We can all agree on 1 thing!

Damocles said:
I will still ask, "What is the compelling interest for the US to take unilateral action in Syria?" and "What will a victory in Syria look like?" and "How are we going to ensure that the civilians they place around these weapons aren't harmed?" and "What will you be saying when Iran enters the fray and it becomes more than "limited action" in Syria?"
Click to expand...

Those are good questions.

I guess one thing I would ask -why do we have to do it unilaterally? We aren't the only ones who signed the Geneva Convention. Why aren't other nations interest in punishing Assad for using chemical weapons (if he did). Are we the only ones moral enough to stand up to that conviction, that they shouldn't be used?

Re victory - we aren't doing this for a victory if we do it; we are doing it as punishment.

Re the civilians and Iran - absolutely we need to look at those things. Will a limited missile strike done as punishment cause more problems for us than not doing the strike? And has he been evil enough to pack his supporters around the probable targets?

all of these things need to be considered.

But in terms of people being against the missile strikes - I remind you how many people were against the Iraq war, and Bush/Cheney/congress went ahead with it anyway. Not everything is run by democracy - and quite frankly, not everything should be. Your average person doesn't know enough to decide when to attack another country. Public opinion needs to be considered; but if the military and the politicians see some reason for our country to intervene, we hope they have better intelligence that we do. (In Bush's case, he didn't.) Of course, if they screw up we can vote them out.

If we don't do anything - what are we saying about chemical weapons use?
 
A refusal to act would undermine the credibility of America's other security commitments, including the president's commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,”
Click to expand...
Hagel told the same hearing.

( credit Big Money for pulling up the quote)
 
tekkychick said:
Those are good questions.

I guess one thing I would ask -why do we have to do it unilaterally? We aren't the only ones who signed the Geneva Convention. Why aren't other nations interest in punishing Assad for using chemical weapons (if he did). Are we the only ones moral enough to stand up to that conviction, that they shouldn't be used?

Re victory - we aren't doing this for a victory if we do it; we are doing it as punishment.

Re the civilians and Iran - absolutely we need to look at those things. Will a limited missile strike done as punishment cause more problems for us than not doing the strike? And has he been evil enough to pack his supporters around the probable targets?

all of these things need to be considered.

But in terms of people being against the missile strikes - I remind you how many people were against the Iraq war, and Bush/Cheney/congress went ahead with it anyway. Not everything is run by democracy - and quite frankly, not everything should be. Your average person doesn't know enough to decide when to attack another country. Public opinion needs to be considered; but if the military and the politicians see some reason for our country to intervene, we hope they have better intelligence that we do. (In Bush's case, he didn't.) Of course, if they screw up we can vote them out.

If we don't do anything - what are we saying about chemical weapons use?
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be unilateral? The only other nation capable of Tomahawk attacks has already said they won't be there.
"we're doing it for punishment" - not compelling enough for unilateral or minimally supported action.
Will it cause more problems than it solves? - Yes. It will. For us and for our allies in the area.
"Many were against the Iraq war"... Not like they are against this. Less than half of the country was against the Iraq war, and there was far more of a coalition than there is here.

Punishment activity should be from the UN and should never be unilateral US action without a specific and compelling US interest, if it is the "international community's" convention being flaunted it is up to them to present the "punishment".

There is no compelling US interest that should compel us to act without the support of that same international community that he is saying created the "red line" that he stumbled over.
 
tekkychick said:
Those are good questions.

I guess one thing I would ask -why do we have to do it unilaterally? We aren't the only ones who signed the Geneva Convention. Why aren't other nations interest in punishing Assad for using chemical weapons (if he did). Are we the only ones moral enough to stand up to that conviction, that they shouldn't be used?

Re victory - we aren't doing this for a victory if we do it; we are doing it as punishment.

Re the civilians and Iran - absolutely we need to look at those things. Will a limited missile strike done as punishment cause more problems for us than not doing the strike? And has he been evil enough to pack his supporters around the probable targets?

all of these things need to be considered.

But in terms of people being against the missile strikes - I remind you how many people were against the Iraq war, and Bush/Cheney/congress went ahead with it anyway. Not everything is run by democracy - and quite frankly, not everything should be. Your average person doesn't know enough to decide when to attack another country. Public opinion needs to be considered; but if the military and the politicians see some reason for our country to intervene, we hope they have better intelligence that we do. (In Bush's case, he didn't.) Of course, if they screw up we can vote them out.

If we don't do anything - what are we saying about chemical weapons use?
Click to expand...

Not to get off on a different tangent and rehash the whole Iraq War but wasn't there like 70% support at time we went in along with Congressional Support/Approval? As the war played out that obviously changed but at the time we attacked "the polls" showed the public supported it (to my recollection).
 
cawacko said:
Not to get off on a different tangent and rehash the whole Iraq War but wasn't there like 70% support at time we went in along with Congressional Support/Approval? As the war played out that obviously changed but at the time we attacked "the polls" showed the public supported it (to my recollection).
Click to expand...

I remember all the large anti-war marches that bush ignored. I don't remember what the polls at the time said.
 
cawacko said:
Not to get off on a different tangent and rehash the whole Iraq War but wasn't there like 70% support at time we went in along with Congressional Support/Approval? As the war played out that obviously changed but at the time we attacked "the polls" showed the public supported it (to my recollection).
Click to expand...


you still don't KNOW Iraq didn't attack us?
 
because the people were LIED to is the only reason they approved.

I remember telling people that Sadam had nothing to do with 911 and they would not believe me.

IT WAS FACT
 
cawacko said:
Not to get off on a different tangent and rehash the whole Iraq War but wasn't there like 70% support at time we went in along with Congressional Support/Approval? As the war played out that obviously changed but at the time we attacked "the polls" showed the public supported it (to my recollection).
Click to expand...


Well, that was after a months long media campaign of misinformation by the Bush Administration scaring the shit out of people and implying that Saddam was responsible fro 9/11. So I'm not quite sure that the comparison is apt on that score.
 
cawacko said:
I attended three anti-war marches. The polls showed a majority of the country supported going into Iraq.
Click to expand...

Including the next democratic warmonger presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Vote for Hillary, Vote for Peace .. my ass.

Obama is just setting the stage for Hillary to Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, that was after a months long media campaign of misinformation by the Bush Administration scaring the shit out of people and implying that Saddam was responsible fro 9/11. So I'm not quite sure that the comparison is apt on that score.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Both you & Desh pointed this out - after months of being lied to, the people may have supported the war; I'll trust Cawacko's recollection on that. And Bush linked (totally incorrectly) Iraq to an attack on the US, which would cause people to be more supportive. Sadly, a lot of people didn't understand Iraq didn't attack us. (This is the kind of thing that makes me say "democracy" shouldn't decide whether or not we attack another country - because quite frankly people are capable of being morons.)

Pres Obama has only had a week or so to garner support for the missile strike due to chemical weapons. We'll see what happens as more information is revealed.

I'm still not sure myself what is best to do. But chemical weapons are pretty horrible. But we have to make sure anything we do doesn't expand our involvement beyond that.
 
:0)

One of us is closer to the right wing than the other.

Which one of us do you think that is?

Clue: I'm antiwar, you're not.
 
Thought Thieves said:
darla can you just answer me one question

what are your specific reasons for being against dropping bombs on syria? I think you might be the best one to parse them out.
Click to expand...

To me personally, dropping bombs always kills civilians and there is just no excuse for it. You can maybe find an instance where it would be justifiable to me, but none that I can think of. I am not a pacifist, but I'd want to see ships on the shore before war. I can support a true humanitarian intervention but don't really know of any recently. Humanitarian intervention would never include airstrikes.

And then, in this case, logically, this is a civil war. How the eff would you like it if France had dropped bombs on Massachusetts during our civil war? This is going to be a huge mess, runs the risk of turning into a proxy war (IF it isn't starting that way, I don't think we know), runs the risk of spreading, runs the high risk of further destabilizing both the country and the region...and for what? What is the goal again? When do we know we've accomplished it? None of this has been answered.

One final question I have is; why is it we always have money to bomb people? We just cut a shit load of programs during the sequester that have had the real life effect of causing pain and suffering to real people. But we can always afford to drop bombs - all of which will be replaced! We always have plenty of bucks to pay to the war pigs running this country and manufacturing these weapons don't we? And there is always some urgent reason for it isnt' there?

It's horseshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top