• 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!

Glen beck nailing it with syria

I wouldn't put much stock in what the likes of Glenn Beck has to say. I would recommend people read the book "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski. It explains why we are in the middle east. Naturally, it has to do with resources. That of course doesn't sit well with people of the countries we invade. The outcome is the formation of radical hate groups but Brzezinski doesn't talk much about that---mostly sticks to the subject of resources and those with it have the power.
 
Do you think the people in Egypt or doing much better today than 5 years ago? Serious question.
Roughly the same if not worse. What ails them now is largely the same as what ailed them prior to the Spring :shrug:. Syria and Egypt are markedly different in terms of both severity and urgency though.
 
What does that matter? What happened in May has nothing to do with why we may use military intervention now. It's all about the chemical attack.

Which "one person"? And was itthe same "one person" that ordered the attack in May?
 
We shouldn't be making decisions on what to do in Syria based on a video or two, no matter how atrocious we might find the actions in the video (and assuming the video is even true).

What Assad is doing to his people is horrible. Any leader who kills over 100,000 of his own people - and then uses chemical weapons on them - is not worthy to lead the country.

On the other hand, the opposition is fractured and some of the factions are people we don't want to support because they would work against the USA. And at the moment nothing that is happening in Syria is directly affecting our interests.

So staying out of it - which we have done so far despite the urging of McCain and other neocons - seems to be the best thing to do.

I'm not opposed to some missile strikes to show our disapproval of chemical weapons - as long as they don't draw us in deeper or cause Iran or Russia to get involved. Chemical weapons are vile and should not be used. Of course not like Assad wasn't already killing his people without them.

Funny thing is now that Obama plans to ask congress for authorization, repubs are backpedaling -they don't want to be on the hook for this decision.
rguably the most amazing response to the news came from Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterintelligence & Terrorism, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee:

"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria."

This is one of those remarkable moments when a prominent member of Congress urges the White House to circumvent Congress, even after many of his colleagues spent the week making the exact opposite argument.
Congress, be careful what you wish for - The Maddow Blog

and later in the article
Lawmakers, in theory, could cut short their month-long break, return to work, and consider their constitutional obligations immediately. That almost certainly won't happen, at least not the lower chamber -- as my colleague Will Femia reported earlier, House Republican leaders have said they're prepared to "consider a measure the week of September 9th." There are reports Senate Democratic leaders may act sooner, but no formal announcement has been made.

The dirty little secret is that much of Congress was content to have no say in this matter. When a letter circulated demanding the president seek lawmakers' authorization, most of the House and Senate didn't sign it -- some were willing to let Obama do whatever he chose to do, some didn't want the burden of responsibility. Members spent the week complaining about the president not taking Congress' role seriously enough, confident that their rhetoric was just talk.

It spoke to a larger problem: for far too many lawmakers, it's so much easier to criticize than govern. In recent years, members of Congress have too often decided they're little more than powerful pundits, shouting from the sidelines rather than getting in the game.

It's one of the angles to today's news that's so fascinating -- Obama isn't just challenging Congress to play a constructive role in a national security matter, the president is also telling lawmakers to act like adults for a change. They're federal lawmakers in the planet's most powerful government, and maybe now would be a good time to act like grown-ups who are mindful of their duties.
 
The presence of nuclear technology, the lack of structured opposition and location make it a an entirely different ballgame. I'm in full support of opposition to the NK regime in the form of sanctions and aid to democratic movements however. In Syria, we now have an opportunity to unseat a trigger happy maniac and a destabilizing force in the region, yet some still insist on placing more importance on this incident than the string of atrocities committed by Assad.

So then "no" to NorKo, but "yes" to Syria because it's more convenient?

What is Syria to us?
Are they (or their enemies there) our allies?
Is there any sort of partnership (trade) we have with either one?
There are much more vicious warlords in Africa that conduct genocide. Why not go there?
If the UK or Russia disagree with our decision to attack Syria, is it really worth it to piss those countries off, in the long run?
How will attacking Syria be seen in the eyes of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc.? Won't this cause more problems than it's worth?

Attacking Syria is starting to look more and more like an 0bama Administration P.R. stunt. As I said, 0bama has made the U.S. look weak to the world. He's Putin's doormat. He needs to assure the homeland liberals that he's not an abject [kitty]. Seems this is more about 0bama than about Syria.
 
S

Attacking Syria is starting to look more and more like an 0bama Administration P.R. stunt. As I said, 0bama has made the U.S. look weak to the world. He's Putin's doormat. He needs to assure the homeland liberals that he's not an abject [kitty]. Seems this is more about 0bama than about Syria.


Ridiculous. McCain and others have been calling for much deeper participation in Syria for the US for months. If Obama wanted a PR stunt he could have gone in ages ago.
John McCain wants Syria intervention - Hadas Gold - POLITICO.com
 
That's called hypocrisy.
Syria is none of our business.
That's called a recognition of reality. North Korea and Syria are two entirely different situations. Deal with it.
 
That's called a recognition of reality. North Korea and Syria are two entirely different situations. Deal with it.

LMAO..."deal with it"..hahahaha.. great logic and rationale...

syria is none of our business.
 
So then "no" to NorKo, but "yes" to Syria because it's more convenient?
If you want to dumb it down, sure. The fact is that North Korea's proximity to both China and S. Korea, their possession of nuclear weaponry, and the lack of a viable and structured opposition to the regime itself render it an absolute crapshoot when compared to Syria.

What is Syria to us?
Are they (or their enemies there) our allies?
Is there any sort of partnership (trade) we have with either one?
There are much more vicious warlords in Africa that conduct genocide. Why not go there?
If the UK or Russia disagree with our decision to attack Syria, is it really worth it to piss those countries off, in the long run?
How will attacking Syria be seen in the eyes of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc.? Won't this cause more problems than it's worth?

Attacking Syria is starting to look more and more like an 0bama Administration P.R. stunt. As I said, 0bama has made the U.S. look weak to the world. He's Putin's doormat. He needs to assure the homeland liberals that he's not an abject [kitty]. Seems this is more about 0bama than about Syria.
Unseating Assad serves a humanitarian purpose in addition to both eliminating a key supporter of Iran and lessening Russian and Chinese influence in the region and potentially bringing an enhanced level of stability to the region as a whole. All positives in my book, despite your attempt to deflect by naming similarly war torn countries. It's the whole "If we can't get rid of every despot, why get rid of one while we have the chance" routine. Nuance and glaring obstacles be dammed.
 
What does that matter? What happened in May has nothing to do with why we may use military intervention now. It's all about the chemical attack.

Greetings, JC. :2wave:

Soooooo....Has anyone figured out yet Who Done it? We know the "why" part. It's to cause trouble for an opposing faction, so who stands to gain anything from this? :shock: I feel sorry for all those non-combatant women and children caught in the crossfire, though. :peace:
 
Hey Polgara :2wave:

There are so many unknowns for us civilians. I also don't want to see any more of our servicemen/women coming home with mental issues that seem to result from fighting halfhearted wars....not knowing if who you injured or killed deserved it or not must weigh heavily on ones mind.

Greetings, JC. :2wave:

Soooooo....Has anyone figured out yet Who Done it? We know the "why" part. It's to cause trouble for an opposing faction, so who stands to gain anything from this? :shock: I feel sorry for all those non-combatant women and children caught in the crossfire, though. :peace:
 
That's called a recognition of reality. North Korea and Syria are two entirely different situations. Deal with it.
Recognition of reality = Situational ethics in this case.

Messing with one will get our ass kicked..the other one won't.
 
We should have been more involved in Egypt. Anyway, democratic transition takes a generation or two and it's about time we all got started.
There are lessons to be learned tho from Egypt. Who takes power once the regime is ousted? And what are the consequences of that power grab?
 
What does that matter? What happened in May has nothing to do with why we may use military intervention now. It's all about the chemical attack.
You DID hear that there was a chemical attack earlier this year already, right?
 
Roughly the same if not worse. What ails them now is largely the same as what ailed them prior to the Spring :shrug:. Syria and Egypt are markedly different in terms of both severity and urgency though.
I would suggest that Egypt, like Syria, where both MUCH safer places to live, to vidsit, just to exist prior to their respective 'rebellions', and certainly SINCE. If the people you are supporting for regime change are more brutal than the ousted leader, what exactly have you 'won'?
 
There are lessons to be learned tho from Egypt. Who takes power once the regime is ousted? And what are the consequences of that power grab?

We managed in Afghan, Iraq, Libya and Somalia; I think we can manage to keep moderates in charge of Syria.
 
We managed in Afghan, Iraq, Libya and Somalia; I think we can manage to keep moderates in charge of Syria.

Not without a couple hundred thousand American troops on the ground we cant.
 
No, I know next to nothing about Syria except that we may use military action against them because they used chemical weapons recently. The recent chemical attack is the significant act that, without it, we wouldn't be talking about congressional approval for military action.

You DID hear that there was a chemical attack earlier this year already, right?
 
Not without a couple hundred thousand American troops on the ground we cant.

We effected regime change in Libya without such. Terrorists are not in charge of Libya. There's no WMD use in Libya.
 
We managed in Afghan, Iraq, Libya and Somalia; I think we can manage to keep moderates in charge of Syria.
Whatever we are managing in Afghanistan we are doing it 11 years later with a sustained troop presence. Libya...far too early to tell. I dont know how much of a hand we have had in Somalia. Egypt...its a nightmare. Syria has very actively engaged foreign players (Iran, Russia).

I dont know that we SHOULDNT act in Syria, but if there is evidence that Assad really did gas his people (not a given by any means) is the appropriate response a few cruise missiles and drone attacks just for the sake of saying "we did something"?
 
We effected regime change in Libya without such. Terrorists are not in charge of Libya. There's no WMD use in Libya.
Who is in charge of Libya? I think it might be a bit early to declare victory there.
 
No, I know next to nothing about Syria except that we may use military action against them because they used chemical weapons recently. The recent chemical attack is the significant act that, without it, we wouldn't be talking about congressional approval for military action.
The previous chemical attack was perpetrated by the rebels. Funny how we arent demanding action there...
 
That's called a recognition of reality. North Korea and Syria are two entirely different situations. Deal with it.

Some people have no concept of priorities. It's a wonder how they function.
 
Back
Top Bottom