanda) under Clinton. Often, people who want to invade sovereign countries for BS reasons have no interest in humanitarian aid and ending genocides. I'm in the camp of preventing genocides. Preventing dictators from using WMDs on their own people falls in that camp.

As for whether or not the US should be the world's police, the fact is we basically are. That's the responsibility we were handed as the lone remaining superpower. The world mostly trusted us to do that up until Bush got into office and invaded Iraq, but the fact is that the US military is today what the British Imperial military once was. The sun never sets on the US military. We project power around the globe. I think that we should NOT be the world's police, and yet we are. Partly because we are the dominant military powerhouse on the planet, partly because no one else will do it, and partially because we have been (mostly) a stabilizing force around the world. And that's the best argument for doing it.

What utter tripe. I'm not going to even dignify your bullshit with a full response. Being antiwar means you are against wars that break international law, especially one in which we are in no danger. What kind of dumbass believes sending cruise missiles at another country isn't an act of war?

 

I will add one more point: Has Assad ever attacked U.S. Citizens? Has Al-Queda? There's your enemy.

[IsntLifeFunny]

BTW: A genocide is not comparable to a civil war, in which both sides have a lot of blood on their hands. Comparing this situation to Yugoslavia, or moreover Rwanda, is an act cognitive dissonance being used by a liberal to justify yet another act of war. The liberals entire campaign in 08 was centered around hammering the Republicans for their foreign policy, yet they tow the line so quick when it's their guy saying we should put American interests, soldiers and funds on the line. Get out of here with your stupidity and think critically before you tow the line.

[Opus74]

Grammar Nazi Warning:

 

You tow a trailer.  You toe a line.

 

More "critical thinking" for you.

[Starkiller]

What utter tripe. I'm not going to even dignify your bullshit with a full response. Being antiwar means you are against wars that break international law, especially one in which we are in no danger. What kind of dumbass believes sending cruise missiles at another country isn't an act of war?

 

I will add one more point: Has Assad ever attacked U.S. Citizens? Has Al-Queda? There's your enemy.

BTW: A genocide is not comparable to a civil war, in which both sides have a lot of blood on their hands. Comparing this situation to Yugoslavia, or moreover Rwanda, is an act cognitive dissonance being used by a liberal to justify yet another act of war. The liberals entire campaign in 08 was centered around hammering the Republicans for their foreign policy, yet they tow the line so quick when it's their guy saying we should put American interests, soldiers and funds on the line. Get out of here with your stupidity and think critically before you tow the line.

 

 

This isn't about enemies (both sides are allied with enemies). This is about the use of WMDs on civilians. US action is not about aiding the democratic revolt against a dictator. We have not provided the rebels any significant military assistance.

 

I do think genocide is on some level comparable to to what's going on in Syria. No, they are not undergoing genocide right now, but in the end it's about a dictator using violence against his own people, in this case it's specifically against a different religious sect. It's not remotely to the level of Yugoslavia or Rwanda, but at the same time neither the Serbs or the Hutus used chemical weapons. Assad has violated the Geneva Protocols by using chemical weapons.

As for international law, a strike against Assad's military probably would be against international law. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. We violated international law when we bombed Kosovo, but I don't hear you complaining about that. The use of WMDs needs to draw some sort of response. I think it's clear that the UN Security Council should get involved, but since the Russians and Chinese are likely to veto any action for their own reasons then it may be necessary to act outside of the auspices of the UN.

[Guest]

 

 

This isn't about enemies (both sides are allied with enemies). This is about the use of WMDs on civilians. US action is not about aiding the democratic revolt against a dictator. We have not provided the rebels any significant military assistance.

 

I do think genocide is on some level comparable to to what's going on in Syria. No, they are not undergoing genocide right now, but in the end it's about a dictator using violence against his own people, in this case it's specifically against a different religious sect. It's not remotely to the level of Yugoslavia or Rwanda, but at the same time neither the Serbs or the Hutus used chemical weapons. Assad has violated the Geneva Protocols by using chemical weapons.

As for international law, a strike against Assad's military probably would be against international law. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. We violated international law when we bombed Kosovo, but I don't hear you complaining about that. The use of WMDs needs to draw some sort of response. I think it's clear that the UN Security Council should get involved, but since the Russians and Chinese are likely to veto any action for their own reasons then it may be necessary to act outside of the auspices of the UN.

 

Sk, Obama said yesterday that any action against Syria would include assistance to the Rebels. I do not agree with that one bit and firmly believe we should do nothing until the U.N. Inspectors release their report. Any action taken should be done so with the full weight of the U.N. as well. There isn't any reason to rush here.

[reo]

House leaders back Obama on Syria

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Starkiller]

Sk, Obama said yesterday that any action against Syria would include assistance to the Rebels. I do not agree with that one bit and firmly believe we should do nothing until the U.N. Inspectors release their report. Any action taken should be done so with the full weight of the U.N. as well. There isn't any reason to rush here.

They haven't rushed anything yet.

And I agree about aiding the rebels. I'm for punishing Assad, not for aiding the rebels militarily.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Grammar Nazi Warning:

 

You tow a trailer.  You toe a line.

 

More "critical thinking" for you.

A common grammar mistake, especially at four thirty AM, but thanks for adding to the discussion.

[IsntLifeFunny]

 

 

This isn't about enemies (both sides are allied with enemies). This is about the use of WMDs on civilians. US action is not about aiding the democratic revolt against a dictator. We have not provided the rebels any significant military assistance.

 

I do think genocide is on some level comparable to to what's going on in Syria. No, they are not undergoing genocide right now, but in the end it's about a dictator using violence against his own people, in this case it's specifically against a different religious sect. It's not remotely to the level of Yugoslavia or Rwanda, but at the same time neither the Serbs or the Hutus used chemical weapons. Assad has violated the Geneva Protocols by using chemical weapons.

As for international law, a strike against Assad's military probably would be against international law. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. We violated international law when we bombed Kosovo, but I don't hear you complaining about that. The use of WMDs needs to draw some sort of response. I think it's clear that the UN Security Council should get involved, but since the Russians and Chinese are likely to veto any action for their own reasons then it may be necessary to act outside of the auspices of the UN.

I don't agree with you, but I appreciate the well thought out response. With the way the security council operates, I can agree that sometimes measures must be taken outside their body. I don't think this is such an occasion, but I can understand the sentiment.

[reo]

Cantor and Boehner have both backed it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23950253

 

 

If Obama wants to move forward, doing it like this is really his only option. If he goes it alone, he gets drilled by the right. This way, they might hit him for being "weak" but that's about it. They can't come out strongly against it, at least not very easily.

[NashvilleNinja]

All you people approaching this from an angle of political strategy and whether or not Obama will come smelling like roses... and whether or not the other side will win from any misstep... you're just not doing it right.