• 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!

Here's good news on Syria

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unless you think the government is belligerent enough to buck this kind of resistance.



A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Unless you think the government is belligerent enough to buck this kind of resistance.



A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.


New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

Yeah, but when Did the Executive branch ever listen to the People? :lol:

5420307663_ListeningTour_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unless you think the government is belligerent enough to buck this kind of resistance.

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.


New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

And, it looks like Russia, after their press releases today, may in fact come to the aid of Syria. Wow. Any odds on China following suit if they do? This could be so indescribably bad.

But... do we do nothing? Sanctions can't be put in place because the Russians and Chinese will veto it. And, an embargo will have no effect because they get all they need from Russia and China now.

But... do we do nothing? Just let the kids keep dying?

I don't know. I'm in favor of a limited military response. Similar to what Obama is talking about now. But he Russian Navy might have something to say about that with their frigate and missile cruisers in Syria's main port. I can't imagine them just sitting there and watching the missiles fly over them without responding in kind.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
And, it looks like Russia, after their press releases today, may in fact come to the aid of Syria. Wow. Any odds on China following suit if they do? This could be so indescribably bad.

But... do we do nothing? Sanctions can't be put in place because the Russians and Chinese will veto it. And, an embargo will have no effect because they get all they need from Russia and China now.

But... do we do nothing? Just let the kids keep dying?

I don't know. I'm in favor of a limited military response. Similar to what Obama is talking about now. But he Russian Navy might have something to say about that with their frigate and missile cruisers in Syria's main port. I can't imagine them just sitting there and watching the missiles fly over them without responding in kind.

Heya Beaudreaux. :2wave: That's what I say. Do nothing for now. Syria will split into 3 regions. Then we need to see who rises to the top. Then we will know who we are dealing with. Right now we don't even know all the players. Other than some groups. Like the Salafists and the MB. AQ, and Al Nusra. Plus there is the Islamic Kurds.

Already 29 Oppositions groups and civilian committees are backing Al Nusra. Plus the Syrians themselves want the MB out.

Moreover out of the 100k killed the Rebels are responsible for over 40k themselves and they have proven they cannot be trusted.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It's a lose-lose situation for the civilians of Syria and Obama.

No matter which path is taken, it will displease many and the rewards are mighty small.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And, it looks like Russia, after their press releases today, may in fact come to the aid of Syria. Wow. Any odds on China following suit if they do? This could be so indescribably bad.

But... do we do nothing? Sanctions can't be put in place because the Russians and Chinese will veto it. And, an embargo will have no effect because they get all they need from Russia and China now.

But... do we do nothing? Just let the kids keep dying?

I don't know. I'm in favor of a limited military response. Similar to what Obama is talking about now. But he Russian Navy might have something to say about that with their frigate and missile cruisers in Syria's main port. I can't imagine them just sitting there and watching the missiles fly over them without responding in kind.

I hear ya Beau. But this is what I've maintained all along and I'm sticking with it. First of all, US foreign policy with regards to the Assad government for years now, is, Assad has to go. I frankly (no surprise to you I'm well aware) am tired of US intervention and overthrowing governments we don't like. So, I see the Arab spring being used for the US to realise that old policy. Furthermore, had we not allowed the CIA to be covertly training and arming the insurgents, Assad would likely have crushed them long ago and we wouldn't be talking about the dying kids. And finally I watched Russia and China support the UN resolution for the use of military force to protect civilians in Libya and the near fury that Putin expressed over the abuse of that resolution to overthrow the Libyan government, and the subsequent vow coming from Russia not to allow the same thing to happen in Syria and they have held fast to it. As a matter of fact Russia has been as dedicated to this as anything I've seen in my lifetime and they may not at all be bluffing and as you pointed out, this could get really bad. Now with all that, and only single digit American support for military intervention, I really hope the pentagon isn't given a green light here.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Heya Beaudreaux. :2wave: That's what I say. Do nothing for now. Syria will split into 3 regions. Then we need to see who rises to the top. Then we will know who we are dealing with. Right now we don't even know all the players. Other than some groups. Like the Salafists and the MB. AQ, and Al Nusra. Plus there is the Islamic Kurds.

Already 29 Oppositions groups and civilian committees are backing Al Nusra. Plus the Syrians themselves want the MB out.

Moreover out of the 100k killed the Rebels are responsible for over 40k themselves and they have proven they cannot be trusted.

Well said.

The problem with limited military action is, there is no such thing as limited military action. One thing leads to another the majority of the time. In very limited cases, air or missile strikes can turn the tide. But history has shown, all the way back to WWII, that air power cannot win the battle, much less a war. Ground troops have to take the real estate and hold it. They have to destroy the enemy's ability to make war. They have to seize the weapons of war.

If we enter into Syria with ground troops, that would be the beginning of the worst part of history to ever be recorded. If anyone would be left at the end to record it or read it.

Russia and China will not sit idly by. They would be against us. China not as much, but still. This could spread beyond Syria, very fast. If China comes in against us, North Korea may take advantage of it and invade South Korea. And so on, and so on.

But still... do we do nothing? Are we going to set yet another precedent that anyone can commit genocide and get away with it?

My biggest concern at this particular time is, we cannot say that the "rebels" didn't use the gas. We don't know who used it.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Told ya, Obama needs his very own war. The hand me down wars are no fun anymore.
 

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm afraid that in Syria their are no "good guys". Obama has no good options,so I will try to be a little fair. The only caveat I give to that is that he should have with his cozying up to Putin and gang been more able to keep Assad from at least gassing innocent civilians.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Well said.

The problem with limited military action is, there is no such thing as limited military action. One thing leads to another the majority of the time. In very limited cases, air or missile strikes can turn the tide. But history has shown, all the way back to WWII, that air power cannot win the battle, much less a war. Ground troops have to take the real estate and hold it. They have to destroy the enemy's ability to make war. They have to seize the weapons of war.

If we enter into Syria with ground troops, that would be the beginning of the worst part of history to ever be recorded. If anyone would be left at the end to record it or read it.

Russia and China will not sit idly by. They would be against us. China not as much, but still. This could spread beyond Syria, very fast. If China comes in against us, North Korea may take advantage of it and invade South Korea. And so on, and so on.

But still... do we do nothing? Are we going to set yet another precedent that anyone can commit genocide and get away with it?

My biggest concern at this particular time is, we cannot say that the "rebels" didn't use the gas. We don't know who used it.

Yeah well.....we know when they used them the first time. I think the UN sees both sides using it. But small scale troops using whatever they are defending. Not like Assad is ordering such.

But with the Rebels driving out 30k Kurds and then attacking Christians who are not involved in the battle. Shows we can't side with them.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah well.....we know when they used them the first time. I think the UN sees both sides using it. But small scale troops using whatever they are defending. Not like Assad is ordering such.

But with the Rebels driving out 30k Kurds and then attacking Christians who are not involved in the battle. Shows we can't side with them.

I can guarantee you that there ain't one group over there I would invite over to the house to grill hot dogs and have a beer.

They all appear to be bad guys, as Drake eluded to above.

My concern is for the innocents, the non-combatants, the vulnerable population that is being slaughtered by both sides. When a person thinks that they are killing because "God" wants it, no one can negotiate with them. For that matter, just insert any other action for the word "killing" in the previous sentence, and it's still accurate. We see that every day on this board.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Pentagon will follow orders. No matter what they are, and no matter what the repercussions.

I hope your not thinking I wouldn't know that. My point was that I hope there not forthcoming.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm afraid that in Syria their are no "good guys". Obama has no good options,so I will try to be a little fair. The only caveat I give to that is that he should have with his cozying up to Putin and gang been more able to keep Assad from at least gassing innocent civilians.



Pahleeze, there's no evidence that Assad gassed his 70% approval rating civilians.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I can guarantee you that there ain't one group over there I would invite over to the house to grill hot dogs and have a beer.

They all appear to be bad guys, as Drake eluded to above.

My concern is for the innocents, the non-combatants, the vulnerable population that is being slaughtered by both sides. When a person thinks that they are killing because "God" wants it, no one can negotiate with them. For that matter, just insert any other action for the word "killing" in the previous sentence, and it's still accurate. We see that every day on this board.

Well so far I have heard all the major players pretty much sound off over it.....wonder when were going to hear from the Pope. Can I get an Amen.
sign_amen.gif





:2razz:.....:lol:
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
23,380
Reaction score
13,748
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Unless you think the government is belligerent enough to buck this kind of resistance.



A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.


New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

The poll here at DP reflects around the same averages. RCP averages are as close as it usually gets polling wise. I know it's a conservative site but averages are averages with all bias, right and left, considered and included in the equations.

Still, even if less than one out of ten people support attacking Syria, the rootin'-tootin' John Wayne ego of the war dogs in our marbled halls, simply cannot resist a good war and it's profits. Screw what we want.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
90,074
Reaction score
53,701
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Unless you think the government is belligerent enough to buck this kind of resistance.



A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.


New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

The answer is obvious, Obama will have a trusted spokesperson (or maybe just use a security leak) announcing that the chemical weapons in Syria were found to have really been used by Iranian secret agents to try to trick the U.S. into a war. An investigation will commence, to get to the bottom of this international scandal, and Obama will promise to bring those responsible to justice. That way Obama can be said to have truely intended to uphold the "red line" and to have averted a war in Syria!
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The answer is obvious, Obama will have a trusted spokesperson (or maybe just use a security leak) announcing that the chemical weapons in Syria were found to have really been used by Iranian secret agents to try to trick the U.S. into a war. An investigation will commence, to get to the bottom of this international scandal, and Obama will promise to bring those responsible to justice. That way Obama can be said to have truely intended to uphold the "red line" and to have averted a war in Syria!

Hey, if it works!
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unless you think the government is belligerent enough to buck this kind of resistance.



A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

Ya, well, the two other chemical attacks where found to be the rebels (re: Alquaida and friends).

This is a real quagmire, do you support Assad or the terrorists we've been "at war" with for more than a decade??

What is a peace prize winner to do??
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ya, well, the two other chemical attacks where found to be the rebels (re: Alquaida and friends).

This is a real quagmire, do you support Assad or the terrorists we've been "at war" with for more than a decade??

What is a peace prize winner to do??

Right. So Assad should have been the no brainer, but I mean, look around the thread.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Right. So Assad should have been the no brainer, but I mean, look around the thread.

No, of anything this is not our fight regardless... But eventually Syria will be split in 2-3 countries, and then it's off to Iran.

The only no-brainer is to wash our hands of this one.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Unless you think the government is belligerent enough to buck this kind of resistance.



A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.


New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

I agree that it is good news it seems very bipartisan that we should keep as much out of it as we can, and since none of it effects us much that means keeping out of it. The problem is the signs are pointing to a not caring attitude towards the people. The talking heads on both sides are already ramping up the propaganda and rhetoric. It seems as the american people are uniting against it the american government and it's tools are getting amped up for it. I just cannot figure out why this has so much purchased support. Who's bottom line will increase that much with this conflict? Big oil shouldn't be pushing this, and it is nothing new for the military industrial complex to be going after a war. I know they do not give a damn about the human rights violations at all. The best we get is a country like libya which we help but they do not give us much in return. It just all seems very strange without some huge dollar signs attached to it.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, of anything this is not our fight regardless... But eventually Syria will be split in 2-3 countries, and then it's off to Iran.

The only no-brainer is to wash our hands of this one.

Oh well yes of course I agree with that completely, but the way you phrased your question, there was only two choices, al Qaida linked insurgents or Assad, in which case Assad IS the no brainer.
 
Top Bottom