US Intervention in Syria ????

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LadyEagle, May 30, 2012.

?

Should the US intervene in Syria?

  1. No. Not for any reason.

    5 vote(s)
    38.5%
  2. No. We are not supposed to be policing the world.

    7 vote(s)
    53.8%
  3. No. Unless (please elaborate on your qualifier below...)

    1 vote(s)
    7.7%
  4. Yes. Human rights are being violated.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Yes. We must be involved to help stabilize the Middle East.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Yes. But only to supply humanitarian aid.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Yes. Only with munitions and air support, no ground forces.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Undecided.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Should the US intervene in Syria? Please discuss if you feel inclined.

    I'll throw this out there to get the discussion going....


    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384829-503544/mccain-pushes-for-u.s-involvement-in-syria/
     
    #1 LadyEagle, May 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2012
  2. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    No we cannot afford it.
     
  3. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Totally opposed for any reason. No more conflicts without a declaration of war by Congress.
     
  4. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    No. Unless there is a declared war, a clear plan to pay for it, clear goals, and a determination to succeed. The failure to meet this standard is why we have not had a clear victory since WWII.
     
  5. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,227
    Likes Received:
    615
    My answer isn't a choice in the poll.

    I would supply arms, intelligence and humanitarian aid. I would not conduct military actions, either on land, sea, or air. No U.S. soldiers should be put in harms way.
     
  6. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    I voted for the second choice but the truth is we are already involved. The real issue is not should we get involved, but how much? With that understanding I am against any intervention that includes anything that will give either side of the conflict support in what they are seeking.
     
  7. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I don't think we should. Our record for picking and choosing our conflicts is pretty paltry.

    Though if we did it would be interesting to watch our Nobel Peace Prize winning President explain how he has started yet another armed, violent conflict since receiving his prize.

    What is this, four...five?
     
  8. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neither should we be supplying anything. We do not have the money. we should not be borrowing money from China to supply arms to anyone. This country needs to stop acting as if we have any money to put anywhere. We do not. We are broke.
     
  9. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    To all the above I would only add that there be a clearly defined exit strategy as well.
     
  10. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,911
    Likes Received:
    295
    There is no reason to be involved. But ,with congressional approval, at least it would be legal. Unlike Libya. But there is no reason for Congress to approve such action. To my knowledge , no American lives are at risk.

    Backing the rebels in Syria, like Libya, would be aiding al qaeda and other other radical islamic groups dedicated to the destruction of our country.
     
  11. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is it with Lindsey Graham and his unabashed support for every possible war effort proposed by anyone for any reason?! I have yet to see him oppose any proposed conflict.

    Of course he is also a big government style Republican. He will gladly support more government involvement in domestic affairs if he also supports more government involvement in international affairs.

    In other words, he is nothing but a rabid statist through and through. This is the danger of the so-called "national security conservatives." They are allowed to get away with being statists in many respects as long as they are statists in certain other respects, feeding the fears and fanning the "patriotic" flames of misled Republican loyalists.

    It is time conservatives start reclaiming their ideology as inherently a core commitment to limited government rather than primarily a nationalistic commitment to military involvement around the world.
     
  12. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree. And what is it with John McCain? How many troops would be in how many theaters if he had ended up being President? What is it with these RINOs? This is the bunk that we tried to a send a message in the 2010 elections, that we are sick of this (among other things). I truly believe Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians are on common ground on this one, the American people are sick of these wars that are a waste of our troops lives, limbs, and treasure (which we are borrowing now).

    What have we as a nation gained from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet Nam? Why are our troops looked upon as "cannon fodder" by these politicians? Sorry this is off my own topic of Syria, but when and how do we send a clear message to Congress.....NO MORE unless it is a direct threat to the homeland? (I hesitate to say "national interests" because that has become a catch-all phrase for butting in anywhere in the world, IMO.)

    How do we get our voices heard?

    Thanks to everyone who voted so far in this poll & for your comments! LE
     
  13. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Update:

    UPDATE: PER DEBKA FILES


    http://www.debka.com/article/22043/...tion-to-prevent-Al-Qaeda-grabbing-Syrian-WMD-
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Who are these "rebels" McCain would like us to support?


    Timeline

    1991: Paul Wolfowitz, then Undersecretary of Defense, tells US Army General Wesley Clark that the US has 5-10 years to "clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." Fora.TV: Wesley Clark at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007.

    2001: A classified plot is revealed to US Army General Wesley Clark that the US plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Fora.TV: Wesley Clark at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007.

    2002: US Under Secretary of State John Bolton declares Syria a member of the "Axis of Evil" and warned that "the US would take action." BBC: "US Expands 'Axis of Evil'" May 6, 2002.

    2005: US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy organizes and implements the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon directly aimed at undermining Syrian-Iranian influence in Lebanon in favor of Western-backed proxies, most notably Saad Hariri's political faction. Counterpunch: "Faking the Case Against Syria," by Trish Schuh November 19-20, 2005.

    2005: Ziad Abdel Nour, an associate of Bush Administration advisers, policy makers, and media including Neo-Conservatives Paula Dobriansky, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Joseph Farah (World Net Daily), Clifford May, and Daniel Nassif of US State Department-funded Al Hurra and Radio Sawa, admits: "Both the Syrian and Lebanese regimes will be changed- whether they like it or not- whether it’s going to be a military coup or something else… and we are working on it. We know already exactly who’s going to be the replacements. We’re working on it with the Bush administration." Counterpunch: "Faking the Case Against Syria," by Trish Schuh November 19-20, 2005.

    2006: Israel attempts, and fails, to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon after a prolonged aerial bombard that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. CNN: "UN: Hezbollah and Israel agree on Monday cease-fire," August 13, 2006.

    2007: Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker reveals that US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Hariri in Lebanon as well as the Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood were assembling, arming, training, and heavily funding a sectarian extremists front, many of whom had direct ties to Al Qaeda, to unleash in both Lebanon and Syria. The goal was to create and exploit a sectarian divide between Sunni and Shi'ia Muslims. Hersh interviewed intelligence officers who expressed concerns over the "cataclysmic conflict" that would result, and the need to protect ethnic minorities from sectarian atrocities. The report indicated that extremists would be logistically staged in northern Lebanon where they would be able to cross back and forth into Syria. New Yorker: "The Redirection," by Seymour Hersh, March 5, 2007.

    2008: The US State Department begins training, funding, networking, and equipping "activists" through its "Alliance for Youth Movements" where the future protest leaders of the "Arab Spring," including Egypt's "April 6 Movement" were brought to New York, London, and Mexico, before being trained by US-funded CANVAS in Serbia, and then returning home to begin preparations for 2011. Land Destroyer: "2011 - Year of the Dupe," December 24, 2011.

    2009: The Brookings Institution published a report titled, "Which Path to Persia?" (.pdf), which admits that the Bush Administration "evicted" Syria from Lebanon without building up a strong Lebanese government to replace it (p. 34), that Israel struck a "nascent" Syrian nuclear program, and states the importance of neutralizing Syrian influence before any attack on Iran can be carried out (p. 109). The report then goes on to describe in detail the use of listed terrorist organizations against the government of Iran, in particular the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) (p. 126) and Baluch insurgents in Pakistan (p.132). Brookings Institution: "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," June 2009.

    2009-2010: In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, admitted that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to admit that the US (emphasis added) "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect." AFP: "US Trains Activists to Evade Security Forces," April 8, 2011.

    2011: Posner's US trained, funded, and equipped activists return to their respective countries across the Arab World to begin their "ripple effect." Protests, vandalism , and arson sweep across Syria and "rooftop snipers" begin attacking both protesters and Syrian security forces, just as Western-backed movements were documented doing in Bangkok, Thailand one year earlier. With a similar gambit already unfolding in Libya, US senators begin threatening Syria with long planned and sought after military intervention. Land Destroyer: "Syria: Intervention Inevitable," April 29, 2011.

    2012: With NATO's Libyan intervention resulting in a weak US-backed Tripoli client-regime, perpetual infighting, nationwide genocide, and the succession of Benghazi in the east, the NATO-backed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), listed by the US State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (listed #27) begins mobilizing weapons, cash, and fighters to begin destabilizing Syria. Headed by LIFG's Abdul Hakim Belhaj, this would be the first confirmed presence of Al Qaeda in Syria, flush with NATO weapons and cash. The Washington Post would confirm, just as stated by Hersh in 2007, that the US and Saudi Arabia were arming the sectarian extremists, now labeled the "Free Syrian Army." The Post also admits that the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, as stated in Hersh's 2007 report, was also involved in arming and backing extremist fighters. Land Destroyer: "US Officially Arming Extremists in Syria," May 16, 2012.

    CONTINUE . . .
     
    #14 poncho, Jun 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2012

Share This Page

Loading...