Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Geezil

So, we are going to war with Syria?

Recommended Posts

Looks that way. There's a lot of good info and debate in the Syrian chemical weapon thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

What's our goal in Syria? Just to eliminate Assad? Then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

What's our goal in Syria? Just to eliminate Assad? Then what?

Don't care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

What's our goal in Syria? Just to eliminate Assad? Then what?
Don't care

Ok, then you don't care. Why even post in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

What's our goal in Syria? Just to eliminate Assad? Then what?
Don't care

Ok, then you don't care. Why even post in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

What's our goal in Syria? Just to eliminate Assad? Then what?
Don't care

Ok, then you don't care. Why even post in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a poll referenced in the other thread saying only 9% of Americans support an intervention in Syria. I fully expect this number to rise, especially after Obama gives a big speech. His base will follow him to the end. So thats 40%. Add up the 15-20% of McCain/Graham Neo-Con GOP establishment followers and thats around 55-60%. So yeah, I see the poll numbers for Sryia intervention ballooning in a hurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a poll referenced in the other thread saying only 9% of Americans support an intervention in Syria. I fully expect this number to rise, especially after Obama gives a big speech. His base will follow him to the end. So thats 40%. Add up the 15-20% of McCain/Graham Neo-Con GOP establishment followers and thats around 55-60%. So yeah, I see the poll numbers for Sryia intervention ballooning in a hurry.

i see the math, and i understand it. i dont buy the idiocy of americans being that high yet. misinformation is a powerful tool though. time will tell.

edit: i really dont think it matters anymore what the masses think anyway, and the overlords know that. thats the sad part. heck, its football season!

timing is everything. always watch the clock.

Edited by Geezil
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a poll referenced in the other thread saying only 9% of Americans support an intervention in Syria. I fully expect this number to rise, especially after Obama gives a big speech. His base will follow him to the end. So thats 40%. Add up the 15-20% of McCain/Graham Neo-Con GOP establishment followers and thats around 55-60%. So yeah, I see the poll numbers for Sryia intervention ballooning in a hurry.

i see the math, and i understand it. i dont buy the idiocy of americans being that high yet. misinformation is a powerful tool though. time will tell.

edit: i really dont think it matters anymore what the masses think anyway, and the overlords know that. thats the sad part. heck, its football season!

It's happening no matter what the people think. It's all on Obama and he doesn't have any more elections left. Congress won't have to touch it so they don't care since they will be able to position themselves however they need to during the next election. Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a poll referenced in the other thread saying only 9% of Americans support an intervention in Syria. I fully expect this number to rise, especially after Obama gives a big speech. His base will follow him to the end. So thats 40%. Add up the 15-20% of McCain/Graham Neo-Con GOP establishment followers and thats around 55-60%. So yeah, I see the poll numbers for Sryia intervention ballooning in a hurry.

i see the math, and i understand it. i dont buy the idiocy of americans being that high yet. misinformation is a powerful tool though. time will tell.

edit: i really dont think it matters anymore what the masses think anyway, and the overlords know that. thats the sad part. heck, its football season!

It's happening no matter what the people think. It's all on Obama and he doesn't have any more elections left. Congress won't have to touch it so they don't care since they will be able to position themselves however they need to during the next election.

this is worth watching if u havent seen it. this is the president as he is leaving office warning americans about...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

kennedy wanted out of viet nam, hows he doing today?

it is what it is, and for the life of me i cant see their end game. thats the scary part.

Edited by Geezil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a poll referenced in the other thread saying only 9% of Americans support an intervention in Syria. I fully expect this number to rise, especially after Obama gives a big speech. His base will follow him to the end. So thats 40%. Add up the 15-20% of McCain/Graham Neo-Con GOP establishment followers and thats around 55-60%. So yeah, I see the poll numbers for Sryia intervention ballooning in a hurry.

i see the math, and i understand it. i dont buy the idiocy of americans being that high yet. misinformation is a powerful tool though. time will tell.

edit: i really dont think it matters anymore what the masses think anyway, and the overlords know that. thats the sad part. heck, its football season!

timing is everything. always watch the clock.

So you are saying Assad is not killing thousands of his fellow Syrians and the millions that have fled their homes are faking it? That's a new one.

I thought whether the West should intervene in another Middle Eastern country since it worked so great the other times was the issue at hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a poll referenced in the other thread saying only 9% of Americans support an intervention in Syria. I fully expect this number to rise, especially after Obama gives a big speech. His base will follow him to the end. So thats 40%. Add up the 15-20% of McCain/Graham Neo-Con GOP establishment followers and thats around 55-60%. So yeah, I see the poll numbers for Sryia intervention ballooning in a hurry.

i see the math, and i understand it. i dont buy the idiocy of americans being that high yet. misinformation is a powerful tool though. time will tell.

edit: i really dont think it matters anymore what the masses think anyway, and the overlords know that. thats the sad part. heck, its football season!

timing is everything. always watch the clock.

So you are saying Assad is not killing thousands of his fellow Syrians and the millions that have fled their homes are faking it? That's a new one.

I thought whether the West should intervene in another Middle Eastern country since it worked so great the other times was the issue at hand...

no, i am not. there was an uprising in syria, obviously. the government of syria is fighting against an armed insurgency within their own borders. period. they didnt ask for the insurgency, but alas, here it is. we both know the players. russia, iran, prolly china supporting syria, the usual western clowns supporting the terrorists. this story sounds familiar, doesnt it? im saying it is NOT A GOOD IDEA to get involved militarily. you are saying what exactly?

edit: i say we enact a war vote. those in favor, boot up ur boys and ship em off to the middle east to fight and die for no reason whatsoever. if i had a son, id keep him right at home. we might send ur boy some snacks though, in a big box. my family supports the troops, just not idiocy.

double edit: do u think more ppl died in iraq before or after the persian gulf wars and embargos? sometimes my frien, u need to use ur brain. thats what its there for.

Edited by Geezil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want any Western nation to get involved in a very messy civil war in Syria. If the neighbors of Syria, most of which are muslim nations, believe strongly that the atrocities should stop, let them either take the case to the UN or cobble together a coalition and put boots on the ground, planes in the air, etc.

The West hasn't gotten anything out of any intervention since Yugoslavia - for all the mess there was there, now there are several nations that have entered or are about to enter the EU and as such have very strong incentives not to go to war with each other again. Since then the results have been disappointing to say the least.

The role as global policeman does not belong to any Western nation or coalition. It should not exist except as a collective role. The only conduit we have for that is the UN and that is not really a viable proposition.

Now, in terms of geopolitical goals, is weakening Iran (or Russia) really so important that we want to upset a billion muslims again, that we want to entice more young men into anti Western fanaticism, to plot terrorism against our people, inside our borders?

I don't see the upside. And yes, that may be descrived as callous or harsh or inhuman. The alternative is that we'll get our own people killed and create more enemies in the attempt to stop a mad man oppressing his own people. We don't even agree about anything with half of his opponents, the more organized half, the more likely to sweep into power half.

I don't necessarily think it is a return to isolationism if we let some other countries deal with their own mess.

By all means we should assist the refugees getting a semblance of normal lives going and hopefully one day they have either found a new home somewhere outside of Syria or returned.

And I responded to your post regarding the misinformation. I don't see any of that going on. The world knows what Assad is doing, and what the insurgents are doing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want any Western nation to get involved in a very messy civil war in Syria. If the neighbors of Syria, most of which are muslim nations, believe strongly that the atrocities should stop, let them either take the case to the UN or cobble together a coalition and put boots on the ground, planes in the air, etc.

The West hasn't gotten anything out of any intervention since Yugoslavia - for all the mess there was there, now there are several nations that have entered or are about to enter the EU and as such have very strong incentives not to go to war with each other again. Since then the results have been disappointing to say the least.

The role as global policeman does not belong to any Western nation or coalition. It should not exist except as a collective role. The only conduit we have for that is the UN and that is not really a viable proposition.

Now, in terms of geopolitical goals, is weakening Iran (or Russia) really so important that we want to upset a billion muslims again, that we want to entice more young men into anti Western fanaticism, to plot terrorism against our people, inside our borders?

I don't see the upside. And yes, that may be descrived as callous or harsh or inhuman. The alternative is that we'll get our own people killed and create more enemies in the attempt to stop a mad man oppressing his own people. We don't even agree about anything with half of his opponents, the more organized half, the more likely to sweep into power half.

I don't necessarily think it is a return to isolationism if we let some other countries deal with their own mess.

By all means we should assist the refugees getting a semblance of normal lives going and hopefully one day they have either found a new home somewhere outside of Syria or returned.

And I responded to your post regarding the misinformation. I don't see any of that going on. The world knows what Assad is doing, and what the insurgents are doing.

Very well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

In what alternate reality? Because that sure isn't at all true in this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

Those wars cost a lot of lives. Go research how many and then see if you still think they "worked out well"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

Those wars cost a lot of lives. Go research how many and then see if you still think they "worked out well"

I think a lot of Americans are cool with the kinds of wars we have been fighting because their lives are pretty much unaffected by it. I am betting that if a war meant actual sacrifice on the part of these people then most of them wouldn't feel as cool about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that Iraq thing is all good:

Dozens dead in continuing Iraq violence
At least 46 people, including six soldiers, killed in car bombs across strife-torn country.

Car bombs, roadside bombs and shootings have killed at least 46 people in Iraq, police and medical sources said.

Sunday's violence was reported in predominantly Sunni Arab areas to the north of capital Baghdad.

The single deadliest attack took place in central Baquba where a car bomb killed 11 people, police said.

Another five people were killed and 21 others injured in an explsion in the province of Salahediin.

In the volatile Nineveh province, gunmen opened fire on a van ferrying soldiers from Baghdad to their unit in the provincial capital Mosul, killing five of them, an army official and a doctor said.

Also in Nineveh, three separate attacks by gunmen left a soldier and two civilians dead, including a member of the Shabak minority.

The 30,000-strong Shabak community mostly lives near Iraq's border with Turkey. They speak a distinct language and largely follow a faith that is a blend of Shiite Islam and local beliefs. Shabaks are frequently targeted in attacks by fighters.

Violence has markedly increased in Iraq this year. Attacks have killed more than 3,600 people since the beginning of 2013, according to figures compiled by AFP. The United Nations says more than 1,000 Iraqis were killed in July, the highest monthly death toll since 2008.

On Friday, a suicide bomber killed 25 people and wounded more than 50 in Baghdad when he detonated his explosives inside a busy cafe near a park.

Yeah it's practically a non stop party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want any Western nation to get involved in a very messy civil war in Syria. If the neighbors of Syria, most of which are muslim nations, believe strongly that the atrocities should stop, let them either take the case to the UN or cobble together a coalition and put boots on the ground, planes in the air, etc.

The West hasn't gotten anything out of any intervention since Yugoslavia - for all the mess there was there, now there are several nations that have entered or are about to enter the EU and as such have very strong incentives not to go to war with each other again. Since then the results have been disappointing to say the least.

The role as global policeman does not belong to any Western nation or coalition. It should not exist except as a collective role. The only conduit we have for that is the UN and that is not really a viable proposition.

Now, in terms of geopolitical goals, is weakening Iran (or Russia) really so important that we want to upset a billion muslims again, that we want to entice more young men into anti Western fanaticism, to plot terrorism against our people, inside our borders?

I don't see the upside. And yes, that may be descrived as callous or harsh or inhuman. The alternative is that we'll get our own people killed and create more enemies in the attempt to stop a mad man oppressing his own people. We don't even agree about anything with half of his opponents, the more organized half, the more likely to sweep into power half.

I don't necessarily think it is a return to isolationism if we let some other countries deal with their own mess.

By all means we should assist the refugees getting a semblance of normal lives going and hopefully one day they have either found a new home somewhere outside of Syria or returned.

And I responded to your post regarding the misinformation. I don't see any of that going on. The world knows what Assad is doing, and what the insurgents are doing.

great response. my apologies for misunderstanding. i think we are in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate our foreign policy of world's policeman.

I think it all stems from the fact that our country was founded by insurgents (against England). The French, Dutch, etc helped us out. Mostly with money though, not so much with troop presence.

Invading here would dismay me greatly. Obama might as well be a neo-con if he invades Syria. I hope he doesn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

In what alternate reality? Because that sure isn't at all true in this one.

I work at Walter Reed and every day I see people missing all sorts of limbs hobbling around base. And those are the ones who were lucky enough to live. I'd ask them if they think their leg or arm was worth the current state of affairs in Afganistan or Iraq, but I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it makes sense to go to war. As a rule, I despise isolationism. Its stupid and simplistic, and doesn't work anyhow. The people who tout it want to close our borders and stop all foreign aid as well. Just dumb. We can't escape the world we live in and shouldn't want to.

That being said, each situation is different. Stupid to have a Monroe Doctrine or a Bush Doctrine- like Mike Tomlin always says, you gotta play situational football. In THIS situation, it seems like the cost of intervening is too high, based on the current knowledge that we have. That could change for me if Obama makes a reasonable argument I hadn't considered or if some new facts are revealed that put this in a different light. But for now it doesn't make any real sense, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Not getting enough pub to bother with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Bingo!

the fact that he can say that with a straight face is mind boggling to me.

Edited by Geezil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

In what alternate reality? Because that sure isn't at all true in this one.

I work at Walter Reed and every day I see people missing all sorts of limbs hobbling around base. And those are the ones who were lucky enough to live. I'd ask them if they think their leg or arm was worth the current state of affairs in Afganistan or Iraq, but I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.
Wow. I admire you greatly for the work yoU do and know I couldn't do it myself.

Iraq was a huge mistake. Afghanistan has been tragic, but inevitable: after 9/11 we couldn't leave the ataliban in power. Iraq was NOT inevitable: we had choices and made the wrong ones.

As regards the soldiers, I hope they are at least receiving the very best care possible. I have read news stories at times which suggests they haven't been, which always enrages me. The one saving grace that distinguishes these wars from the Vietnam debacle is that all of the soldiers were volunteers this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Those are blacks with nothing to offer us, so we have nothing to offer them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Not getting enough pub to bother with.

If the reason for the uproar is because of the strategic implications of that region, then fine. But let's say that up front. Hiding the agenda behind "because it is a moral obscenity to mankind" is just so hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

What's our goal in Syria? Just to eliminate Assad? Then what?

Then wait to see how the civil war plays out.

The idea is to ensure that people with the power to use chemical weapons understand they won't survive the effort if they do. It's a deterrent for the future. Not to solve the domestic situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Not getting enough pub to bother with.

If the reason for the uproar is because of the strategic implications of that region, then fine. But let's say that up front. Hiding the agenda behind "because it is a moral obscenity to mankind" is just so hypocritical.

Hypocrisy is the very keystone of American foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Not getting enough pub to bother with.

If the reason for the uproar is because of the strategic implications of that region, then fine. But let's say that up front. Hiding the agenda behind "because it is a moral obscenity to mankind" is just so hypocritical.

IMO it's not about atrocities in a civil war, it's about chemical weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Not getting enough pub to bother with.

If the reason for the uproar is because of the strategic implications of that region, then fine. But let's say that up front. Hiding the agenda behind "because it is a moral obscenity to mankind" is just so hypocritical.

This doesn't bother me at all. The world is a big place, and I would bet there is not a single instance of a foreign policy statement made by our govt in the last 100 years that I couldnt find a way to attack it for hypocrisy and inconsistency.

The only question to consider is: is the statement true? I think it clearly is. The use of chemical weapons IS a moral obscenity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama was looking down the list of Bush's accomplishments, and noticed that he didn't have a check box next to "go to war".

Pakistan would strongly disagree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama was looking down the list of Bush's accomplishments, and noticed that he didn't have a check box next to "go to war".

Pakistan would strongly disagree with that.

Obama is not one to be outdone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Not getting enough pub to bother with.

If the reason for the uproar is because of the strategic implications of that region, then fine. But let's say that up front. Hiding the agenda behind "because it is a moral obscenity to mankind" is just so hypocritical.

IMO it's not about atrocities in a civil war, it's about chemical weapons.

The death of a child is more obscene in a chemical weapons attack than a bomb going off in a school? Or are you saying the US has to respond to the weapon of choice in the situation?

If the latter, that's fine, but are we selling the response to the American people by showing how obscene the deaths were by sarin gas as opposed to mass bombing? I'd rather them call it for what it is. Chemical weapons are banned and they need to be shown the world won't tolerate their use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Not getting enough pub to bother with.

If the reason for the uproar is because of the strategic implications of that region, then fine. But let's say that up front. Hiding the agenda behind "because it is a moral obscenity to mankind" is just so hypocritical.

This doesn't bother me at all. The world is a big place, and I would bet there is not a single instance of a foreign policy statement made by our govt in the last 100 years that I couldnt find a way to attack it for hypocrisy and inconsistency.

The only question to consider is: is the statement true? I think it clearly is. The use of chemical weapons IS a moral obscenity.

So is bombing a public transportation system or burning a school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.