Off Topic Messages

Syria crisis.

Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:39 pm

Is a US Military strike the right thing to do and what would it achieve by doing so?

Surely all it would do is cause more death and destruction and bring other countries into the conflict.

Whats everyone's opinions on this global news topic?

Re: Syria crisis.

Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:46 pm

Bodie wrote:Is a US Military strike the right thing to do and what would it achieve by doing so?

Surely all it would do is cause more death and destruction and bring other countries into the conflict.

Whats everyone's opinions on this global news topic?



Leave Syria alone. Save money. Congress should focus more on fixing the U.S. economy.

Re: Syria crisis.

Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:57 pm

Bodie wrote:Is a US Military strike the right thing to do and what would it achieve by doing so?

Surely all it would do is cause more death and destruction and bring other countries into the conflict.

Whats everyone's opinions on this global news topic?


No. It's very very sad to say so but interfering in the conflict will just cause more suffering. Diplomacy and (more) economic sanctions is the way to go imo.

Re: Syria crisis.

Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:13 am

This forum is eerily quiet about this issue. I'm wondering if that's because prior opinions contradict current events.

It is a very difficult call to make, but I totally concur with the President.

Re: Syria crisis.

Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:49 am

With the operation to kill Bin Laden, Obama made a great call and one would hope he has used the same vision to determine the outcome of air-strikes on Syrian targets. However i would need more proof that poison gas was used by the Lybian army and not deployed by al-qaeda backed foreign fighters trying to widen the conflict. Why would a regime use poison gas when it is winning using conventional weapons? Those uncertainties and the risk of wider conflict point to caution being very important.

Re: Syria crisis.

Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:31 am

I had time to listen to Kerry's testimony today, and yes, it's terrible. Horrific. I just have no idea how a military strike will somehow stop it.

There's just no magic wand here. Despite the perks to being POTUS, I would not want the job. Seriously.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

Re: Syria crisis.

Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:47 am

Russian President Vladimir Putin is right in saying that any use of force without UN approval would be an "aggression".

Putin has said that he would back a UN resolution if there was proof that the Syrian Government has used chemical weapons on its own people and Russia would be "ready to act in the most decisive and serious way".

The US should not attack Syria without the backing of the UN.

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:15 am

>> http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/ ... d%3D369477

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:27 am

Bodie wrote:Is a US Military strike the right thing to do and what would it achieve by doing so?

Surely all it would do is cause more death and destruction and bring other countries into the conflict.

Whats everyone's opinions on this global news topic?


There are more questions than answers regarding Syria.

However, at the very least President Obama has chosen to Congressional approval before making a decision, unlike the heinous, unilateral actions of the previous regime, which began a war under false pretenses.

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:04 am

drjohncarpenter wrote: However, at the very least President Obama has chosen to Congressional approval before making a decision, unlike the heinous, unilateral actions of the previous regime, which began a war under false pretenses.



President George Bush actually went to Congress got Congress's approval for the use of Military Force, which is a type of war declaration. On October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives voted 296-133 to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq. Later that evening, the Senate joined the House in supporting the measure by a vote of 77-23.

There were actually at least three such war authoriztions that would apply to Iraq. Any one of them would have been well within the requirement of the Constitution.



The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" was approved by Congress in October 2002.

Congress had previously given the Commander-in-Chief a very general authority for the War on Terror, which would include war in or against Iraq, which was a known and proven supporter and haven for terrorists. That authorization was granted just after 9/11.


unilateral actions of the previous regime


Not true. President Bush and the United States did not act unilaterally (go it alone). Here is a list of the coalition in 2003:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea,
Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua,
Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan


which began a war under false pretenses


Again - NOT true.

The whole world knew that the Iraq dictator had weapons of mass destruction way back to the Clinton years in the 1990's.

Everyone, Democrats and Republicans, saw the same intelligence reports and ALL agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

Saddam Hussein refused to let U.N. inspectors have access. Saddam continued to violate "No fly zone" mandates and shot at coalition aircraft - which violated the "cease fire" that Saddam agreed to in 1991. THAT alone was reason enough to go in and "take out" Saddam's regime.


At the time, when very little weapons of mass destruction we're found, some thought that Saddam could have sent them over the Syrian border - after all, we waited months before going into Iraq.

I find it interseting that now Syria is using weapons of mass destruction. Where did they get all of it?


Let's not play politics by rewriting history.




RKS

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:48 am

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Let's not play politics by rewriting history.

Too late, RKS.
Due to Bodie's ignorance of the facts, he has already thanked drjohncarpenter for his lies.


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Elvis Aron Presley would be very, very saddened and disappointed
with drjohncarpenter for his mean-spirited hatred towards George W. Bush and his administration.

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:28 am

Top 5 Crimes of Saddam Hussein

Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, has gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believes he ruled with an iron fist to keep his country, divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions bespeak a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him.

Having been captured, Saddam Hussein will now be tried for his past crimes. Though prosecutors have hundreds of crimes to choose from, these five are some of Hussein's most heinous.

1. Reprisal Against Dujail
On July 8, 1982, Saddam Hussein was visiting the town of Dujail (50 miles north of Baghdad) when a group of Dawa militants shot at his motorcade. In reprisal for this assassination attempt, the entire town was punished. More than 140 fighting-age men were apprehended and never heard from again. Approximately 1,500 other townspeople, including children, were rounded up and taken to prison, where many were tortured. After a year or more in prison, many were exiled to a southern desert camp. The town itself was destroyed; houses were bulldozed and orchards were demolished.

Though Saddam's reprisal against Dujail is considered one of his lesser-known crimes, it has been chosen as the first for which he will be tried.


2. Anfal Campaign
Officially from February 23 to September 6, 1988 (but often thought to extend from March 1987 to May 1989), Saddam Hussein's regime carried out the Anfal (Arabic for "spoils") campaign against the large Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The purpose of the campaign was ostensibly to reassert Iraqi control over the area; however, the real goal was to permanently eliminate the Kurdish problem.

The campaign consisted of eight stages of assault, where up to 200,000 Iraqi troops attacked the area, rounded up civilians, and razed villages. Once rounded up, the civilians were divided into two groups: men from ages of about 13 to 70 and women, children, and elderly men. The men were then shot and buried in mass graves. The women, children, and elderly were taken to relocation camps where conditions were deplorable. In a few areas, especially areas that put up even a little resistance, everyone was killed.

Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled the area, yet it is estimated that up to 182,000 were killed during the Anfal campaign. Many people consider the Anfal campaign an attempt at genocide.


3. Chemical Weapons Against Kurds
As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.

Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid was directly in charge of the chemical attacks against the Kurds, earning him the epithet, "Chemical Ali."


4. Invasion of Kuwait
On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded the country of Kuwait. The invasion was induced by oil and a large war debt that Iraq owed Kuwait. The six-week, Persian Gulf War pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in 1991. As the Iraqi troops retreated, they were ordered to light oil wells on fire. Over 700 oil wells were lit, burning over one billion barrels of oil and releasing dangerous pollutants into the air. Oil pipelines were also opened, releasing 10 million barrels of oil into the Gulf and tainting many water sources. The fires and the oil spill created a huge environmental disaster.



5. Shiite Uprising & the Marsh Arabs
At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq.

As supposed punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life. The Marsh Arabs had lived for thousands of years in the marshlands located in southern Iraq until Iraq built a network of canals, dykes, and dams to divert water away from the marshes. The Marsh Arabs were forced to flee the area, their way of life decimated.

By 2002, satellite images showed only 7 to 10 percent of the marshlands left. Saddam Hussein is blamed for creating an environmental disaster.

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:48 am

August 16, 2004 ~ If Bush lied about WMD, Kerry and 77% of the Senate lied also...

>> http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mostert/040816

Quotes from Democrats about Weapons of Mass Destruction

1. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Quoted on CNN


2. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Quoted on CNN


3. Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio — from USIA


4. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio — From USIA


5. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others


6. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi — House of Representatives website


7. "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Answer to a question at the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs


8. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.


9. " We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

Online with Jim Lehrer — Public Broadcasting Service


10. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today


11. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today


12. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

U.S. Senate — Ted Kennedy


13. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Congressional Record — Robert Byrd


14. "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry


15. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Jay Rockefeller


16. "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Rep. Henry Waxman


17. "In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Hillary Clinton


18. "The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

"Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Ted Kennedy


19. "There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Bob Graham


20. But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

"To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — Sen. Joseph Biden

Congressional Record — Sen. Joseph Biden


21. "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry


22. "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

"Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John Edwards

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:01 am

Some people need to get a life

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:57 pm

zolderopruiming1 wrote:Some people need to get a life

Yes indeed... we'll start with drjohncarpenter, Bodie, and you.

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:42 pm

I'm not really sure if the United States should bomb Syria or not.

I'm leaning towards no because I can see more negative outcomes than positive.

They probably will end up going over there.

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:45 pm

It seems like months since we bombed or invaded a country, perhaps we're due another costly war. Now that our economy is sorted.

Re: Syria crisis.

Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:47 pm

zolderopruiming1 wrote:Some people need to get a life


:D

Nah, cut and pasting is the favored pastime of the narrow-minded.

Re: Syria crisis.

Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:20 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
zolderopruiming1 wrote:Some people need to get a life


:D

Nah, cut and pasting is the favored pastime of the narrow-minded.


Says the man who, in a recent post, showed us that he had copied and pasted his own post 8 times over the last 6 years!

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=78849#p1207557

While I largely agree with your comments earlier in the thread, the above might not have been your best choice of words!

Re: Syria crisis.

Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:37 am

The President is in a very tight spot here. It would appear the US will act regardless of any vote; in fact, the President went so far out onto a limb that he can hardly crawl back now having done nothing. So, I don't see the logic in delaying what appears to be inevitable, other than allow Assad time to prepare and strategize.

I realize George Bush is a hated man on most corners of this forum. While I didn't agree with everything he did, he stuck to his convictions and acted. Polls be damned. And, I believe he did the right thing at the time. He took a beating on a number of counts, but he was true to his word, regardless of world opinion. THAT is what I want/expect from the President of the United States.

Again, I totally support the President here. So if he believes we need to act, just do it. No need to wait for vacations to end, a prolonged vote, or any of that. He has the authority to make the call on his own, and I'll back him 100% when he does.

Re: Syria crisis.

Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:44 am

KHoots wrote:The President is in a very tight spot here. It would appear the US will act regardless of any vote; in fact, the President went so far out onto a limb that he can hardly crawl back now having done nothing. So, I don't see the logic in delaying what appears to be inevitable, other than allow Assad time to prepare and strategize.

I realize George Bush is a hated man on most corners of this forum. While I didn't agree with everything he did, he stuck to his convictions and acted. Polls be damned. And, I believe he did the right thing at the time. He took a beating on a number of counts, but he was true to his word, regardless of world opinion. THAT is what I want/expect from the President of the United States.

Again, I totally support the President here. So if he believes we need to act, just do it. No need to wait for vacations to end, a prolonged vote, or any of that. He has the authority to make the call on his own, and I'll back him 100% when he does.


The problem with Bush, I think (and over here with Blair) was that the reason given for going to war was seemingly fabricated. There were no WMDs, despite this being the chief reason for going to war. Cameron was an idiot in not waiting for the proof of the recent attacks to materialise before going to parliament for the vote - had he done so, he probably would have won that vote. Obama is taking things somewhat slower, it seems, and that will probably go in his favour. As for supporting or not supporting a president "making a decision", well, a country isn't run by one person.

Re: Syria crisis.

Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:26 am

I think this sums it all up .
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Syria crisis.

Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:15 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... -congress/

Interesting article.

Re: Syria crisis.

Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:19 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
The problem with Bush, I think (and over here with Blair) was that the reason given for going to war was seemingly fabricated. There were no WMDs, despite this being the chief reason for going to war.



But there we're WMD's. Saddam already proved he had them by using them on his own people - much like what we see in Syria now.

The intelligence agencies in both the U.S. and U.K also said there we're chemical and biological weapens in Saddam's possesion. Saddam refused U.N. weapon's inspectors into Iraq. THAT alone violated the 1991 cease-fire agreement. THAT alone allowed the world led by U.S. and British forces to go in and take out Saddam.

The world played this "cat and mouse" game with Saddam for years - allowing him to get away with violating the 1991 cease-fire agreement and violate U.N. resolutions - 17 of them. Saddam would violate one and the U.N. would pass another. The cycle continued for 10 years.


RKS

Re: Syria crisis.

Sat Sep 07, 2013 6:05 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Bodie wrote:Is a US Military strike the right thing to do and what would it achieve by doing so?

Surely all it would do is cause more death and destruction and bring other countries into the conflict.

Whats everyone's opinions on this global news topic?


There are more questions than answers regarding Syria.

However, at the very least President Obama has chosen to Congressional approval before making a decision, unlike the heinous, unilateral actions of the previous regime, which began a war under false pretenses.


Sort like that great Progressive LBJ who provided false information to Congress regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to not look weak on communism in advance of the 1964 election.