• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

al Qaeda's Air Force

sawdust

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
1,533
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda's air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.
The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad's regime.
“So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with.”


Read more: Kucinich: Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force' - The Hill's Global Affairs
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Kucinich and I disagree on, well, most things. I think that I can agree with him on this. I don't think we have anything to gain in Syria and if we eliminate the current government we side with al Qaeda.
 
Kucinich and I disagree on, well, most things. I think that I can agree with him on this. I don't think we have anything to gain in Syria and if we eliminate the current government we side with al Qaeda.

Yep. A total no brainer. Yet, look at the number of people on this board supporting doing just that. Some people never learn.
 
Has anyone thought that the US soil might turn into a terrorist target of pissed islamists? Fires, poisoned water, bombs, you name it...
How about that, hm?
 
Has anyone thought that the US soil might turn into a terrorist target of pissed islamists? Fires, poisoned water, bombs, you name it...
How about that, hm?


Preach it Canell. These people need to hear it.
 
Has anyone thought that the US soil might turn into a terrorist target of pissed islamists? Fires, poisoned water, bombs, you name it...
How about that, hm?

That's been a possibility all along. Pissing off or killing terrorist is not a problem. Doing things that might help them can be.
 
People, myself included, often speak of how communities here in the US should fight back against gangs destroying them. Well, Syria has been fighting radicalism with an iron fist for decades. Other than not hugging Israel, the Syrian government had been relatively isolationist in relation to ME affairs. The "democracy cures everything" people have no real idea what that place would look like without autocratic rule. It will be an unmitigated disaster if the current government falls. The same Arab Spring that brought down the Egyptian government put people worse in its place. This is not an area that is fertile ground for democracy--not yet, and definitely not all at once.
 
People, myself included, often speak of how communities here in the US should fight back against gangs destroying them. Well, Syria has been fighting radicalism with an iron fist for decades. Other than not hugging Israel, the Syrian government had been relatively isolationist in relation to ME affairs. The "democracy cures everything" people have no real idea what that place would look like without autocratic rule. It will be an unmitigated disaster if the current government falls. The same Arab Spring that brought down the Egyptian government put people worse in its place. This is not an area that is fertile ground for democracy--not yet, and definitely not all at once.

Democracy doesn't work here although it's critical for the development of a representative republic. Countries in the Middle East particularly are cultured to identify with a high degree of theocratic rule. I was astounded when I saw protesters in the Middle East with signs that read **** Freedom. We can't spread our version of democracy into cultures that don't have the underlying value system.

I have long held the belief that countries that allow people to prosper in which people are allowed to enjoy themselves will dominate by example and no military force will represent the lifestyles enjoyed by that culture.
 
All you guys are correct. Of course "spreading democracy" is the stated objective. Only the gullible believe that anyway.
 
Has anyone thought that the US soil might turn into a terrorist target of pissed islamists? Fires, poisoned water, bombs, you name it...
How about that, hm?

I brought up all the strange accidents, fires, failures not long ago. I was told pretty much that I was wrong.
 
Has anyone thought that the US soil might turn into a terrorist target of pissed islamists? Fires, poisoned water, bombs, you name it...
How about that, hm?

How many times in history do you think people in a nation have been happy with the country dropping bombs on them?
 
I don't like knownothing isolationism, but Syria is too complex to get involved in. The last thing we need to do is support jihadists in Syria like Reagan did in Afghanistan, leading as it did to 9-11.

The neocons are, of course, all hot to trot. There never was a military intervention they didn't like. Fortunately, Obama isn't a nitwit like Bush. He's too smart to fall for neocon demagoguery.
 
I don't like knownothing isolationism, but Syria is too complex to get involved in. The last thing we need to do is support jihadists in Syria like Reagan did in Afghanistan, leading as it did to 9-11.

The neocons are, of course, all hot to trot. There never was a military intervention they didn't like. Fortunately, Obama isn't a nitwit like Bush. He's too smart to fall for neocon demagoguery.

What drivel. If Obama doesn't attack Syria it isn't because he doesn't plan to. The only thing stopping him would be congress or the thought of impeachment for not receiving their approval.

Otherwise, he's attacking Syria. If he does attack you'll be rationalizing it to the amusement of many here at DP, as usual.

I wonder if he plan to use drones? They seem to be his weapon of choice to kill people.

Obama the Warmonger. I know that's hard to swallow but by all means, don't choke on it. :lamo
 
I don't like knownothing isolationism, but Syria is too complex to get involved in. The last thing we need to do is support jihadists in Syria like Reagan did in Afghanistan, leading as it did to 9-11.

The neocons are, of course, all hot to trot. There never was a military intervention they didn't like. Fortunately, Obama isn't a nitwit like Bush. He's too smart to fall for neocon demagoguery.

Well we can only hope your right about Obama this time. He was clearly wrong on Libya.
 
How many times in history do you think people in a nation have been happy with the country dropping bombs on them?

Uh, none. But does this have to do with me? My point is that the U.S. is pulling the devil's tail. There are enough Muslims and fanatics in America to make you cry a river by internal terrorist acts.
 
People, myself included, often speak of how communities here in the US should fight back against gangs destroying them. Well, Syria has been fighting radicalism with an iron fist for decades. Other than not hugging Israel, the Syrian government had been relatively isolationist in relation to ME affairs. The "democracy cures everything" people have no real idea what that place would look like without autocratic rule. It will be an unmitigated disaster if the current government falls. The same Arab Spring that brought down the Egyptian government put people worse in its place. This is not an area that is fertile ground for democracy--not yet, and definitely not all at once.

That's curious. I look at what MB did in power in Egypt and what Assad did in power in Syria and its quite clear Assad is worse.
 
I don't like knownothing isolationism, but Syria is too complex to get involved in. The last thing we need to do is support jihadists in Syria like Reagan did in Afghanistan, leading as it did to 9-11.

The neocons are, of course, all hot to trot. There never was a military intervention they didn't like. Fortunately, Obama isn't a nitwit like Bush. He's too smart to fall for neocon demagoguery.

Is there is reason why you didn't mention Obama supporting or enemy in Libya and now in Syria? He has placed weapons in the hands of our sworn enemies but he's not a nitwit? LOL.

And what Regan did lead to 9-11? LOL. Twist, spin, stretch, fabricate. Same tune, different day.
 
Yep. A total no brainer. Yet, look at the number of people on this board supporting doing just that. Some people never learn.

We seem to be going to attack Syria with less information and even less proof of WMD's than we had when we went into Iraq...if that was possible...but this time they are in support of it....WTF? Did we just enter into an episode of the Twilight Zone?

Is Obama going to get Congressional approval for this use of military force or is he going to be the Lone Cowboy and do what he did in Lybia and ignore Congress?
 
I don't like knownothing isolationism, but Syria is too complex to get involved in. The last thing we need to do is support jihadists in Syria like Reagan did in Afghanistan, leading as it did to 9-11.

The neocons are, of course, all hot to trot. There never was a military intervention they didn't like. Fortunately, Obama isn't a nitwit like Bush. He's too smart to fall for neocon demagoguery.
"Neocons?" Seems to me it's been the Bidens of the radical left squealing like stuck pigs to ramp up the rhetoric for a strike against Assad. You might want to revisit your spin on recent history...
 
Has anyone thought that the US soil might turn into a terrorist target of pissed islamists? Fires, poisoned water, bombs, you name it...
How about that, hm?

yeah. Can you imagine how awful it would be if Al Qaeda were to decide that it wanted to strike U.S. targets? :roll:
 
I don't like knownothing isolationism, but Syria is too complex to get involved in. The last thing we need to do is support jihadists in Syria like Reagan did in Afghanistan, leading as it did to 9-11.

The neocons are, of course, all hot to trot. There never was a military intervention they didn't like. Fortunately, Obama isn't a nitwit like Bush. He's too smart to fall for neocon demagoguery.
Not true at all.
JFK wanted out of Viet Nam, LBJ stayed and sent more troops.
Currently, very few people think going into Syria in any fashion is a good idea.
Yet, Obama seems hell bent on going.
 
Has anyone thought that the US soil might turn into a terrorist target of pissed islamists? Fires, poisoned water, bombs, you name it...
How about that, hm?

Um, that is already the case....... :shrug:
 
"Neocons?" Seems to me it's been the Bidens of the radical left squealing like stuck pigs to ramp up the rhetoric for a strike against Assad. You might want to revisit your spin on recent history...

Yes, clearly this charge is being led by the left at this point. But, the neocons (which by no means represent the entire GOP) are now, and were the first and from the beginning, pressing for military action in Syria.
 
yeah. Can you imagine how awful it would be if Al Qaeda were to decide that it wanted to strike U.S. targets? :roll:

I couldn't read your sarcasm, do you mean they haven't the desire to, or haven't the capability?
 
I couldn't read your sarcasm, do you mean they haven't the desire to, or haven't the capability?
No capability at this point.
Funny how these "threats" come and go. Wasnt Irans nuke program going to end it all and wipe us out?
I clearly remember 5 years ago they were "with in 10 years of developing a bomb, then all of a sudden they were one year away.
That was 2 years ago.
Now not a peep about the Iran nuke program. I guess especially since they cant seem to get a rocket more than 500 feet in the air.
Must be using some of that NK tech they bought. Hahaha
Point being, just what the f do we need to get involved in Syria for? Is there an up side to the US? I doubt it.
 
Yes, clearly this charge is being led by the left at this point. But, the neocons (which by no means represent the entire GOP) are now, and were the first and from the beginning, pressing for military action in Syria.
Well, the correction is warranted, sadly. :(
 
Back
Top Bottom