War with Syria
- Thread starter AladainAF
- Start date
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
Holy shit. That's amazing. I'm surprised that hasn't been buried.
Also is there a source on Iran???
Edit: NVM I see it is on CNN. This is how WWIII starts. We need to stay the fuck out of Syria.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Well, to be fair, WWIII would be a hell of a way to secure your endless presidential legacy. And possibly a third term a la FDR! Can you imagine the right wing reaction to that? HAH!
Could be worse, if it had been McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan we'd be in underground bunkers by now.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Oh this is not going to end well.
Yeah, but when you're the one who starts it I don't think it results in a 3rd term. I think it results in assassination.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,607
- 150,074
A whole 158 guys after 10+ years of war. We drop more people than that in one summer in Chicago
Really not sure Eomer was saying any of that, he was being careful with his wording. I think sending you and Merlin on a fact finding/peace keeping mission would be best.
Urlithani
Vyemm Raider
- 1,970
- 3,140
74% of Syria is Sunni Muslim. Assad is an Alawite muslim, which is in the minority. Lets not forget that other Shiite denominations, Christians, Jews, and other minority religious groups largely support Assadbecause they don't want to get dragged out of their home and beheaded in the middle of the night because Sunnis consider them infidels.
Assad isn't a good guy, but at least he isn't committing genocide based on religious principles.
Congratulations, we saved the children from chemical weapons! Now their headless bodies will end up in a mass grave with all their other infidel friends.
Source: The new prime minister of Syria's video:
TL;DR The new government will likely make this civil war look like cowboys and indians in a schoolyard.
Assad isn't a good guy, but at least he isn't committing genocide based on religious principles.
Congratulations, we saved the children from chemical weapons! Now their headless bodies will end up in a mass grave with all their other infidel friends.
Source: The new prime minister of Syria's video:
TL;DR The new government will likely make this civil war look like cowboys and indians in a schoolyard.
For quite a few folks I'm sure that sounds fine but I didn't hear Eomer saying any of that.
Syria is a shitty situation that's going to just get worse no matter what happens.
I'm with Eomer on this one. Assuming the Assad regime used chemical weapons, we should respond with force in light of the President's insistence that the use of such weapons would cross a red line.
This raises a host of issues and I think it's important to keep them separate.
1) Did The Assad Regime Use Chemical Weapons?
There's obviously no need to respond to something the Assad regime didn't do. I've seen a lot of perfectly reasonable speculation that the rebels used chemical weapons themselves to draw a response from the U.S. So, I'd like to see some of the evidence that it was the Assad regime. I expect, even among those that would support a military response if the Assad regime used the weapons, that different people will require different amounts of evidence before they are convinced of who is responsible for using the weapons. I'm not sure how much would be needed to convince me.
2) Why Respond At All?
Appearances matter, especially on the world stage. China is watching, Russia is watching, Iran is watching. America shouldn't allow a country to do the one thing we said it couldn't without repercussions. Our name is our name.
3) Was It Smart To Draw The Red Line?
Eomer pointed out the chemical weapons red line is nothing new. Still, I think it was not in our interests for Obama to repeatedly make a point of it in speeches. Had he not, we'd have more options open to us now. That's good for future discussion, or to the judge the President, but has little to do with the current decision.
4) What Should The Response Be?
I'm not sure. I'm not a military guy. My inclination is it should be less than the Iraq invasion and more then sending a few cruise missiles to blow some shit up.
5) What About WWIII?
There are so many moving parts here, and so many uncertainties that I doubt whether anyone could accurately predict the consequences of acting and failing to act. Sure, you can trot out a parade of horribles caused by a military response, but it's just as easy to trot our a parade of horribles caused by appearing weak.
This raises a host of issues and I think it's important to keep them separate.
1) Did The Assad Regime Use Chemical Weapons?
There's obviously no need to respond to something the Assad regime didn't do. I've seen a lot of perfectly reasonable speculation that the rebels used chemical weapons themselves to draw a response from the U.S. So, I'd like to see some of the evidence that it was the Assad regime. I expect, even among those that would support a military response if the Assad regime used the weapons, that different people will require different amounts of evidence before they are convinced of who is responsible for using the weapons. I'm not sure how much would be needed to convince me.
2) Why Respond At All?
Appearances matter, especially on the world stage. China is watching, Russia is watching, Iran is watching. America shouldn't allow a country to do the one thing we said it couldn't without repercussions. Our name is our name.
3) Was It Smart To Draw The Red Line?
Eomer pointed out the chemical weapons red line is nothing new. Still, I think it was not in our interests for Obama to repeatedly make a point of it in speeches. Had he not, we'd have more options open to us now. That's good for future discussion, or to the judge the President, but has little to do with the current decision.
4) What Should The Response Be?
I'm not sure. I'm not a military guy. My inclination is it should be less than the Iraq invasion and more then sending a few cruise missiles to blow some shit up.
5) What About WWIII?
There are so many moving parts here, and so many uncertainties that I doubt whether anyone could accurately predict the consequences of acting and failing to act. Sure, you can trot out a parade of horribles caused by a military response, but it's just as easy to trot our a parade of horribles caused by appearing weak.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
Okay. But if we start putting boots on the ground you go first also Sasha better get drafted and get to the front lines there too. /sarc
If the main argument for attacking Syria is because if we don't it'll make Obama look bad I'm going to say that's a pretty shitty reason.
It has nothing to do with Obama looking bad, it has to do with America's credibility. The consequences of action or inaction here will last beyond his Presidency. This wasn't Obama speaking on some domestic bill, saying Congress better pass it or else. This was POTUS, the Commander in Chief, speaking on foreign policy matters, and saying, repeatedly, do not cross this line.