Byrne Robotics: Do you think the US should go into Syria?

The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum		<< Prev Page of 22 Next >>

Topic: Do you think the US should go into Syria? (

Topic Closed)

Author

Message

Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5679

Posted: 05 September 2013 at 9:40pm \| IP Logged \| 1

Are you kidding? Doom is evil, but not NAZI evil!! We can certainly choose between the lesser of two evils. Stalin or Hitler, for example.

But is the difference between the sides in Syria worth choosing? Can we make a difference? Though we won't be sending in people, are we just wasting money?

profile | search | www

Marcel Chenier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2723

Posted: 05 September 2013 at 10:14pm \| IP Logged \| 2

Apparently (and for what it's worth), Iran's President Rouhani--whom

has until now supported Assad--condemned Assad's use of chemical

weapons against his own people. After Ahmadinejad provided Assad

with weapons and did little for Iran's international image, Rouhani won

on a ticket to build bridges with the West and favours a settlement with

the Syrian opposition. Iranians are strongly opposed to Assad's alleged

gas attacks on account of the memory of Hussein's gas attacks on Iran,

so there's a lot of internal pressure for Iran to act on Assad.

Meanwhile, Obama--who's not getting support at home-- has called on

the international community to step up to the plate, stating he's willing

to work with just about anyone to resolve the problem.

As a result, some quarters are suggesting the US and Iran actually

engage in talks concerning Syria.

How weird would that be if that actually happened?

If Obama and Rouhani could pull Assad into a peace plan, more heads

would be exploding than bombs--and that would be a good thing.

Edited by Marcel Chenier on 05 September 2013 at 10:15pm

profile | search

Marcel Chenier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2723

Posted: 05 September 2013 at 10:15pm \| IP Logged \| 3

Edited by Marcel Chenier on 05 September 2013 at 10:15pm

profile | search

Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832

Posted: 06 September 2013 at 4:52am \| IP Logged \| 4

How weird would that be if that actually happened?

If Obama and Rouhani could pull Assad into a peace plan, more heads

would be exploding than bombs--and that would be a good thing.

Obama is a smart guy, that as I said, has had a great track record on military conflicts up to this point. It is to Assad benefit to do this.

profile | search | www

Randy Lahey
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 January 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 675

Posted: 06 September 2013 at 5:16am \| IP Logged \| 5

Jodi can you remind me what his great track record on military conflicts is? Other than some Somali pirates and bin laden I can't think of any. Iraq and Afghanistan are complete failures. Way more American casualties in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush. I know Obama didn't start those wars, but he could have pulled out of both as soon as he took office. Now he wants to repeat those failures with Syria? That is the definition of insanity. I feel sorry for young Americans who are growing up only knowing USA as a country that invades and occupies and eventually leaves those countries in shambles, the same or worse and the only accomplishment is American casualties and debt. The new boss is same as the old boss, what a huge letdown. I never expected him to talk about invading another country. Hopefully it doesn't happen.

profile | search | www e-mail

Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4944

Posted: 06 September 2013 at 5:55am \| IP Logged \| 6

profile | search e-mail

Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832

Posted: 06 September 2013 at 6:15am \| IP Logged \| 7

If 9/11 was the reason to go to war, Obama explained that we should not be in Iraq. He explained that our main focus should be the capture of Bin Laden and Afghanistan was the direction we needed to take to do that. Which we saw was the correct path to get Bin Laden.

Way more American casualties in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush.

There were more casualties in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush because that is where the focus should have been. There should have been NO casualties in Iraq because we should have NEVER been there.

I know Obama didn't start those wars, but he could have pulled out of both as soon as he took office.

No he could not, as much as those on the right want to paint Obama as some wanna be dictator, he can only do so much. We have check and balances that come into play. You can not slam on the breaks of ANY military conflict, congress would have NEVER allowed that, which they should not. I would want, NO president, to have that ultimate power. Not even a democrat. It would be impossible to just move out in a day and as Obama said he would wind down troop involvement and end the Iraq invasion , he did.

2009 Obama is elected, during the campaign, he promised to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.
2010 Obama announces the end to a combat force in Iraq. Troops there will became a rebuilding force. He removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. He closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis.
2011 The last American combat troops left Iraq.

I would say he made a promise to the American people and kept that promise.

Now he wants to repeat those failures with Syria? That is the definition of insanity. I feel sorry for young Americans who are growing up only knowing USA as a country that invades and occupies and eventually leaves those countries in shambles, the same or worse and the only accomplishment is American casualties and debt. The new boss is same as the old boss, what a huge letdown. I never expected him to talk about invading another country. Hopefully it doesn't happen

It is not the same. He has not said he will invade Syria with ground troops, he has not said he will assassinate Assad, he has said he will launch missiles at the sites that have been proven to be the cause of the gas attacks or areas where the weapons are being stored. Much different.

But I agree, the American people are war weary, as we should be.

Edited by Jodi Moisan on 06 September 2013 at 6:17am

profile | search | www

David Ferguson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6782

Posted: 06 September 2013 at 7:09am \| IP Logged \| 8

There are a lot of military tactics used by the US that endanger and kill civilians (i'm thinking of the drones they use in particular) so the moral high ground is a bit unstable imo.

profile | search

Bob Simko
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar

Negative Mod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 5982

Posted: 06 September 2013 at 8:19am \| IP Logged \| 9

Civillians have always been casualties of militatry actions...but now there are a million 24hr news outlets and everyone has a camera/video and instant means to share with the world. I'm sure there were a number of civillian casualties when the Allies retook the Eurpean mainland.

profile | search

Marcel Chenier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2723

Posted: 06 September 2013 at 8:36am \| IP Logged \| 10

2010 Obama announces the end to a combat force in Iraq.

Jodi, from memory I'm not certain Obama can claim much accolades

for this. Again, if memory serves, the US set a timeline for leaving Iraq

and sought to renew the date of departure.

It was not Obama that enforced the departure, but rather Iraq's refusal

to allow the US its continued stay within Iraq. It might be too much to

suggest Iraq kicked them out, but they certainly didn't permit their stay.

It's a bit early and I'm off to work, so I'll try to provide a link later.

profile | search

Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832

Posted: 06 September 2013 at 9:09am \| IP Logged \| 11

There are a lot of military tactics used by the US that endanger and kill civilians (i'm thinking of the drones they use in particular) so the moral high ground is a bit unstable imo.

I agree David I do not think we can claim the moral high ground on everything we do. Since Steve posted what he did about drones and reading up on them. I am convinced they should not be used unless in the field of battle and against identified military combatants. I understand the field of battle has changed with terrorism. But the success rate of these strikes should be a major cause of concern.

profile | search | www

Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832

Posted: 06 September 2013 at 9:16am \| IP Logged \| 12

Jodi, from memory I'm not certain Obama can claim much accolades

for this. Again, if memory serves, the US set a timeline for leaving Iraq

and sought to renew the date of departure.

It was not Obama that enforced the departure, but rather Iraq's refusal

to allow the US its continued stay within Iraq. It might be too much to

suggest Iraq kicked them out, but they certainly didn't permit their stay.

Marcel I do think Iraq held the US to it's word. I have no doubt they said enough is enough. But Obama campaigned saying he would get us out of Iraq, at a time when getting out didn't even seem like an option. I honestly felt like it was going to go on forever. That is why I voted for him. He got us out. He set in to motion the end and followed through with it.

profile | search | www

<< Prev Page of 22 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum