• 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!

Kerry exposes stupid truth about syria attack

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
We have been fed a continual stream of BS about syria. We have been told it is an important human rights issue we must all get behind and be the world police in regards to the use of chemical weapons. Of course, that never added up considering we have allowed them to be used by allies of the US working for US goals like Isreal and Iraq back during the reagan administration. No one ever suggested launching a missile strike on Isreal when they clearly used chemical weapons on the palestinians, and we even told Saddam where to shoot his when at war with Iran. No, like always we really do not care about the humanitarian reasons as we saw today when those issues took a clear backseat to another excuse they thought would float better.

Now we have to use those strikes on syria to show Iran. Think of the stupidity of that. Imagine blowing up canada to tell the US they are not going to put up with their crap. How is that even a deterrent when you cannot muster up the courage to hit the country you are trying to show you have the courage to hit? Look, if these attacks are so minor as to not be an act of war, which clearly they are, then shouldn't we send the message to Iran directly to Iran? We are interested in scaring Iran away from nuclear capabilities, but we are going to attack a country we have no real concern in? If it is your purpose to show Iran we mean business then launch these attacks on them. Don't give us stupid excuses like we care about the humanitarian abuses of syria when no one in power really does care about it. Don't weaken our military by potentially involving us in a conflict that would make an attack on Iran harder because we are spread to thin. Don't hit Syria because you think no one will notice how cowardly it was to hit a weaker country when you are unwilling to launch against Iran. If you are not going to cripple their capabilities to launch chemical weapons do not give them a reason to use them like you are too slow and too weak to give a proper attack to cripple their capabilities.

Now we have the morons in congress doing something that is less popular than they are. It has to be hard to find something less popular than congress to do, but they begged Obama for it, and now they are pushing for it. What is congress going to do next week? Are they going to make a new law that says MLB has to use baby heads instead of baseballs? God damn, they are running out of crappy ideas. Why get all into obama's decision and tell him it is a horrible idea that he should leave to congress and then when he finally backs off you try to do the same horrible idea you said was so bad just a week ago? I thought Iraq was stupid, but at least Busgh talked about winning that one, and he wasn't going to do an act of war which he says wasn't going to do any good. At least he thought he was doing something good, and he wasn't telling us his war was going to do absolutely nothing like this syria strike is being played down to. really is it a powerful statement that will inspire fear in our enemies, or is it just a passing attack that is a toothless message that we just have to do because we committed to it?

Yes, we have already lost the respect from all of this because our leadership has already shown they have no idea what they are doing or the reasons they are doing it for. You can launch all the missiles you want at this point, we look like a bunch of wacked out doofballs. There is no longer any looking good at this point.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is there a short version of that OP?
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

through out the whole rant you only mentioned Obama once when he is the main reason we are in this mess to begin with.
with his off the script remark of a stupid red line. he got called on his bluff and now to save face he is compelled to act for personnel reasons
 

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
Is there a short version of that OP?

If reading is not your thing I could suggest twitter where they limit posts to short blurbs with no content. There is also youtube where they primarily use pictures if that is more your speed.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
We have been fed a continual stream of BS about syria. We have been told it is an important human rights issue we must all get behind and be the world police in regards to the use of chemical weapons. Of course, that never added up considering we have allowed them to be used by allies of the US working for US goals like Isreal and Iraq back during the reagan administration. No one ever suggested launching a missile strike on Isreal when they clearly used chemical weapons on the palestinians, and we even told Saddam where to shoot his when at war with Iran. No, like always we really do not care about the humanitarian reasons as we saw today when those issues took a clear backseat to another excuse they thought would float better.

Now we have to use those strikes on syria to show Iran. Think of the stupidity of that. Imagine blowing up canada to tell the US they are not going to put up with their crap. How is that even a deterrent when you cannot muster up the courage to hit the country you are trying to show you have the courage to hit? Look, if these attacks are so minor as to not be an act of war, which clearly they are, then shouldn't we send the message to Iran directly to Iran? We are interested in scaring Iran away from nuclear capabilities, but we are going to attack a country we have no real concern in? If it is your purpose to show Iran we mean business then launch these attacks on them. Don't give us stupid excuses like we care about the humanitarian abuses of syria when no one in power really does care about it. Don't weaken our military by potentially involving us in a conflict that would make an attack on Iran harder because we are spread to thin. Don't hit Syria because you think no one will notice how cowardly it was to hit a weaker country when you are unwilling to launch against Iran. If you are not going to cripple their capabilities to launch chemical weapons do not give them a reason to use them like you are too slow and too weak to give a proper attack to cripple their capabilities.

Now we have the morons in congress doing something that is less popular than they are. It has to be hard to find something less popular than congress to do, but they begged Obama for it, and now they are pushing for it. What is congress going to do next week? Are they going to make a new law that says MLB has to use baby heads instead of baseballs? God damn, they are running out of crappy ideas. Why get all into obama's decision and tell him it is a horrible idea that he should leave to congress and then when he finally backs off you try to do the same horrible idea you said was so bad just a week ago? I thought Iraq was stupid, but at least Busgh talked about winning that one, and he wasn't going to do an act of war which he says wasn't going to do any good. At least he thought he was doing something good, and he wasn't telling us his war was going to do absolutely nothing like this syria strike is being played down to. really is it a powerful statement that will inspire fear in our enemies, or is it just a passing attack that is a toothless message that we just have to do because we committed to it?

Yes, we have already lost the respect from all of this because our leadership has already shown they have no idea what they are doing or the reasons they are doing it for. You can launch all the missiles you want at this point, we look like a bunch of wacked out doofballs. There is no longer any looking good at this point.

A very good OP and I appreciate the thought that went into it. The level of lunacy involved in this is distressing - we're bravely marching off to do something really, really pointless and stupid just so a few people can make a billion bucks and have the rest of us weeping about the unfair taxes they'll have to pay on those billions.

I thought that WMD excuse was already used up. Apparently not.
 

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
through out the whole rant you only mentioned Obama once when he is the main reason we are in this mess to begin with.
with his off the script remark of a stupid red line. he got called on his bluff and now to save face he is compelled to act for personnel reasons

I would mention Obama a lot more if it wasn't for the reality it is not just Obama. For one of the first times in his whole presidency we have seen a massive pro-Obama war pitch by faux news who is almost universally opposed to anything Obama does. On top of that MSNBC seems to have jumped the warwagon along with a number of other Main stream media sites. We have also seen a number of congresspeople who have opposed Obama on nearly every military thing he has done encouraging him to act without congressional approval in this case, who now are supporting him in this effort for attacking syria. Had everyone taken their normal positions on this where Faux attacked Obama's war idea all around, MSNBC stayed on the side of peace, and republican and democratic congresspeople either held to their obama hatred or their hatred of more wars I would be glad to blame Obama for this mess. But really obama did not do much out of the ordinary. He made the same baseless threats over chemical weapons we have heard every administration make while ignoring allied and US usage of chemical weapons. No one expected Bush to go launch missiles at Isreal when they used white phospherus on it's own people. No one asked reagan to go into Iraq when they used chemical weapons on Iranian troops.

I understand your Obama hate is getting in the way of your better judgment on a much larger problem of US hypocrisy, patriotic jingoism, and pointless statements of force meant for Iran, but this is not just Obama, and right now obama has chosen to ask congress. Before you go blaming him entirely you might want to wait to see if he is the only one going to do this. If he gets denied by congress and does it anyway, I will wholeheartedly agree with you this is entirely on his lap if the order comes solely from his judgment after being denied by congress. You are going to have to wait to be right on that 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
I am going to go further in my thoughts on this matter since it seems to bother some people who don't like reading a lot, and I like typing.

I do not get how these strikes are supposed to accomplish what we want. I will go through the different plans.

Lowest level is the funding and supply of weapons to the rebels: This solution has run us into so many problems especially when dealing with opportunistic forces that really are america's enemies. Not to mention all the forces in this are enemies of Isreal. So if any side wins the weapons remain and become a danger to Isreal, and possibly US forces. That is only if we can insure the weapons stay in Syria and do not travel to other places and become problematic. The rebels do not abide by US values and though i am sure they will gladly accept some funds or help we will see the same or worse that we see in libya that when they do win they will not be reliable as a US ally. They will be subject to the will of their people who will find that succumbing to US dictates shows a weakness and support for a people they view as their enemy. We cannot buy these friends, and it is really stupid to try when it just leaves a bigger mess of more weapons to be used against us or our allies.

Strategic missile strikes seem pretty easy as they only seem to cost money, and we are like a credit card addict when it comes to spending. We feel we can always borrow from peter to pay paul so why not throw some money at it. Can anyone give us a scenario where this is going to end up working? Is it even possible we send in a few missiles, puff ourselves up, and a man who has been at war for years now with the rebels is all of a sudden going to cower in fear? This is not america, or Obama. This country is at war. They live in that state, and a few more missiles to them is just a few more missiles. A weak attack will not cripple their abilities to make war. It will not destroy their chemical weapons. These people bitterly hate each other, and for good reason on both sides. If you buy the chemical weapons story we know that one side has gassed it's own people leading to a horrible and painfull death. The other side is so pissed off they are cutting into the corpses of the dead and eating their organs out of spite. The people fighting here are not going to be stopped by a few explosions and are only going to get worse if they think they are about to be destroyed. There is no reason there with them any more. You cannot treat them like a country at peace which has something to lose. About the only thing I could say might get their attention and scare the piss out of them enough to stop the fighting would be a nuclear assault and vaporizing one of their cities. That might snap them out of their fighting, but it is a horrific step that might be worse than the war.

Then we have an Iraq style invasion for which we topple the regime. I would even put libya in here despite the reality it was different. Basically going in, putting the forces necessary in place, and helping the rebels take over the country and then half assing giving them back the power over time. We have seen how this one works time and again with the new supposed ally government we set up. It either is not what the people want so when we leave we get a situation like we have in Iraq now, or we cannot rely on them like in libya. It probably would lower the death toll for a few years because the ability of both sides to make war would be crippled, but it is just going to start up again and new problems will come in like we see in countries we have already done this in You do not eliminate the problem that there are two old school factions who have been fighting a war for long periods of time who simply are not going to just stop. The government will not be strong enough to stop it, the weapons will still be available, and they will get back into fighting when they can. This is a religious blood feud like nothing america presently understands from experience. This is a different world and it cannot be treated like the US or a country with a bit of reason and a desire to be peaceful. yes, they may want to be peaceful, but it is being peaceful while punishing the other side. That is only going to lead to violence.

The final two solutions are the only ones which have a possibility of ending the fighting.

The first one is simple. Kill them all. Dead men cannot fight. It is not a good solution and one I would personally fight against even to the point of revolting against the US government if it were tried, but it would end the fighting there, but it would probably bring fighting elsewhere.

The only solution to end the fighting with intervention that might work is a globally supported long term occupation and rebuilding. The world, assisted strongly by the US and probably china and russia to make sure that someone sticks up for the people, goes in and locks down the country. We limit their military to a defense force like japan after ww2. We train up their police. We establish a government and rights for the people and we hold it until such time as the old prejudices die off and the people have changed. That is a lot of work. I am not even sure we are capable of doing that properly given our own corruption and failures.

It seems cruel and weak, but the reality is until we have the worldwide support and the will and resources to do the right thing all the way through we are only going to get ourselves involved in the killing and problems if we attack. We will not accomplish our goals unless those goals are to waste ammo, money, and lives in a futile effort with no good outcome. We will not make the place better. We will not bring the people to the point where they are tired of war and ready for peace. As much as it may bite some people in the ass to realize the US is not superman, we cannot solve every problem, and we do not have the power to make everything happen the way we want, that is the truth of the matter. The US is not as the patriots imagine it. It cannot solve every problem of the world. It cannot bring peace to the world. it cannot save the people of syria. We cannot do the only thing that would end this war and save lives which is a full long term occupation because we do not have the strength to do it. It is beyond our abilities. I am sorry if that ruins your vision of what the US is, but sometimes it just cannot save people.
 

LoneLaugher

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
68
Reaction score
28
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
through out the whole rant you only mentioned Obama once when he is the main reason we are in this mess to begin with.
with his off the script remark of a stupid red line. he got called on his bluff and now to save face he is compelled to act for personnel reasons

I am sorry....but that is a very simple take on what has happened. If the President was compelled to act for personal reasons, wouldn't he have already done so?

What is remarkable about all of this is that when Obama said that using chemical weapons would be a "red line", he did not go into any detail about what the consequences would be. He simply said that it would change his calculus. It is not like he said..."use CW and we will invade your country". That only happened in fantasy land.

Saving face? Can you use some lame talking points, please?
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If reading is not your thing I could suggest twitter where they limit posts to short blurbs with no content. There is also youtube where they primarily use pictures if that is more your speed.

Oh, I like reading. But we need to be selective or we could waste a lot of time. You're not capable of providing your argument concisely? Too bad, next.
 

SMTA

Ketsu no Anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
38,620
Reaction score
10,349
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am going to go further in my thoughts on this matter since it seems to bother some people who don't like reading a lot, and I like typing.

I do not get how these strikes are supposed to accomplish what we want. I will go through the different plans.

Lowest level is the funding and supply of weapons to the rebels: This solution has run us into so many problems especially when dealing with opportunistic forces that really are america's enemies. Not to mention all the forces in this are enemies of Isreal. So if any side wins the weapons remain and become a danger to Isreal, and possibly US forces. That is only if we can insure the weapons stay in Syria and do not travel to other places and become problematic. The rebels do not abide by US values and though i am sure they will gladly accept some funds or help we will see the same or worse that we see in libya that when they do win they will not be reliable as a US ally. They will be subject to the will of their people who will find that succumbing to US dictates shows a weakness and support for a people they view as their enemy. We cannot buy these friends, and it is really stupid to try when it just leaves a bigger mess of more weapons to be used against us or our allies.

Strategic missile strikes seem pretty easy as they only seem to cost money, and we are like a credit card addict when it comes to spending. We feel we can always borrow from peter to pay paul so why not throw some money at it. Can anyone give us a scenario where this is going to end up working? Is it even possible we send in a few missiles, puff ourselves up, and a man who has been at war for years now with the rebels is all of a sudden going to cower in fear? This is not america, or Obama. This country is at war. They live in that state, and a few more missiles to them is just a few more missiles. A weak attack will not cripple their abilities to make war. It will not destroy their chemical weapons. These people bitterly hate each other, and for good reason on both sides. If you buy the chemical weapons story we know that one side has gassed it's own people leading to a horrible and painfull death. The other side is so pissed off they are cutting into the corpses of the dead and eating their organs out of spite. The people fighting here are not going to be stopped by a few explosions and are only going to get worse if they think they are about to be destroyed. There is no reason there with them any more. You cannot treat them like a country at peace which has something to lose. About the only thing I could say might get their attention and scare the piss out of them enough to stop the fighting would be a nuclear assault and vaporizing one of their cities. That might snap them out of their fighting, but it is a horrific step that might be worse than the war.

Then we have an Iraq style invasion for which we topple the regime. I would even put libya in here despite the reality it was different. Basically going in, putting the forces necessary in place, and helping the rebels take over the country and then half assing giving them back the power over time. We have seen how this one works time and again with the new supposed ally government we set up. It either is not what the people want so when we leave we get a situation like we have in Iraq now, or we cannot rely on them like in libya. It probably would lower the death toll for a few years because the ability of both sides to make war would be crippled, but it is just going to start up again and new problems will come in like we see in countries we have already done this in You do not eliminate the problem that there are two old school factions who have been fighting a war for long periods of time who simply are not going to just stop. The government will not be strong enough to stop it, the weapons will still be available, and they will get back into fighting when they can. This is a religious blood feud like nothing america presently understands from experience. This is a different world and it cannot be treated like the US or a country with a bit of reason and a desire to be peaceful. yes, they may want to be peaceful, but it is being peaceful while punishing the other side. That is only going to lead to violence.

The final two solutions are the only ones which have a possibility of ending the fighting.

The first one is simple. Kill them all. Dead men cannot fight. It is not a good solution and one I would personally fight against even to the point of revolting against the US government if it were tried, but it would end the fighting there, but it would probably bring fighting elsewhere.

The only solution to end the fighting with intervention that might work is a globally supported long term occupation and rebuilding. The world, assisted strongly by the US and probably china and russia to make sure that someone sticks up for the people, goes in and locks down the country. We limit their military to a defense force like japan after ww2. We train up their police. We establish a government and rights for the people and we hold it until such time as the old prejudices die off and the people have changed. That is a lot of work. I am not even sure we are capable of doing that properly given our own corruption and failures.

It seems cruel and weak, but the reality is until we have the worldwide support and the will and resources to do the right thing all the way through we are only going to get ourselves involved in the killing and problems if we attack. We will not accomplish our goals unless those goals are to waste ammo, money, and lives in a futile effort with no good outcome. We will not make the place better. We will not bring the people to the point where they are tired of war and ready for peace. As much as it may bite some people in the ass to realize the US is not superman, we cannot solve every problem, and we do not have the power to make everything happen the way we want, that is the truth of the matter. The US is not as the patriots imagine it. It cannot solve every problem of the world. It cannot bring peace to the world. it cannot save the people of syria. We cannot do the only thing that would end this war and save lives which is a full long term occupation because we do not have the strength to do it. It is beyond our abilities. I am sorry if that ruins your vision of what the US is, but sometimes it just cannot save people.

Tldr.
 

Respecthelect

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
969
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama was confused for the past year, but he seems to be finally on track. Chemical weapons are the only valid reason to expend American treasure and therefore destroying chemical weapons is our sole valid objective.

Notice how Obama no longer requires Assad's ousting? I believe Obama read my earlier post on objectives and got on board. It'll be smooth-sailing as long as he's on the Respecthelect-train.
 
Top Bottom