What would you do in Syria

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 03:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If that is a requirement to obtain peace; as it beat the alternative or should we have just let Hitler run his sovereign country? I think the jews in Germany may have been OK with the divided country

Also like Germany once they are stable and willing they can reunite.

Well Hitler actually started invading other countries which is completely different then this situation. If Assad steps into another country please feel free to go to war to assist other countries in protecting their sovereign rights. Otherwise human rights issues should be handled through the UN and intervention in these cases should be decided on by congress based on UN recommendations.

We have found in recent years, as the world has evolved, long term occupations of foreign lands don't work especially in the middle east. In fact our occupations of Muslim lands were one of the things that gave rise to Al Qaeda. I am not sure it would work in this particular region, but hey who knows.

[CageTheBengal]

(04-07-2017, 02:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It is equally ridiculous to try to pass a travel ban prohibiting refugees from entering our country while considering dropping the hammer in their country.

How long have we been involved in the Middle East?  Since we recognized Israel as a country are we better or worse off  in the Middle East strategically? Worse. It's not that there isn't an easy fix. It's that there isn't a fix at all.

Many Americans are under the delusion we can control the outcome in other countries. We can't.

Well look at our president...

It's one thing to say let them deal with their own problems and it's another to let a leader deploy nerve gas on civilians twice since 2013 without serious repercussions. As the strongest nation in the world the United States is the country that can leave the largest impression and condemn this behavior.

Actually I'm sure if we wanted to control other countries we could. Not that we should be but it's hardly a delusion we just don't believe in that sort of ideology.

[*bfine32*]

Well it looks like some of his more vocal opponents are applauding this move

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-media-critics-praise-syria-strikes-154025787.html

Given they lack the resolve of a few PnR forum members

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 03:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In America folks choose to be combatants, they don't choose to be targets of terrorism.

I chose to risk my life to defend my country trusting the politicians to use military force judiciously. I did not volunteer to be tricked into invading a country based upon lies. At the time, I thought I was doing the right thing. It's difficult to say I acted honorably believing I was part of a dishonorable invasion. Looking back, I'm not so sure anymore. I feel betrayed. More than anything, I'm saddened by the unnecessary loss of life and suffering on both sides. I would spare others of unnecessary death and suffering if it was in my power to do so. If would spare future soldiers of wondering what part they played in that unnecessary suffering.

This risk of worsening human suffering on a larger scale by increasing our involvement in Syria outweighs the benefit of reducing human suffering on a smaller scale in my opinion. For this reason, I would deal with what is already on our plate which is already considerable.

[Millhouse]

I am in favor of the air strike, and will be in favor of more of them if Syria uses chemical weapons again.

At the same time, there is a limit of what we can and should do in the future. Syria is just too much of a quagmire that no one outside of there can solve without losing a lot of lives. And then throw in the Russian a-hole variable in all of it, there is really no solution that will end good anytime soon.

Like I read earlier, I honestly dont know what I would do other than what was done last night. But I do know believe that if Putin & Russia wasnt sided with Assad, this civil war would be much easier to resolve.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 03:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Which side are you on?

I guess I'm an independent because I don't agree with either side.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 04:00 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Well look at our president...

It's one thing to say let them deal with their own problems and it's another to let a leader deploy nerve gas on civilians twice since 2013 without serious repercussions. As the strongest nation in the world the United States is the country that can leave the largest impression and condemn this behavior.

Actually I'm sure if we wanted to control other countries we could. Not that we should be but it's hardly a delusion we just don't believe in that sort of ideology.

There has been genocide on a greater scale than the chemical attacks in Syria and we stood by and watched. North Korea is pursuing WMD and we watch. We didn't control what happened and what is happening in Iraq.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 04:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well it looks like some of his more vocal opponents are applauding this move

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-media-critics-praise-syria-strikes-154025787.html

Given they lack the resolve of a few PnR forum members

Is it necessary to cast aspersions on them to make passive aggressive insults against a few PnR forum members who disagree?

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2017, 04:00 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: It's one thing to say let them deal with their own problems and it's another to let a leader deploy nerve gas on civilians twice since 2013 without serious repercussions. As the strongest nation in the world the United States is the country that can leave the largest impression and condemn this behavior.

No.  We can't just say "It is wrong because US says it is wrong"

If there is ever a situation that is bad enough that it requires intervention then it should be by a coalition like the UN.  No one country (not even us) should call the shots just because we are number 1.

If using nerve gass is that bad then there should be 50 other countries on our side helping us.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

So the alleged Russian collusion investigation lead to a wire tapping false flag which lead to another intelligence investigation which lead to the Devin Nunes false flag which lead to an ethics investigation which lead to the Susan Rice false flag all of which suddenly overnight no one is talking about because the Russian backed Assad forces attacked some rebels accidentally releasing toxic chemicals inadvertently killing civilians in rebel controlled territory which prompted a US retaliatory cruise missle strike we conveniently announced to Russians before the strike and the Syrians had advanced notice as well and were able to take steps to reduce the damage caused by the retaliatory cruise missle strike.

Well played, Comrade Putin. Well played.

[Dill]

(04-07-2017, 01:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know if it's exactly the same (haven't had time to see what resolutions and what part we are now playing) but I did find Obama using teh War Powers Act to justify our part in the bombings.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110720165559/http://c-span.org/uploadedfiles/Content/Documents/2011libya.military.rel.pdf

Two days after the events.

Not to "justify." The War Powers Act only requires that he notify Congress within 48 hrs of the action, then after 60 days he must get congressional approval for further action (e.g., in case there were ground forces engaged somewhere). The UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973 were the justification, along with the consideration of civilian casualties.

[J24]

I said it at the beginning of conflict. You either go all in or nothing at all. Unfortunately the time has passed for us to get in because Assad is a monster but so is ISIS and the other rebel groups. So right now we can only watch.

[Dill]

(04-07-2017, 11:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again we have pretty much let Assad do as he wishes to "protect his country's sovereignty",  but he was told in 2013 that using Chemical weapons was a no-no. We could not let his blatant disregard of this demand go unanswered.   

It is very hard to stop Assad from doing as he wishes. Obama at least got him to remove his mustard, Sarin and VX.

It was essentially the UN and Obama telling Assad that Chemical weapons were a no no in 2013. It was the UN who set the terms of enforcement in case of non-compliance. Why could the US not follow UN Security Council Resolution 2118 and go to the UN for international support/sanction for military action against Syria?

Why diverge from the response set by past agreement and diplomacy?

[Dill]

(04-07-2017, 04:00 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Well look at our president...

It's one thing to say let them deal with their own problems and it's another to let a leader deploy nerve gas on civilians twice since 2013 without serious repercussions. As the strongest nation in the world the United States is the country that can leave the largest impression and condemn this behavior.

Actually I'm sure if we wanted to control other countries we could. Not that we should be but it's hardly a delusion we just don't believe in that sort of ideology.

Are you saying that Assad used nerve gas after June 23, 2014?

I was unaware of that so I am curious as to where you got your information.

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2017, 12:36 AM)Dill Wrote: It is very hard to stop Assad from doing as he wishes. Obama at least got him to remove his mustard, Sarin and VX.

It was essentially the UN and Obama telling Assad that Chemical weapons were a no no in 2013. It was the UN who set the terms of enforcement in case of non-compliance. Why could the US not follow UN Security Council Resolution 2118 and go to the UN for international support/sanction for military action against Syria?

Why diverge from the response set by past agreement and diplomacy?

Are you asking this to the U.S. or to Assad? 

[Dill]

(04-08-2017, 01:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you asking this to the U.S. or to Assad? 

Why would I be asking Assad why he didn't seek UN support for an attack on himself?

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2017, 01:29 AM)Dill Wrote: Why would I be asking Assad why he didn't seek UN support for an attack on himself?

Oh I thought you asked

Why diverge from the response set by past agreement and diplomacy?


I failed to see that you were being more specific in your query. I thought you may have been talking about using Chemical weapons

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-07-2017, 09:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I find your constant digs at POTUS' physical appearance to be petty and in poor taste. Just as I did and expressed my distain when former Board members commented on Obama and his family in a similar manner. It just seems like I wasn't alone then.

Sorry snowflake. When he quits making faces like a tween taking a selfie I will stop.

[fredtoast]

(04-08-2017, 01:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I failed to see that you were being more specific in your query. 

Have you ever taken any sort of SAT or other standardized test that required you to read more than one sentence at a time and answer a few questions about them?

[CageTheBengal]

(04-07-2017, 07:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  We can't just say "It is wrong because US says it is wrong"

If there is ever a situation that is bad enough that it requires intervention then it should be by a coalition like the UN.  No one country (not even us) should call the shots just because we are number 1.

If using nerve gass is that bad then there should be 50 other countries on our side helping us.

In an ideal world it should be by a coalition but getting 50 leaders who have their own interests in mind on the same page isn't always obtainable in diplomacy. That's a lot of leaders and we could be spending a lot of time sitting on our hands waiting for leader 50 to approve something that needs immediate response. After thinking about it more that's actually a pretty bad idea. Why own your own military if you need 50 leaders from around the world to vote on how you get to use it even on the most minor of scales? We're not talking about dropping an atom bomb that causes mass destruction to the habitat or anything.

It has nothing to do with throwing your junk on the table and saying "We're #1" it's between right and wrong because no one else will or is able to do it. Do you always lean on your peers to form your opinions? I doubt it. I'd bet there have been moments in your life you were in the minority on something you felt was wrong. There's nothing wrong with forming your own judgements as long as they stay in the realm of reality.

Also there is always the fact that other leaders have their own interests in mind. Why would you spend a dime to help the U.S. send a message when you have your own economy to worry about which likely isn't near the U.S in strength? You may be with them morally but that doesn't mean you are willing to spend the money and answer to everybody back home about how the money was spent.

Helping us with what? The message has already been signed, sealed and delivered.

(04-08-2017, 12:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Are you saying that Assad used nerve gas after June 23, 2014?

I was unaware of that so I am curious as to where you got your information.

April 11, 2014 is the first chemical attack I'm referring to.