1 of 2
1
The United States should lead a targeted strike in Syria.
Posted: 10 September 2013 06:30 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

President Obama convinced me tonight. Assad’s chemical attack on Syrians violates international law. That provides a legal justification for a response.

The common-sense reason to do it is exactly as President Obama stated it. If we do not, then other dictators will not hesitate to use chemical weapons. This would result in a further breakdown of international law and widespread violations of human rights.

So I’ve changed my view. I would like to see support from the international community and approve of Obama’s cautious approach. However, one way or the other, there should be a strike to discourage Assad and others from mass murder.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 04:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2649
Joined  2011-04-24
PLaClair - 10 September 2013 06:30 PM

The common-sense reason to do it is exactly as President Obama stated it. If we do not, then other dictators will not hesitate to use chemical weapons. This would result in a further breakdown of international law and widespread violations of human rights.

 

Even if we do the strike, it will not stop other dictators from using whatever boogyman weapons they can. That has never worked and never will.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 04:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

I disagree. Dictators do what’s in their self-interest and what they can get away with. If an action meets with an unpleasant response, and dictators know that the world is serious, they will change their behavior - not all of them maybe but enough to make a difference for people who would otherwise have been attacked, and for the world. Our problem has been that international responses have not been consistent, often driven by parochial concerns instead of sound and objective analysis of what is necessary to maintain certain conditions in the world.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 05:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4742
Joined  2007-10-05

What makes this so much more important than the ongoing genocide in Darfur, which the United States and Europe seem to be ignoring? Seven percent of Darfur’s citizens have died in this civil war since 2003, and almost half the population has been displaced, yet neither Bush nor Obama nor any other Western leader has pushed to intervene. I suspect that if Darfur had oil or natural gas the world would notice.

Obama is a very persuasive speaker, so don’t let his rhetoric fool you. This is not about chemical weapons, it is about a natural gas pipeline.

I say let Exxon/Mobile fight its own wars for a change, and it seems the American people are weary of energy wars.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 06:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
DarronS - 11 September 2013 05:36 AM

What makes this so much more important than the ongoing genocide in Darfur, which the United States and Europe seem to be ignoring? Seven percent of Darfur’s citizens have died in this civil war since 2003, and almost half the population has been displaced, yet neither Bush nor Obama nor any other Western leader has pushed to intervene. I suspect that if Darfur had oil or natural gas the world would notice.

Obama is a very persuasive speaker, so don’t let his rhetoric fool you. This is not about chemical weapons, it is about a natural gas pipeline.

I say let Exxon/Mobile fight its own wars for a change, and it seems the American people are weary of energy wars.

Quite apart from the oil, there are vast differences between a targeted strike against the chemical weapons capacity of a dictator, versus intervention into a country’s civil war. One of the main selling points of a strike against Syria is that we can accomplish a goal with limited risk and expenditure. I don’t see how we could do that in Darfur.

So while your point about oil, which has driven our foreign policy for decades, is an excellent one, it’s not dispositive on every point.

What do you think should be our response in Syria and in Darfur, if any; and why?

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 07:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

The rational part of my brain tells me that the U.S. should do whatever is in my best interest. No idea what that is, though: attack Syria if it means I’ll be paying less for gas, don’t attack Syria if this may lead to WWIII.

The emotional part of my brain tells me that somebody should attack the U.S. for violating the international law.

[ Edited: 11 September 2013 07:37 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4444
Joined  2008-08-14
George - 11 September 2013 07:30 AM

The emotional part of my brain tells me that somebody should attack the U.S. for violating the international law.

I thought you didn’t want a scenario that leads to WWIII?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4742
Joined  2007-10-05
PLaClair - 11 September 2013 06:29 AM

What do you think should be our response in Syria and in Darfur, if any; and why?

The favor negotiating with Assad to get his regime to turn over its chemical weapons. I will not support unilateral intervention. The problem, of course, is safely giving United Nations inspectors access to the areas they need to find the chemical weapons.

As for Darfur, the United Nations should take the lead and intervene to stop the genocide. The world seems disinterested in Darfur, however.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 08:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
VYAZMA - 11 September 2013 08:05 AM
George - 11 September 2013 07:30 AM

The emotional part of my brain tells me that somebody should attack the U.S. for violating the international law.

I thought you didn’t want a scenario that leads to WWIII?

Well, you know how emotional thinking can go sometimes…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4444
Joined  2008-08-14

I see there’s speculation about WWIII going round the circles.
I tend to believe it is very possible.
Saber rattling and detente oscillate for decades sometimes.
However throughout history this occasionally builds up underlying pressures which eventually burst.

Amid this Saber Rattling and Detente, historically there are often shifting regimes in the focus areas of economic/resource interests
and pressures which build up along those spheres of influence by major powers.

After that it only takes economic depression in the various countries and restlessness of the people
under both lackluster, ineffectual leaders and dynamic forceful leaders.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 08:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4444
Joined  2008-08-14
George - 11 September 2013 08:19 AM
VYAZMA - 11 September 2013 08:05 AM
George - 11 September 2013 07:30 AM

The emotional part of my brain tells me that somebody should attack the U.S. for violating the international law.

I thought you didn’t want a scenario that leads to WWIII?

Well, you know how emotional thinking can go sometimes…

Yeah, I do.  grin

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 09:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2649
Joined  2011-04-24
PLaClair - 11 September 2013 06:29 AM

Quite apart from the oil, there are vast differences between a targeted strike against the chemical weapons capacity of a dictator, versus intervention into a country’s civil war. One of the main selling points of a strike against Syria is that we can accomplish a goal with limited risk and expenditure. I don’t see how we could do that in Darfur.

 

If the current administration launches a strike, then they can’t be counted on to practice limited anything.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
PLaClair - 10 September 2013 06:30 PM

President Obama convinced me tonight. Assad’s chemical attack on Syrians violates international law. That provides a legal justification for a response.

The common-sense reason to do it is exactly as President Obama stated it. If we do not, then other dictators will not hesitate to use chemical weapons. This would result in a further breakdown of international law and widespread violations of human rights.

So I’ve changed my view. I would like to see support from the international community and approve of Obama’s cautious approach. However, one way or the other, there should be a strike to discourage Assad and others from mass murder.

Yes, but it should be an INTERNATIONAL response, and so far it isn’t. Syria is more Russia’s problem than anyone else’s. Let them handle it.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3091
Joined  2011-08-15

I get the impression that most Americans (except the hawks ) are tired of the U.S. being the “policeman” of the World. We’ve been doing this since Teddy’s big stick diplomacy. I do agree that international intervention in areas like Darfur is necessary from a humanitarian stand point but sorting the good guys from the bad would be a diplomatic nightmare; there are at least ten groups competing for power there. The Russians though have a stake in the chemical weapons controversy. They don’t want extremist groups in their country getting hold of the stuff and using it on them.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
mid atlantic - 11 September 2013 09:09 AM
PLaClair - 11 September 2013 06:29 AM

Quite apart from the oil, there are vast differences between a targeted strike against the chemical weapons capacity of a dictator, versus intervention into a country’s civil war. One of the main selling points of a strike against Syria is that we can accomplish a goal with limited risk and expenditure. I don’t see how we could do that in Darfur.

 

If the current administration launches a strike, then they can’t be counted on to practice limited anything.

You can say that, and I’ll grant you that it is a concern. However, I give this president credence when he lays out a specific mission. Bush, Sr., did it, and I haven’t seen Obama do anything that would make me trust him less than any other president.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2013 09:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

I think we need to stay out of somebody else’s civil wars. The side of the angels is rarely apparent, often doesn’t exist, and more often then not, all you do is exchange one corrupt brutal and venal regime for one which is worse.

(And who the hell are WE to “punish” a sovereign state?)

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1