Et tu Syria?

[Oscarsdad]

Is anyone else getting sick and tired of the Middle Least? I'm personally tired of seeing our finest coming home crippled or in body bags because of these backwards az thinking Arab ahose.

Now heres my thinking. Isreal has been getting bombed for years. The UN and the US keep saying" just chill-we'll handle it".We haven't. All those attacks were on innocent civilians. All the terrorists attacks were too. (Everywhere).

So when we go to work against them- ANY collateral civilian casualties are treated as a big screw up or something. So hundreds or thousands of young Americans give up their lives to "fight fair" while the other side doesn't.

I'm thinking we should have just bombed the hell out of anyone who stepped on our toes and then beat the crap out of anyone who had a problem with it. Don't think for a minute we couldn't.

We are so concerned with civilian casualties that we are sacrificing our kids to save them and I think if we really tore them up like we can- the next backwards az Arab Mfs would think twice.

 

[Guruofchem]

I don't like seeing our men and women come home in bags either, but if we kill civilians indiscriminately, how are we any better than the terrorists we are fighting?

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

Sounds like you want us to become the very thing you clam to despise...

 

[Nanci]

I don't know what the answer is. I don't know why we have to police the whole world. The president of Syria was just on 60 Minutes. Now Obama is.

What would happen if, in regards to all the middle east's squabbles, we just did nothing?

 

[Nanci]

I didn't watch Obama's speech last week. I think I liked the 60 Minutes interview better.

Why are chemical weapons bad and nuclear weapons okay?

Why does it matter how people are killed, in war? It's all bad.

Why do some parts of the world still fight like this?

I'm glad I live in North America...

 

[Nanci]

More on 60 Minutes right now! CBS.

 

[Amanda47]

It does feel like we're trying to police the world, but I think it's more like we're the biggest kid on the playground not wanting the bullies to get their way.

Syrian people are being killed by their own leader. They try to rebel but it's not effective. We have a huge and powerful military. It would be easier and cheaper and safer for us to let them fight it out themselves, but how can we turn our backs on desperate people in need of help? It's not our responsibility to intervene, but is it the right thing to do?

It's not an easy decision and no solution will be correct, but it is easy to sit back and discuss it all when someone else is making those tough calls. It's not like we're killing anyone in this thread, just talking about it...

 

[Oscarsdad]

This is why I love this site. Everyone makes thoughtful educated responses. But when I say we should bomb the heck out of them you have to realize that is how every other war has been fought until now. I think we are trading off too many American lives in the name of surgical strikes and I think I would rather see more collateral damage on the enemy side than dead Americans just to try to fight a "perfect" war.

 

[Guruofchem]

The region is a complete disaster, and has been for centuries, even millennia. Unfortunately, our national interests mean we can't just tun our backs on the Middle East; our oil interests, our alliance with Israel, and our need to curb terrorist cells there all mean we can't walk away. If it helps, remember that we lose far more American lives to car accidents than we do in overseas military action. Since most of those accidental deaths don't make the news and the military ones do, the relatively small number of military losses are magnified in our perception by the media coverage.

 

[Kokopelli]

Well, speaking as an Israeli, I think the US placed itself in a bind.
For ages, the US interfered all over the world and it has come to a point where, well, every such intervention is becoming more costly, and without much to gain to be had from it.

The US paid a steep price for it's involvement... American people lost their lives because of it, and honestly, it's no wonder that so many simply don't want to get into another fiasco.

On the other hand, Israel's hands are tied, nailed and bound- so we're told not to do anything by countries who will not end up doing anything themselves.

Syria... I am not overly concerned on that front, but Iran is a different matter altogether.

And yes, I quite agree with the sentiment of being tired of the Middle East.

 

[Oscarsdad]

Well, speaking as an Israeli, I think the US placed itself in a bind.
For ages, the US interfered all over the world and it has come to a point where, well, every such intervention is becoming more costly, and without much to gain to be had from it.

The US paid a steep price for it's involvement... American people lost their lives because of it, and honestly, it's no wonder that so many simply don't want to get into another fiasco.

On the other hand, Israel's hands are tied, nailed and bound- so we're told not to do anything by countries who will not end up doing anything themselves.

Syria... I am not overly concerned on that front, but Iran is a different matter altogether.

And yes, I quite agree with the sentiment of being tired of the Middle East.

I believe this pretty much covers my first post. If the UN would just let Israel defend itself and the US back them-90% of this crap wouldn't be happening.

The other thing to look at is that to totally kick their az we are going to kill less people than they were before we got there.

 

[tsst]

There is not an arab country in the middle east that knows anything besides war. They have been fighting for millennia. We should get out and let them police themselves. Syria, Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, etc. Perhaps the UN can handle it. lol

Support Israel in defending themselves but no more policing those that know no different and do not want us there.

IMHO

 

[Oscarsdad]

There is not an arab country in the middle east that knows anything besides war. They have been fighting for millennia. We should get out and let them police themselves. Syria, Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, etc. Perhaps the UN can handle it. lol

Support Israel in defending themselves but no more policing those that know no different and do not want us there.

IMHO

Be careful. Not just you but anyone responding to this thread. I have received an infraction for my original post.

BTW- Obama thinks he has the Syrian problem handled- we'll see.Letting him tell it the economy is really coming around thanks to him! :boring:uke01:

 

[Rich Z]

Be careful. Not just you but anyone responding to this thread. I have received an infraction for my original post.

Yes, you did. Do you understand WHY?


As for this Syria affair, well, what BUSINESS is it of ours what another country does inside it's own borders? Is the USA taking the stance that NO country has the right to their own self determination, right or wrong? And the USA is the official arbitrator of everything that ANY country does that anyone in our government HERE might not like?

At the very least, please show me in the US Constitution where the federal government is authorized to engage in this sort of practice.

Now, if they were specifically killing Americans or posing an immediate direct threat to the USA, then yeah, let them have it with both barrels. But an internal management issue taking place inside the borders of another country? Nope, sorry, I don't see where that is any of our affair.

 

[Tavia]

I'm of two minds about the whole Middle East thing, I really have no opinion on the actual Syria situation as I haven't really watched or read anything on it, mainly because I don't trust any of the sources giving information about it, everyone has too much of an ax to grind to be unbiased, up to and including the news services.

Part of me really agrees with RichZ and a few others, who appointed America the cop and playground anti-bully enforcer of the world? In a lot of ways it's pretty arrogant and avails the US of nothing.
Yet on the other hand, I think it's the responsible thing for other humans, and that includes organizations like governments, to stand for a certain level of human rights and oppose those that have no regard for life and certain human dignities.
The fuzzy part comes with finding some path between those lines. It should not just always be the US dictating terms to the rest of the world.

And I particularly dislike the whole "War on Terror" campaign. These terrorists are for the most part only and exactly well founded and well armed criminals and to dignify the battle against them as a War, gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve as rebels and freedom fighters, handed over free by their enemies. I also think that the US is using the wrong tactics in some ways to fight them, they keep wanting to treat them too much like an actual war against an army or regime, when they are not so visible a part of the population and can hide amongst the honest citizens of a country.

 

[Oscarsdad]

Yes, you did. Do you understand why?

I'm not 100% sure but think so. I'm almost as sure that the reason I was is not what you think. Bad choice of words on my part. .....But whatever. ....

I am really freaking out right now- the shooter at the Naval yard lived literally walking distance from my house. Go figure- White Settlement road in White Settlement. .....They keep saying Ft. Worth but it really isn't- it's a suburb on the west side of Ft. Worth.

Maybe you just shouldn't mess with Texas. Sorry- bad joke- Who knows what was going through this creeps mind. Wow- this is almost .......IDk!

 

[rich333]

Yes, you did. Do you understand WHY?


As for this Syria affair, well, what BUSINESS is it of ours what another country does inside it's own borders? Is the USA taking the stance that NO country has the right to their own self determination, right or wrong? And the USA is the official arbitrator of everything that ANY country does that anyone in our government HERE might not like?

At the very least, please show me in the US Constitution where the federal government is authorized to engage in this sort of practice.

Now, if they were specifically killing Americans or posing an immediate direct threat to the USA, then yeah, let them have it with both barrels. But an internal management issue taking place inside the borders of another country? Nope, sorry, I don't see where that is any of our affair.

Think... One world order.

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

Yes, you did. Do you understand WHY?


As for this Syria affair, well, what BUSINESS is it of ours what another country does inside it's own borders? Is the USA taking the stance that NO country has the right to their own self determination, right or wrong? And the USA is the official arbitrator of everything that ANY country does that anyone in our government HERE might not like?

At the very least, please show me in the US Constitution where the federal government is authorized to engage in this sort of practice.

Now, if they were specifically killing Americans or posing an immediate direct threat to the USA, then yeah, let them have it with both barrels. But an internal management issue taking place inside the borders of another country? Nope, sorry, I don't see where that is any of our affair.

Devil's advocate here. But if we do nothing, what is to say it won't escalate into a Holocaust v2.0? So long as it doesn't directly affect us, we shouldn't intervene? I would disagree.

I do agree that a country should have the right to their own self determination, but not at the expense of human rights violations. To me its almost like watching a bully on the playground and doing nothing because it doesn't affect you.

That being said, I think with Syria we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. There is no easy solution.

 

[Oscarsdad]

Think... One world order.

Do you know what- there's really not anything in your post I disagree with. My whole point was that if we are going to engage with these guys we shouldn't do it with kid gloves.

You would have thought we'd have learned that in Vietnam. Anyway that was a big point of my post- we shouldn't be there. But I think if we are- we should put the lives of our finest above those of the indigenous peoples who allow terrorists to take potshots at our troops.

Think about it this way- I'm saying if someone takes a shot at our guys from a building-take it out. Our guys are protected. Now- Should some "friendlies" be taken out- sad and not the ideal scenario- but-now you have everyone thinking "I could be blown to hell if a terrorist occupies my building and makes a move against an American. If we go in door to door much better chance one of our guys gets it.

Now- Here's why I think it's that way.A US soldier gets killed- well. ... they signed up for that. A civilian gets killed by collateral damage and it's a world wide problem.

Hopefully- Ive made my point.

 

[Oscarsdad]

Devil's advocate here. But if we do nothing, what is to say it won't escalate into a Holocaust v2.0? So long as it doesn't directly affect us, we shouldn't intervene? I would disagree.

I do agree that a country should have the right to their own self determination, but not at the expense of human rights violations. To me its almost like watching a bully on the playground and doing nothing because it doesn't affect you.

That being said, I think with Syria we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. There is no easy solution.

No- apparently Russia is with us on this. (Will wonders never cease?) See there are 3 bullies in the world: US RUSSIA and China. .....2 against 1 wins and somehow Obama has manipulated an agreement- at least that's his story-we'll see.

I absolutely hate the man, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt- the worst of presidents have done great things. And I should clarify- I don't hate the man- seems like a nice guy- I hate what he is and does. Liberal democrat. .......