This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Obama: 'I Have Not Made a Decision' on Syria
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
Neither of these are relevant to my point, and again I was never talking about individual hypocrisy.
But I was and you replied to me.... :P
I wasn't really trying to contradict you, just defend what Funden was initially saying a bit. My bad, should have made myself more clear.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well he's made a decision now. I don't doubt Congress is going to give the go ahead.
Post by
Pallyalt
Why must we get involved in everyone else's problems? Does Syria pose a threat to the US? Every president we've had since the 60's or so has felt it's somehow his calling to launch us into a war. I am so sick of the idea that the world's problems are our responsibility.
Everytime we go to war, we borrow money to cover the cost. As a result, our national debt goes up, taxes go up, and the cost of living goes up. The world considers us meddlers and hates us, making international travel risky for Americans.
Should we go to war behind Syria's oppression of it's own people? Hell no! Everyday in the US people are being robbed, raped, killed and otherwise oppressed, many without any consequences. Let's work on our own problems before sending our men and women across the globe to fix everyone else's problems.
Post by
Skreeran
Hundreds of children were killed with poison gas in Syria last month. To me, that goes above all nationalism as something that cannot be tolerated.
Post by
Pallyalt
Hundreds of children were killed with poison gas in Syria last month. To me, that goes above all nationalism as something that cannot be tolerated.
And Sadaam had Weapons of Mass Destruction...
Post by
Skreeran
Hundreds of children were killed with poison gas in Syria last month. To me, that goes above all nationalism as something that cannot be tolerated.
And Sadaam had Weapons of Mass Destruction...Whether Saddam had WMDs is up for debate. It's quite possible Bush had bad intel.
Whether Assad possesses and used Sarin gas to kill 1400+ civilians, including children, is not up for debate. It's ben conclusively proven.
Post by
Pallyalt
Hundreds of children were killed with poison gas in Syria last month. To me, that goes above all nationalism as something that cannot be tolerated.
And Sadaam had Weapons of Mass Destruction...Whether Saddam had WMDs is up for debate. It's quite possible Bush had bad intel.
Whether Assad possesses and used Sarin gas to kill 1400+ civilians, including children, is not up for debate. It's ben conclusively proven.
The same was said about Sadaam's WMD, until the actual invasion proved this false. When it comes to the government and the media, pretty much everything is "up for debate".
Post by
Gone
The difference here is that chemical weapons were actually used, as opposed to the situation in Iraq in which our intelligence supposedly told us that Saddam had WMDs.
Let me ask you this. What is even the point of having a chemical weapons ban, that most of the world supports, if we're not willing to enforce it?
Post by
Skreeran
There were UN inspectors who confirmed traces of Sarin in the places where the people were gassed. This isn't US intel, this is a broadly accepted fact, confirmed by several sources. Even Russia, one of Syria's strongest allies, acknowledges that Syria used it.
Watch this.
Post by
Squishalot
Well, let's be clear. Russia acknowledges that chemical weapons were used. They haven't acknowledged that the Syrian Government were the ones who implemented them, which is what's caused the deadlock.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, let's be clear. Russia acknowledges that chemical weapons were used. They haven't acknowledged that the Syrian Government were the ones who implemented them, which is what's caused the deadlock.Last I heard, Russia had agreed to confiscate Assad's chemical weapons to cancel the US's potential military strike.
This was part of our President's speech, at any rate:
However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.
Post by
Squishalot
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they think Assad made the chemical strikes. It just means that they're trying to broker a diplomatic solution so that their ally doesn't get wiped out by the US.
Edit: To be clear, ownership of chemical weapons =/= usage of chemical weapons. Russia has long acknowledged that Syria has chemical weapons. Their belief, however, was that the weapons were used by the rebels to prompt a US-based retaliatory strike on the regime, rather than used by the regime itself.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
It's possible, but that's not what the evidence I'm seeing suggests. Granted, my perspective is filtered through an American lens. I'm not actually there, and every piece of news is constantly being spun and distorted and propagandized. But I don't think a President like Obama would make this sort of thing up. He's a Democrat, and he's being pressured by his party and the American people as a whole to get America OUT of foreign conflicts, not INTO them. So when he says this:
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
I'm inclined to believe him.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Here's the thing though.
Would you rather trust putin, a man who could be mistake for hitler if he grew a mustache, dyed his hair and replaced the word "Gay" in his volcabulary with "Jew" and "Russian" with "Aryan" or Obama, who while admittedly an idiot who doesn't know jack about most everything, atleast isn't a dictator who rewrote his country's consitiution and took the most literal meaning of it possible to stay in power longer, handpicks the people who count the votes, and back dictatorships constantly against a well-intentioned if foolish and overly liberal man whose greatest crimes were his inept international relations and abusing his race to get in office.
Post by
Squishalot
I hear what you're saying. However, the last dictator who was crushed by the US military didn't have any WMDs. It's not out of the realms of belief to see that the Russian viewpoint may be correct.
Skree: if my chemical weapons supply was raided and weapons stolen by the rebels (as the Russians would have us believe), I'd be handing out gas masks to my troops too. If I was a rebel and wanted to make it look like the regime was using chemical weapons, I'd be launching them from regime controlled areas too. None of the facts there contradict the alternative viewpoint.
I fully believe that Obama feels like he's doing the right thing. I don't think that he believes the alternative for a second. That force of belief in the explanation he's given doesn't make it 'correct' though, just as Bush's force of belief in Iraq's WMDs didn't make it 'correct'.
For the record, I believe that Obama is correct and the regime was the one who used the weapons. However, in a criminal court case, we'd be trying to establish a burden of proof that was 'beyond reasonable doubt', rather than the lighter 'on the balance of probabilities' that you would need for a civil case. In this instance, on the balance of probabilities, it's highly likely the regime is at fault. Is it beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think we can say that.
Post by
Skreeran
And I hear what you're saying, but I don't think Saddam's possible ownership of WMDs can be compared to Assad's definite ownership and probable use of WMDs. It's possible that Assad didn't actually order the strike, but the evidence suggests it, and his history of brutalizing the opposition inclines me to believe it. I have no reason to believe that he
wouldn't
do it, except for what might result if he were caught in the international spotlight (as he is now). Even then, it's looking like he's gonna get away with it.
And yes, if you looked at this as a court case, there is a reasonable doubt, but since Assad is not A) a citizen of the United States or any other country with a that sort of high burden of proof , B) a good person, and C) going to face any personal consequences for his actions. We're not executing the man, nor putting him in prison. What I want is deterrent, not punishment.
And on top of that, my argument is that dead Syrian children take precedence over American nationalism. I don't care about what is in the United States best interest, nor any of its allies. I don't care what we stand to gain by intervening, nor what we stand to lose by not. I don't care about which side would be strategically best for the United States to support.
My argument was against this sort of isolationist nationalism that is being propped up against intervention. Whether or not it was Assad who killed those children, I want something to be done about it so that it doesn't happen again. I don't want to start a war in Syria, but it makes me absolutely sick to see people trying to just look the other way and get on with their day.
Today I heard someone say "We're gonna invaded Syria to stop Syria from attacking Syria." This is nationalism at its finest. To me, it doesn't matter to what country a poisoned child belongs to; I have a moral responsibility to do something about it. No matter who poisoned them, I have to do my best to see that it never happens again.
Post by
Squishalot
For me, it's not about nationalism. It's about statements like this:
And yes, if you looked at this as a court case, there is a reasonable doubt, but since Assad is not A) a citizen of the United States or any other country with a that sort of high burden of proof , B) a good person, and C) going to face any personal consequences for his actions. We're not executing the man, nor putting him in prison. What I want is deterrent, not punishment.
You're talking about launching cruise missiles at a country, without international sanction, with the potential for high civillian / non-military collateral damage, and you're unwilling to apply a burden of proof that would otherwise be demanded to send a person to prison for a month.
I think you need to revisit your moral position.
Post by
Skreeran
If you look back, I didn't say that I recommend the strike. I think the solution with Russia confiscating their WMDs is perfectly fine.
I don't oppose those who think that launching missiles at Assad's troops is the wrong option to take. I oppose those who think that America should do nothing because it's not in America's best interest.
I firmly believe in doing the right thing regarding all humans, not just Americans. So if you made the case that we should take another course of action besides shooting missiles at regime troops--because they aren't the guilty party--that's one thing. Pally, whose post I was rebutting, was arguing that we should not do anything because Syria doesn't pose a threat to the United States. That's a separate matter. That's the nationalism I'm talking about. Turning a blind eye to the murder of children because they are not Americans is flat out wrong. Whether we strike at Assad or take another course of action, it's the idea that we should do nothing because those dead children belong to a different country from ours that offends me.
Post by
Skreeran
http://youtu.be/exrqMPJ1Bts
Post by
Snake387
I firmly believe in doing the right thing regarding all humans, not just Americans. So if you made the case that we should take another course of action besides shooting missiles at regime troops--because they aren't the guilty party--that's one thing. Pally, whose post I was rebutting, was arguing that we should not do anything because Syria doesn't pose a threat to the United States. That's a separate matter. That's the nationalism I'm talking about. Turning a blind eye to the murder of children because they are not Americans is flat out wrong. Whether we strike at Assad or take another course of action, it's the idea that we should do nothing because those dead children belong to a different country from ours that offends me.
How did you think the First and Second World wars started exactly? By the West intervening when it didn't concern them. And personally, I reckon if America does attack Syria then all hell's gonna break loose and chances are, Assad's going to release all his chemical stock at the West and probably kill a whole load of civilians, maybe even you and me. I'm sure you understand why I don't want that.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.