User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Invade Syria.

  1. #1
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default Invade Syria.

    Why haven't we already? Now that there's reasonable cause to know they've used chemical weapons, there is adequate leverage to justify action to the other members of the UN.

    How can we be, on one hand, saying that we should not be involved in matters such as this, and on the other hand so gung-ho with the recent anti-bullying sentiment? Some people don't like war. I get that. But your inability to separate your feelings from making the right choices is why you do not belong in the military, not why the military should not be involved.

    Some say, it's too costly. It is expensive, true, but if we really are a country that sees everyone as equal, then should not the preservation of human life trump some of our marginally effective government programs? We can't throw out the need to take action because the way action has been taken in the past needed improvement.

    And then, some say they don't even want us there. True, some do not. Then again, it is more that those people are just the same as the people in the US who do not believe in military action is necessary against militant oppression. Some actually believe they were better off under the oppression of international dictators. Stockholm syndrome much? This is, again, falsely confusing the method taken in the past (which anyone can agree needs improvement) with the need for some action in the first place.

    Funnily enough, those die-hard, crusty and senile 'nam veterans are right when they say liberals are castrating the country, because thanks to the criticisms of military effort in the past decade we're now afraid to engage in more military action despite it's obvious justification.

    Why take the path of cowardice? Mistakes happen. War is not neat and tidy like your matching set of Ikea furniture. That doesn't mean we should stand by and let bullying happen on an international scale.

  2. #2
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    You're assuming it's about cowardice.. then expecting a response to that.

    Maybe ask the question without answering it for other people.

    My dad is a Nam era veteran btw. He doesn't give a shit about Syria.

  3. #3
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Let some other nation send her soldiers.

  4. #4
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Let some other nation send her soldiers.
    How political of you. Either way, I agree they should. How many can they send, though? How many are prepared for the correct course of action needed in Syria? Not that many. Last I checked the US military is 100% staffed by volunteers.

    We should take our lessons learned in the Iraq occupation and apply them. The solution lies somewhere between full military infrastructure (which is too cumbersome, vulnerable, and expensive) and the tactics used by the US Army Green Berets who infiltrate and strengthen the victims by training them. Syria is a prime opportunity for such a thing, just on a larger scale than what's been done in the past.

  5. #5
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    AFAIK;

    1. Chemical weapons have not yet been confirmed
    2. Independent confirmation has not been provided
    3. It's unsure which side has actually used weapons, if such weapons have been used
    4. This is civil warfare; any external support for a regime would have to be carefully thought out. Same reason it wasn't actively acted on during the 'Arab Spring'
    5. Intervention is very likely (white house statement) if chemical weapons were used


    Why haven't we already?
    Because life isn't as simple as it seems. And it just happened. And it's been state by the WH that chemical weapons is a line in which intervention needs to happen.

    It's not (castration orientated) liberals, it's not the cost, it's not stockholm syndrome.

    ---
    (All of this based on what I have been following; I could of missed an update since the whitehouse and international bodies released their statements.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    There's a larger push from both conservative and liberal wings to not be as interventionist as we have in the past. Not every conservative is a NeoCon. And it's not as simple as one side being full of pussies either. Hell, at one time it was liberals that pushed these same agendas (starting with Woodrow Wilson), while conservatives were isolationist. Both these dems and modern neocons think it's America's obligation to spread democracy. That's the only thing worth debating. Not who is "tough enough" or not. Isolationists think it's a waste of time, and we should just "protect what democracy there is". Now the isolationist wing is popping up more and more. Some with the biggest platforms they've ever had (Rand Paul).

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    You're assuming it's about cowardice.. then expecting a response to that.

    Maybe ask the question without answering it for other people.
    I have to agree with this statement.

    If not invading Syria is equivalent to cowardice, then we should be invading many more countries. Remember, Iraq used chemical warfare and we feared during the Kuwait invasion that they may use it against our troops. However, chemical warfare wasn't constituted as a basis for the Iraq War.

    The problem with interventionism has always been where to draw the line. If we invade Syria, should we also invade North Korea and Iran?

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Hell, at one time it was liberals that pushed these same agendas (starting with Woodrow Wilson), while conservatives were isolationist.
    Woodrow Wilson was an interesting one. His quote on "making the world safe for democracy" was telling in that he didn't push for the world to be made democratic. His ideology was far more preemptive than interventionist. However, it is interesting to watch those on both the right and the left embrace forms of interventionism (then protest when people they don't like start such wars, hah).
    "Never think one can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." - Someone Brilliant

  8. #8
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I just watched the Hobbit btw. It's kind of like the difference between Elves and Dwarves.

    I'm torn

  9. #9
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pathos View Post
    I have to agree with this statement.

    If not invading Syria is equivalent to cowardice, then we should be invading many more countries. Remember, Iraq used chemical warfare and we feared during the Kuwait invasion that they may use it against our troops. However, chemical warfare wasn't constituted as a basis for the Iraq War.

    If we invade Syria, should we also invade North Korea and Iran?
    Not invading isn't necessarily cowardice. Knowing the right thing to do and not doing it for fear of repeating mistakes we made in past occupations is, just like bravery is being afraid and doing the right thing anyways. The 'liberal castration' is that if we go down that slippery slope, eventually we'll be unwilling to do anything because the inevitable losses are not digestible. And maybe it's not stockholm syndrome (I was joking) but it's akin to saying "let's go back to Egypt", people are prone to overemphasizing present discomfort and underestimated past discomfort.


    Iran and N. Korea are not in a state of bloodshed so no, that wouldn't be necessary. If Iran doesn't obey UN sanctions, then military action should be taken but it would not really require invasion. N. Korea is all bark and no bite... I would be very surprised if we ever needed to put boots on the ground over there.

  10. #10
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Many of the arguments are in fact that it's not the right thing to do. America's become a sort of "meddling grandma", wanting you to eat her Apple Pie, squeezing your cheeks... insisting that "you'll love it", and not leaving until she gets her way. "The right thing" to do sometimes is tell grandma to STFU. Maybe grandma should be more like grandpa, hang out in the garage alone, and tinker with his own bullshit.

Similar Threads

  1. ENFP Invader! :>
    By CandyGallery in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-11-2010, 10:54 PM
  2. Invader Zim
    By Mr. Sherlock Holmes in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-12-2010, 11:22 PM
  3. Invader ZIM
    By Ratsimoan in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-11-2010, 05:38 PM
  4. Being invaded
    By Amargith in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 03:46 AM
  5. Bible Toys Invade Wal-Mart
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 12:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO