Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

United States Involvment in Syria

murphy_phillip
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 11:51:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I ask myself, what is the United States attempting to do with a targeted strike in Syria? Let me preface this by saying I am former military and grew up a Republican. However, due to the GOPs reluctance to get with the times with regards to social issues, I have switched to the Democratic side. With that being said, I think that the US involvement in Syria is a big mistake.

The recent op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked controversy throughout the country, but why? Since the Russians are allies with the Syrians, shouldn't they be the ones that dictate the way things go with regards to consequences for the alleged use of chemical weapons? I find it very disheartening that as I was reading Putin's op-ed, I agreed with him. What has our country come to? The world is at a crossroads in history, and the Obama Administration thinks the best route to go is a targeted strike against particular targets versus a civilized, diplomatic approach. He says that chemical weapons must not be used in war against any human, but it is ok to fund opposition who have direct ties to the very people and terrorist organizations who attacked us on our soil! It is these organizations that the US is directly trying to fight in different regions throughout the world right now. There is no doubt that many of the weapons that are being distributed will fall into the hands of terrorists.

For me, this is a sad time for the nation and the Obama Administration. Democracy is based on the idea of being civilized. Granted using chemical weapons against anyone should be punished and held accountable, but there are several options that should be considered before using military force, this is what being civilized is about. Attacking another country during their civil war is absurd and shows a lack of maturity on the part of the United States. Obama's Administration decided, in a display of arrogance, to forego the use of diplomacy and move directly to the threat of force.

The US is becoming the bully on the playground that no one wants a associated with The international community is watching how the US handles this situation. For me though, the handling thus far has done nothing but damage the perception of our great nation. And that perception is going to very difficult to change

I hope this turns out well.
Phillip Murphy
"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 12:40:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 12:00:25 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
*facepalm*

What exactly about this deserves a facepalm? It seems well-reasoned, and even if you disagree with it, it is certainly worthy of refutation, rather than just disregard.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
murphy_phillip
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 12:49:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 12:00:25 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
*facepalm*

Your "facepalm" is exactly what is wrong with our country right now. Instead of having a civilized discussion about issues, we completely disregard other peoples views and opinions if they do not agree with ours. I welcome the refutation and rebuttal. This is something that deserves to be talked about and debated. That is how issues and problems are solved... not facepalms.
Phillip Murphy
"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 12:54:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Syria will hand over its chemical weapons, says Bashar al-Assad:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Perhaps he remembers what happened to Qaddafi.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 1:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 12:49:55 PM, murphy_phillip wrote:
At 9/12/2013 12:00:25 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
*facepalm*

Your "facepalm" is exactly what is wrong with our country right now. Instead of having a civilized discussion about issues, we completely disregard other peoples views and opinions if they do not agree with ours. I welcome the refutation and rebuttal. This is something that deserves to be talked about and debated. That is how issues and problems are solved... not facepalms.

Basically, you're just repeating the basic assertions and rhetoric that have been discussed to death on every forum I know. I don't feel that we need yet another thread by yet another internet analyst trying to make a Very Good Point.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
murphy_phillip
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 1:12:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:05:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 12:49:55 PM, murphy_phillip wrote:
At 9/12/2013 12:00:25 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
*facepalm*

Your "facepalm" is exactly what is wrong with our country right now. Instead of having a civilized discussion about issues, we completely disregard other peoples views and opinions if they do not agree with ours. I welcome the refutation and rebuttal. This is something that deserves to be talked about and debated. That is how issues and problems are solved... not facepalms.

Basically, you're just repeating the basic assertions and rhetoric that have been discussed to death on every forum I know. I don't feel that we need yet another thread by yet another internet analyst trying to make a Very Good Point.

I agree that a lot of people are discussing the issue right now, and understand where you are coming from. However, if you do not want to read anymore of that rhetoric, I suggest that you do not click on a link that has the word Syria in it. Your problem will then be solved.
Phillip Murphy
"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 1:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That op ed by Putin was so scummy, he wrote one in 1999 explaining to the American public why they 'needed' to intervene in Chenchya and kiill ze terrorists. 'And we won't kill civilians, targeted attacks using sophisticated weapons, don't cha worry'.

Although he makes good points in this one, the hypocrisy killed me.
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 11:29:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 11:51:21 AM, murphy_phillip wrote:
I ask myself, what is the United States attempting to do with a targeted strike in Syria? Let me preface this by saying I am former military and grew up a Republican. However, due to the GOPs reluctance to get with the times with regards to social issues, I have switched to the Democratic side. With that being said, I think that the US involvement in Syria is a big mistake.

The recent op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked controversy throughout the country, but why? Since the Russians are allies with the Syrians, shouldn't they be the ones that dictate the way things go with regards to consequences for the alleged use of chemical weapons? I find it very disheartening that as I was reading Putin's op-ed, I agreed with him. What has our country come to? The world is at a crossroads in history, and the Obama Administration thinks the best route to go is a targeted strike against particular targets versus a civilized, diplomatic approach. He says that chemical weapons must not be used in war against any human, but it is ok to fund opposition who have direct ties to the very people and terrorist organizations who attacked us on our soil! It is these organizations that the US is directly trying to fight in different regions throughout the world right now. There is no doubt that many of the weapons that are being distributed will fall into the hands of terrorists.

For me, this is a sad time for the nation and the Obama Administration. Democracy is based on the idea of being civilized. Granted using chemical weapons against anyone should be punished and held accountable, but there are several options that should be considered before using military force, this is what being civilized is about. Attacking another country during their civil war is absurd and shows a lack of maturity on the part of the United States. Obama's Administration decided, in a display of arrogance, to forego the use of diplomacy and move directly to the threat of force.

The US is becoming the bully on the playground that no one wants a associated with The international community is watching how the US handles this situation. For me though, the handling thus far has done nothing but damage the perception of our great nation. And that perception is going to very difficult to change

I hope this turns out well.

In hindsight it does seem to be heading in a fairly better (not to say "good") direction. Thanks for raising the question in an intelligent way.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 11:35:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:16:15 PM, Cermank wrote:
That op ed by Putin was so scummy, he wrote one in 1999 explaining to the American public why they 'needed' to intervene in Chenchya and kiill ze terrorists. 'And we won't kill civilians, targeted attacks using sophisticated weapons, don't cha worry'.

Although he makes good points in this one, the hypocrisy killed me.

Ooh, link please.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 12:07:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:12:43 PM, murphy_phillip wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:05:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 12:49:55 PM, murphy_phillip wrote:
At 9/12/2013 12:00:25 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
*facepalm*

Your "facepalm" is exactly what is wrong with our country right now. Instead of having a civilized discussion about issues, we completely disregard other peoples views and opinions if they do not agree with ours. I welcome the refutation and rebuttal. This is something that deserves to be talked about and debated. That is how issues and problems are solved... not facepalms.

Basically, you're just repeating the basic assertions and rhetoric that have been discussed to death on every forum I know. I don't feel that we need yet another thread by yet another internet analyst trying to make a Very Good Point.

I agree that a lot of people are discussing the issue right now, and understand where you are coming from. However, if you do not want to read anymore of that rhetoric, I suggest that you do not click on a link that has the word Syria in it. Your problem will then be solved.

I like this guy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 12:13:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 11:51:21 AM, murphy_phillip wrote:
I ask myself, what is the United States attempting to do with a targeted strike in Syria? Let me preface this by saying I am former military and grew up a Republican. However, due to the GOPs reluctance to get with the times with regards to social issues, I have switched to the Democratic side. With that being said, I think that the US involvement in Syria is a big mistake.

I consider myself an Obamican with similar circumstances to yours.

The recent op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked controversy throughout the country, but why? Since the Russians are allies with the Syrians, shouldn't they be the ones that dictate the way things go with regards to consequences for the alleged use of chemical weapons? I find it very disheartening that as I was reading Putin's op-ed, I agreed with him. What has our country come to? The world is at a crossroads in history, and the Obama Administration thinks the best route to go is a targeted strike against particular targets versus a civilized, diplomatic approach. He says that chemical weapons must not be used in war against any human, but it is ok to fund opposition who have direct ties to the very people and terrorist organizations who attacked us on our soil! It is these organizations that the US is directly trying to fight in different regions throughout the world right now. There is no doubt that many of the weapons that are being distributed will fall into the hands of terrorists.

I agree with you that Putin scored a diplomatic victory, and that it was ironic that a Nobel Peace Prize winner's instinctual reaction to Syria was a military strike.

On your point about " it is ok to fund opposition who have direct ties to the very people and terrorist organizations who attacked us on our soil!", I believe all of this was discovered only in retrospect. The US involvement in mujahideen movements was...secretive with the distinct desire to have distance from direct involvement.

For me, this is a sad time for the nation and the Obama Administration. Democracy is based on the idea of being civilized. Granted using chemical weapons against anyone should be punished and held accountable, but there are several options that should be considered before using military force, this is what being civilized is about. Attacking another country during their civil war is absurd and shows a lack of maturity on the part of the United States. Obama's Administration decided, in a display of arrogance, to forego the use of diplomacy and move directly to the threat of force.

This was somewhat surprising to me as well.

The US is becoming the bully on the playground that no one wants a associated with The international community is watching how the US handles this situation. For me though, the handling thus far has done nothing but damage the perception of our great nation. And that perception is going to very difficult to change

I hope this turns out well.

I think what is really happening is that the US is becoming more and more comfortable with the concept of it being a global hegemonic power, and that the international institutions that were set up post-WWII were really about supporting this hegemonic notion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 5:58:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 11:51:21 AM, murphy_phillip wrote:
I ask myself, what is the United States attempting to do with a targeted strike in Syria? Let me preface this by saying I am former military and grew up a Republican. However, due to the GOPs reluctance to get with the times with regards to social issues, I have switched to the Democratic side. With that being said, I think that the US involvement in Syria is a big mistake.

The recent op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked controversy throughout the country, but why? Since the Russians are allies with the Syrians, shouldn't they be the ones that dictate the way things go with regards to consequences for the alleged use of chemical weapons? I find it very disheartening that as I was reading Putin's op-ed, I agreed with him. What has our country come to? The world is at a crossroads in history, and the Obama Administration thinks the best route to go is a targeted strike against particular targets versus a civilized, diplomatic approach. He says that chemical weapons must not be used in war against any human, but it is ok to fund opposition who have direct ties to the very people and terrorist organizations who attacked us on our soil! It is these organizations that the US is directly trying to fight in different regions throughout the world right now. There is no doubt that many of the weapons that are being distributed will fall into the hands of terrorists.

For me, this is a sad time for the nation and the Obama Administration. Democracy is based on the idea of being civilized. Granted using chemical weapons against anyone should be punished and held accountable, but there are several options that should be considered before using military force, this is what being civilized is about. Attacking another country during their civil war is absurd and shows a lack of maturity on the part of the United States. Obama's Administration decided, in a display of arrogance, to forego the use of diplomacy and move directly to the threat of force.

It's certainly well within Obama's authority as Commander in Chief to threaten the use of force, and in the end, it looks like that threat was a component of the diplomacy that worked.

The US is becoming the bully on the playground that no one wants a associated with

I think the US and Russia had common goals and actually worked together on this one.

The international community is watching how the US handles this situation. For me though, the handling thus far has done nothing but damage the perception of our great nation. And that perception is going to very difficult to change

I hope this turns out well.

As the Monty Python troupe used to say, "And now for something completely different".

There are only five rogue nations that didn't sign the chemical weapons convention, all of them are unstable and a threat to the stability of the rest of the world, I'm thinking the twenty year effort driven by an allied US and Russia and particularly the way this Syrian breech was handled was a clear indication of almost unprecedented unity of purpose between the US and Russia showing joint leadership. There was a role the US had to play in this one, and we played it, I believe it was mutually agreed to between US and Russia from the beginning and I think it worked out as planned. The message we wanted to send to these five nations was sent, we made it very clear that the chemical weapons convention is binding whether you signed it or not, and I think that was the plan.

Let's hope we execute well.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 9:10:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 11:35:21 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:16:15 PM, Cermank wrote:
That op ed by Putin was so scummy, he wrote one in 1999 explaining to the American public why they 'needed' to intervene in Chenchya and kiill ze terrorists. 'And we won't kill civilians, targeted attacks using sophisticated weapons, don't cha worry'.

Although he makes good points in this one, the hypocrisy killed me.

Ooh, link please.

http://www.nytimes.com...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 9:37:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 5:58:44 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/12/2013 11:51:21 AM, murphy_phillip wrote:
I ask myself, what is the United States attempting to do with a targeted strike in Syria? Let me preface this by saying I am former military and grew up a Republican. However, due to the GOPs reluctance to get with the times with regards to social issues, I have switched to the Democratic side. With that being said, I think that the US involvement in Syria is a big mistake.

The recent op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked controversy throughout the country, but why? Since the Russians are allies with the Syrians, shouldn't they be the ones that dictate the way things go with regards to consequences for the alleged use of chemical weapons? I find it very disheartening that as I was reading Putin's op-ed, I agreed with him. What has our country come to? The world is at a crossroads in history, and the Obama Administration thinks the best route to go is a targeted strike against particular targets versus a civilized, diplomatic approach. He says that chemical weapons must not be used in war against any human, but it is ok to fund opposition who have direct ties to the very people and terrorist organizations who attacked us on our soil! It is these organizations that the US is directly trying to fight in different regions throughout the world right now. There is no doubt that many of the weapons that are being distributed will fall into the hands of terrorists.

For me, this is a sad time for the nation and the Obama Administration. Democracy is based on the idea of being civilized. Granted using chemical weapons against anyone should be punished and held accountable, but there are several options that should be considered before using military force, this is what being civilized is about. Attacking another country during their civil war is absurd and shows a lack of maturity on the part of the United States. Obama's Administration decided, in a display of arrogance, to forego the use of diplomacy and move directly to the threat of force.

It's certainly well within Obama's authority as Commander in Chief to threaten the use of force, and in the end, it looks like that threat was a component of the diplomacy that worked.

The US is becoming the bully on the playground that no one wants a associated with

I think the US and Russia had common goals and actually worked together on this one.

The international community is watching how the US handles this situation. For me though, the handling thus far has done nothing but damage the perception of our great nation. And that perception is going to very difficult to change

I hope this turns out well.

As the Monty Python troupe used to say, "And now for something completely different".

There are only five rogue nations that didn't sign the chemical weapons convention, all of them are unstable and a threat to the stability of the rest of the world, I'm thinking the twenty year effort driven by an allied US and Russia and particularly the way this Syrian breech was handled was a clear indication of almost unprecedented unity of purpose between the US and Russia showing joint leadership. There was a role the US had to play in this one, and we played it, I believe it was mutually agreed to between US and Russia from the beginning and I think it worked out as planned. The message we wanted to send to these five nations was sent, we made it very clear that the chemical weapons convention is binding whether you signed it or not, and I think that was the plan.

Let's hope we execute well.

Actually, Syria is not one of those five countries. They did ratify enough of the Geneva Convention to where them killing civilian non combatants counts as a war crime, and they are not allowed to use weapons whose scope of destruction cannot be limited (chemical weapons included).
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian