Military strikes on Syria - Yes or No ?

  • #41
Excuse me, but nobody stepped in to protect the people of Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq after Saddam slaughtered them with chemical weapons. Nobody. Even though the images were all over the international news.

The US went to war with Iraq because they invaded Kuwait, nobody gave two hoots when they dropped chemical weapons on their own people or their neighbours.

But that's exactly the point, we didn't care about the gassing. We didn't care about "freeing the Kuwaiti people" either. We cared about oil, and maybe about Saddam getting too big for the britches we made him.

If we had a clean record in the Middle East, then maybe we could legitimately take part in larger peace-keeping missions. Maybe. But we don't. Our presence will only make things worse.

And what I wonder is - what IS the real reason for wanting to intervene. Our government, no matter who is president, doesn't care about gassing of civilians (the public does, I know I do, and most here, but the government doesn't act out of compassion but self-interest). So what is the real reason?
 
  • #42
Very very true! The thanks button was not enough!

Weird how we agree so much on foreign politics but rarely on domestic politics when the two aren't that different in many ways.

Always glad to find common ground! :)
 
  • #43
Dumb question, I haven't followed the whole Syria thing that closely because it is just sad to me, but who is providing weapons and ammo to the rebels now????? That stuff is expensive!

Someone is, who is it? Was it the US that provided those weapon to the masses? Iran has been a close partner to Syria so they aren't likely supplying arms to the rebels, WHO IS? Al Queda? Iran is primarily Shi'ite so I guess maybe a radicalist (non-Shi'ite) movement could be funding the situation and not a world superpower but....errrm....seems odd. Like I said dumb question, but someone here must know.

Yes, these so-called freedom fighters are in fact al-Qaeda, funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, allies of the US and Israel. Many of them aren't even native Syrians and are North African mercenaries.
 
  • #44
I remember the footage taken in the aftermath of the massacre at Halabja. The chemical weapons were dropped in the early afternoon when any able bodied male was safely away working in the fields. The women, children and elderly were the victims, and they clearly didn't know what hit them. When whatever chemicals Saddam used began to permeate the interiors of poorly built homes, they began to realise something was wrong and made the perfectly natural mistake of running to lean out the windows for air.

I can still see the image of one dead woman with her lower half inside the house and the upper half of her collapsed across the outside of the windowsill with her dead baby still in her arms. She must have tried to hold her baby out the window to try and protect him. And its years since I've actually seen that, but I've never forgotten it.

Sorry for the off topic interlude, but even as an ardent opponent of the death penalty, I'm glad Saddam was hanged.
 
  • #45
I'd like to know why the US government are nonplussed about Israel using white phosphorus on the Palestinians. In fact, Israel remains a welfare state of the US and receives billions and billions of dollars annually in aid (courtesy of the US taxpayer). I'd also like to know why the US is suddenly so bothered about chemical warfare when they used bullets tipped in toxic deplete uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Chemical weapons" is just being used as propaganda because it sounds scary and people don't understand what it means.

I have been asking for years why the American Christian right (and some on the left) who support Israel unquestioningly seem to care nothing at all for their fellow Christian Palestinians. Even if they can't bring themselves to care about Muslim Palestinians (although ideally they should care about a suffering people, no matter their religion), do they not care about the ancient Christian communities who suffer there? They are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ?

But Israel is our "ally", and the public has been conditioned by successive governments to view Muslims with suspicion, and most Palestinians are Muslim, and so I guess the public does not care???

:banghead:
 
  • #46
Yes, these so-called freedom fighters are in fact al-Qaeda, funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, allies of the US and Israel. Many of them aren't even native Syrians and are North African mercenaries.


Uhhh....al Qaeda is funded by the Saudi's? That seems rather odd to an extreme.

Was that a typo? Or an agenda? I am all confused now. Al Qaeda is/was about destroying middle eastern dictatorships and the Saudis are the ultimate goal.

This seems rather personal for you Squish. You seem like a rabble rouser. :)
 
  • #47
Uhhh....al Qaeda is funded by the Saudi's? That seems rather odd to an extreme.

Was that a typo? Or an agenda? I am all confused now. Al Qaeda is/was about destroying middle eastern dictatorships and the Saudis are the ultimate goal.

This seems rather personal for you Squish.

The Middle East is alot messier and more confusing than that, Sonya. The Saudis don't fund al Qaeda, but they have been openly inciting rebellion against Assad's regime for at least three years, (and so have Qatar). I've no doubt they've been channeling resources to the opposition against him for at least as long. Its only in the last year or so that the Sunni factions in Syria became infected with Al Qaeda, up till that point the Saudis had every motive to fund the rebellion.
 
  • #48
<modsnip>

:lol:

I don't get it, the left in Europe is very pro-Palestine. And not necessarily anti-Israel (although anti-Israeli policy). But here in the US there is a contingent on the left that is not just pro-Israel, but vehemently anti-Palestinian.

I guess what confuses me more about the Christian right's view of Israel is because they specifically seem to tie it to religion, and yet overlook their Palestinian co-religionists who are suffering.

We really do religion weird here in the US.

(Shuffles off to find out what Israeli Canine Attack videos are :lol: )
 
  • #49
I think the Christian right, or some of them, might be pro-Israel because of some End Time type belief. The Second Coming is due to happen when the Jews return to the sacred spot of something or other and there's a bar code with 666 on everyone's right hand. Therefore, Israel.

Besides, most Arab Christians aren't the right type of Christian for the US Christian right.
 
  • #50
I am in Australia and I don't want us to send military forces to Syria.......saying that I don't want anyone to send military forces in there.......I just think it will make things worse and who knows where it could end.

Very simple explanation but that is it.

Yes I think something should be done about the use of chemical weapons.......I think it must be announced by ALL COUNTRIES through the UN that that is not on and if proven (still a bit suspicious as to who used them..) then the leaders will be charged with war crimes.
 
  • #51
Absolutely "NO" to involvement in Syria.

Atrocities are happening all over the world. Many African countries are a complete mess, like Zimbabwe. The country is so poor that the West could easily (relatively easily - compared to other nations) temporarily take over and clean it up. One million Tibetans have died and been killed since China invaded, and torture is an every day occurrence. Yet America isn't attempting to do anything about it. The media does nothing but cover it up. Why does the US want to meddle in Islamic countries, and almost ONLY in Islamic countries? It doesn't make sense and it's incredibly suspicious. I think that they are trying to destabilise the region in order to strengthen the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

The evidence actually suggests that it was the "rebels", NOT Assad, who committed the chemical attack. Firstly, phone calls intercepted by Israel should not count as evidence, as they are enemies with Syria and have enormous motives for wanting war. Secondly, the calls actually demonstrated concerned Syrian government officials demanding answers for the chemical attacks, in a way that showed they were completely unaware any such attacks were going to happen. If there was ANY doubt at all, that should to stop the West jumping to conclusions and getting involved - let alone there being no real proof of their claims, and the only proof that DOES exist is showing the very opposite of what they are saying. Besides, many of these so called "rebels" are paid North African al-Qaeda fighters - "Islamic" fundamentalists - themselves meddling in Syria (a secular country), which has a right to defend itself. Why would Syria submit their own people to chemical weapons? It would make them unpopular with the public, therefore weakening politically among their own people, and there are unknown risks with such attacks.

Beware of biased media reporting and propaganda. Always do your own research, away from the mainstream media, who are not impartial. Always try to fully understand all sides of the story. No matter how it's portrayed by the West, these situations are NEVER as simple as being divided into the "goodies" and the "baddies".

Finally, why are Russia willing to allow themselves to be portrayed as evil, and risking war with the West?

One last thing: all war is a war against women and children. War should be an absolute last resort. Remember the Iraq war, and their non-existent Weapons Of Mass Destruction? At least 114,000 people and counting have died for that mess. Remember Libya, when we were told we were helping freedom fighters topple an evil dictator? Look how that turned out. Libyans hate us. The real reason for that war was because Gaddafi was trying to change to a different currency that would have strengthened Africa economically - therefore making it harder to rape the continent for its resources.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO to Barack Obomber and his pals.

LOL. Yes Assad and Sons are little angels. And you, good Sir are an excellent spin doctor.

I do believe Syria was built by and for Syrians, they built the streets thousands of years ago and they built the culture and they choose the destiny of their land.

As-salam alaykum (&#1575;&#1604;&#1587;&#1604;&#1575;&#1605; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1603;&#1605;). Said with sincerity.

The American people do NOT want to strike Syria and I hope that the officials won't, it is just saber rattling. Relax and ease off the chemical weapons. Urge peace and encourage the Syrian people to unite and stop thinking about killing all your enemies if they are your own countrymen. Please pass that message on to President Assad and his brilliant wife.

What exactly do the people want anyway? Independence from a strong leader? They have a strong leader they just need to trust him and TELL them what the people need!
 
  • #52
sonya610- i always wished the south had won- (southern accents make me weak at the knees)-what a different world it would been. jmo
 
  • #53
I know next to nothing about politics, but am following it from the Biblical prophecy perspective, and watching. However, wanting the killing/ war of anyone in the ME is not good just to totally support another country.
 
  • #54
No. A military strike will mean that more civilians will die, the country's infrastructure will be damaged even further and nothing good will be accomplished.
 
  • #55
yea wars are ugly, north america and other countries, are involved at a distance- so we are not actually at war- the boston bombing - oh my gosh- the hysteria , i don't know how the usa would handle a war on their own turf- if the country gets hysterical about one bombing, how do they find themselves war worldly enough to put their might into other countries.

i live in canada they are still working on trials for peoples from some riot, i'm a euro -as far as i'm concerned the riot sounds like a wild weekend-they have piss poor riots here. this is a new country north america- should pay more attention to their own turf.
i lived in a canadian city that had issues but no gangs- hell they got gangs now, people die on a regular basis, is that not war, wars don't start with missiles, they start with gangs- gotta love the internet, has made it so much easier.
If you can't handle your own countries problems- just don't- cause if you can't see the power being gained by gangs-in a few years some will glom together, our own wars are coming

as a new comer to the country i went to protection aka gangs, they were not gangs then just disorginized groups, but when they said they would kill to protect you, it was meant in the literal sense, and if another group was pissed at you -you were close to dead literaly. i stuck my thumb out left town. you have a powder keg in north america, should pay more attention to your own.
jmo

So nao, I have a serious question for you---Do you really believe that the US taxpayer/citizen gets a say on our military involvement?
Do you think one particular party is pro-war and the other is pro-peace?

The answers are a resounding "NO"!

You are preaching to the choir by saying we should stay out of the Mid-East chaos. Most Americans strongly feel that way.
But will our politicians even consider any of that?

Nope.
 
  • #56
i think the usa has already rattled their sabres, wish they had kept quiet, "speak softly and carry a big stick" now they are are kinda damned if they do and damned if they don't . Some wars go on for centuries, its just like a bad marriage, domestic violence, ain't no fixing it. -unless you have a place for those in need to go. jmo

yeah, like that Vietnam debacle .... ugh! :banghead:

The horror, the horror......
 
  • #57
Wars are not about morals (morals basically come from religious beliefs) wars are about money and power.
Look at gang warfare in any country, or racial tensions, what country can control their own little wars. i'm not seeing to much success.
Who did the chemical thing - do we know for really sure who made that decision?

Empathy - what do the people of Syria want - its easy to be across the water and make judgement - it the regular folks that will live and die because of a moral attack. jmo moo

sorry but there are several false statements in the above post which need to be pointed out. first, not a war has been started that did not involve a degree of moral judgment. second, morality does not come from religion. the religious often like to believe this, but it simply is not so. if this were the case, there would not be a seemingly unending list of priests who were also pedophiles. after all, one can't get more religious than a priest. if your theory were correct, all of that religion would have stirred up some morality. not so. on the flip side, many a human being with impeccable moral character does not believe in any god or ascribe to any religion.

as for who made the decision to unleash chemical warfare in syria, it is implausible, illogical, irrational to sugest/believe that anyone other than al-assad is at fault. last week many rumors were floating about, propagated mainly by right-wing media, that suggested perhaps the rebels pulled this off. to a person, regardless of party, congressional leaders have backed away from such statements. there is proof as to the preparation and movement of chemical stockpiles. we are not privy to the classified info, but a thorough read through the unprecedented amount of info that has been made public is enough to make it clear that this was an al-assad decision. this is not iraq.

the matter of what people in a given country actually want has always been of prime importance to me when considering whether america should intervene in those countries. the syrian people have made it clear that they want our help. their regional neighbors have done the same. there are now over 2 million refugees living in camps bc circumstances are so dire in syria. 2 million people. imagine that.

without empathy one is poor, indeed. i am immeasurably empathetic to the syrian people and deeply troubled that americans seem so unwilling to brush off the heinous to which they've been subjected. i actually believe that bc they were gassed and americans didn't see images of blood and guts and gore on their tv screens, it's made it easier to turn our heads and pretend it either didn't happen or wasn't so bad. this is so dangerous.

the bottom line: america will continue to be the greatest country in the world only so long as, in times of great crisis, americans step up and make choices that continue to actually earn our country such a distinction.

moo imo etc
 
  • #58
I am in Australia and I don't want us to send military forces to Syria.......saying that I don't want anyone to send military forces in there.......I just think it will make things worse and who knows where it could end.

Very simple explanation but that is it.

Yes I think something should be done about the use of chemical weapons.......I think it must be announced by ALL COUNTRIES through the UN that that is not on and if proven (still a bit suspicious as to who used them..) then the leaders will be charged with war crimes.

Our ex President, Jimmy Carter always a self-thinker and odd man out agrees with you.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/jimmy-carter-syria-peace-summit-96087.html

I feel the same way.
 
  • #59
sorry but there are several false statements in the above post which need to be pointed out. first, not a war has been started that did not involve a degree of moral judgment. second, morality does not come from religion. the religious often like to believe this, but it simply is not so. if this were the case, there would not be a seemingly unending list of priests who were also pedophiles. after all, one can't get more religious than a priest. if your theory were correct, all of that religion would have stirred up some morality. not so. on the flip side, many a human being with impeccable moral character does not believe in any god or ascribe to any religion.

as for who made the decision to unleash chemical warfare in syria, it is implausible, illogical, irrational to sugest/believe that anyone other than al-assad is at fault. last week many rumors were floating about, propagated mainly by right-wing media, that suggested perhaps the rebels pulled this off. to a person, regardless of party, congressional leaders have backed away from such statements. there is proof as to the preparation and movement of chemical stockpiles. we are not privy to the classified info, but a thorough read through the unprecedented amount of info that has been made public is enough to make it clear that this was an al-assad decision. this is not iraq.

the matter of what people in a given country actually want has always been of prime importance to me when considering whether america should intervene in those countries. the syrian people have made it clear that they want our help. their regional neighbors have done the same. there are now over 2 million refugees living in camps bc circumstances are so dire in syria. 2 million people. imagine that.

without empathy one is poor, indeed. i am immeasurably empathetic to the syrian people and deeply troubled that americans seem so unwilling to brush off the heinous to which they've been subjected. i actually believe that bc they were gassed and americans didn't see images of blood and guts and gore on their tv screens, it's made it easier to turn our heads and pretend it either didn't happen or wasn't so bad. this is so dangerous.

the bottom line: america will continue to be the greatest country in the world only so long as, in times of great crisis, americans step up and make choices that continue to actually earn our country such a distinction.
moo imo etc

I respectfully and profoundly disagree with you. I can't understand why the US (or the bogus puppet organization, the UN) has been determined to be the watchdog of the world? Why? Has this "we must save the world" been some sort of WWII propaganda to rev up emotions within the hearts of Americans that still lingers today and makes the big boys at the top a lot of money at the cost of our young boy's lives? There are no "Greatest Nation" prizes being awarded; actually, I think for all of our efforts, soldier's lives, and billions of dollars spent---we are actually hated and thought ill of (or joked about) in many places throughout the world. We are like a boxer who leads with his chin and "telegraphs" his every punch.

The USA is a "baby" nation compared to the societies in the Mid-East so why do we feel we have the right to intervene? What makes our 'culture' so much better that we must shove our war-machine and lifestyle/beliefs down someone else's throats?

We have been involved with wartime efforts in countries where it has been impossible to realize who was friend or foe and put rules of engagement on our soldiers when they were surrounded by guerilla forces. There is no winning. There is no resolution.

I feel bad for those suffering within our own country. We are doing a poor job handling the many social injustices within our own "walls" right here in the USA.

Anything we do in the Mid-East will be unresolvable regardless of our best intentions. It is a tangled web: it is a powder keg.

Perhaps I am younger and just haven't 'drank the Kool-Aid' of saving-the-world-through-tanks philosophy, ykwim?

moo
 
  • #60
My son's girlfriend is freaking out.
She says that there is unusually more activity in the air near Destin Florida.
I doubt it is related but honestly I have no idea. Has anyone else noticed an increase in flights overhead?
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
1,763
Total visitors
1,866

Forum statistics

Threads
632,165
Messages
18,622,979
Members
243,041
Latest member
sawyerteam
Back
Top