Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Syrian Rebels used sarin gas

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 6:36:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not very well caught up on the situation, and so I don't know what the odds are.

But from what I've seen, there's no evidence directly linking the August 21 Sarin gas attack to the government.

It may well be Saudi-supplied rebels were the ones who perpetrated this attack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:02:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama seems as anxious as Bush was, to go in, but that could just be him trying to look tough while stalling for at least 2 weeks until congress comes back in.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:07:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama's argument was essentially the same as Bush's before he invaded Iraq; with the minor difference being that Assad has chemical weapons and has used them -although the evidence of who perpetrated this last attack is questionable- whereas Bush knew that Saddam had them in 1988, and believed that, according to Don Rumsfeld's "bulletproof evidence" that he had even more in 2003. The presence or absence of chemical weapons aside, the world is better off that Saddam Hussein was hung. The world will be better off when Assad swings from a similar rope, after a trial by his people, who come to the same conclusion that the Iraqi's did: guilty. However, I share your frustration with the seemingly arbitrary trigger of "use of chemical weapons" as sufficient cause for the US to intervene when Assad has already killed more than 100,000 people.

To be clear: I advocate nothing less than total regime change, to be facilitated by the US Government, in the presence or absence of a UNSC resolution authorizing military force. I know it won't happen, but that is, in an ideal sense, what I would support.
Tsar of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:15:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama seems as anxious as Bush was, to go in, but that could just be him trying to look tough while stalling for at least 2 weeks until congress comes back in.

The situations aren't at all analogous. Obama has nothing to gain from involvement in Syria unless involvement is in fact a response to the use of chemical weapons.

With Iraq there were lots of reasons for the us to err on the side of aggression. Even now many people argue that WMDs aside, the invasion was still justified and worthwhile.

The Obama administration doesn't want to support the rebels, doesn't want to cause international controversy, and doesn't want to aggravate a war wear domestic public.

The only reason for pursuing the course of action they are taking is if they feel very confident that Assad used chemical weapons. It might be the case that the intelligence they are working on is as bad as the intelligence the West relied on pre-Iraq, but Obama seems pretty aware of that trap.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:19:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:07:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama's argument was essentially the same as Bush's before he invaded Iraq; with the minor difference being that Assad has chemical weapons and has used them -although the evidence of who perpetrated this last attack is questionable- whereas Bush knew that Saddam had them in 1988, and believed that, according to Don Rumsfeld's "bulletproof evidence" that he had even more in 2003. The presence or absence of chemical weapons aside, the world is better off that Saddam Hussein was hung. The world will be better off when Assad swings from a similar rope, after a trial by his people, who come to the same conclusion that the Iraqi's did: guilty. However, I share your frustration with the seemingly arbitrary trigger of "use of chemical weapons" as sufficient cause for the US to intervene when Assad has already killed more than 100,000 people.

To be clear: I advocate nothing less than total regime change, to be facilitated by the US Government, in the presence or absence of a UNSC resolution authorizing military force. I know it won't happen, but that is, in an ideal sense, what I would support.

Regime change would be ideal, but I'm not sure we have the stomach for it without having a very healthy alliance assisting us, and some positive dialogue with Russia.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:19:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:15:48 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama seems as anxious as Bush was, to go in, but that could just be him trying to look tough while stalling for at least 2 weeks until congress comes back in.

The situations aren't at all analogous. Obama has nothing to gain from involvement in Syria unless involvement is in fact a response to the use of chemical weapons.

How are you measuring gains/losses? What do you think Bush gained in Iraq? Why do you think Obama has nothing to gain in Syria?

With Iraq there were lots of reasons for the us to err on the side of aggression. Even now many people argue that WMDs aside, the invasion was still justified and worthwhile.

Such as?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:22:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:19:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:07:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama's argument was essentially the same as Bush's before he invaded Iraq; with the minor difference being that Assad has chemical weapons and has used them -although the evidence of who perpetrated this last attack is questionable- whereas Bush knew that Saddam had them in 1988, and believed that, according to Don Rumsfeld's "bulletproof evidence" that he had even more in 2003. The presence or absence of chemical weapons aside, the world is better off that Saddam Hussein was hung. The world will be better off when Assad swings from a similar rope, after a trial by his people, who come to the same conclusion that the Iraqi's did: guilty. However, I share your frustration with the seemingly arbitrary trigger of "use of chemical weapons" as sufficient cause for the US to intervene when Assad has already killed more than 100,000 people.

To be clear: I advocate nothing less than total regime change, to be facilitated by the US Government, in the presence or absence of a UNSC resolution authorizing military force. I know it won't happen, but that is, in an ideal sense, what I would support.

Regime change would be ideal, but I'm not sure we have the stomach for it without having a very healthy alliance assisting us, and some positive dialogue with Russia.

You're more or less right:

The world (and specifically two permanent members of the UNSC) would be against it, and the American people couldn't handle it. They'd elect another coward who promised to reduce American military presence abroad...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:27:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But again:

(1) I want regime change in Syria whether the Assad regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons or not.

(2) I want the Sunni extremists gone as much as I want Assad gone -preferably hung in the center of Damascus for crimes against humanity.

(3) I want the United States only to facilitate Syria's political transition.

(4) I could care less how the Russians or the Chinese feel about any of (1), (2) or (3).
Tsar of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have plenty of reasons to not trust the UN, they are pretty much even more inefficient than the league of nations and extremely corrupt. The UN has an extreme anti-american and antisemitic bias, essentially, the UN can't even be trusted to manage their own funds, I will argue my case if challenged.

I still think the US case is more valid, we have no stake in syria, but some influential UN nations like Russia and China do (US has little to no influence in the UN).
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:39:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:22:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:19:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:07:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama's argument was essentially the same as Bush's before he invaded Iraq; with the minor difference being that Assad has chemical weapons and has used them -although the evidence of who perpetrated this last attack is questionable- whereas Bush knew that Saddam had them in 1988, and believed that, according to Don Rumsfeld's "bulletproof evidence" that he had even more in 2003. The presence or absence of chemical weapons aside, the world is better off that Saddam Hussein was hung. The world will be better off when Assad swings from a similar rope, after a trial by his people, who come to the same conclusion that the Iraqi's did: guilty. However, I share your frustration with the seemingly arbitrary trigger of "use of chemical weapons" as sufficient cause for the US to intervene when Assad has already killed more than 100,000 people.

To be clear: I advocate nothing less than total regime change, to be facilitated by the US Government, in the presence or absence of a UNSC resolution authorizing military force. I know it won't happen, but that is, in an ideal sense, what I would support.

Regime change would be ideal, but I'm not sure we have the stomach for it without having a very healthy alliance assisting us, and some positive dialogue with Russia.

You're more or less right:

The world (and specifically two permanent members of the UNSC) would be against it, and the American people couldn't handle it. They'd elect another coward who promised to reduce American military presence abroad...

Britain's Parliament voted against authorization, so even if we have a small coalition it's going to be shaky, at best, with most of the weight falling on us. If what Wnope posted turns out to be correct it could get ugly for us. I'm normally pretty gung ho militarily but in this case I just think the risks of wider escalation outweigh the rewards. Russia worries me and I haven't even seen what China might be saying.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:40:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:32:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have plenty of reasons to not trust the UN, they are pretty much even more inefficient than the league of nations and extremely corrupt. The UN has an extreme anti-american and antisemitic bias, essentially, the UN can't even be trusted to manage their own funds, I will argue my case if challenged.

I still think the US case is more valid, we have no stake in syria, but some influential UN nations like Russia and China do (US has little to no influence in the UN).

Lolwut.

Mate, I don't hold much against you, you're actually a cool guy on the whole. But seriously:

You really think only defending your case when someone challenges it is a fair way to go about argumentation?

Also, I think you're mental if you think the US has no influence in the UN. Like seriously, if anything, the UN has a PRO-US bias. The US is EXTREMELY influential in the affairs of the UN, with some going so far as to criticize the UN for merely being an extension of the US.

I personally am an avid supporter of the United Nations, even though I recognize its faults. But frankly, the US not having enough support is OBVIOUSLY not one of them.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:42:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:40:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:32:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have plenty of reasons to not trust the UN, they are pretty much even more inefficient than the league of nations and extremely corrupt. The UN has an extreme anti-american and antisemitic bias, essentially, the UN can't even be trusted to manage their own funds, I will argue my case if challenged.

I still think the US case is more valid, we have no stake in syria, but some influential UN nations like Russia and China do (US has little to no influence in the UN).

Lolwut.

Mate, I don't hold much against you, you're actually a cool guy on the whole. But seriously:

You really think only defending your case when someone challenges it is a fair way to go about argumentation?

Also, I think you're mental if you think the US has no influence in the UN. Like seriously, if anything, the UN has a PRO-US bias. The US is EXTREMELY influential in the affairs of the UN, with some going so far as to criticize the UN for merely being an extension of the US.

I personally am an avid supporter of the United Nations, even though I recognize its faults. But frankly, the US not having enough support is OBVIOUSLY not one of them.

I have read multiple books and kept up on UN affairs. I would much rather have a foreign debate on it than have a squadron of internationalist keyboard warriors dogpile on me, I'll set it up if you are game.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:39:43 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:22:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:19:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:07:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama's argument was essentially the same as Bush's before he invaded Iraq; with the minor difference being that Assad has chemical weapons and has used them -although the evidence of who perpetrated this last attack is questionable- whereas Bush knew that Saddam had them in 1988, and believed that, according to Don Rumsfeld's "bulletproof evidence" that he had even more in 2003. The presence or absence of chemical weapons aside, the world is better off that Saddam Hussein was hung. The world will be better off when Assad swings from a similar rope, after a trial by his people, who come to the same conclusion that the Iraqi's did: guilty. However, I share your frustration with the seemingly arbitrary trigger of "use of chemical weapons" as sufficient cause for the US to intervene when Assad has already killed more than 100,000 people.

To be clear: I advocate nothing less than total regime change, to be facilitated by the US Government, in the presence or absence of a UNSC resolution authorizing military force. I know it won't happen, but that is, in an ideal sense, what I would support.

Regime change would be ideal, but I'm not sure we have the stomach for it without having a very healthy alliance assisting us, and some positive dialogue with Russia.

You're more or less right:

The world (and specifically two permanent members of the UNSC) would be against it, and the American people couldn't handle it. They'd elect another coward who promised to reduce American military presence abroad...

Britain's Parliament voted against authorization, so even if we have a small coalition it's going to be shaky, at best, with most of the weight falling on us. If what Wnope posted turns out to be correct it could get ugly for us. I'm normally pretty gung ho militarily but in this case I just think the risks of wider escalation outweigh the rewards. Russia worries me and I haven't even seen what China might be saying.

China really stays diplomatic and doesn't get involved in physical conflict outside it's region. China is aiming for regional hegemony, it doesn't have any intent on achieving international hegemony atm. So it will condemn away, but china won't escalate in to physical conflict, now Russia might be a different story.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:45:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:39:43 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:22:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:19:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:07:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama's argument was essentially the same as Bush's before he invaded Iraq; with the minor difference being that Assad has chemical weapons and has used them -although the evidence of who perpetrated this last attack is questionable- whereas Bush knew that Saddam had them in 1988, and believed that, according to Don Rumsfeld's "bulletproof evidence" that he had even more in 2003. The presence or absence of chemical weapons aside, the world is better off that Saddam Hussein was hung. The world will be better off when Assad swings from a similar rope, after a trial by his people, who come to the same conclusion that the Iraqi's did: guilty. However, I share your frustration with the seemingly arbitrary trigger of "use of chemical weapons" as sufficient cause for the US to intervene when Assad has already killed more than 100,000 people.

To be clear: I advocate nothing less than total regime change, to be facilitated by the US Government, in the presence or absence of a UNSC resolution authorizing military force. I know it won't happen, but that is, in an ideal sense, what I would support.

Regime change would be ideal, but I'm not sure we have the stomach for it without having a very healthy alliance assisting us, and some positive dialogue with Russia.

You're more or less right:

The world (and specifically two permanent members of the UNSC) would be against it, and the American people couldn't handle it. They'd elect another coward who promised to reduce American military presence abroad...

Britain's Parliament voted against authorization, so even if we have a small coalition it's going to be shaky, at best, with most of the weight falling on us.

Yup.

If what Wnope posted turns out to be correct it could get ugly for us.

The very fact that this story is published is going to make for a very interesting news cycle over the next 24 hours.

I'm normally pretty gung ho militarily but in this case I just think the risks of wider escalation outweigh the rewards.

I think this is probably the reason Obama went to congress. Realistically, I still support military intervention whether it turns out that the Assad regime is behind the attacks or not -but I think that it should be made clear that any intervention is for humanitarian reasons, not because of any "red line" drawn by America's president.

Russia worries me and I haven't even seen what China might be saying.

Russia will talk, conduct military exercises, make irate statements to international media, etc.

The Chinese will censor the news in China, condemn the United States before international media, etc.

Russia might even aid the Assad government, but no more. Neither would directly engage the United States, under that circumstance.
Tsar of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:46:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:42:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:40:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:32:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have plenty of reasons to not trust the UN, they are pretty much even more inefficient than the league of nations and extremely corrupt. The UN has an extreme anti-american and antisemitic bias, essentially, the UN can't even be trusted to manage their own funds, I will argue my case if challenged.

I still think the US case is more valid, we have no stake in syria, but some influential UN nations like Russia and China do (US has little to no influence in the UN).

Lolwut.

Mate, I don't hold much against you, you're actually a cool guy on the whole. But seriously:

You really think only defending your case when someone challenges it is a fair way to go about argumentation?

Also, I think you're mental if you think the US has no influence in the UN. Like seriously, if anything, the UN has a PRO-US bias. The US is EXTREMELY influential in the affairs of the UN, with some going so far as to criticize the UN for merely being an extension of the US.

I personally am an avid supporter of the United Nations, even though I recognize its faults. But frankly, the US not having enough support is OBVIOUSLY not one of them.

I have read multiple books and kept up on UN affairs. I would much rather have a foreign debate on it than have a squadron of internationalist keyboard warriors dogpile on me, I'll set it up if you are game.

Nope, mate. Sorry.

I know you'll probably think that it's me trying to bail out or something, but frankly I don't really want to debate you. You've pretty much condescended to me on more than one occassion, and this time is pretty much it.

Decorum, delegate. Decorum.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:48:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:19:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:15:48 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama seems as anxious as Bush was, to go in, but that could just be him trying to look tough while stalling for at least 2 weeks until congress comes back in.

The situations aren't at all analogous. Obama has nothing to gain from involvement in Syria unless involvement is in fact a response to the use of chemical weapons.

How are you measuring gains/losses? What do you think Bush gained in Iraq? Why do you think Obama has nothing to gain in Syria?

With Iraq there were lots of reasons for the us to err on the side of aggression. Even now many people argue that WMDs aside, the invasion was still justified and worthwhile.

Such as?

I think Obama has nothing to gain in Syria because I cant imagine anything he has to gain. I mean I just listed all the reasons he has not to get involved. So... unless I am missing some motive I just don't see why Obama would be trigger happy here. Maybe I am missing something, in which case I would appreciate some suggestions.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:49:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:46:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:42:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:40:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:32:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have plenty of reasons to not trust the UN, they are pretty much even more inefficient than the league of nations and extremely corrupt. The UN has an extreme anti-american and antisemitic bias, essentially, the UN can't even be trusted to manage their own funds, I will argue my case if challenged.

I still think the US case is more valid, we have no stake in syria, but some influential UN nations like Russia and China do (US has little to no influence in the UN).

Lolwut.

Mate, I don't hold much against you, you're actually a cool guy on the whole. But seriously:

You really think only defending your case when someone challenges it is a fair way to go about argumentation?

Also, I think you're mental if you think the US has no influence in the UN. Like seriously, if anything, the UN has a PRO-US bias. The US is EXTREMELY influential in the affairs of the UN, with some going so far as to criticize the UN for merely being an extension of the US.

I personally am an avid supporter of the United Nations, even though I recognize its faults. But frankly, the US not having enough support is OBVIOUSLY not one of them.

I have read multiple books and kept up on UN affairs. I would much rather have a foreign debate on it than have a squadron of internationalist keyboard warriors dogpile on me, I'll set it up if you are game.

Nope, mate. Sorry.

I know you'll probably think that it's me trying to bail out or something, but frankly I don't really want to debate you. You've pretty much condescended to me on more than one occassion, and this time is pretty much it.

Decorum, delegate. Decorum.

I don't believe I have been condescending, but if I have inadvertently, you will just fuel my air of superiority by refusing to defend your moral viewpoint. I don't debate the UN much on forums due to the high amount of internationalists and pro-UN people, I would much rather debate 1 v 1 on that issue.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:51:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:46:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:42:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:40:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:32:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have plenty of reasons to not trust the UN, they are pretty much even more inefficient than the league of nations and extremely corrupt. The UN has an extreme anti-american and antisemitic bias, essentially, the UN can't even be trusted to manage their own funds, I will argue my case if challenged.

I still think the US case is more valid, we have no stake in syria, but some influential UN nations like Russia and China do (US has little to no influence in the UN).

Lolwut.

Mate, I don't hold much against you, you're actually a cool guy on the whole. But seriously:

You really think only defending your case when someone challenges it is a fair way to go about argumentation?

Also, I think you're mental if you think the US has no influence in the UN. Like seriously, if anything, the UN has a PRO-US bias. The US is EXTREMELY influential in the affairs of the UN, with some going so far as to criticize the UN for merely being an extension of the US.

I personally am an avid supporter of the United Nations, even though I recognize its faults. But frankly, the US not having enough support is OBVIOUSLY not one of them.

I have read multiple books and kept up on UN affairs. I would much rather have a foreign debate on it than have a squadron of internationalist keyboard warriors dogpile on me, I'll set it up if you are game.

Nope, mate. Sorry.

I know you'll probably think that it's me trying to bail out or something, but frankly I don't really want to debate you. You've pretty much condescended to me on more than one occassion, and this time is pretty much it.

Decorum, delegate. Decorum.

I would take this challenge. What would the Resolution be? Resolved: The U.N. should be abolished?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:52:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:49:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:46:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:42:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:40:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:32:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have plenty of reasons to not trust the UN, they are pretty much even more inefficient than the league of nations and extremely corrupt. The UN has an extreme anti-american and antisemitic bias, essentially, the UN can't even be trusted to manage their own funds, I will argue my case if challenged.

I still think the US case is more valid, we have no stake in syria, but some influential UN nations like Russia and China do (US has little to no influence in the UN).

Lolwut.

Mate, I don't hold much against you, you're actually a cool guy on the whole. But seriously:

You really think only defending your case when someone challenges it is a fair way to go about argumentation?

Also, I think you're mental if you think the US has no influence in the UN. Like seriously, if anything, the UN has a PRO-US bias. The US is EXTREMELY influential in the affairs of the UN, with some going so far as to criticize the UN for merely being an extension of the US.

I personally am an avid supporter of the United Nations, even though I recognize its faults. But frankly, the US not having enough support is OBVIOUSLY not one of them.

I have read multiple books and kept up on UN affairs. I would much rather have a foreign debate on it than have a squadron of internationalist keyboard warriors dogpile on me, I'll set it up if you are game.

Nope, mate. Sorry.

I know you'll probably think that it's me trying to bail out or something, but frankly I don't really want to debate you. You've pretty much condescended to me on more than one occassion, and this time is pretty much it.

Decorum, delegate. Decorum.

I don't believe I have been condescending, but if I have inadvertently, you will just fuel my air of superiority by refusing to defend your moral viewpoint. I don't debate the UN much on forums due to the high amount of internationalists and pro-UN people, I would much rather debate 1 v 1 on that issue.

At this point, I don't really care about your air of superiority. You've entered the conversation assuming that you're an expert, and you treated my essentially like an idiot because I disagree with you. That's just basically a question of being polite.

And if the argument is "Well debate me otherwise I'll be a jerk," it's a bit too late.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:54:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:48:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:19:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:15:48 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama seems as anxious as Bush was, to go in, but that could just be him trying to look tough while stalling for at least 2 weeks until congress comes back in.

The situations aren't at all analogous. Obama has nothing to gain from involvement in Syria unless involvement is in fact a response to the use of chemical weapons.

How are you measuring gains/losses? What do you think Bush gained in Iraq? Why do you think Obama has nothing to gain in Syria?
Tsar of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:56:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:52:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:49:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:46:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:42:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:40:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:32:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have plenty of reasons to not trust the UN, they are pretty much even more inefficient than the league of nations and extremely corrupt. The UN has an extreme anti-american and antisemitic bias, essentially, the UN can't even be trusted to manage their own funds, I will argue my case if challenged.

I still think the US case is more valid, we have no stake in syria, but some influential UN nations like Russia and China do (US has little to no influence in the UN).

Lolwut.

Mate, I don't hold much against you, you're actually a cool guy on the whole. But seriously:

You really think only defending your case when someone challenges it is a fair way to go about argumentation?

Also, I think you're mental if you think the US has no influence in the UN. Like seriously, if anything, the UN has a PRO-US bias. The US is EXTREMELY influential in the affairs of the UN, with some going so far as to criticize the UN for merely being an extension of the US.

I personally am an avid supporter of the United Nations, even though I recognize its faults. But frankly, the US not having enough support is OBVIOUSLY not one of them.

I have read multiple books and kept up on UN affairs. I would much rather have a foreign debate on it than have a squadron of internationalist keyboard warriors dogpile on me, I'll set it up if you are game.

Nope, mate. Sorry.

I know you'll probably think that it's me trying to bail out or something, but frankly I don't really want to debate you. You've pretty much condescended to me on more than one occassion, and this time is pretty much it.

Decorum, delegate. Decorum.

I don't believe I have been condescending, but if I have inadvertently, you will just fuel my air of superiority by refusing to defend your moral viewpoint. I don't debate the UN much on forums due to the high amount of internationalists and pro-UN people, I would much rather debate 1 v 1 on that issue.

At this point, I don't really care about your air of superiority. You've entered the conversation assuming that you're an expert, and you treated my essentially like an idiot because I disagree with you. That's just basically a question of being polite.

And if the argument is "Well debate me otherwise I'll be a jerk," it's a bit too late.

I don't think I'm an expert on the UN, I just have extreme disdain with them and it would take a really strong argument to turn me on their side.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:58:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:56:41 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:52:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:49:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:46:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:42:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:40:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:32:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have plenty of reasons to not trust the UN, they are pretty much even more inefficient than the league of nations and extremely corrupt. The UN has an extreme anti-american and antisemitic bias, essentially, the UN can't even be trusted to manage their own funds, I will argue my case if challenged.

I still think the US case is more valid, we have no stake in syria, but some influential UN nations like Russia and China do (US has little to no influence in the UN).

Lolwut.

Mate, I don't hold much against you, you're actually a cool guy on the whole. But seriously:

You really think only defending your case when someone challenges it is a fair way to go about argumentation?

Also, I think you're mental if you think the US has no influence in the UN. Like seriously, if anything, the UN has a PRO-US bias. The US is EXTREMELY influential in the affairs of the UN, with some going so far as to criticize the UN for merely being an extension of the US.

I personally am an avid supporter of the United Nations, even though I recognize its faults. But frankly, the US not having enough support is OBVIOUSLY not one of them.

I have read multiple books and kept up on UN affairs. I would much rather have a foreign debate on it than have a squadron of internationalist keyboard warriors dogpile on me, I'll set it up if you are game.

Nope, mate. Sorry.

I know you'll probably think that it's me trying to bail out or something, but frankly I don't really want to debate you. You've pretty much condescended to me on more than one occassion, and this time is pretty much it.

Decorum, delegate. Decorum.

I don't believe I have been condescending, but if I have inadvertently, you will just fuel my air of superiority by refusing to defend your moral viewpoint. I don't debate the UN much on forums due to the high amount of internationalists and pro-UN people, I would much rather debate 1 v 1 on that issue.

At this point, I don't really care about your air of superiority. You've entered the conversation assuming that you're an expert, and you treated my essentially like an idiot because I disagree with you. That's just basically a question of being polite.

And if the argument is "Well debate me otherwise I'll be a jerk," it's a bit too late.

I don't think I'm an expert on the UN, I just have extreme disdain with them and it would take a really strong argument to turn me on their side.

That's fine. Just don't be a douche pl0x.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 8:02:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:54:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:48:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:19:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:15:48 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama seems as anxious as Bush was, to go in, but that could just be him trying to look tough while stalling for at least 2 weeks until congress comes back in.

The situations aren't at all analogous. Obama has nothing to gain from involvement in Syria unless involvement is in fact a response to the use of chemical weapons.

How are you measuring gains/losses? What do you think Bush gained in Iraq? Why do you think Obama has nothing to gain in Syria?

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make...

Gains would be furthering U.S. interests, furthering the traditional U.S. led liberal world order, furthering Obama/Democratic political goals, furthering personal/private interests tied to Obama.

How do you measure gain/losses?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 8:32:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 7:07:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama's argument was essentially the same as Bush's before he invaded Iraq; with the minor difference being that Assad has chemical weapons and has used them -although the evidence of who perpetrated this last attack is questionable- whereas Bush knew that Saddam had them in 1988, and believed that, according to Don Rumsfeld's "bulletproof evidence" that he had even more in 2003. The presence or absence of chemical weapons aside, the world is better off that Saddam Hussein was hung. The world will be better off when Assad swings from a similar rope, after a trial by his people, who come to the same conclusion that the Iraqi's did: guilty. However, I share your frustration with the seemingly arbitrary trigger of "use of chemical weapons" as sufficient cause for the US to intervene when Assad has already killed more than 100,000 people.

To be clear: I advocate nothing less than total regime change, to be facilitated by the US Government, in the presence or absence of a UNSC resolution authorizing military force. I know it won't happen, but that is, in an ideal sense, what I would support.

Let's not have collective nostalgia.

We went to Iraq under pretenses of national security, not because Saddam was gassing his own civilians.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 8:36:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, I don't particularly care what people think Obama's motives are. I'm interested in facts.

Obama is rhetorically committed to blaming Assad for chemical weapons because, frankly, things will be VERY bad if the American public realizes how much Saudi Arabia has to do with this.

All I'm seeing from the White House is the question "was Sarin gas used" not "who deployed it."

And thanks largely to media coverage, it is an assumed fact that Syrian government was responsible. Hell, until I did some digging, that was MY opinion.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 9:00:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 8:32:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 7:07:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:59:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 6:52:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Obama said in his Rose Garden speech that he is confident in his case against Bashaad's government, that he'll present to congress. I think it'll be awhile before we find out what that case consists of, but if there is any doubt then I think we need to hold off on any action.

Anyone else have a sudden, intrusive flashback of Bush and Iraq?

Obama's argument was essentially the same as Bush's before he invaded Iraq; with the minor difference being that Assad has chemical weapons and has used them -although the evidence of who perpetrated this last attack is questionable- whereas Bush knew that Saddam had them in 1988, and believed that, according to Don Rumsfeld's "bulletproof evidence" that he had even more in 2003. The presence or absence of chemical weapons aside, the world is better off that Saddam Hussein was hung. The world will be better off when Assad swings from a similar rope, after a trial by his people, who come to the same conclusion that the Iraqi's did: guilty. However, I share your frustration with the seemingly arbitrary trigger of "use of chemical weapons" as sufficient cause for the US to intervene when Assad has already killed more than 100,000 people.

To be clear: I advocate nothing less than total regime change, to be facilitated by the US Government, in the presence or absence of a UNSC resolution authorizing military force. I know it won't happen, but that is, in an ideal sense, what I would support.

Let's not have collective nostalgia.

We went to Iraq under pretenses of national security, not because Saddam was gassing his own civilians.

In the interest of clarity: we went into Iraq because Donald Rumsfeld said that he had "bulletproof" evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons), which, as you said, presented an imminent threat to US national security for a number of reasons. We stayed because it was time for Saddam to go.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 9:02:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 8:36:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
Also, I don't particularly care what people think Obama's motives are. I'm interested in facts.

Obama is rhetorically committed to blaming Assad for chemical weapons because, frankly, things will be VERY bad if the American public realizes how much Saudi Arabia has to do with this.

All I'm seeing from the White House is the question "was Sarin gas used" not "who deployed it."

John Kerry is the one who is doing most of the talking, which, presumably, is a way of insulating the White House if this all hits the fan.

And thanks largely to media coverage, it is an assumed fact that Syrian government was responsible. Hell, until I did some digging, that was MY opinion.
Tsar of DDO