Should US bomb Syria? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-01-2013, 06:14 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,371
Local Time: 08:53 AM
And? It's also not a commonly refuted claim. To suggest that the uprising in Egypt against Morsi was not a popular movement is ridiculous. The current opposition to the government does not have anywhere near the manpower that was in the streets protesting Morsi. That's not debatable. That's fact. They support Assad for the very same reason that I support Assad. Because they know what two outcomes are at stake here. Islamic law or an autocracy. What intentions do you think the military in Egypt has? They have succumbed to the will of the Egyptian people. There is no ulterior motive.

Yes, this conversation has really gotten mixed, but I think that should be okay. They are the same conflict with a different title slapped on each.

I can't speak much with certainty on Syria
 
although if you'd like me to humor you, the Assad family has treated me well in the past.
However when it comes to Egypt I can. And if the Syrian people are anything like the Egyptian people, and the conflict is indeed as similar as I think it is, the people would've rather stuck with Mubarak over Morsi in retrospect. I say this as an Egyptian. I feel the Syrians will feel the same if the Assad regime topples, and I would hate for my country as an American to be responsible whatsoever for that.
__________________

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 06:36 PM   #62
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 02:53 PM
I would not suggest that the overthrow of Morsi was not popular, I query the breadth of support. It's easy to turn and say oh the 13 million that voted for Morsi were fraudulent, while non-verified numbers of 23 million signatures from a group supporting someone who gases his own people are all fine and dandy. I don't believe for a second the military are supporting the will of people rather than their own, to remain the king makers in Egypt. Their altruism is self serving.

Do you not think that dictatorships breed the extremism you are so afraid of? When people have no hope for making their own political progress, religion becomes an easily manipulated outlet. I have no riders in these conflicts other than I hope somehow humanity wins out. I claim no special knowledge of how either set of people feel. I do know a bit about communities being set on each other and the enmity that breeds, I do not see how support for a dictatorship will not lead to more bloodshed at some point in the future if Assad wins out.
__________________

__________________
LJT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 06:51 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,371
Local Time: 08:53 AM
It was movements like Tamarod that urged the military to take action. Things are different in Egypt. Yes, the military in Egypt does have the final say. They have for a very long time. But again, things are different. Things work differently in Egypt and across the rest of the world. The military is what keeps power in check in Egypt. The military are the representation of the people for a country that has no representation of its people. What did Morsi do as president? He removed representation. He tried to concentrate power. He was en route to becoming the next dictator of Egypt with extreme authoritarian rule. He was kept in check by the military. It's wrong to necessarily antagonize their establishment.

Such dictatorships breed extremism, sure. But there's ways around removing the dictatorships in relatively nonviolent ways. Look at Mubarak. For all intents and purposes, that was the most peaceful of revolutions in the Middle East. Democracy was paved, but what resulted was NOT what was intended.

Do you not think such Islamist governments would participate in torture, murder, using chemical weapons, etc.? Funny enough, they're already known to. Democratic means will NEVER be established through violent tactics. The very idea of a democracy and sharing power isn't something that's being worked towards. You remove Assad by supporting rebels and bombing the shit out of him, you're creating a different kind of monster.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 07:05 PM   #64
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Again your arguing against a straw man. I make no argument that Islamist governments would be better, would not torture, would not use chemical weapons. Do you think the military in Egypt will ever abdicate their powers to check? I find it absurd that any democracy will come from that, when the military can decide you are threat to them and so must go. It's worrying to consider the military as your representation when you do not have any say in what they do.

Hmm democratic means have often been established through violence, Ireland, the French Revolution(s). The American War for Independence? I do not support the bombing of Assad, I think we should stay well clear, but we can only deal with the monster we have in front of us, while it may be likely an Islamist government may emerge if the rebels win, that is still a maybe, we do not know if that is the direct result. If Assad remains in power, we may never know if the Syrian people could organise something better, however unlikely it may be, as Assad's reign has not been fertile ground for democracy to take root.
__________________
LJT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 08:36 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 08:53 AM
Should the U.S. bomb Syria?


No, it would be a very dangerous move that might ignite the
entire region and other superpowers into a major war.
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 03:15 PM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:53 AM
No, the U S should not bomb Syria, that's an odd question.


Should the U S and others (hopefully) address the use of chemical weapons with a limited and forceful action? Yes, of course.

Reagan/ Bush 1 (and others) let Saddam off when he gassed the Kurds in 88, how did that work out?
Keep in mind we were more or less with Saddam because we were against the Ayatollah and the Iranian Revolution.


The GOP will vote with Obama. Does anyone think Assad with Iranian backing, gets a free pass with chemical weapons?

Saddam got a pass in 88 and in 91 we had SCUD missiles landing in Israel and half their population wearing gas masks.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:48 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:53 AM
So....these are the guys we are backing?

Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

Quote:
The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 12:12 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,371
Local Time: 08:53 AM
Same stuff in Egypt. Mass executions of captured police officers. That's their style. It's who they are. It is the al Qaeda nature. They send messages not by killing, but by murdering to make a point.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 12:56 PM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:53 AM
The problem is not Assad, it’s the chemical weapons. The UN should pass a law banning the use of chemical weapons and we should post signs in Syria clearly identifying the area as a “Chemical Weapon Free Zone”. Simple fix.

In reality, and to the original poster’s question: “Should the US bomb Syria?” we really need to access a series of separate questions instead of simply responding to the President’s misguided “red line” stance.

Is there sufficient evidence that the Syrian government used the chemical weapons? Russia is claiming evidence that the rebels are responsible for the chemical weapon attacks. Given we are dealing with two bad parties, it seems entirely plausible that either side is responsible.

What would the US bomb? Is there a chemical weapons plant or supply depot to target, or are we flirting with the idea of hitting general military targets (which have the effect of tipping the balance of this civil war in favor of the rebels).

Should this be properly handled by the UN?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 10:04 PM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:53 AM
The question of who to bomb is not resolved. Apparently, some rebel leader claimed responsibility for the use of chemical weapons. If that is the case, has a red line been crossed? Should we hit a rebel position? Do the rebel's ties to terrorist organizations further support a strike against the rebels?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:08 PM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:53 AM
I am utterly flummoxed by this situation. It's so unimaginably awful.

Were I in Congress, I'd have to vote no. Reality seems impossible to come by in this area of the world.

I am glad that it seems as if the right wing is aski g questions and is skeptical of military action, as opposed to 2002/3. I will assume that this is because of lessons learned from the debacle of the Bush years, and not just because they will always and in all ways oppose anything the president does.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:40 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,371
Local Time: 08:53 AM
Party lines mean almost nothing here it seems. It jut looks like the senate saying yes and the house saying no, of all sorts of mixes.

I for one am very glad that my rep Alan Grayson has been a rather vocal opposition.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 02:34 AM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:53 AM
There has always been a significant protectionist and isolationist segment of the Right. They were just silenced for several years by the neo-conservative establishment. People forget that the neo-conservative movement was pretty new at that point. It was the reaction to the foreign policy of both Bush 41 and Clinton and what came before it that caused PNAC to form. And the former Bushies like Cheney wanted to go 'finish the job' in Iraq. A job that Bush 41 knew wasn't a smart idea. Gotta go spread that democracy!

Now those people are more emboldened than ever after Iraq. And then the Tea Party happened and actually put these isolationist (small govt) folks in Congress. If they weren't actually in Congress nobody would care what they were saying.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 02:58 AM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,371
Local Time: 08:53 AM
Sure that might all be true but take a look which members in congress are leaning which ways. It's pretty evenly split. You've got dems swearing the line, dems standing up for what they believe in/what they campaigned, and a collection of warhawk and anti-Obama GOPers versus the GOPers who like some of the dems are standing by their word.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 11:00 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
flummoxed
word of the day
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com