What would you do in Syria

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 11:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Has anybody ever seen the Cedric the Entertainer story about the difference between black folk and white folks is that whites hope and black wish. That keeps running through my mind in the Syrian situation only with the roles reversed. Obama hoped Syria would not act up....

The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 30 августа 2013 г.


What I am saying is stay out of Syria.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 4 сентября 2013 г.



If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 30 августа 2013 г.




AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 5 сентября 2013 г.


President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 7 сентября 2013 г.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 11:34 AM)Au165 Wrote: You said "sins of our forefathers", it was two years ago, it is a pattern of reckless disregard for civilian casualties that is not dependent on who is in charge. We were told in 1929 that waterboarding was illegal, however we have decided the end justifies the mean and decided we would do it anyways. As I said we are the world's biggest hypocrite when it comes to wars and what is and isn't allowed. You can try and hide behind Trump didn't do those, but we as a country did and yet somehow we still feel it is our place to tell people what is and isn't allowed in war. We try and set the rules but don't play by them ourselves.

If you think this country doesn't do everything in its power to reduce collateral damage and demonstrates a "pattern of reckless disregard for civilian casualties" then we disagree.

It has been explained to you at least twice. We have let him do as he pleased until he showed the world that he didn't have to listen to a mandate not to use chemical weapons.

Just as I would hope if it is found that Iran is using their uranium to develop nuclear weapons we would intervene.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 11:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If you think this country doesn't do everything in its power to reduce collateral damage and demonstrates a "pattern of reckless disregard for civilian casualties" then we disagree.

It has been explained to you at least twice. We have let him do as he pleased until he showed the world that he didn't have to listen to a mandate not to use chemical weapons.

Just as I would hope if it is found that Iran is using their uranium to develop nuclear weapons we would intervene.

We decide it is a necessary loss based on our needs in the conflict we are in, Assad has done the same in his fight.

So when we were told in 1929 not to waterboard, why didn't we get hit with tomahawk missiles? We agreed not to do it and did it anyways.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 09:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I will say it is amusing watching you and a couple others working overtime to try and put a negative spin on this.

(04-07-2017, 11:38 AM)Au165 Wrote: The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 30 августа 2013 г.


What I am saying is stay out of Syria.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 4 сентября 2013 г.



If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 30 августа 2013 г.




AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 5 сентября 2013 г.


   President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
   — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 7 сентября 2013 г.

Trump was a civilian when he made those comments.

Link to any innocent lives being lost in our strike. Hell we even told them it was coming.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 11:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump was a civilian when he made those comments.

Link to any innocent lives being lost in our strike. Hell we even told them it was coming.

So because he was a civilian an unapproved strike against Syria was illegal, but now that he is in charge it isn't?

Everyone on the air base was an innocent life because we were not at war with Syria. Any causalities against a foreign country by us that we are not at war with are innocent

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 11:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: We decide it is a necessary loss based on our needs in the conflict we are in, Assad has done the same in his fight.

So when we were told in 1929 not to waterboard, why didn't we get hit with tomahawk missiles? We agreed not to do it and did it anyways.

You can live life looking though the rear window or the front one; it's up to you.

You can compare a method of prisoner interrogation with unleashing chemical gas on civilians if you think it makes your point I suppose. The point is he used Chemical weapons on his citizens 4 years after he was told do what you want, but don't use chemical weapons.

What would you have us do? Say we were just bluffing 4 years ago?

[GMDino]

(04-07-2017, 11:46 AM)Au165 Wrote: So because he was a civilian an unapproved strike against Syria was illegal, but now that he is in charge it isn't?

Everyone on the air base was an innocent life because we were not at war with Syria. Any causalities against a foreign country by us that we are not at war with are innocent

I'l say that IF President Trump is getting his information from the military and not the television he knows more than we do and he get  more leeway as President ahn as a civilian.

I will also add that Trump is HORRIBLY inconsistent with everything.  He says one thing one day and changes it completely the next based on his "feelings".  He even does this with his own personal worth.

Add to that that he will say because HE decided it it is right...after all he'll tell you he's smart. 

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 11:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You can live life looking though the rear window or the front one; it's up to you.

You can compare a method of prisoner interrogation with unleashing chemical gas on civilians if you think it makes your point I suppose. The point is he used Chemical weapons on his citizens 4 years after he was told do what you want, but don't use chemical weapons.

What would you have us do? Say we were just bluffing 4 years ago?

It's looking at the pattern of disregard for the rules we have helped implement. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

I would have us stay out of Syria. He was using chemical weapons on rebels who were among civilians. It is hypocritical to say that it is okay to blow up civilians or kill them by trapping them under tons of debris, but chemicals is a no go. Especially when we have disregarded other rules of war, such as bombing the hospital mentioned above. Unless we can prove he is specifically attacking his people with intent to kill civilians then we should wait until the war is over and deal with him then.

Getting involved now has a no end game and Assad knows it. You can't remove Assad because you have a power vacuum that will be filled by ISIS. We knew it 4 years ago, so frankly we bluffed and lost. Not getting involved was the right call then and it is the right call now.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

How do you stop a bad ophthalmologist with chemical weapons (Assad)?

A good ophthalmologist with chemical weapons (Rand Paul).

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 11:54 AM)Au165 Wrote: Getting involved now has a no end game and Assad knows it. You can't remove Assad because you have a power vacuum that will be filled by ISIS. We knew it 4 years ago, so frankly we bluffed and lost. Not getting involved was the right call then and it is the right call now.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I just hope you consider the second and third affects of our inaction, once we drew a line; regardless if you agree or not that the line should have never been drawn.

As to the rest. I hope you see how feeble your attempt to draw a blatant disregard for human life from this government is by the sporadic/unintentional (hospital) and inconsequential (waterboarding) examples you have provided. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Continued use of chemical weapons. As to attacking us: he won't do that.

He has created a humanitarian disaster, a refugee crisis whose effects are being felt in Europe and North America, and killed more people with conventional weapons.

I don't understand the sudden change of heart of the MAGA and America First crowd.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 12:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I just hope you consider the second and third affects of our inaction, once we drew a line; regardless if you agree or not that the line should have never been drawn.

As to the rest. I hope you see how feeble your attempt to draw a blatant disregard for human life from this government is by the sporadic/unintentional (hospital) and inconsequential (waterboarding) examples you have provided. 

Well to  use your own stance, your living in the rear view mirror, Trump didn't draw that line. Trump could have taken a different approach but he CHOSE to stand behind that line that was drawn by his predecessor.

Not feeble at all, outside the U.S. it is well know we are fine with collateral damage to further our own interests, and quite often have done so over the last hundred years. Water boarding violated international law, but we never were held accountable. We admitted we broke international law by bombing a hospital on purpose (And we did admit it was on purpose, flight recordings prove that), but still weren't held accountable. The whole point is we choose which rules we follow in times of war so why can't other countries?

[fredtoast]

What is happening in Syria is terrible.

But why is it any of our business at all.

United States simply can not afford to fix every humanitarian crisis in the world.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 12:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: He has created a humanitarian disaster, a refugee crisis whose effects are being felt in Europe and North America, and killed more people with conventional weapons.

I don't understand the sudden change of heart of the MAGA and America First crowd.

Not sure what change of heart you are referring to. If your referring to the use of Chemical weapons that wasn't a demand laid down by the "MAGA and America First crowd." If you are referring to vetting of refugees; I'm unaware of any change of heart.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 12:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: United States simply can not afford to fix every humanitarian crisis in the world.

Interesting how we don't intervene in Africa where situations are far worse than Syria. Literally people getting cut into pieces, but hey no oil not our problem.

[fredtoast]

BTW I don't know how anyone could be surprised by this move by Trump. All he has been talking about is how we need to spend more money on weapons. Sure, a few US troops will be killed or crippled for life, but just think of the boost it will give to the economy through the military industrial complex.

Syria is just the first in a long line of dispute Trump will utilize to to justify huge increases in military spending. We are going to be sticking our noses into everything. Just hoping the South China Sea does not get too hot while Trump is in office.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 12:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is happening in Syria is terrible.

But why is it any of our business at all.

United States simply can not afford to fix every humanitarian crisis in the world.

Should we pull out of NATO and become isolationists or is there a checklist of criteria for humanitarian crisis (BTW what is the plural for that) we can afford to fix.  

[*wildcats forever*]

(04-07-2017, 02:47 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If Obama asked Congress for an Authorization for Use of Force in Syria in 2013, he didn't have the votes. What lessons did we learn from Iraq? ISIS is a direct result of our misguided intervention in Iraq which spread like a cancer into Syria and now both countries are broken. Putin's argument against Syrian regime change is our failed intervention in Iraq and subsequent increase in sectarian violence. You will also need Iraq, Turkey, the Kurds, and Saudi Arabia to cooperate in addition to the aforementioned countries at a minimum.

You answered your own question, one which defined my point. The last thing I want to see is another Iraq created in Syria (caused by our government), regardless of who deposes Assad. Putin can stand in a long line of critics regarding our screwup in Iraq.

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2017, 12:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Interesting how we don't intervene in Africa where situations are far worse than Syria. Literally people getting cut into pieces, but hey no oil not our problem.

If we had invested the money we have spent on military operations in the middle east on sources of alternative fuel we could be telling the middle east to take care of their own problems.

BTW the Chinese government is investing $360 billion in clean energy (mainly solar) over the next 4 years.  Meanwhile we still swear that fossil fuels are the way to go.  This is going to kill the US in a few years.

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2017, 12:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should we pull out of NATO and become isolationists or is there a checklist of criteria for humanitarian crisis (BTW what is the plural for that) we can afford to fix.  

We need to be involved in international politics only when it effects us financially. 

If you are so concerned about human suffering then why haven't you been calling for Billions in aid to Africa?

"Not really interested in spending money on food and clean water.  But I sure love killing Arabs."