|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 4, 2013 3:06:25 GMT -5
On any given day, I would be in favor of hanging all the world dictators by the nuts, but in this case, I killed some doves and wearing their feathers.
First.....to me, striking Assad is trying to stop one crazy so another one takes over.
Second...I'm done paying blood and treasure to bring the 21st century to that part of the world. I was for Afghanistan and initially for Iraq war, but now, it appears like a complete waste.
So, absolutely NO striking of Assad. Heck, if Harper even has a nose twitch about involving Canada in this, I'm heading to Ottawa as a Code Pink'er......and I really don't look good in pink.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 4, 2013 7:19:57 GMT -5
I vote NO as well.
The rebels are jihadists, from all reports. Like HA said, it'd be trading Assad for complete theocratic rule.
You think there are refugees now....
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Sept 4, 2013 11:05:45 GMT -5
While it might be a more justifiable reason than the WMD fiasco, contrary to what certain countries in the Western world think it's not their job to police the rest of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 4, 2013 12:48:34 GMT -5
contrary to what certain countries in the Western world think it's not their job to police the rest of it. So WWI and WWII were poor decisions? They both showed us one thing. If you sit idly by and let countries go unopposed, they eventually bring the fight to your door. So do we turn a blind eye because he used chemical warfare on his own citizens? It's none of our business right? How about when downtown Toronto, Ottawa, New York are inhaling that same gas? Do we then? It would be hypocritically to think its our job to police them then ... This breaks international law. I'm on the fence about going to war. But the response has to be more than political and cutting off trade with Syria. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Sept 4, 2013 15:11:01 GMT -5
contrary to what certain countries in the Western world think it's not their job to police the rest of it. So WWI and WWII were poor decisions? They both showed us one thing. If you sit idly by and let countries go unopposed, they eventually bring the fight to your door. So do we turn a blind eye because he used chemical warfare on his own citizens? It's none of our business right? How about when downtown Toronto, Ottawa, New York are inhaling that same gas? Do we then? It would be hypocritically to think its our job to police them then ... This breaks international law. I'm on the fence about going to war. But the response has to be more than political and cutting off trade with Syria. Apples and oranges. Civil conflict in Syria isn't a threat to the world. Hitler marching across Europe was. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 4, 2013 16:51:28 GMT -5
So WWI and WWII were poor decisions? They both showed us one thing. If you sit idly by and let countries go unopposed, they eventually bring the fight to your door. So do we turn a blind eye because he used chemical warfare on his own citizens? It's none of our business right? How about when downtown Toronto, Ottawa, New York are inhaling that same gas? Do we then? It would be hypocritically to think its our job to police them then ... This breaks international law. I'm on the fence about going to war. But the response has to be more than political and cutting off trade with Syria. Apples and oranges. Civil conflict in Syria isn't a threat to the world. Hitler marching across Europe was. I don't think it's all that different .... Concentration camps vs gasing .... He uses gas on Syria today, what's to stop him from using it on Israel tomorrow? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 4, 2013 16:57:44 GMT -5
There is no justification to us taking action in a far away country against a bad guy.
Who are the good guys there?
The President and his murderous team?
THe Jihadists who want to kill all non'believers?
THe Sunnis who attacked the twin towers?
The Sheites who dominate and attack Sunnis?
The Muslims who attack Christians and force Sharia law upon others?
THe US had a murderous Civil War to settle differences and no foreign power interviened.
We are shooting rockets and killing because we can (without getting our hands too dirty).
If we are looking for easy answers, there are none.
There is no clear mission.
There is no desired outcome.
They do not share our vision or aspirations.
Kill a few thousand for killing a few thousand.
We have a lot of missles that need to be used.
No boots on the ground, no American casualties.
Whatever damage the missles cause is less costly than the missiles.
We are sharing the planet and it's resources with many lifeforms. I can't negotiate with a bear or a virus or a man who straps bombs to his children to detonate on a crowded bus.
Killing a few will only force them to stop fighting eachother and unify against us (and maybe a hatred of Israel).
Fire the missles and teach them a lesson???
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Sept 4, 2013 17:21:19 GMT -5
It's none of our business what goes on there, we wouldn't want anyone getting in ours would we? Like LA said...if we attack them it will just give people a reason to have a hate on for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 4, 2013 21:08:20 GMT -5
He uses gas on Syria today, what's to stop him from using it on Israel tomorrow? The problem is that BOTH sides have access to gas. Why would Assad do this if he is winning and has inspectors at his doorstep? it's not like Al Qaeda wouldn't kill thousand of their own and call them "martyrs" for the cause. Plus...do you remember the last time we were sold a bag of garbage about WMD in Iraq? Or the sob stories about Kuwaiti children and rapes.....that turned out to be bullsh!t stories by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador? What makes me think that this is just another cover story for involvement. As for using gas on Israel, that would be a wee bit of a mistake. Unless of course Assad like to glow in the dark. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 4, 2013 21:14:06 GMT -5
So WWI and WWII were poor decisions? They both showed us one thing. If you sit idly by and let countries go unopposed, they eventually bring the fight to your door. So do we turn a blind eye because he used chemical warfare on his own citizens? It's none of our business right? How about when downtown Toronto, Ottawa, New York are inhaling that same gas? Do we then? It would be hypocritically to think its our job to police them then ... This breaks international law. I'm on the fence about going to war. But the response has to be more than political and cutting off trade with Syria. Apples and oranges. Civil conflict in Syria isn't a threat to the world. Hitler marching across Europe was. More like watermelons and raisins..... Assad, Saddam, Quaddafi and Iran combined didn't represent any real military threat to the west. How long did it take to take over Iraq and their million man Republican guard? A few weeks? It would take even less to simply turn their countries into rubble and never bother to step a foot in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 5, 2013 5:45:50 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. Civil conflict in Syria isn't a threat to the world. Hitler marching across Europe was. More like watermelons and raisins..... Assad, Saddam, Quaddafi and Iran combined didn't represent any real military threat to the west. How long did it take to take over Iraq and their million man Republican guard? A few weeks? A few weeks? The official timeline of the Iraq War is March 20, 2003 – December 15, 2011. That's 8 years, 9 months. This option was also there for Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam ... let's face it, the US is never going to reduce a country to "rubble". In WWI, the Allies mandated that the German army could never grow to more than 100,000 .... by 1934, it was 4.5 Million. Turning a blind eye certainly didnt work back then. Nazi Germany used gas chambers in concentration camps, on gays, mentally delayed people, handicapped people, Jews, Russians, .... anyone they considered undesirable. But this is different? Assad may not be using concentration camps, but the only thing different is he didnt corral the citizenry into a fenced enclosure. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 5, 2013 6:46:39 GMT -5
The installation of militant Islamic theocratic rule isn't the answer...as that mindset doesn't care who gets in its way...i.e. global domination IS on its eventual checklist.
With so much barbaric ideology (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.) in that region, the U.S. and allies had better be 100% sure who they'd be aiding and abetting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 5, 2013 7:39:58 GMT -5
Interesting developments in Syria. However, gassing their own is not a new concept. Hafez al-Assad used gas to quell an uprising in the town of Hama in 1982 (Wiki). The international community did nothing about it then. There are conflicting reports on this, though. Some report cite government forces as using gas, but I also saw a news clip where UN inspectors found evidence that the Rebels are using gas. Maybe both sides are, I really don't know. Obama lost a lot of international support on this one. Their long-time ally, Great Britain, has also pulled their support of using military force against Syria, but Obama has no one to blame but himself for that. Right after 9/11 the UK sent a bronze bust of Winston Churchill to the US to show that they supported them after the attacks. Obama recently had that bust returned to the UK (after denying that) and many in the UK took offence to this. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9436526/White-House-admits-it-did-return-Winston-Churchill-bust-to-Britain.htmlHe also lost respect from Britain on his stance towards the Falklands. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100162100/the-obama-administration-knifes-britain-yet-again-over-the-falklands/It's little wonder why the UK is miffed. Would I go into Syria? Not with the USA. I just don't know who Obama will bow to next. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 5, 2013 11:23:59 GMT -5
The installation of militant Islamic theocratic rule isn't the answer...as that mindset doesn't care who gets in its way...i.e. global domination IS on its eventual checklist. With so much barbaric ideology (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.) in that region, the U.S. and allies had better be 100% sure who they'd be aiding and abetting. better to sit this one out and give aid to the refugees. I know, I know, the Arabs should look after their own: there is a lot of money flowing to the Middle East and they should share it with their neighbours rather than spending it on themselves [ya, as if human nature is different there than here]. 2 million displaced. Do something for them. Perhaps it is merely expected . . . but it is a lot more difficult to hate a nation that helps than to hate a nation that destroys your infrastructure -- no matter what the intent. Actually, Israel should lead the Aid Brigade. It may be refused, but this generation in the Middle East [heck, world-wide!] is being raised to see Israel as an unholy enemy that needs to be annihilated. Do something good for the world [Muslim and non] to see. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 5, 2013 11:27:58 GMT -5
Slowly . . . very slowly . . . other Arab nations are being drawn into the conflict, either directly or indirectly, one side or the other. If the US enters the fray it will unite them against a common enemy. If the US stays out there may be an all-out Shiite/Sunni religious war.
They hate each other for the most part, but each hates the US more. They hate the Jews most.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Sept 5, 2013 11:39:27 GMT -5
It all comes down to what the people want. After reading a lot of comments, I can say for sure that 90% of the US wants nothing to do with Syria. Even the UK people are against going. As for Canada, I beleive it is more around 65% in favour of not going.
Let's look at this from the USA side of things. They've dropped atleast a few trillion in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've suffered thousands of deaths, They are either number one or number 2 target for terrorists. I think the citizons just want to live in peace a little while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 5, 2013 11:50:29 GMT -5
Slowly . . . very slowly . . . other Arab nations are being drawn into the conflict, either directly or indirectly, one side or the other. If the US enters the fray it will unite them against a common enemy. If the US stays out there may be an all-out Shiite/Sunni religious war. They hate each other for the most part, but each hates the US more. They hate the Jews most. I'm not sure about that, mate. Saudi Arabia has to be very careful about taking sides in this one. They have over $700 billion (as of 2004) invested in the USA. There's probably more than that now. I'm guessing the White House and the King of Saud have been talking over what appropriate action might be, though like I said, it's only a guess. If Syria decides that the do need the other Arab countries, then all they have to do is hit Israel. I remember when Hussein tried this back in '90/91. He was launching Scuds at Israel, hoping they'd retaliate. Once that happened, the Arab nations involved in the Coalition would have had no choice but to adjust their arcs of fire onto Israel. It was an Arab thing that trumped anything that was going on at the same time. Israel said that they would retaliate, but at a their time and their choosing. But, they never did and it was a good thing because it would have shattered that Coalition. Kuwait would have had to wait a bit longer for liberation. I couldn't tell you what Obama is going to do. However, I remember one of his spokespersons clearly stating recently that the US would act on its own interests. What that means, I couldn't tell you. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 5, 2013 11:52:16 GMT -5
Assad may not be using concentration camps, but the only thing different is he didnt corral the citizenry into a fenced enclosure. Which part of you have no proof that Assad actually did it are you missing? All we have is the say-so of people who are serial liars when it comes to this. Read.....it's in bold. Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official
Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
More...
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 5, 2013 11:55:45 GMT -5
It all comes down to what the people want. After reading a lot of comments, I can say for sure that 90% of the US wants nothing to do with Syria. Even the UK people are against going. As for Canada, I beleive it is more around 65% in favour of not going. Let's look at this from the USA side of things. They've dropped atleast a few trillion in wars in IRAq and Afghanistan. They've suffered thousands of deaths, They are either number one or number 2 target for terrorists. I think the citizons just want to live in piece a little while. I guess there's a cost to being the world's self-appointed policeman. nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/Unbelievable! Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 5, 2013 11:58:28 GMT -5
And here we are......why this is proof that we are now the manipulated puppets of Saudi kings.... Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria
Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.htmlThe same Saudi's who hold trillions in US debt? Tell me again about the "proof" that we are suppose to swallow? Control the global oil-market? Who are the puppet masters? Tell me again who are the good guys in this quagmire? The West has to stay a million miles away from this hell hole. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 5, 2013 12:00:46 GMT -5
Assad may not be using concentration camps, but the only thing different is he didnt corral the citizenry into a fenced enclosure. Which part of you have no proof that Assad actually did it are you missing? All we have is the say-so of people who are serial liars when it comes to this. Read.....it's in bold. Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official
Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
More...
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/Thanks HA. I was looking for this earlier. I remember watching a news clip where UN inspectors revealed that the Rebels had used Sarin nerve gas, but I didn't have time to find it. I also remember Obama weighing in and saying that the Assad government simply had to go. So, without saying it word-for-word, he basically said he's supporting the Rebels. These are the same Rebels that are burning Christian churches and who are trying to purge Syria of Christians. I'll post a link later because I have to get back to the grind now. Think Obama has done enough damage? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 5, 2013 12:02:24 GMT -5
The installation of militant Islamic theocratic rule isn't the answer...as that mindset doesn't care who gets in its way...i.e. global domination IS on its eventual checklist. With so much barbaric ideology (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.) in that region, the U.S. and allies had better be 100% sure who they'd be aiding and abetting. better to sit this one out and give aid to the refugees. I know, I know, the Arabs should look after their own: there is a lot of money flowing to the Middle East and they should share it with their neighbours rather than spending it on themselves [ya, as if human nature is different there than here]. 2 million displaced. Do something for them. Perhaps it is merely expected . . . but it is a lot more difficult to hate a nation that helps than to hate a nation that destroys your infrastructure -- no matter what the intent. Actually, Israel should lead the Aid Brigade. It may be refused, but this generation in the Middle East [heck, world-wide!] is being raised to see Israel as an unholy enemy that needs to be annihilated. Do something good for the world [Muslim and non] to see. Now there's something helpful...and would show the refugees and the ROW what's really important. You'd just have to hope the aid money went directly to those in need. If only the world was as simple as this old Monkees' little known gem: |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 5, 2013 12:05:57 GMT -5
Think Obama has done enough damage? Cheers. The empty suit? The narcissist in chief? He is Paris Hilton poodle stroking when it comes to geopolitics. But hey, looks real cool on Letterman..... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 5, 2013 12:57:40 GMT -5
Assad may not be using concentration camps, but the only thing different is he didnt corral the citizenry into a fenced enclosure. Which part of you have no proof that Assad actually did it are you missing? All we have is the say-so of people who are serial liars when it comes to this. Read.....it's in bold. Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official
Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
More...
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/I'm not sure why that link is from May 6, 2013. Neither side has proof yet ... French spies say Assad has three chemical sources. (and I can bold and post links too, ... ) Most Allies spies say the rebels do not possess the weaponry to launch such a chemical attack. Russia says the "proof" it has seen is unconvincing. Russia will never be swayed, from oil to harbouring a whistleblower, they have been distancing themselves from the US for a while now. So if we get the proof, youll just think it is from serial liars? I'm willing to wait for proof, so is the world, thats a big reason they havent done anything yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 5, 2013 13:27:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure why that link is from May 6, 2013. And changes what? That they threw them away after that? They had them, they have them and have no problem using them. Are you going to seriously argue that Al Qaeda wouldn't use them against civilians to drag us into it? The same people who flew planes in a building to kill thousands? So if we get the proof, youll just think it is from serial liars? I'm willing to wait for proof, so is the world, thats a big reason they havent done anything yet. Wait for proof? Big reason? No, not really, not even close. obama committed himself to bombing them and the ONLY reason we are not talking about this in past tense is that the greater percentage of Americans are against it on top of obama had no British support and found himself isolated. So he is playing for time and a way to spread the blame. The stalling for Congressional approval is unquestionable proof. His credibility on this is absolutely shot. Even from his blind supporters. As for actual trustable proof, sure, I will look the other way while obama plays cowboy, but I would not want to see the Assad regime fall. Not because I don't want to see him hang from a rope, but because the alternatives are no better and probably far worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 5, 2013 13:32:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 5, 2013 13:37:23 GMT -5
if this is even remotely true, then it's time to bomb the Kremlin. Putin is crazy, obama has no credibility....and before we even get involved, we are already covered in crap. Over a BUNCH OF CRAZIES. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 5, 2013 16:09:36 GMT -5
The U.S. government has already succumbed to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and removed key intelligence personnel/experts on militant Islam (like Robert Spencer) from training the FBI, CIA, military, etc. on how this ideology ticks.
CAIR, which is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, has the Obama government dancing to their tune of "Islamophobia"...where criticism of Islam is labelled as "hate speech". Playing the victim card, while they fully intend to victimize all "infidels".
Google it. Research it.
If the free world can't criticize a homophobic, misogynistic, racist ideology....that's one giant bite taken out of freedom of speech...and it's downhill quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 5, 2013 17:07:30 GMT -5
Which part of you have no proof that Assad actually did it are you missing? All we have is the say-so of people who are serial liars when it comes to this. Read.....it's in bold. Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official
Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
More...
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/I'm not sure why that link is from May 6, 2013. Neither side has proof yet ... French spies say Assad has three chemical sources. (and I can bold and post links too, ... ) Most Allies spies say the rebels do not possess the weaponry to launch such a chemical attack. Russia says the "proof" it has seen is unconvincing. Russia will never be swayed, from oil to harbouring a whistleblower, they have been distancing themselves from the US for a while now. So if we get the proof, youll just think it is from serial liars? I'm willing to wait for proof, so is the world, thats a big reason they havent done anything yet. Why does this remind me of a car trip with my wife and three kids? Somebody passed gas and everyone says "it wasn't me!" I have a pretty good idea who did it, but not 100% proof. If we do enter the frey, we won't do it with conviction, boots on the ground trying to capture, try and punish the offenders. We are just lobbing a couple of missles, killing a few people and teaching somebody a lesson! (what is the lesson again) |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 8, 2013 13:50:51 GMT -5
Warning; it's 20 minutes long, but it's a well-researched opinion. This clip shows Obama as just another US President who duped the American public. Very graphic in some spots.
|
|
