• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

US and Englad preparing to attack Syria?

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria - Telegraph

I am so very opposed to this action.
There is plenty of evidence chemical weapons were used. But not enough evidence that it was the Government that used them.

Attacking Syria is a big mistake.
I've been fairly pleased with Obama up until now, only wishing he would stand up to Republicans better.
If this article is correct and we attack Syria, I will be very unhappy with Obama.

It will create more terrorism.
It will worsen tensions between the U.S. and Russia.
It will make Muslims world wide start to really wonder if we are trying to wage a war against them.
It will empower the rebels of which are even more our enemy than the Syrian Government.
It will cost money and create more debt.
It will cause more political turmoil.
And we might be attacking the wrong side if the rebels did this to try and lure us in.

Can't think of any positives...

Oh and HAH... wish I could edit the thread title LOL
 

Cecil900

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
124
Reaction score
51
Location
Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria - Telegraph

It will create more terrorism.
It will worsen tensions between the U.S. and Russia.
It will make Muslims world wide start to really wonder if we are trying to wage a war against them.
It will empower the rebels of which are even more our enemy than the Syrian Government.
It will cost money and create more debt.
It will cause more political turmoil.
And we might be attacking the wrong side if the rebels did this to try and lure us in.
I agree with you but NONE of that matters when war = profit.

Yay capitalism.
 

Gonzo Rodeo

better late than pregnant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Is there ever a time when intervention is appropriate? Ever? Under any circumstance, at all?
 

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
658
Location
Phx,Az
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ya gotta love the Brits They come along on all our misadventures Gawd save the Queen
 

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This would be a great mistake! It will involve all surrounding countries and the mess will be staggering.

I say leave them alone. Syria is a sovereign nation, let them fight their civil war.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Things took a turn for the worse just 4hrs ago with the Russians.....we had better think things out before attempting to launch any strike on Syria.


Russia, West on collision course over Syria.....

Russia's two-and-a-half year dispute with the West over the conflict in Syria hit a new peak Monday as Moscow warned against military action without UN approval and cast doubt over the regime's involvement in a claimed chemical weapons attack.

A telephone call Monday between Russian President Vladimir Putin and British Prime Minister David Cameron underlined how far apart Moscow and the West were.
With clamour growing in Western states for military action against Assad, Russia warned such intervention would destabilise the entire Middle East and be based on false reasoning.

"If force is used without a UN resolution it will lead to very serious consequences in relations between Russia and the United States and its NATO partners," said Alexander Filonik, a Middle East expert at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

At a hastily called news conference Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said any use of force against Syria without UN approval would be a "very grave violation of international law."

He said ideas floated in the West about knocking out the regime's military infrastructure and helping hand victory to rebels were not just an "illusion" but a "grave mistake that will not lead to any peace, but only mark a new, even bloodier stage of the war in Syria."

Taking military action against Assad would be a clear sign from the West that it does not want to take account of Moscow's opinion, Maria Lipman of the Carnegie Centre in Moscow told AFP.

"Moscow could not let that go by without a response," she said, adding that Russia could hit back by strengthening military cooperation with the Assad regime.
"London and Washington... just need a guilty verdict (on Assad). Any other verdict will be rejected," the head of the lower house of Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, Alexei Pushkov, wrote on Twitter......snip~

Russia, West on collision course over Syria
AFP – 4 hrs ago<<<<<More here.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Things took a turn for the worse just 4hrs ago with the Russians.....we had better think things out before attempting to launch any strike on Syria.


Russia, West on collision course over Syria.....

Russia's two-and-a-half year dispute with the West over the conflict in Syria hit a new peak Monday as Moscow warned against military action without UN approval and cast doubt over the regime's involvement in a claimed chemical weapons attack.

A telephone call Monday between Russian President Vladimir Putin and British Prime Minister David Cameron underlined how far apart Moscow and the West were.
With clamour growing in Western states for military action against Assad, Russia warned such intervention would destabilise the entire Middle East and be based on false reasoning.

"If force is used without a UN resolution it will lead to very serious consequences in relations between Russia and the United States and its NATO partners," said Alexander Filonik, a Middle East expert at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

At a hastily called news conference Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said any use of force against Syria without UN approval would be a "very grave violation of international law."

He said ideas floated in the West about knocking out the regime's military infrastructure and helping hand victory to rebels were not just an "illusion" but a "grave mistake that will not lead to any peace, but only mark a new, even bloodier stage of the war in Syria."

Taking military action against Assad would be a clear sign from the West that it does not want to take account of Moscow's opinion, Maria Lipman of the Carnegie Centre in Moscow told AFP.

"Moscow could not let that go by without a response," she said, adding that Russia could hit back by strengthening military cooperation with the Assad regime.
"London and Washington... just need a guilty verdict (on Assad). Any other verdict will be rejected," the head of the lower house of Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, Alexei Pushkov, wrote on Twitter......snip~

Russia, West on collision course over Syria
AFP – 4 hrs ago<<<<<More here.
And the thing is, Russia is right about this.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
And the thing is, Russia is right about this.
I keep thinking all Russia has to do is put up a blockade. Do a return favor over Cuba likes. Wont even have to fire a shot. No one in the West will want to Start off WWIII. Already Russia is telling them China will back them. So they wont have the Vote on the Council.....to make a Move.

So when the Brits said there wouldn't need to be a UN mandate. Putin got on the phone. Said what he had to say. Then let Lavrov take it from there. Plus Iran then chimed in and told us. The Red Line in the Sand for us. Is Syria.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I keep thinking all Russia has to do is put up a blockade. Do a return favor over Cuba likes. Wont even have to fire a shot. No one in the West will want to Start off WWIII. Already Russia is telling them China will back them. So they wont have the Vote on the Council.....to make a Move.

So when the Brits said there wouldn't need to be a UN mandate. Putin got on the phone. Said what he had to say. Then let Lavrov take it from there. Plus Iran then chimed in and told us. The Red Line in the Sand for us. Is Syria.

Yep. Now if they'll only put their money where their mouth is and stand firm.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Yep. Now if they'll only put their money where their mouth is and stand firm.
That's true.....as Russia could be just playing Assad even though they had him on Russian TV live today. You don't think they would tricks him like that now, do ya?
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's true.....as Russia could be just playing Assad even though they had him on Russian TV live today. You don't think they would tricks him like that now, do ya?

Well any things possible but then it wouldn't be skin off our teeth. Syria has been a Russian ally for a long time though. And have you ever seen Russia stand as strong on anything as they have Syria in the last couple years?
 

Gonzo Rodeo

better late than pregnant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
What would be your litmus? What would it take for you to say, "Ok, yeah, we really need to do something." Or, if not us, then someone else with the ability.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What would be your litmus? What would it take for you to say, "Ok, yeah, we really need to do something." Or, if not us, then someone else with the ability.
Someone else with the ability would always be nice. A consensus from the permanent members of the security council a must. In a case like Syria, everybody has to agree with what's going on. Presently, with Russia accusing the US of pre arranging a chemical attack to frame the Assad government, all bets are definitely off. And in this case at hand, had their not been under the radar assistance to the insurgents, Assad most likely would have crushed the uprising early on and we wouldn't be wringing our hands over 100,000 dead right now. But again with the US waiting for an opportunity to realise a long held goal, toppling the Assad government, the covert involvement disables Assad's ability to quell the uprising and it perpetuates until the US can say, look he's killed (never mind the fact that half or more are killed by the insurgents) 100,000 people, oh dear, we must do something. How many times do we have to see the same picture again before we call bs on our government? The Russians are jumping up and down and calling it, its so blatantly obvious.

Oh yes. And lets not forget the fact that the Assad government accepted Un inspectors to the site where chemical weapons were used, eager for the world to see that they hadn't used them, but it was insurgent snipers that opened fire on the teams causing them to retreat! So, who is it that's not interested in the truth here?
 
Last edited:

Gonzo Rodeo

better late than pregnant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
So, who is it that's not interested in the truth here?
That is a great big question, right there.

Is not the involvement of Iran and/or Russia patently obvious in Afghanistan and Iraq? This seems to be something all major nation-states do. Is it "as wrong" when we do it as when the other guy does it? I'd like to think we could safely call a spade a spade and realize the same tactics used in the Korean and Viet Nam wars are still in full swing... but I'm not so sure everyone sees both sides of the picture.

It seems as if you're saying the US is complicit in supporting the rebels, and that this is wrong. If so, does this mean all support of all rebels is always wrong? Or is it only wrong when the UN doesn't acknowledge it, maybe? I'm trying to get a sense of what "wrong" means to someone taking the entire geopolitical landscape into consideration.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is a great big question, right there.

Is not the involvement of Iran and/or Russia patently obvious in Afghanistan and Iraq? This seems to be something all major nation-states do. Is it "as wrong" when we do it as when the other guy does it? I'd like to think we could safely call a spade a spade and realize the same tactics used in the Korean and Viet Nam wars are still in full swing... but I'm not so sure everyone sees both sides of the picture.

It seems as if you're saying the US is complicit in supporting the rebels, and that this is wrong. If so, does this mean all support of all rebels is always wrong? Or is it only wrong when the UN doesn't acknowledge it, maybe? I'm trying to get a sense of what "wrong" means to someone taking the entire geopolitical landscape into consideration.
I understand your points here, and your concern. Is all support of all rebels always wrong? I think there's a lot of variables that would make multiple answers to that question, but generally, I'm going to say yes. If we genuinely want peace, happiness and security for all involved. So Syria is the topic at hand, ill use it. Russia has declared publicly that Syria is a sovereign country with a sovereign legitimate government, the US doesn't quite see it that way. One thing is for certain, if a homegrown insurgency occurred in a US ally state, lets say Great Britain, and Russia was covertly arming and training the insurgents to help them topple the British government, how do you think we would view such involvement? It must be acknowledged that this is the way it is in Syria. And Russia has stood steadfast in their declaration that they are not going to allow the US to do to Syria what they've done elsewhere in the ME. And then of course, sense there are al Qaida elements throughout the syrian insurgency, its INSANITY that the US has and apparently will continue to support them.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Is all support of all rebels always wrong?
Yes, unless the rebels attack the U.S. or U.S. interests. We should always avoid getting involved in the internal business of other countries. We aren't even very good at it.
 

ItAin'tFree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
1,293
Reaction score
338
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria - Telegraph

I am so very opposed to this action.
There is plenty of evidence chemical weapons were used. But not enough evidence that it was the Government that used them.

Attacking Syria is a big mistake.
I've been fairly pleased with Obama up until now, only wishing he would stand up to Republicans better.
If this article is correct and we attack Syria, I will be very unhappy with Obama.

It will create more terrorism.
It will worsen tensions between the U.S. and Russia.
It will make Muslims world wide start to really wonder if we are trying to wage a war against them.
It will empower the rebels of which are even more our enemy than the Syrian Government.
It will cost money and create more debt.
It will cause more political turmoil.
And we might be attacking the wrong side if the rebels did this to try and lure us in.

Can't think of any positives...

Oh and HAH... wish I could edit the thread title LOL
LOL. "only wishing he would stand up to Republicans better."
 

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
LOL. "only wishing he would stand up to Republicans better."
Yeah. Instead of attacking each lie and piece of propaganda, Obama just ignored it as though it was beneath him.
And he has paid a rather large price for this.

He also compromises at every turn and lets Republican's push him around.
If he had a backbone he would let them destroy the economy and shut the government down.
Our Nation would pay a heavy price for it, but it would be the last we ever saw of the Repuppet Party, and that, in the end, would be worth it.

Anyhow... way off topic.
 

ItAin'tFree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
1,293
Reaction score
338
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah. Instead of attacking each lie and piece of propaganda, Obama just ignored it as though it was beneath him.
And he has paid a rather large price for this.

He also compromises at every turn and lets Republican's push him around.
If he had a backbone he would let them destroy the economy and shut the government down.
Our Nation would pay a heavy price for it, but it would be the last we ever saw of the Repuppet Party, and that, in the end, would be worth it.

Anyhow... way off topic.

LOL. What of any importance has he not got that he wanted since he has been President? Just because some of what he wanted and got has backfired on him, well, price you pay when you are an incompetent President.
 
Top Bottom