70% of Americans are opposed to sending weapons to Syria

[woolfe9998]

Looks pretty much like we're screwed either way. If Assad stays in power, he'll be completely beholden to the Russians, Iranians and other unsavory groups. If the rebels overthrow him, we'll likely have another islamo-nutcase fundie jihadist factory, just like when we helped the taliban/al qaeda against the Soviets.

Good thing we have a great leader with great vision to navigate through these dangerous waters. Oh wait......

Ironically you pose the situation as a no win, then criticize Obama for not being the great leader we need to choose from two decisions which will both yield bad results, according to your logic. What would your "great leader" do in your no win situation?

 

[nehalem256]

Ironically you pose the situation as a no win, then criticize Obama for not being the great leader we need to choose from two decisions which will both yield bad results, according to your logic. What would your "great leader" do in your no win situation?

Its a no win scenario because Obama chose to get involved.

The correct solution was to mind our own business.

 

[bshole]

Geez is there any difference between Rep and Dems? They both want to get us involved in conflicts that are none of our business. They both have a flagrant disregard for personal rights. Obviously our Supreme Court is in bed with them because all of this blatantly unconstitutional BS is not being overturned.

Government accuses you be being a drug dealer and they can seize all your property.... what?! Government keeps records of all of our conversations and can access them at will.... huh?? Drone strikes, guantanamo bay, water boarding, rendition..... Fuck our country cares NOTHING about rights and NEITHER do either the Rep or Dems.

The Reps and Dems differ on abortion, evolution, global warming, guns and gay rights. Thats about the end of the list.

 

[Genx87]

Im part of the 70%.

 

[MiniDoom]

20% of America would agree to anything, and 10% are working in DC or the defense industry?

defense contractor in DC here and part of the 70%...

 

[monovillage]

Im part of the 70%.

Yeah, I suppose I can go on record here to say that I oppose the use of American forces in Syria, including supplying the rebels with equipment.

 

[bshole]

Both the Bush and Obama regimes have made it unmistakeably clear that the American people don’t even influence, much less control, "their" government. My days of defending Obama ended when he pissed on America and involved us in this nonsense.


By the way, moveon.org has a petition up. Please sign it. I would like to see recall elections or something over this. It is the most outrageous, disgusting thing Obama has ever done. We have to stop him.

 

[Incorruptible]

Both the Bush and Obama regimes have made it unmistakeably clear that the American people don’t even influence, much less control, "their" government. My days of defending Obama ended when he pissed on America and involved us in this nonsense.


By the way, moveon.org has a petition up. Please sign it. I would like to see recall elections or something over this. It is the most outrageous, disgusting thing Obama has ever done. We have to stop him.

How could you even be foolish enough to vote for him in the first place? Anyone with with a reasonable level of intelligence knew he was no good. Just shows how stupid people are in this country.

 

[Kadarin]

70%er here. However, there's something to be said for giving the rebels just enough weapons to make it a stalemate so that both sides continue killing each other. Do we want Iran/Syria/Hezbollah to win, or do we want Al Qaida and other Islamic fundamentalists to win? There's just no good endgame here for the US.

 

[dainthomas]

we should be sending guns to syria, we just need to be sending them to the syrian government, not the terrorists

I'd post the BBC video of a village after Assad's troops raided it. Unfortunately, house after house of dead mothers holding their dead children is way too disturbing. But then again, they were probably terrorists.

 

[Genx87]

70%er here. However, there's something to be said for giving the rebels just enough weapons to make it a stalemate so that both sides continue killing each other. Do we want Iran/Syria/Hezbollah to win, or do we want Al Qaida and other Islamic fundamentalists to win? There's just no good endgame here for the US.

If Syria's regime wins it is a return to the status quo. How much have we honestly heard from Syria in the last decade? Before this civil war it was Israel that brought Syria into the news more than Syria when they bombed a potential nuclear site.

 

[nehalem256]

I'd post the BBC video of a village after Assad's troops raided it. Unfortunately, house after house of dead mothers holding their dead children is way too disturbing. But then again, they were probably terrorists.

Do you honestly have some irrational belief that in war people don't die?

But if you want to talk about disturbing videos how about the video of the rebels eating the hearts of people they kill?

 

[Jaskalas]

How could you even be foolish enough to vote for him in the first place?

Knock that crap off. I've been there, back in 2004. When both sides are !@#$ we look towards the "lesser of two evils" approach and support the side that offends us the least. Just human nature.

Takes a great deal of offensiveness to overcome the partisan divide, especially for those of us bathing in partisanship daily. Those of us willing to read and speak of politics get bridled into a "us VS them" mentality. Our side is excused because theirs "is worse". It's both a natural disaster and a master stroke by those leading our two parties who wish to take advantage of us.

If we want Civil Liberties. If we want State's Rights. If we want to stop arming terrorists. We have to stand tall and move beyond petty politics. Beyond the every day minutia which embroils us in partisanship. We have to form together and vote third party.

Failure to do so means we're just as guilty as those committing these crimes against our nation. We should not remain complicit by turning against ourselves. For if we do not organize against them, no one will.

 

[monovillage]

I'd post the BBC video of a village after Assad's troops raided it. Unfortunately, house after house of dead mothers holding their dead children is way too disturbing. But then again, they were probably terrorists.

Would it look any different from the way a village looks after the "rebels" raid it? Six of one and a half dozen of the other.

 

[Sonikku]

He should have just listened to McCain and stayed out of it. If only he had won the presidency instead of Obama.

 

[Incorruptible]

I'd post the BBC video of a village after Assad's troops raided it. Unfortunately, house after house of dead mothers holding their dead children is way too disturbing. But then again, they were probably terrorists.

Pretty pathetic you won't address the real terrorists who are linked to al-qaida which are the rebels.

They beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-fed-dogs-fears-grow-Islamist-atrocities.html

 

[dainthomas]

Do you honestly have some irrational belief that in war people don't die?

But if you want to talk about disturbing videos how about the video of the rebels eating the hearts of people they kill?

When a US soldier deliberately targeted women and children, we court martialed him and sent him to prison for life.

I somehow doubt the culprits in that case will face any repercussions. Unless somethow they are brought before a war crimes tribunal, but then those are usually a joke.

Both sides are a-holes I'm sure. But Oblama's comment about arming the government was ridiculous.

 

[woolfe9998]

Its a no win scenario because Obama chose to get involved.

The correct solution was to mind our own business.

He said, in effect, that we had two options: arming the rebels or not arming them (i.e. doing nothing), and both are bad because both sides are bad. I fail to see how our "involvement" thus far, which has consisted largely of condemning government actions and providing some humanitarian aid, has created that dilemma. If both sides are bad, they would still be bad even if we had said or done nothing.

 

[nehalem256]

Would it look any different from the way a village looks after the "rebels" raid it? Six of one and a half dozen of the other.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4971669/Putin-Syria-cannibals-warning.html

The villagers would have been nothing but bones after the rebels literally ate the flesh from their bodies.

 

[thraashman]

Pretty pathetic you won't address the real terrorists who are linked to al-qaida which are the rebels.

They beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-fed-dogs-fears-grow-Islamist-atrocities.html

And you have officially proven you are a complete piece of shit. Assad murders mothers and their babies and he's not a terrorist because the real terrorists are the ones who kill Christians. You show time and again how you only think Christians deserve rights and fuck everyone else. Seriously, you are the worst human being on these forums.

 

[Incorruptible]

And you have officially proven you are a complete piece of shit. Assad murders mothers and their babies and he's not a terrorist because the real terrorists are the ones who kill Christians. You show time and again how you only think Christians deserve rights and fuck everyone else. Seriously, you are the worst human being on these forums.

And you have officially proven you are a complete piece of shit

Did I say he wasn't a terrorist? NO. The poster I was responding to implied that the rebels weren't terrorists and I provided the evidence. I have attacked assad before but you're too stupid to understand this.

Using the deaths of innocent people to attack your political enemies is disgusting. Do you have no shame?

Only a complete moron like you would interpret my post as defending a dictator.

Keep acting like an internet toughguy. Seriously, you are the worst human being on these forums.

 

[ivwshane]

And you have officially proven you are a complete piece of shit

Did I say he wasn't a terrorist? NO. The poster I was responding to implied that the rebels weren't terrorists and I provided the evidence. I have attacked assad before but you're too stupid to understand this.

Using the deaths of innocent people to attack your political enemies is disgusting. Do you have no shame?

Only a complete moron like you would interpret my post as defending a dictator.

Keep acting like an internet toughguy. Seriously, you are the worst human being on these forums.

No, you are pretty much the biggest piece of shit on this forum. In fact I can always tell when you go on "vacation" because the quality of discourse always goes up when you aren't around.

 

[nehalem256]

He said, in effect, that we had two options: arming the rebels or not arming them (i.e. doing nothing), and both are bad because both sides are bad. I fail to see how our "involvement" thus far, which has consisted largely of condemning government actions and providing some humanitarian aid, has created that dilemma. If both sides are bad, they would still be bad even if we had said or done nothing.

His choice is bad because as you said both sides are bad.

There is nothing to be gain by backing either side. And if the side he picked to back comes out the loser what do you think the winning side will think of us?

 

[Fern]

Ironically you pose the situation as a no win, then criticize Obama for not being the great leader we need to choose from two decisions which will both yield bad results, according to your logic. What would your "great leader" do in your no win situation?

He would stay out of it.

Common sense alone dictates that you do not willingly and actively join a fight that is a 'no win' situation.

And loki8481 point about this being a potential slippery slope is valid.

Does anyone not realize that by Obama announcing aid to the rebels the other side (Iran, Russia etc.) will just step up their support for the Assad regime? What are we really trying to accomplishing here? What is our objective both short-term and long-term? Has this been thought out at all by this administration? I see no evidence it has.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

He would stay out of it.

Common sense alone dictates that you do not willingly and actively join a fight that is a 'no win' situation.

And loki8481 point about this being a potential slippery slope is valid.

Does anyone not realize that by Obama announcing aid to the rebels the other side (Iran, Russia etc.) will just step up there support for the Assad regime? What are we really trying to accomplishing here? What is our objective both short-term and long-term? Has this been thought out at all by this administration? I see no evidence it has.

Fern

Didn't Obama just meet with Putin to discuss Syria? I don't think there will be any Russia-USA issues.