War with Syria

Siddar

Siddar

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,355
5,898
Well you ether go into these countries like Bush did and put a gun up into everyones face tell them Vote or Die and you keep doing that for a few decades until a democratic tradition takes hold or you just end up choosing a side between two are more dictators. Trying to bomb people into democracy simply wont work because all the potential power sources in said countries simply don't believe in the concept. The American people will not support wars where they're sending there sons to die the establishment or preservation of a foreign dictator.

Egypt and Libya are examples of trying impose democracy without ground forces. Simply doomed to failure from the start. Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of imposing democracy with ground forces. Where there is at least a chance to succeed but its not certain and at a very high cost.

Currently the American public is at the point where they don't want to pay the price for doing things the Bush way and they rightly understand Obama's way has zero chance of success. Obama has also undermined his credibility with the public by the abject failures in Libya and Egypt and by also undermining of what Bush tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan with premature withdraws from those countries.

The American people will only support military action if it is clearly in the national interest of US to do so. They will also support military action to defend are promote democracy but to much more limited extent. Syria meets nether of those tests for support.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
It's funny that Obama managed to wage war as a anti war president for so long.
 
A

azeth

6,216
8
you know who's probably qualified to fill the thousands of vacant skilled-labor jobs in this country?


eGifW4Y.png
 
Erronius

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,484
42,428
tad10_sl said:
To Erronius and everyone else. Please don't lump Afghanistan and Iraq together when making arguments.

Afghanistan was a justifiable war - if a government is sheltering the guy who orchestrated the death of 3,000+ of your citizens you get to go in with "boots on the ground" as well as missiles in the air and remove that government in your quest to find that guy.
Click to expand...
Was it? And if"government sheltering Osama"is the breadth of your understanding then I do have to wonder if there is a point debating with you. No gov't sheltered Osama, Osama was participating in a civil war supported by outside nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (state-sponsored terrorism) and in many ways Afghanistan didn't even exist in the way we think of it today. It was defunct and occupied by terrorists who weren't ever recognized by more than a handful of nations (mostly the nations that used them as proxies), they never controlled all of Afghanistan and if anything it turned into a bitter power struggle based on lawless tribal warfare with roving gangs of Islamic extremist wandering around executing people.

Honestly that's part of what made the Afghanistan war so sad...here we were using the 9/11 attacks as a justification to go blindly into a religious based proxy war that was taking place on the ashes of Afghanistan, with such countries as Iran and Pakistan the puppeteers in the background. Pakistan in particular took a personal role in fighting there a number of times before 9/11 and trained many of the fighters there, but because no one ever wants to be honest about politics Pakistan and others were able to wipe their hands of the Taliban (publicly at least) and laugh as we blundered into the region expecting to get in and out quickly.

Afghanistan was such an abortion on so many levels that the argument that it was a "justified" war just makes me /sadface something serious.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,747
93,539
Erronius_sl said:
Was it? And if"government sheltering Osama"is the breadth of your understanding then I do have to wonder if there is a point debating with you. No gov't sheltered Osama, Osama was participating in a civil war supported by outside nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (state-sponsored terrorism) and in many ways Afghanistan didn't even exist in the way we think of it today. It was defunct and occupied by terrorists who weren't ever recognized by more than a handful of nations (mostly the nations that used them as proxies), they never controlled all of Afghanistan and if anything it turned into a bitter power struggle based on lawless tribal warfare with roving gangs of Islamic extremist wandering around executing people.

Honestly that's part of what made the Afghanistan war so sad...here we were using the 9/11 attacks as a justification to go blindly into a religious based proxy war that was taking place on the ashes of Afghanistan, with such countries as Iran and Pakistan the puppeteers in the background. Pakistan in particular took a personal role in fighting there a number of times before 9/11 and trained many of the fighters there, but because no one ever wants to be honest about politics Pakistan and others were able to wipe their hands of the Taliban (publicly at least) and laugh as we blundered into the region expecting to get in and out quickly.

Afghanistan was such an abortion on so many levels that the argument that it was a "justified" war just makes me /sadface something serious.
Click to expand...
Youre lumping two arguments/questions together;

Was invading Afghanistan justified?

Did we handle the invasion the best we could have?
 
AladainAF

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,867
30,828
Azeth_sl said:
you know who's probably qualified to fill the thousands of vacant skilled-labor jobs in this country?


eGifW4Y.png
Click to expand...
I agree. Unfortunately, the companies are really pushing immigration reform, because they want "skilled labor" that would result from that to fill positions.

I find it hilarious. Scumbag companies - almost all of them - have been laying off right and left and then they cry about not enough labor, and their solution is to open the borders. I'm amazed that no one has really ever brought this up as a consequence of immigration reform, so blatant that the companies are quite literally rubbing it in our faces.

Read it, and rage.
 
TheBeagle

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
8,517
29,334
Why shouldn't they rub it in our faces when 50% of the population votes time and again in favor of corporate rights instead of labor rights. If you are 'amazed' that big business pushes for immigration reform while at the same time doing everything they can to fuck over the domestic work force then you haven't been paying attention. There's gotta be some 'hard truths' in there somewhere...
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,518
583
TheBeagle_sl said:
Why shouldn't they rub it in our faces when 50% of the population votes time and again in favor of corporate rights instead of labor rights. .
Click to expand...
As if there is a difference between Republican and Democrats these days. Please remind me again, how many Wall Street bankers did Obama's administration prosecute?
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
that would be0 tad, 0 wall street bankers, on top of the largest stimulus in history that went mostly to bankers.

let's also not forget that glass-steagall was repealed under bill clinton which allowed the too big to fail banks to form.

obviously the bush administration didn't regulate wallstreet like it should have and republicans atleast equally as complicit as democrats are but that's the point, democrats have a large hand in this mess as well.


No CEOs even came particularly close to facing criminal charges. The closest would probably be Angelo Mozilo, who was chief executive of Countrywide, one of the most aggressive mortgage lenders during the boom years. It was bought up by Bank of America in late 2007 and has caused the bank no end of trouble since.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Mozilo with insider trading and securities fraud in 2009 for selling shares of his company while publicly proclaiming it was in fine shape. But those were civil charges, which Mozilo settled with $67.5 million in fines and a lifetime ban from serving as an officer of a public company. A criminal investigation was dropped.
Click to expand...
 
Sebudai

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
Obama didn't prosecute any Wall Street bankers, ergo, there are no differences between republicans and democrats.

Science!
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
of course there is a difference, they have to have something to campaign on, some issue that drives the emotions of the crowds they are trying to harness. but some people can't seem to wrap their head around that in some areas like foreign policy, or who they take political donations from there is a bipartisan consensus, and literally there is no difference about certain things like goals of foreign policy.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
can you read? "under bill clinton" = only bill clinton apparently

under Clinton's watch, his stewardship, his influence, his leadership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.