Syria

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
I reserve the right entirely as a moral westerner to take out the Syrian government, when the time is right. During a Republican administration.

I know how arrogant that is, but too bad. If Muslims stop sucking I'll stop being arrogant.
 
Last edited:

KRSOne

Registered User
The enemy of my enemy is my friend worked out great with the Taliban in the 80s. I'm sure the same stellar results will happen with Syria and Libya. Things are already going great in Libya.


I think the white house is concerned that the truth about Benghazi (gun running to Syrian rebels) could come out so they want to publicly support Syrian rebels so when the reason for Benghazi is made public, it will not look as bad.
 
This discussion is exhausting, so I will just address this point:

Your question also assumes that if the United States doesn't take care of it, no one will.
Not only am I assuming that, it's also the truth, ESPECIALLY as it pertains to the Holocaust. It's part of what makes the United States so great.

PS: Josh - if your position is that we should intervene when it is in our best interest, but you are merely disputing when exactly that moment occurs, then our disagreement is actually fairly minor. I resist the notion of saying "we will never torture" or "we will never nuke" EVEN if we never do it. We should never take something completely off the table. If we have a terrorist in our hands that planted a nuke somewhere in Manhattan and we have 3 hours to find it, I say attach alligator clamps to the guy's testicles and hook them up to a car battery. Desperate times -> Desperate measures.
 
Last edited:

THRILLHO

Registered User
I just don't understand why both sides can't sit down and hash this out over a bowl of strawberry ice cream.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
This discussion is exhausting, so I will just address this point:



Not only am I assuming that, it's also the truth, ESPECIALLY as it pertains to the Holocaust. It's part of what makes the United States so great.

PS: Josh - if your position is that we should intervene when it is in our best interest, but you are merely disputing when exactly that moment occurs, then our disagreement is actually fairly minor. I resist the notion of saying "we will never torture" or "we will never nuke" EVEN if we never do it. We should never take something completely off the table. If we have a terrorist in our hands that planted a nuke somewhere in Manhattan and we have 3 hours to find it, I say attach alligator clamps to the guy's testicles and hook them up to a car battery. Desperate times -> Desperate measures.
I would like to believe that as a matter of principle, we as a country would adhere to the non-aggression principle, and that no more men and women would die for someone else's war. However, even I have conflicting opinions on when and whether we should intervene in other countries' affairs. I personally think the atrocities going on in Africa with the LRA, etc. was worthy of intervention. That situation was pure genocide against people who were doing nothing wrong. At least in Libya and Syria, you have people who are actively fighting their government; not just civilians who are sitting around doing nothing when savages show up to butcher them.

So, yes, our disagreement is kind of minor in theory. I admit that there are times when intervention may be necessary, but people have stretched the definition of "necessary" and used so much rhetoric, that my default position is "do nothing".
 
I would like to believe that as a matter of principle, we as a country would adhere to the non-aggression principle, and that no more men and women would die for someone else's war. However, even I have conflicting opinions on when and whether we should intervene in other countries' affairs. I personally think the atrocities going on in Africa with the LRA, etc. was worthy of intervention. That situation was pure genocide against people who were doing nothing wrong. At least in Libya and Syria, you have people who are actively fighting their government; not just civilians who are sitting around doing nothing when savages show up to butcher them.

So, yes, our disagreement is kind of minor in theory. I admit that there are times when intervention may be necessary, but people have stretched the definition of "necessary" and used so much rhetoric, that my default position is "do nothing".

I also try to look at things 15 years down the road, which is something the U.S. has never been good at. Sometimes a painful intervention now is better than a REALLY painful intervention in 10-15 years. The problem is that the U.S. doesn't exist in a vacuum. This Syria war could EASILY become a war between the Gulf States and Iran (especially with the ongoing situation in Bahrain), and that will have a major impact on all of our oil-thirsty lives. Yes, I agree that the real solution to that is energy independence, but that isn't a reality right now so you gotta play the hand you're dealt. This is without even mentioning future chemical attacks on U.S. embassies or other assets in countries like Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Morocco, or anywhere else they can truck them to from Syria. That is starting to seriously step on American toes, and if you think our lax response to Benghazi didn't send a loud and clear message about targeting our foreign missions you have some unpleasant surprises in your future.
 

lajikal

Registered User
House, Senate intelligence panels OK military aid for Syrian rebels
The Washington Times
Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Congress’ intelligence committees have approved CIA plans to ship weapons to Syrian rebels, despite concerns that the arms might fall into the hands of extremists and that the aid will not be enough to shift the stalemate in the country’s civil war.

“The House intelligence committee has very strong concerns about the strength of the administration’s plans in Syria and its chances for success,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “After much discussion and review, we got a consensus that we could move forward with what the administration plans.”

According to congressional officials, the deal with the oversight committees allows the CIA to use previously appropriated funds to pay for the weapons supplies, which President Obama authorized last month after concluding that Syria’s government had used chemical weapons against the opposition.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/23/house-senate-intelligence-panels-ok-military-aid-s/
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
I also try to look at things 15 years down the road, which is something the U.S. has never been good at. Sometimes a painful intervention now is better than a REALLY painful intervention in 10-15 years. The problem is that the U.S. doesn't exist in a vacuum. This Syria war could EASILY become a war between the Gulf States and Iran (especially with the ongoing situation in Bahrain), and that will have a major impact on all of our oil-thirsty lives. Yes, I agree that the real solution to that is energy independence, but that isn't a reality right now so you gotta play the hand you're dealt. This is without even mentioning future chemical attacks on U.S. embassies or other assets in countries like Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Morocco, or anywhere else they can truck them to from Syria. That is starting to seriously step on American toes, and if you think our lax response to Benghazi didn't send a loud and clear message about targeting our foreign missions you have some unpleasant surprises in your future.
Even if the US was "energy independent" ( which just means it produces more energy than it consumes), a disruption in Middle Eastern supply would still be painful. Oil prices are set by global supply and demand, not US supply and demand. They would go up just the same.

And oil isn't the only issue. The US economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. The only thing that could reverse globalization is isolationism (closing the borders and banning Americans from traveling or doing business abroad), which is a worse form of economic fascism than what we have today.

It's ironic that so many so-called Libertarians can't see enough steps ahead to figure out that the inevitable consequence of military isolationism is eventual economic fascism. Free trade can't exist in anarchy, and military isolationism would create anarchy for any American who ventures outside US borders. Eventually, the government would either have to sit by and do nothing as foreign conflicts continually disrupt the US economy, or stop all foreign trade by force.

Besides, we're not really doing anything. We're giving some people some weapons, which, by the way, the Syrian people have a right to have (for the same reason we have second amendment rights). And financially, the whole operation will probably cost less than one of Michelle's vacations. So I see no reason for anyone to get their panties in a bunch over this. If we ever decide to actually intervene militarily, then there'll be reason for concern.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
I also try to look at things 15 years down the road, which is something the U.S. has never been good at. Sometimes a painful intervention now is better than a REALLY painful intervention in 10-15 years.
Then even you haven't been paying close enough attention. The US is extremely good at it. And it's not 10-15. It's 50-100. And both parties have been more than adequate.
 

HandPanzer

Shantih Shantih Shantih
Exclusive: U.S. Will Now Let in Thousands of Syrian Refugees

With conditions continuing to deteriorate in Syria, the Obama administration is making a major policy shift by agreeing for the first time to allow thousands of new Syrian refugees into the United States, The Cable has learned.

The numbers are relatively small: just 2,000 refugees, compared to an estimated two million people who have fled Syria during the civil war. But it's a significant increase from the 90 or so permanent Syrian refugees who have been admitted to the U.S. in the last two years. And it's not entirely uncontroversial. The refugees, mostly women and children, will be screened for terrorist ties -- a process that could take a year or more to complete.

Unlike previous efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to give temporary refugee status to Syrians already in the United States, the State Department effort will bring in Syrians from overseas for permanent resettlement in America.

"Referrals will come within the next four months. We will need to interview people and perform security and medical checks," Kelly Clements, the State Department's deputy assistant secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration, tells The Cable.

While aid workers welcome the decision to let in more refugees, concerns remain about the time it will take to process the applications and move them into the U.S. "It's 90 degrees now, but in a few months it's going to snow and people are going to be freezing," Noah Gottschalk, Oxfam America's senior humanitarian policy advisor, told The Cable. "They don't have many options and many are living in unfinished buildings, abandoned shopping malls, schools, mosques and parking garages."

But the eligible refugees will have to wait out the cold. By Clements' own admission, given application processing times, "We're not likely to see Syrian refugees into those numbers before well into 2014."

Qualifying refugees include only the most vulnerable individuals -- likely women and children -- who were "exposed to everything from torture to gender-based violence to serious medical conditions" and have no intention of returning to Syria, Clements added.

Despite their vulnerable condition, even the youngest of children will be thoroughly vetted to ensure they do not pose a national security threat. It's not that they're worried about infants enlisting in al Qaeda. The worry is that terrorist relatives can more easily enter the United States, once they have relatives in America. "Refugees are subject to an intensive security screening process involving federal intelligence, law enforcement, defense, and homeland security agencies," a State Department official said. "The U.S. government makes every possible effort to uphold and enhance the security screening aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Refugees are among the most carefully screened of individuals traveling to the United States."

In cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and the White House have been wary about opening the floodgates to refugees too wide, citing concerns about terrorism. As a result, tens of thousands of refugees have been left waiting at the doors of American embassies there. Humanitarian groups are encouraging Washington to do more in Syria.

"It's a welcome move by the U.S. but they also need to do more to help the countries supporting refugees and support their infrastructure," said Gottschalk, who has recently visited the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. Other major resettlement countries, such as Germany, have pledged to bring in up to 13,000 refugees since the fighting began. However, unlike in the U.S., refugees to Germany are required to return after the fighting subsides. "We're very proud of the fact that the U.S. judges applicants on need and seek out the most needy cases," Erol Kekic, director of immigration at the Church World Service, tells The Cable.

The referrals come from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, which has been identifying and tracking the millions of refugees flooding into Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and elsewhere since the two-year-old conflict began. Earlier this summer, the United Nations approached Washington about referring Syrian refugees to a group of 27 resettlement countries, including the United States. Now, Clements tells The Cable the U.S. will not only participate but "will encourage other resettlement countries to do the same."

It's yet to be seen if Congress will push back against the Obama administration's acceptance of the Syrian refugees. (Ordinarily, the U.S. only admits refugees after a conflict has gone on for five years or longer.) Though the State Department's refugee admission program is authorized by a presidential determination, it does involve consultation with Congress.

Of course, admitting 2,000 Syrians won't even begin to ease the suffering of Syria's refugees; the U.N. estimates that by the end of 2013, 3.5 million Syrians will have fled the country. It's also worth nothing the 6.8 million Syrian people in need of humanitarian assistance. Clements emphasized that permanent resettlement is just one means by which the U.S. is contributing to the humanitarian relief effort. "We are exceedingly frustrated to be quite honest because we can't keep up with the humanitarian need especially inside Syria," Clements said. "We are expanding our support for humanitarian assistance through all sorts of angles, but we can't keep up."
Link

Because why the fuck not- it's not like the place is silly with terrorists that know how to blend in with civilian populations...
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Even if the US was "energy independent" ( which just means it produces more energy than it consumes), a disruption in Middle Eastern supply would still be painful. Oil prices are set by global supply and demand, not US supply and demand. They would go up just the same.

And oil isn't the only issue. The US economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. The only thing that could reverse globalization is isolationism (closing the borders and banning Americans from traveling or doing business abroad), which is a worse form of economic fascism than what we have today.

It's ironic that so many so-called Libertarians can't see enough steps ahead to figure out that the inevitable consequence of military isolationism is eventual economic fascism. Free trade can't exist in anarchy, and military isolationism would create anarchy for any American who ventures outside US borders. Eventually, the government would either have to sit by and do nothing as foreign conflicts continually disrupt the US economy, or stop all foreign trade by force.

Besides, we're not really doing anything. We're giving some people some weapons, which, by the way, the Syrian people have a right to have (for the same reason we have second amendment rights). And financially, the whole operation will probably cost less than one of Michelle's vacations. So I see no reason for anyone to get their panties in a bunch over this. If we ever decide to actually intervene militarily, then there'll be reason for concern.
Nice to see at least someone gets it.
 

crippledalbino

The God of 42nd Street
Donator
I'm bumping this thread because this goddamn country is becoming a clusterfuck and is getting worse.

If I understand things correctly:
We don't like the Syrian Government
We were arming rebels against the Syrian Government (which worked out awesomely in Afghanistan)
ISIS shows up, fucks shit up
Russia shows up in Syria under the guise of protecting against ISIS
Russia bombs the shit out of the rebels we were arming

Now today:
Obama Administration Halts Program to Train Syrians to Combat ISIS
from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html

"Senior officials at the White House and the Pentagon said the strategy to pull fighters out of Syria, teach them advanced skills and return them to face the Islamic State had failed, in part because many of the rebel groups were more focused on fighting the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad."

And also:

Things are getting quite ugly.
 

Things are getting quite ugly.
I'm sure Russia was acutely aware of this possibility when you (allegebly) violate another country's airspace. But is this anywhere besides Twitter and the clickbait news sites that are quoting Twitter?
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
I'm bumping this thread because this goddamn country is becoming a clusterfuck and is getting worse.

If I understand things correctly:
We don't like the Syrian Government
We were arming rebels against the Syrian Government (which worked out awesomely in Afghanistan)
ISIS shows up, fucks shit up
Russia shows up in Syria under the guise of protecting against ISIS
Russia bombs the shit out of the rebels we were arming

Now today:
Obama Administration Halts Program to Train Syrians to Combat ISIS
from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html

"Senior officials at the White House and the Pentagon said the strategy to pull fighters out of Syria, teach them advanced skills and return them to face the Islamic State had failed, in part because many of the rebel groups were more focused on fighting the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad."

And also:

Things are getting quite ugly.
some damn foolish thing in Syria.....
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
I would like to believe that as a matter of principle.
How does this non-aggression principle work? If someone rapes a girl, am I allowed to step in, or does the aggression have to be directed at me specifically?
 

mascan42

Registered User
Was just about to reply to something @NeonTaster said, then I realized he said it 2 1/2 years ago. Holy fuck, this is dragging on and on, and getting worse by the day.
 
OBama on 60 minutes tonight...

Steve Kroft "You requested and received $500 million from congress to train 5,000 fighters to combat ISIS in syria..You recruited 50, and 45 deserted..you had 5 left...1/2 a billion dollars and 5 fighters..."

and Obama says "Well no none said it was going to work..."
 

Stig

Living In Your Heads, Rent-Free.
How does this non-aggression principle work? If someone rapes a girl, am I allowed to step in, or does the aggression have to be directed at me specifically?
She would scream "PATRIARCHY!" and have you arrested.
 
Top