Syria: Iraq Redux? Guess Again

[TemplarKormac]

At any rate, Carbine, you never answered my question. Why should we strike on the basis of less than actionable intelligence?

You don't pay attention to my posts.

I'm not for attacking Syria over chemical weapons. I wish I could be. I wish we had an international community with the moral character to stand up to the perpetrators of such atrocities and en masse take action to punish them, but we don't.

The US cannot afford to be exceptional. We can afford to join the rest of the civilized world, in our own due part, to act on certain measures of extremity, collectively,

but we can't afford to do the dirty work ourselves.

We have to confine our dirty work to those situations when our national security and vital interests are clearly and materially threatened. Syria is not one of those situations.

That is the sad state of the world.

Oh, my reading is just fine, Carbine, thank you.

You problem beginning with your initial statement, Carbine, is that either way you flip it, there will bound to be a situations where the enemy of our enemy IS our enemy. Would you like to take such a risk? What moral character would there be in that? Since when has it always been in our nature for us to "punish" everyone anyways? We don't even know WHO to punish. What is wrong with American Exceptionalism? Perhaps a little of that would stop our Government from taking the wrong path!

As for the conclusion of your closing statement, Carbine, no truer words have ever been spoken.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Your error is simple. TL: Bush employed hundreds of thousands and hundreds of billions of dollars, which has resulted in Iraq growing closer to Iran. Obama is going use cruise missiles to punish Assad for using poison gas on his people.

Idiotic statement. There is no ‘punishing’ dictators. You can remove them or leave them. Bombing shit does nothing but kill people. Explain to me how killing people ‘punishes’ the dictator.

yes, FA-Q2, your statement is indeed idiotic.

Thank America you are not in charge of foreign policy. We stand a chance of surviving.

Did punishing Saddam Hussein ever do anything? Can you cite any example in history where a dictator has voluntarily backed down due to stern measures or attacks?

 

[NYcarbineer]

At any rate, Carbine, you never answered my question. Why should we strike on the basis of less than actionable intelligence?

You don't pay attention to my posts.

I'm not for attacking Syria over chemical weapons. I wish I could be. I wish we had an international community with the moral character to stand up to the perpetrators of such atrocities and en masse take action to punish them, but we don't.

The US cannot afford to be exceptional. We can afford to join the rest of the civilized world, in our own due part, to act on certain measures of extremity, collectively,

but we can't afford to do the dirty work ourselves.

We have to confine our dirty work to those situations when our national security and vital interests are clearly and materially threatened. Syria is not one of those situations.

That is the sad state of the world.

Oh, my reading is just fine, Carbine, thank you.

You problem beginning with your initial statement, Carbine, is that either way you flip it, there will bound to be a situations where the enemy of our enemy IS our enemy. Would you like to take such a risk? What moral character would there be in that? Since when has it always been in our nature for us to "punish" everyone anyways? We don't even know WHO to punish. What is wrong with American Exceptionalism? Perhaps a little of that would stop our Government from taking the wrong path!

As for the conclusion of your closing statement, Carbine, no truer words have ever been spoken.

American exceptionalism is meant to be that we lead in the world to spread democracy and human rights, and take action against those that are enemies of the same, regardless of whether the rest of the civilized world comes along or not.

We can't be that sort of nation now, if ever we could.

We cannot afford the luxury of fixing everyone else's problems.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

And it was a coincidence that the invasion of Iraq was two years after 9-11?

Negged for trolling.

Oh grow a pair. Giving someone a negative because he made a good point...Now here you go, neg me. What a joke. Take your twitchy little pudgy fat finger and neg me, pussy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your error is simple. TL: Bush employed hundreds of thousands and hundreds of billions of dollars, which has resulted in Iraq growing closer to Iran. Obama is going use cruise missiles to punish Assad for using poison gas on his people.

Idiotic statement. There is no ‘punishing’ dictators. You can remove them or leave them. Bombing shit does nothing but kill people. Explain to me how killing people ‘punishes’ the dictator.

yes, FA-Q2, your statement is indeed idiotic.

Thank America you are not in charge of foreign policy. We stand a chance of surviving.

Did punishing Saddam Hussein ever do anything? Can you cite any example in history where a dictator has voluntarily backed down due to stern measures or attacks?

khadaffi when his stepdaughter was killed

the Hanoi commies when they came back to the negotiating table

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You don't pay attention to my posts.

I'm not for attacking Syria over chemical weapons. I wish I could be. I wish we had an international community with the moral character to stand up to the perpetrators of such atrocities and en masse take action to punish them, but we don't.

The US cannot afford to be exceptional. We can afford to join the rest of the civilized world, in our own due part, to act on certain measures of extremity, collectively,

but we can't afford to do the dirty work ourselves.

We have to confine our dirty work to those situations when our national security and vital interests are clearly and materially threatened. Syria is not one of those situations.

That is the sad state of the world.

Oh, my reading is just fine, Carbine, thank you.

You problem beginning with your initial statement, Carbine, is that either way you flip it, there will bound to be a situations where the enemy of our enemy IS our enemy. Would you like to take such a risk? What moral character would there be in that? Since when has it always been in our nature for us to "punish" everyone anyways? We don't even know WHO to punish. What is wrong with American Exceptionalism? Perhaps a little of that would stop our Government from taking the wrong path!

As for the conclusion of your closing statement, Carbine, no truer words have ever been spoken.

American exceptionalism is meant to be that we lead in the world to spread democracy and human rights, and take action against those that are enemies of the same, regardless of whether the rest of the civilized world comes along or not.

We can't be that sort of nation now, if ever we could.

We cannot afford the luxury of fixing everyone else's problems.

At any given moment there are 12-16 civil wars going on in the continent of Africa and we don't do a damn thing.

This is all about Iran. Just like Ron Paul said. I agree with him 100%. All roads lead to Tehran.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So what? Tehran will not be allowed to have nukes, no compromise.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don't pay attention to my posts.

I'm not for attacking Syria over chemical weapons. I wish I could be. I wish we had an international community with the moral character to stand up to the perpetrators of such atrocities and en masse take action to punish them, but we don't.

The US cannot afford to be exceptional. We can afford to join the rest of the civilized world, in our own due part, to act on certain measures of extremity, collectively,

but we can't afford to do the dirty work ourselves.

We have to confine our dirty work to those situations when our national security and vital interests are clearly and materially threatened. Syria is not one of those situations.

That is the sad state of the world.

Oh, my reading is just fine, Carbine, thank you.

You problem beginning with your initial statement, Carbine, is that either way you flip it, there will bound to be a situations where the enemy of our enemy IS our enemy. Would you like to take such a risk? What moral character would there be in that? Since when has it always been in our nature for us to "punish" everyone anyways? We don't even know WHO to punish. What is wrong with American Exceptionalism? Perhaps a little of that would stop our Government from taking the wrong path!

As for the conclusion of your closing statement, Carbine, no truer words have ever been spoken.

American exceptionalism is meant to be that we lead in the world to spread democracy and human rights, and take action against those that are enemies of the same, regardless of whether the rest of the civilized world comes along or not.

We can't be that sort of nation now, if ever we could.

We cannot afford the luxury of fixing everyone else's problems.

American Exceptionalism can also mean we have enough wit about us to know when to sit on the sidelines. We should have enough confidence in our own ability to defend ourselves should such a danger ever reach our shores. I majorly agree with your sentiment, Carbine.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, my reading is just fine, Carbine, thank you.

You problem beginning with your initial statement, Carbine, is that either way you flip it, there will bound to be a situations where the enemy of our enemy IS our enemy. Would you like to take such a risk? What moral character would there be in that? Since when has it always been in our nature for us to "punish" everyone anyways? We don't even know WHO to punish. What is wrong with American Exceptionalism? Perhaps a little of that would stop our Government from taking the wrong path!

As for the conclusion of your closing statement, Carbine, no truer words have ever been spoken.

American exceptionalism is meant to be that we lead in the world to spread democracy and human rights, and take action against those that are enemies of the same, regardless of whether the rest of the civilized world comes along or not.

We can't be that sort of nation now, if ever we could.

We cannot afford the luxury of fixing everyone else's problems.

At any given moment there are 12-16 civil wars going on in the continent of Africa and we don't do a damn thing.

This is all about Iran. Just like Ron Paul said. I agree with him 100%. All roads lead to Tehran.

All roads lead to oil, to be more precise.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So what? Tehran will not be allowed to have nukes, no compromise.

And what makes us believe that sanctioning them incessantly will stop that? As with Syria, we will need to take more drastic action.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So what? Tehran will not be allowed to have nukes, no compromise.

Maybe, this all happened for a reason and nukes in the Middle East are the only way to peace. We can destroy the world just as easily fighting every attempt to get them.

 

[Darkwind]

We already sending my tax dollars to aid the Syrian people. The United States has provided the Syrian people with over $1 billion since the crisis began. Now the refugees have increased 10 fold & so will the aid. This will cost us billions more if we do nothing.

If we can remove Assad for around the $1.1 billion we spent overthrowing Qudaffe, I am all for it. We will be money ahead of aiding refugees. Plus we will benefit greatly from the Qatar pipelines Assad & Russia are blocking. I am for allowing Obama to spend up to $5 billion to get rid of the Assad regime however he sees fit.

The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Caspian Sea region, France & Most of the EU want a pipeline through Syria. This pipeline will greatly reduce energy profits of & demand from Russia & Iran. Also Iraq, Turkey & Jordan want the over 4.5 million refugees driven out of Syria by chemical weapons to return. Aljazeera also says Syrian refugees & rebels also want the USA to attack.

The our military budget is almost double that of most other presidents. When Obama wants to slow the rate of increase in military spending, idiots scream bloody murder that he is weak & inviting attacks on US. When he want's to use it to project strength, win US friends, allies, energy & economic benefits, the idiots scream the same stupid B.S. Military spending is not an entitlement program, it is to help serve your country.

Outside of the nonsense that you just ranted, tell Me something.

Your cherry picked little graphic shows Two dictators removed.

I thought Barry wasn't out for regime change?

Sheesh....how about a little consistency here....


Never mind. I just noticed it said Libya.

Strange how Iraq and Libya enter into a discussion about Syria.

 

[dilloduck]

We already sending my tax dollars to aid the Syrian people. The United States has provided the Syrian people with over $1 billion since the crisis began. Now the refugees have increased 10 fold & so will the aid. This will cost us billions more if we do nothing.

If we can remove Assad for around the $1.1 billion we spent overthrowing Qudaffe, I am all for it. We will be money ahead of aiding refugees. Plus we will benefit greatly from the Qatar pipelines Assad & Russia are blocking. I am for allowing Obama to spend up to $5 billion to get rid of the Assad regime however he sees fit.

The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Caspian Sea region, France & Most of the EU want a pipeline through Syria. This pipeline will greatly reduce energy profits of & demand from Russia & Iran. Also Iraq, Turkey & Jordan want the over 4.5 million refugees driven out of Syria by chemical weapons to return. Aljazeera also says Syrian refugees & rebels also want the USA to attack.

The our military budget is almost double that of most other presidents. When Obama wants to slow the rate of increase in military spending, idiots scream bloody murder that he is weak & inviting attacks on US. When he want's to use it to project strength, win US friends, allies, energy & economic benefits, the idiots scream the same stupid B.S. Military spending is not an entitlement program, it is to help serve your country.

Outside of the nonsense that you just ranted, tell Me something.

Your cherry picked little graphic shows Two dictators removed.

I thought Barry wasn't out for regime change?

Sheesh....how about a little consistency here....


Never mind. I just noticed it said Libya.

Strange how Iraq and Libya enter into a discussion about Syria.

Heads up----Barry flip flopped on that one when you weren't looking.

 

[The T]

American exceptionalism is meant to be that we lead in the world to spread democracy and human rights, and take action against those that are enemies of the same, regardless of whether the rest of the civilized world comes along or not.

We can't be that sort of nation now, if ever we could.

We cannot afford the luxury of fixing everyone else's problems.

At any given moment there are 12-16 civil wars going on in the continent of Africa and we don't do a damn thing.

This is all about Iran. Just like Ron Paul said. I agree with him 100%. All roads lead to Tehran.

All roads lead to oil, to be more precise.

Could be said IMHO...but with our VAST resources that Obama refuses to tap? Could it be said that WE are trying to run the M.E. wells dry so WE become the lone mega source and the WORLD will have to bow to us?

 

[Darkwind]

We already sending my tax dollars to aid the Syrian people. The United States has provided the Syrian people with over $1 billion since the crisis began. Now the refugees have increased 10 fold & so will the aid. This will cost us billions more if we do nothing.

If we can remove Assad for around the $1.1 billion we spent overthrowing Qudaffe, I am all for it. We will be money ahead of aiding refugees. Plus we will benefit greatly from the Qatar pipelines Assad & Russia are blocking. I am for allowing Obama to spend up to $5 billion to get rid of the Assad regime however he sees fit.

The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Caspian Sea region, France & Most of the EU want a pipeline through Syria. This pipeline will greatly reduce energy profits of & demand from Russia & Iran. Also Iraq, Turkey & Jordan want the over 4.5 million refugees driven out of Syria by chemical weapons to return. Aljazeera also says Syrian refugees & rebels also want the USA to attack.

The our military budget is almost double that of most other presidents. When Obama wants to slow the rate of increase in military spending, idiots scream bloody murder that he is weak & inviting attacks on US. When he want's to use it to project strength, win US friends, allies, energy & economic benefits, the idiots scream the same stupid B.S. Military spending is not an entitlement program, it is to help serve your country.

Outside of the nonsense that you just ranted, tell Me something.

Your cherry picked little graphic shows Two dictators removed.

I thought Barry wasn't out for regime change?

Sheesh....how about a little consistency here....


Never mind. I just noticed it said Libya.

Strange how Iraq and Libya enter into a discussion about Syria.

Heads up----Barry flip flopped on that one when you weren't looking.

??

They ARE after regime change now?

I suppose they think that this can be accomplished by hurling offshore missiles and bombing villages from afar...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionaries of the far right are trying everything they possibly have to confuse and distort the issue.

Nowhere can anyone argue that the admin is out for regime change in Syria, at least not with credible evidence.

 

[KissMy]

2007 The New Yorker: "To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East.... The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources currently valued at over $170 Trillion US dollars.

In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplied of natural gas.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nowhere can anyone argue that the admin is out for regime change in Syria, at least not with credible evidence.

That is correct. So if we are to take action, it should be for regime change. But seeing as how there is not one iota of credibility to the intelligence on this situation, it is a waste of time and effort.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

American exceptionalism is meant to be that we lead in the world to spread democracy and human rights, and take action against those that are enemies of the same, regardless of whether the rest of the civilized world comes along or not.

We can't be that sort of nation now, if ever we could.

We cannot afford the luxury of fixing everyone else's problems.

At any given moment there are 12-16 civil wars going on in the continent of Africa and we don't do a damn thing.

This is all about Iran. Just like Ron Paul said. I agree with him 100%. All roads lead to Tehran.

All roads lead to oil, to be more precise.

Oh that's right. For you I have to state the obvious.

 

[The T]

At any given moment there are 12-16 civil wars going on in the continent of Africa and we don't do a damn thing.

This is all about Iran. Just like Ron Paul said. I agree with him 100%. All roads lead to Tehran.

All roads lead to oil, to be more precise.

Oh that's right. For you I have to state the obvious.

Seems to ME that he was educating YOU.