Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   A Case for Not Bombing Syria (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51667)

dellinger63 08-28-2013 09:27 AM

A Case for Not Bombing Syria
 
It would be catastrophic if our bombing Syria led to a theocratic Islamist based government taking over Syria’s cache of nerve agents and other assorted goodies.

Islamists by their very nature are unable to have ambiguous views because they are bound by a fundamentalist perception of their Koran and religious elders. Children are indoctrinated from little on that the Islamist fundamentalist view of the world is correct because it is stated so in the Koran. The Koran tells them to kill all infidels, and who is anyone to argue with the Koran? They are so far gone they issue death threats to artists of comics they don’t agree with. They riot and kill over a video. And most sad is they kill their own for violating the misperceived honor badge that comes with being a good Muslim.

Looking back at the history of Christianity lends us hope. Christians were able to evolve from the days of the Crusades, later burning witches, to the point of where we are today with lone misguided Christians targeting abortion doctors/clinics with the same false perception of it pleasing God. Fortunately for the world, Christians follow a book that does not dictate all non-believers be killed where they lay or we may have been done millenniums ago.

When Morsi of Egypt, (as far as I’ve read, not radicalized) urged his people to "nurse our children" on hatred for Jews, aka "bloodsuckers" and "sons of apes and pigs”, he should have immediately been called out Paula Deen style, only multiplied to the nth degree. Yet our African American President called giving him congratulations. Our government’s consistent response of dismissing such behavior as cultural is akin to accepting Paula using the N word on her show today and tomorrow, because she grew up in the South. We along with our allies need not walk out of UN conferences and give statements to the effect, ‘we expected it’ but rather call them out and remain diligently consistent doing so.

Fundamental, radical Islam feeds off its successes whether it be electing a Muslim President in Egypt or taking down the twin towers in New York. They attribute their triumphs to Allah in a self-fulfilling endless cycle of intolerant and sometimes inhumane behavior.

We and the rest of the world need to do everything possible to prevent further triumphs and successes. To starve their radical proponents and prophesies creating a more humanly receptive Islam, an ambiguous religion accepting people outside of the faith as fellow human beings and not infidels.

If our bombing of Assad leads to another triumph for the radical Islamists, whether real or conceived it would feed armies fighting new made up fatwahs for years and years. We have bigger more dangerous enemies fighting Assad right now, so stay out and let them fight to the death. Allah will decide who lives and who dies. Besides look how much money we'll save.:$:

Rudeboyelvis 08-28-2013 12:44 PM


Danzig 08-28-2013 03:24 PM

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...o_nothing.html

I was in a meeting recently in Washington with a whole bunch of important people, when I heard a chilling phrase: Obama had “no good options” in Syria. It’s become a cliché. Aaron David Miller in a CNN commentary said there were “no good options” for dealing with the situation. Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast wonders if bombing Syria is America’s “best bad option.” This is how Washington talks itself into a war that has little public support and scant basis in facts or logic. It’s completely unclear how much military strikes will weaken Bashar al-Assad’s regime and also completely unclear to what extent a weaker Syrian regime serves American or humanitarian interests. Military engagement has potentially large downsides and essentially no upsides. But we can brush that all under the table with the thought that there are no good options, which makes it OK to endorse some shoddy ones.

Except, in this case, it’s total nonsense. Obama has an excellent option. It’s called “don’t bomb Syria.” Don’t fire cruise missiles at Syria either. Or in any other way conduct acts of war. Condemn Assad’s violations of international humanitarian law. If rebels violate international humanitarian law, condemn them, too.



What makes it a bad option in the eyes of many is the reality that following my advice will lead to the deaths of many Syrian civilians. That is truly and genuinely tragic. On the other hand, it is by no means clear that bombing military institutions will reduce the number of civilian casualties. Historically, military intervention on the side of rebel groups has increased the pace of civilian deaths, not decreased it.

bigrun 08-28-2013 03:42 PM

Pay attention leaders..
 
'Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please'.
Machiavelli

Danzig 08-28-2013 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrun (Post 942870)
'Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please'.
Machiavelli

i posted that very quote on slate...along with this one:

there are three things necessary to wage war
money, money and yet more money

dellinger63 08-28-2013 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 942974)

I would have signed, but in light of registration required, I don't think so.

BTW what's the difference between registering to sign a WH petition and showing an ID to vote? You can fake identity on the internet? :wf

Danzig 08-29-2013 06:52 AM

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...920dcb7e30b258

Aug. 29, 2013 6:54 AM ET

AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'

By KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZOBy KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press



WASHINGTON (AP) — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.



ok, i know 'benghazi' has become the go-to phrase when people want to criticize...but i can't help but wonder why there were so many contortions to avoid calling that occurrence what it was , terrorism...then there's egypt, it's a coup, but the admin won't call it one, and we all know why.
so, now we have a case that isn't a 'slam dunk', and obama 'declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible'.

i hate inconsistency. this makes no sense. and the more that comes out about the supposed chemical attack, the more unhappy i become. now it's a hundred people? yesterday it was 1000.


i think everyone here knows i'm a history fanatic....
ww1 went on for several years before we entered. several times in the preceding years we had reason to enter, but held off. and for good reason.

same with ww2, had gone on in europe since 1939 and germany invading poland.

but now, we've become so impatient, so anxious to throw our weight around. and to what end?

Danzig 08-29-2013 08:58 AM

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._on_syria.html

i cringed when he first mentioned a red line.

what happened to not showing your cards? bah, he's more bush-ie every day.

bigrun 08-29-2013 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 943029)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._on_syria.html

i cringed when he first mentioned a red line.

what happened to not showing your cards? bah, he's more bush-ie every day.



Quote:

Obama's predecessor said that phrase—along with his "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents—were among his greatest mistakes as president. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner," said Bush. " ‘Wanted, dead or alive’—that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted." The Die Hard–style talk made Bush sound like a cowboy who shot first and asked questions never.
Yes. let's not repeat his style..

And now the Brits want out..:wf


http://news.msn.com/world/ghosts-of-...y-syria-strike

Always chringed when they referred to the 'Coalition' in Iraq..Yeah,
90% U.S.
5% Brits
5% all others..:mad:

Danzig 08-29-2013 11:44 AM

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.


who said all that, above?? barack obama in 2008.

Rudeboyelvis 08-30-2013 08:23 AM

Mint Press News reporting Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

Quite the opposite of what the White House's news agencies (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al.) would have you believe - www.mintpressnews.com

GenuineRisk 08-30-2013 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 943060)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.


who said all that, above?? barack obama in 2008.

Could someone please remind Congress? I think they like to put their heads down so they can say, "Hey, we had nothing to do with it!" Argh.

jms62 08-30-2013 09:48 AM

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-...g-to-be,33662/

bigrun 08-30-2013 10:52 AM

Gearing up to go it alone:zz:


http://news.msn.com/us/us-readies-po...-against-syria

bigrun 08-30-2013 02:57 PM

France is with us:wf...so what.

Quote:

Striking Syria is a lethal quandary: The U.S. has lost track of some chemical weapons storage sites and hitting anywhere could unleash another disaster.
Quote:

US and France prepare to act on Syria despite UK no vote



http://news.msn.com/world/experts-do...sites-in-syria

bigrun 08-30-2013 07:32 PM

Another country heard from...didn't 'we' liberate these people from Saddam:zz:

Quote:

An Iraqi Shiite militia group on Friday threatened to attack U.S. interests in the Mideast if America launches a military strike on Syria.

http://news.msn.com/world/iraqi-mili...s-if-syria-hit

Danzig 08-30-2013 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrun (Post 943291)

comforting isn't it, having france to back us up.....

jms62 08-31-2013 06:14 AM

I guess the genocide that took place and killings that continue to take place in Africa is somehow below the threshold of what our government deems the standard for intervention. These guys Dems/Repubs et all are beyond contemptible. Have a nice weekend.

Danzig 08-31-2013 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 943424)
I guess the genocide that took place and killings that continue to take place in Africa is somehow below the threshold of what our government deems the standard for intervention. These guys Dems/Repubs et all are beyond contemptible. Have a nice weekend.

yeah, some how it's decided that some things are national security issues, others aren't.

jms62 08-31-2013 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 943437)
yeah, some how it's decided that some things are national security issues, others aren't.

Maybe Obama doesnt get it but going in with 2 wars and exiting with 3 would mark his legacy as a failure. Even more so then his campaign against sending jobs overseas and seeing NOTHING during his reign to stem the tide. Overall though better than the alternative.

bigrun 08-31-2013 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 943407)
comforting isn't it, having france to back us up.....

Yeah, feel better now that they have our six...and you know this is their national flag.:wf

Aly-Sheba 08-31-2013 03:01 PM

Now that the President did the right thing and is going to wait for Congress, it took Fox two seconds to spin this against the President. Hannity must be pissed he isn't on today to turn it on him! If the President would have went it alone, Fox and Hannity would have been all over Obama. Now they have to figure out another way to attack. I never trust anyone who cant say one good thing about the other side whether they are on the right or left. Ever notice when O'Reilly says the spin stops here? Thats because he knows the Dickhead Hannity follows him!

bigrun 08-31-2013 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba (Post 943559)
Now that the President did the right thing and is going to wait for Congress, it took Fox two secondsmake that milli-seconds to spin this against the President. Hannity must be pissed he isn't on today to turn it on him! If the President would have went it alone, Fox and Hannity would have been all over Obama. Now they have to figure out another way to attack.no problem, they will I never trust anyone who cant say one good thing about the other side whether they are on the right or left. Ever notice when O'Reilly says the spin stops here? Thats because he knows the Dickhead Hannity follows him!

:):D..flipping around other nite MSNBC,CNN and Fox...caught Hannity(the Patriot during Iraq) with Malkin..what a pair:zz:...watched bout 5 mins and had to puke:eek:

Aly-Sheba 08-31-2013 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrun (Post 943563)
:):D..flipping around other nite MSNBC,CNN and Fox...caught Hannity(the Patriot during Iraq) with Malkin..what a pair:zz:...watched bout 5 mins and had to puke:eek:

Yea she is pretty scary along with Butterface Coulter!! I bet Hannity can't stand up after he has Rove or Levine on!!

Danzig 08-31-2013 06:01 PM

good, i'm glad he's taking it to them, as he should have from the get go. finally realizes he isn't the only one thats supposed to have a say.

bigrun 08-31-2013 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba (Post 943614)
Yea she is pretty scary along with Butterface Coulter!! I bet Hannity can't stand up after he has Rove or Levine on!!

Speaking of Coulter..






miraja2 09-01-2013 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba (Post 943559)
Now that the President did the right thing and is going to wait for Congress, it took Fox two seconds to spin this against the President.

Im no fan of Fox, but it doesn't take a lot of spin to make the administration's handling of Syria look bad. Its been dreadful.

Danzig 09-01-2013 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miraja2 (Post 943674)
Im no fan of Fox, but it doesn't take a lot of spin to make the administration's handling of Syria look bad. Its been dreadful.

:tro:

our foreign policy moves have been godawful for years now. but yes, it seems that lately it's a headless snake, thrashing about aimlessly.

and we are paying dearly for the debacle known as iraq. we need a doctrine for the middle east. right now it's whack a mole.

bigrun 09-01-2013 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 943694)
:tro:

our foreign policy moves have been godawful for years now. but yes, it seems that lately it's a headless snake, thrashing about aimlessly.

and we are paying dearly for the debacle known as iraq. we need a doctrine for the middle east. right now it's whack a mole.:tro:

Bullseye..whoever raises their ugly head gets whacked..

Danzig 09-01-2013 12:26 PM

i'm serious. we stand here with a big mallet and try to take care of things as they pop up. not a great strategy at all. we've become a huge international player, but with no game plan. what is our goal?


i think the president has an opportunity to get things straight. i think he should formulate a middle east doctrine, and take it to the un, and explain what we see as how things should be. that the goal is peace, freedom and prosperity. that we will not involve ourselves in conflicts such as syria, but that these certain weapons must never be used, and that the international community must be willing to back international law, else those laws mean nothing. we must weigh evidence, and must act.
the un security council must change. it should be a majority vote. we also need to call out ALL illegal goings on, right israel?

bigrun 09-02-2013 04:03 PM

Here's a good Q @ A on Syria..

Syria: Questions about a chaotic, tormented land.

Quote:

But there are protests in lots of places. How did it all go so wrong in Syria?

There’s no single answer. Journalist Fareed Zakaria argues that what we’re seeing is in some ways the inevitable re-balancing of power along ethnic and religious lines. He compares it to the sectarian bloodbath in Iraq after the United States toppled Saddam Hussein, after which a long-oppressed majority retook power from, and violently punished, the former minority rulers.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/na...a36600e2c.html

dellinger63 09-03-2013 10:39 AM

And here's a rebel soldier, the side we would help by bombing Assad, point of view.

Quote:

His father accepts Mohammed’s front-line role. “I put my trust in God,” he said.

But there’s a rub. Young Mohammed admires another local rebel group, the militant Islamist Jabhat al-Nusra, which is affiliated with al Qaeda.

“They know Islam and Sharia,” he said. “They know what it means to be a Muslim.”
A father who is proud of an 11-year old for killing, while putting his trust in God, is fubared.

Sharia law whether consensual or forced should not be tolerated and should be contained and extracted similar to how the world treats an oil spill or nuclear meltdown.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...g20uqtYAqgv63N

Rudeboyelvis 09-04-2013 09:28 AM

Fantastic to see John McCain, whom ever since escaping from a tiger cage as a POW in 'Nam has never seen a war that he thought would be a good idea to stay out of, playing games on his iphone during the hearings:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...aring/2761445/

All this on the heels of Kerry now proclaiming that the unsubstantiated reports of WMD's....err....Chemical Weapons - are not as important a reason to invade as is our "credibility"

>>>It matters because a lot of other countries, whose polices challenges these international norms, are watching. They are watching. They want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say. It is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something. They are watching to see if Syria can get away with it, because then maybe they too can put the world at greater risk.<<<

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ement/2749051/

He has also eluded to and opened the door for the US to deploy ground troops, and then quickly backpedaled when he quickly noticed the expressions on the faces of the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nd-troops.html

>>>"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country," he said.

Mr Kerry's comment was immediately picked up on by Senator Robert Menendez, his predecessor as the committee chair, who said the American people saw the issue of ground troops as an "overriding issue".

The secretary of state was also criticised by Senator Bob Corker, the committee's leading Republican, who said the answer was not "very appropriate"<<<


What country did I wake up in?

hoovesupsideyourhead 09-04-2013 11:37 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ia_752712.html

lol flim flam in full effect..

Danzig 09-04-2013 11:58 AM

we shouldn't act unilaterally. it should be thru the u.n. we haven't been attacked, so we shouldn't act alone...
or in tandem with france. yeah, france....:rolleyes:


putin said that un action isn't off the table.

Rudeboyelvis 09-04-2013 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 944299)
we shouldn't act unilaterally. it should be thru the u.n. we haven't been attacked, so we shouldn't act alone...
or in tandem with france. yeah, france....:rolleyes:


putin said that un action isn't off the table.

Zig, I don't believe we shouldn't act period. This civil war poses no definable threat to the US. Zero. Any imagined threat is simply just more unsubstantiated fear mongering by the war machine in order to continue to perpetuate itself.

I think it's pretty clear that an American attack, without the sanction of the United Nations, the support of allies, the authorization of Congress -- or, it must be said, much hope of meaningful success -- would violate the Constitution. As Jack Goldsmith writes in Lawfare, it "will push presidential war power beyond where it has gone before.",

Given this president's complete and utter disregard for the document, I guess we can expect to see the same outcomes as we've seen in Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, et al. where we've stuck our nose into other sovereign nation's matters, involved the lives of our sons and daughters along with billions upon billions of dollars we don't have, only to cut and run after we've created the mess, all under the auspices of the self-proclaimed "World Police".

Meanwhile our infrastructure continues to collapse, major cities declare bankruptcy, welfare soars to it's highest level in recorded history - and THIS is the main focus. I must be the crazy one.

Danzig 09-04-2013 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 944307)
Zig, I don't believe we shouldn't act period. This civil war poses no definable threat to the US. Zero. Any imagined threat is simply just more unsubstantiated fear mongering by the war machine in order to continue to perpetuate itself.

I think it's pretty clear that an American attack, without the sanction of the United Nations, the support of allies, the authorization of Congress -- or, it must be said, much hope of meaningful success -- would violate the Constitution. As Jack Goldsmith writes in Lawfare, it "will push presidential war power beyond where it has gone before.",

Given this president's complete and utter disregard for the document, I guess we can expect to see the same outcomes as we've seen in Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, et al. where we've stuck our nose into other sovereign nation's matters, involved the lives of our sons and daughters along with billions upon billions of dollars we don't have, only to cut and run after we've created the mess, all under the auspices of the self-proclaimed "World Police".

Meanwhile our infrastructure continues to collapse, major cities declare bankruptcy, welfare soars to it's highest level in recorded history - and THIS is the main focus. I must be the crazy one.

i agree, i don't see a need to get involved. and certainly not alone, or with france. only if the u.n. wanted it, sought it. they don't.

we need to stay the hell out of the middle east. welll, we need to get out of parts of it first! and then stay out of it. it's a cesspool.

bigrun 09-04-2013 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 944307)
Zig, I don't believe we shouldn't act period. This civil war poses no definable threat to the US. Zero. Any imagined threat is simply just more unsubstantiated fear mongering by the war machine in order to continue to perpetuate itself.

I think it's pretty clear that an American attack, without the sanction of the United Nations, the support of allies, the authorization of Congress -- or, it must be said, much hope of meaningful success -- would violate the Constitution. As Jack Goldsmith writes in Lawfare, it "will push presidential war power beyond where it has gone before.",

Given this president's complete and utter disregard for the document, I guess we can expect to see the same outcomes as we've seen in Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, et al. where we've stuck our nose into other sovereign nation's matters, involved the lives of our sons and daughters along with billions upon billions of dollars we don't have, only to cut and run after we've created the mess, all under the auspices of the self-proclaimed "World Police".

Meanwhile our infrastructure continues to collapse, major cities declare bankruptcy, welfare soars to it's highest level in recorded history - and THIS is the main focus. I must be the crazy one.

Almost exactly my position on invading Iraq 10 1/2 years ago..any action here w/o Congress,U.N. and allies aboard...please abort...and absolutely no ground troops!...What scares me is McCain and Boner are on board with Obama:eek:

Danzig 09-04-2013 02:44 PM

iraq invasion was bs too. i have no doubt we'd have been done and gone from afganistan years ago if not for the stupid iraq invasion.

is iraq better off?
are we? is that region better off?

no, no and no. yes, a brutal dictator is gone. what's followed his demise?

bigrun 09-04-2013 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 944318)
iraq invasion was bs too. i have no doubt we'd have been done and gone from afganistan years ago if not for the stupid iraq invasion.absolutely!..in an out in one year in Afgan,rout Taliban and grab or kill bin laden..

is iraq better off?.hell no, not for us or them
are we? is that region better off? if so show me where

no, no and no. yes, a brutal dictator is gone. what's followed his demise?They have a democracy, yeah right:zz:


:zz:

All the countries taking in fleeing Syrians.Turkey,Egypt,Lebanon et all can no longer handle the influx...all these questions and no answers...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.