DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic As I may have pointed out before, this President isn't nearly as good as the last one, when it comes to getting Congress (or our allies for that matter) to dance along to his little tune. I almost wonder if he doesn't want it to fail, so he can dodge the whole situation, and go back to blaming others for what he isn't very good at. Your previous President, was a lying shit, along with Tony Blair. The agenda to remove Saddam was always on the cards from day one. Both men clearly knew how dubious the intel was. That is beyond dispute. Personally, I prefer the route Obama and Cameron have taken, letting the politicians have a say on the issue. The question for both the US and UK should not be did Assad use chemical weapons, as it is beyond doubt he has, given they have been used on a dozen occassions. We need to ask the following, none of which can be answered by a simple yes/no imho. 1) Would the civilians in Syria be any better off after a strike ? << Probably, at least in the short term 2) Would the West be happy to see an Islamist regime in Syria << Probably not, especially on the Israeli borders 3) Should we retaliate as a deterence to other nations against using chemical weapons << NO, in my view each case should be treated on its own merits I keep reading about letting the UN powers act........ In actuality the only powers that could act, are the same ones that always veto any action...The security counsel. The middle east is split on the issue, our friends the Saudis and the Qataris are arming the Islamists. The Russians are arming Assad. Simply put, there are no easy answers, since none will produce an outcome acceptable to all sides. Should the livelihood of Syrian civilians really be an international concern? I'm not sure it should be. Without there being UN resolutions, who truly has the authority to go into another sovereign nation and make changes? It would be one thing if there was a "mentor" relationship between Syria and another country. The mentor country would have that authority, but who does that? You can say we're doing this for the good of the civilians, but at what point is the "good of the civilians" not enough to draw intervention? Do we stay out of Darfur because there were no chemical weapons used (Syria), or the Air Force wasn't being used (Libya)? Do we turn a blind eye to the government murder of Irani civilians who are protesting the evils of their own government? Does the US not having universal coverage, single payer, national healthcare, etc. constitute a large enough breach of human rights violations to constitute an intervention? Without a UN resolution authorizing the international community to get involved, I don't see there being any authorization for the international community to get involved. What we could do is deploy our troops to our allies and station them so as to protect their borders. Once tension has calmed, we can draw down to current levels. That would also prevent arms from getting into the wrong hands since we are only arming our own military. We aren't arming the rebels to have them turn around and use them against us (Afghanistan anti-communist rebels end up being the al Qaeda we hunt down). We aren't installing a puppet government that we eventually go back and remove (Iraq), or simply oppose (Iran). If one of our ally countries is attacked, we already have presence and can repel the invasion and protect their borders. Who has the authority, other than the UN, to dictate how Assad (mis)treats his citizens?
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|