The war in Syria

Most Republicans today are neo-cons rather than conservatives. We haven't had a true conservative as President in a very long time, and it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

Okay:

So what happens when the next president is some conservative neo-con wackjob who decides not to enforce laws protecting abortion clinics or equal rights?
 
I would say that Obama is a conservative, judging by his policies. He may not be as religious as the Republicans, but when it comes to foreign policy, he is as conservative as any Republican, perhaps even more so. Even now he is looking to start a new pointless war, just like George W Bush before him and George Bush Snr before both of them.
 
Last edited:
Last I read this morning, Obama will struggle to get approval from Congress.

Also, France has said they won't go to war without the US. So looks like there won't be any Western intervention at this point. Turkey has been keen to do something though.
 
Ok, so no one wants to take military action against Syria. Can anyone suggest effective alternative actions to stop the the use of the sarin gas or for that matter stop the conflict before more people die?
 
Ok, so no one wants to take military action against Syria. Can anyone suggest effective alternative actions to stop the the use of the sarin gas or for that matter stop the conflict before more people die?
When a governments is gassing its own citizens, and there is no viable group to take over, shooting some missiles into the country to teach them a lesson is not going to help anyone. There has been plenty of time for the Syrian government to move military assets away from likely strike zones. It's not like bombing a factory that produces the sarin is a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blobbenstein
I would say that Obama is a conservative, judging by his policies. He may not be as religious as the Republicans, but when it comes to foreign policy, he is as conservative as any Republican, perhaps even more so. Even now he is looking to start a new pointless war, just like George W Bush before him and George Bush Snr before both of them.
Don't believe what you read about peace-loving Democrats, Freesia. They have historically had virtually the same foreign policy as the Republicans. They just talk peace to get votes from their base, while the Republicans talk war and strength to get votes from theirs.
 
I would say that Obama is a conservative, judging by his policies. He may not be as religious as the Republicans, but when it comes to foreign policy, he is as conservative as any Republican, perhaps even more so. Even now he is looking to start a new pointless war, just like George W Bush before him and George Bush Snr before both of them.

Pat Buchanan would be a good example of a conservative. Conservatives are generally against war, while neo-cons are in favor of it. Conservatives also promote small government. There's nothing conservative about Obama.
 
Ok, so no one wants to take military action against Syria. Can anyone suggest effective alternative actions to stop the the use of the sarin gas or for that matter stop the conflict before more people die?

No evidence has been presented to show who used the weapons. The government was winning the war, while the rebels were losing. It makes no sense as to why the government would use chemical weapons in this situation.

Stop giving aid to the rebels. This conflict would have been over a long time ago.
 
When a governments is gassing its own citizens, and there is no viable group to take over, shooting some missiles into the country to teach them a lesson is not going to help anyone. There has been plenty of time for the Syrian government to move military assets away from likely strike zones. It's not like bombing a factory that produces the sarin is a good idea.

Right, but I asked for a solution, not justification for not taking certain actions.
 
No evidence has been presented to show who used the weapons. The government was winning the war, while the rebels were losing. It makes no sense as to why the government would use chemical weapons in this situation.

Not everyone thinks in terms of restraint. If they have the upper hand, some will consider "finishing the job once and for all".
 
Last edited:
On second thought, I think the US knows exactly where Syria's military assets are.

The NSA is good for something...:p
Well, let's say all the Syrian weapons are destroyed by perfect strikes that don't harm any living being. They will just buy more.
-------------
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/meast/syria-how-did-we-get-here?c=&page=5
"Russia and Syria are longtime allies. For one, just take a look at their weapons deals. Between 2007 and 2010, Russian firms selling weapons to Syria made almost $5 billion.

It would be costly for Russia to end that relationship, analyst Peter Fragiskatos said this year. "Russia's leadership still sees much to lose economically and strategically from cutting Syria loose," Fragiskatos wrote. "Russia sees Syria as another test case for the West's appetite for intervention and views the danger of U.S. involvement as a direct threat to its own interests."

There are other reasons to suspect that Russia will keep supporting Syria. Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean is on the Syrian coast, and Putin is still upset about NATO's bombing in Libya two years ago that removed Russian ally Moammar Gadhafi from power."
 
Well, let's say all the Syrian weapons are destroyed by perfect strikes that don't harm any living being. They will just buy more.
-------------
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/meast/syria-how-did-we-get-here?c=&page=5
"Russia and Syria are longtime allies. For one, just take a look at their weapons deals. Between 2007 and 2010, Russian firms selling weapons to Syria made almost $5 billion.

It would be costly for Russia to end that relationship, analyst Peter Fragiskatos said this year. "Russia's leadership still sees much to lose economically and strategically from cutting Syria loose," Fragiskatos wrote. "Russia sees Syria as another test case for the West's appetite for intervention and views the danger of U.S. involvement as a direct threat to its own interests."

There are other reasons to suspect that Russia will keep supporting Syria. Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean is on the Syrian coast, and Putin is still upset about NATO's bombing in Libya two years ago that removed Russian ally Moammar Gadhafi from power."

I agree. Russia is the real reason the US hasn't done anything yet.

But are we going to continue to back down every time Russia wags it finger? Might as well toss human rights out the window, because Pussy Riot was just the tip of the iceberg.
 
I agree. Russia is the real reason the US hasn't done anything yet.

But are we going to continue to back down every time Russia wags it finger? Might as well toss human rights out the window, because Pussy Riot was just the tip of the iceberg.
The UN needs to be the body dealing with human rights. The US needs to stop meddling in things that are not our business.
 
As long as Russia is part of the UN, the organization is pretty useless.

So what is our business? I'd say for as long as we need oil and strategic partners there, the middle east is our business.
I agree, all the more reason to stop bombing various countries in the area. Who wants to do business with the people who shoot cruise missiles into your country?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freesia
Pat Buchanan would be a good example of a conservative. Conservatives are generally against war, while neo-cons are in favor of it. Conservatives also promote small government. There's nothing conservative about Obama.

So what is Obama then? Because he is certainly not a liberal. Liberals do not spend trillions of dollars on military weapons.
 
Last edited: