[OPINION] What do you think about Obama and his stance on Syria?

[Fruity Insanity]

I don't want to really want to have a full-fledged "discussion" on this; I just want to hear what everybody else thinks about the whole situation.

In my opinion, I just think that Obama's taking things too far... I can (rather grudgingly) accept that America acts as the "world police," but I don't think America has to stick its nose into nearly every affair out there...

They should take away his Noble Peace Prize. Peace? Bah.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Fruit Ninja

[Blademaster!]

I think he's right in that if Syria has indeed used chemical weapons against their people action should be taken and we shouldn't ignore it, however starting another war/some kind of attack is wrong. The way things are currently panning out i.e. Syria is going to have their weapons taken away is the right way to go.

[Siegmund]

I feel like if we dont go people will yell at him for not taking action.

If we do go, people will yell at him for taking action.

There is no winning in the situation.

[Knight]

I agree with Siegmund. It's not right for a leader to use weapons against his own people, and Syria is in a state of incredible chaos. On the other hand, war doesn't come cheap, and if I were an American, that's something I'd be worried about, there's also the matter of "it's none of your business." People are going to complain no matter what course of action is taken, so I'm unsure as to what should happen.

[Redwall]

I don't want to really discuss this, per se. I just want to hear what everybody else thinks about the whole situation.

In my opinion, I just think that Obama's taking things too far... I can (rather grudgingly) accept that America acts as the "world police," but I don't think America has to stick its nose into nearly every affair out there...

I think it's preferable for Syria's chemical weapons to be seized without outright starting another war, which is the current plan.

also per se does not mean "necessarily"

[dondon151]

i don't understand drawing the line at chemical weapons. assad and his army have been killing syrians with and without the use of chemical weapons.

the US should mind its own business. so much of its defense budget can be used on education, technology, and healthcare instead.

Edited September 17, 2013 by dondon151

[FionordeQuester]

I'm kind of puzzled about the whole thing, to be honest. We're pulling out of the Middle East only to start another war somewhere else? What's the point in that?

[Fruity Insanity]

also per se does not mean "necessarily"

I was actually trying to use "per se" in its actual sense... but yeah, it doesn't fit the context... >_<

Edited September 17, 2013 by Fruit Ninja

[euklyd]

I feel like if we dont go people will yell at him for not taking action.

If we do go, people will yell at him for taking action.

There is no winning in the situation.

Not only that, he clearly stated that chemical weapons were a "red line", so if he does nothing, then that seems like it'd be cheapening any similar 'threats' he – or a later president – makes in the future.

But yeah, for the most part what Siegmund said.

Since you asked for a not-full-fledged discussion, I'm not gonna say much more. I think it would also be interesting to see how people in different parts of the world view matters differently (or not, as the case may be). I do know that opinion polls exist, but I'm wondering about people here.

I think my profile says so, but I'm in the US.

They should take away his Noble Peace Prize. Peace? Bah.

I would bet that he didn't want a Peace Prize in the first place, simply because of how constraining it could be perceived as as.

[Life]

What none of you seem to get is that America is this day and age's empire.

Think about it. American economics affects most (if not all) of the world and has been that way for years. If Air Jordans are popular, people in China get jobs to be able to mass produce more shoes. When Wall Street crashed in 1929, the effects were felt around the world. Stuff like that. Same idea with American policy.

So where does this factor into "policing the world"? Because it is America's job to manage their empire, which they have been doing since the end of WWI. In recent years, diplomacy and attempts to manage other countries has been a lot more noticeable but it is still the same as it used to be. At the end of the day, America policing the world is America thinking only about their own interests.

Compare America to the British Empire of ~150 years ago or the Roman Empire of 2000 years ago. Same area of influence, simply different times.

As for Obama, I personally think he ended up a coward. He talks a big game but never backs up his shit. I couldn't care less about him wanting to strike Syria or not but the posturing drove me crazy with the final announcement being even more retarded. Remember, his words affects my country's foreign and defense policy in the immediate area.

[Raven]

A will to support extremists of any culture/religion is a red flag against any leader in my books.

It's best to stay the fuck out of it. We saw what happened in other countries when their dictator leaders were taken out of power one way or another. Anything the US touches turns to ashes.

As for the current situation in Syria, it's recently apparently been confirmed that Syrian troops are responsible for the gas attacks. Whether it's an order of Assad or not, he's got some shit to explain and maybe heads within his own ranks to hunt. I have read Assad's brother is a bit of a rogue leader and would be capable of such things. Either way, I think the most the UN and USA should do is take control of any and all of Assad's chemical load. Then let him continue eradicating the muslim extremist scum as he has been doing thus far.

[Blademaster!]

As for the current situation in Syria, it's recently apparently been confirmed that Syrian troops are responsible for the gas attacks.

Source that presents actual proof?

[Life]

Source that presents actual proof?

Are you deliberately playing stupid? There's half a million news articles from the past week confirming this. The only reason why I'm not bringing one myself is because I need to pack for a flight that takes off in 4 hours.

EDIT: Remember, this is Intelligent Discussion. I like to assume that you know what you're talking about when you come here. The idea that the Syrian army used gas (as opposed to rebels who had no access to such weapons) isn't in question. The true question is whether Assad condoned the use of said weapons at the time or was entirely unaware. Keep in mind that the guy was responding to "we are going to attack the shit out of your country" when issuing his own public threats, not random slander in the media.

Try actually reading newspapers next time instead of Facebook articles.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Tricky Dick

[Phoenix Wright]

What none of you seem to get is that America is this day and age's empire.

why do you have to preface all of your posts with ego-stroking? settle down, m8.

So where does this factor into "policing the world"? Because it is America's job to manage their empire, which they have been doing since the end of WWI. In recent years, diplomacy and attempts to manage other countries has been a lot more noticeable but it is still the same as it used to be. At the end of the day, America policing the world is America thinking only about their own interests.

is this what you're trying to say?: every country is out for its own interests. the united states is simply on a different level of political and military power.

Compare America to the British Empire of ~150 years ago or the Roman Empire of 2000 years ago. Same area of influence, simply different times.

think of and write down however many parallels you can see between the three.

As for Obama, I personally think he ended up a coward. He talks a big game but never backs up his shit. I couldn't care less about him wanting to strike Syria or not but the posturing drove me crazy with the final announcement being even more retarded. Remember, his words affects my country's foreign and defense policy in the immediate area.

america's an empire, baby! any big game he talks can be backed up more easily and efficiently than that of any other nation. the factors lie elsewhere in the decision-making process. "should i, obama make this decision? why or why not?"

anything is game for the US, bro. apparently.

Remember, this is Intelligent Discussion.

correction, this is "srs discussion." ignorance is no stranger in these fields, my friend. asking for legitimate proof of something is also totally within bounds of srs discussion, and is actually a smart thing to ask for.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[amadeuscho]

Well first of all, regardless of your stance, I think you should find gaffe-diplomacy hilarious. John Kerry says one thing "Syria could hand over all its weapons" and immediately retracts it an interview. And yet, Putin jumps on it and decides to make it happen. Hilarious.

I do think whatever we should do would be better with the consent of congress, rather than executive branch deciding everything. Hell, it would be nice if we would official declare war instead of those lame authorizations of force. If someone bombed us, I'm pretty sure we would consider that an act of war.

It looks like we have averted action for now, so long as the deal works out. However, I would support action if all diplomatic efforts were extinguished. It is clear from the gaffe diplomacy that the diplomatic efforts were not all used.

[Blademaster!]

I like to assume that you know what you're talking about when you come here.

And I'd like to assume the same of you, since if you had been reading any articles about the situation for the past few weeks as you'd claim, you'd know that the Obama administration has been heavily criticized over the fact that they never presented any actual proof that the Syrian Army had ever used chemical weapons at all and have merely said multiple times "We have proof, but we won't show anyone." To further add to this, if you had also been reading such news articles, you'd know that there are claims that the rebels were accused of being responsible for the recent attack by eyewitnesses on the scene, and have accused of using chemical weapons in the past. From just a simple google search, you get this:

http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/actual-video-footage-of-syrian-rebels-launching-chemical-weapons.html

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-proof-syria-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-004613934.html

But I guess a UN official making such accusations about rebel forces along with eyewitness claims are about as reliable as a Facebook blog. And last I checked, the UN still didn't say who was responsible for the recent attack, just that chemical weapons were indeed used.

[Rehab]

The Syrian people have been completely left out to dry. The whole world bears responsibility for having done so little, for standing by and watching as a butcher effectively destroyed what was a relatively high-functioning country over peaceful protests, and created 2 million refugees who we're not doing nearly enough to aid. Especially given that they're beginning to throw Syria's neighbors off-balance, not because they're bad people but because nobody knows what to do with them.

I definitely take no pride in the history of the U.S. military-industrial complex, how it has bases everywhere, how it has propped up shitty leaders for the sake of "its interests" for decades or any of that shit, particularly not with its history in the Arab world. I understand why both people from both other countries and the U.S. would want the U.S. to try harder to avoid stomping around like it owns everything. I also think getting the U.S., or even any non-Syrian parties directly involved in combat is definitely not the best option, if viewed in the context of "all the ways they could have ended up responding to the problem when it first rose its head." I do not consider myself a hawk, in general.

But over a hundred thousand people are dead, two million people have been forced to flee the country, and even more than that have had their lives uprooted and are still there, all because of just how badly this asshole responded to secular student protests. Shit like a university getting bombed while exams were going on happens regularly.

There's a Syrian refugee camp near a Jordanian city that has a bigger population than that actual city. Last I heard, they're going nowhere right now, and Jordanians look on them as untrustworthy parasites (not that I'd probably be all sunshine if I were a small country and like a million people with literally nowhere else to go camped out on my yard, and begged me for shit like water and electricity that I only had so much of even before they got there, but anyway). Hearing about that place makes the idea that this is something the Syrian people can only solve themselves sound ridiculous to me.

Some strategic analyses make a strike sound like a good idea (or rather, made it sound like it might've been a good idea weeks ago, putting the diplomatic game of Twister Obama's gotten into over it recently aside). I don't doubt many would say and have said the opposite. But I haven't heard much of anything to persuade me that doing nothing would be a good or remotely tenable idea for anybody.

At this point, if I'm honest, I haven't a clue if a strike would be the best worst option. I'd really rather just have the dire need for humanitarian aid be somehow addressed more than anything else, but I don't know how much can be done to actually help with that napalm fucker still at it. (not saying so rhetorically, I literally do not know)

And I'd like to assume the same of you, since if you had been reading any articles about the situation for the past few weeks as you'd claim, you'd know that the Obama administration has been heavily criticized over the fact that they never presented any actual proof that the Syrian Army had ever used chemical weapons at all and have merely said multiple times "We have proof, but we won't show anyone." To further add to this, if you had also been reading such news articles, you'd know that there are claims that the rebels were accused of being responsible for the recent attack by eyewitnesses on the scene, and have accused of using chemical weapons in the past. From just a simple google search, you get this:

http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/
http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/actual-video-footage-of-syrian-rebels-launching-chemical-weapons.html
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-proof-syria-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-004613934.html

But I guess a UN official making such accusations about rebel forces along with eyewitness claims are about as reliable as a Facebook blog. And last I checked, the UN still didn't say who was responsible for the recent attack, just that chemical weapons were indeed used.

Look at who the accusations that the FSA were the ones to use them are coming from

IIRC the rebels don't have control over the manufacturing areas, and they didn't have an airforce or long-range capabilities of any sort last I checked

I think we can be safe assuming here

Edited September 17, 2013 by Rehab

[euklyd]

Oh wow, Rehab just said basically everything (90+%) I wanted to say except more eloquently than I would have, and in half as many words.

I salute you, sir.

But I guess a UN official making such accusations about rebel forces along with eyewitness claims are about as reliable as a Facebook blog. And last I checked, the UN still didn't say who was responsible for the recent attack, just that chemical weapons were indeed used.

Articles such this one place get very close to blaming the Syrian gov't troops, and I assume such articles are what Mr. Nixon Tricky Dick was referring to.

[dondon151]

The Syrian people have been completely left out to dry. The whole world bears responsibility for having done so little, for standing by and watching as a butcher effectively destroyed what was a relatively high-functioning country over peaceful protests, and created 2 million refugees who we're not doing nearly enough to aid. Especially given that they're beginning to throw Syria's neighbors off-balance, not because they're bad people but because nobody knows what to do with them.

it does not follow from whatever tragedy is happening in syria that the whole world is responsible for it. tragedies happen every day in many places, and most of those we either don't care about or don't hear about.

[Rehab]

Then maybe our government ought to stop acting like it gives a shit about anything. Maybe we ought to shut the fuck up about "American interests," (with regards to what's going on in anywhere else in the world but America) if we can barely allocate one percent of one percent of our 3.5 trillion dollar budgets to foreign aid. Maybe we ought to take all our fancy "most advanced in the world" military toys and bases all over the world and tear them the fuck down and bring everybody there home, if all we're going to do when a hundred thousand people die, and over forty times that in addition have their lives completely fucked up at once, is say, "hey, cut that out, Babbit," for two years.

"Fun" tidbit: I heard in some Bill Moyers and Co.? IIRC? interview that Afghanistan sent $100,000 in disaster aid to the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina. A relatively tiny country, that we invaded, sent aid to not only an industrialized nation but the richest in the world, after a little less than two thousand people died. Syrian refugees are simply not getting that "aid from all over the world" kind of attention, when on the whole they constitute a much bigger problem, and I think it'd be kind of hilarious if it weren't so jaw-droppingly horrible.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Rehab

[dondon151]

Then maybe our government ought to stop acting like it gives a shit about anything. Maybe we ought to shut the fuck up about "American interests," (with regards to what's going on in anywhere else in the world but America) if we can barely allocate one percent of one percent of our 3.5 trillion dollar budgets to foreign aid. Maybe we ought to take all our fancy "most advanced in the world" military toys and bases all over the world and tear them the fuck down and bring everybody there home, if all we're going to do when a hundred thousand people die, and over forty times that in addition have their lives completely fucked up at once, is say, "hey, cut that out, Babbit," for two years.

i don't have a problem with acting selfish (which is presumably why the US military pursues its "interests" elsewhere), but most of that spending is wasteful. i don't disagree with bringing the military home, though i suspect that you brought that up as a point of absurdity rather than as a serious suggestion.

"Fun" tidbit: I heard in some Bill Moyers and Co.? IIRC? interview that Afghanistan sent $100,000 in disaster aid to the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina. A relatively tiny country, that we invaded, sent aid to not only an industrialized nation but the richest in the world, after a little less than two thousand people died. Syrian refugees are simply not getting that "aid from all over the world" kind of attention, when on the whole they constitute a much bigger problem, and I think it'd be kind of hilarious if it weren't so jaw-droppingly horrible.

the difference between sending aid to katrina or other disaster victims and "sending aid" to political victims is that helping disaster victims is purely altruistic while helping political victims entails a bunch of posturing about ulterior motives. if the US helps to depose assad, we're going to want to establish a government that espouses traditional western (i.e., secular) values and is friendly to the western world. while i personally think that is a great thing, unfortunately, rival countries such as russia don't want this to happen for the sake of their own interests, and the rest of the muslim world will undoubtedly grow increasingly agitated by the power wielded by whom they presume to be barbarians and infidels.

[Rehab]

I'll admit I brought it up in a flippant manner, but that's because I'm exasperated more than because I want to push a point for the sake of being an asshole, sorry that I didn't guard harder against that. I'd seriously rather not see the U.S. projecting so much military power all over the world in foreign lands, both because I think at least some of the resources devoted to it could probably be better spent elsewhere and in that I think it's presumptive to call our interests, but I think it's doubly foolish to have all that power and then do nothing with it in a situation like this, because it doesn't even make sense by the logic of the people who want to project force everywhere.

With regards to what I actually think about the idea that "bad shit happens everywhere, and most people can't and don't care about every little bit of it when doesn't affect them directly, nor should they force it," I feel that undersells how bad this is. Most tragedies are things that a society can at least try to tackle; there's no such thing as a plane crash, or a shooting, or a riot that doesn't matter at all, but all those things can at least see a response when society in which it occurs has things like civil service, infrastructure, industry, and rule of law in place, to simplify it.

I don't think this is on that level. Calling it a tragedy is an understatement; in this case, an entire large country has disintegrated. The things that might've been in place to deal with it aren't just non-functional but effectively destroyed, and the people fleeing have spilled out into other countries. They literally can't be ignored by the rest of the world without it getting worse as a result, and it's already becoming a strain on the resources of additional countries. So not only can Syrians not deal with it by themselves, but its neighbors can't even properly deal with the fallout by themselves. How bad does it have to get?

[dondon151]

I don't think this is on that level. Calling it a tragedy is an understatement; in this case, an entire large country has disintegrated. The things that might've been in place to deal with it aren't just non-functional but effectively destroyed, and the people fleeing have spilled out into other countries. They literally can't be ignored by the rest of the world without it getting worse as a result, and it's already becoming a strain on the resources of additional countries. So not only can Syrians not deal with it by themselves, but its neighbors can't even properly deal with the fallout by themselves. How bad does it have to get?

my point was that there are many large-scale "tragedies" of the same sort taking places in other parts of the world that we don't bat an eyelash at. half of africa (slight exaggeration) suffers from genocide, religious wars, and political unstability. it becomes a big deal every now and then when someone brings it up, like when there's a fundraiser for darfur or the recent KONY 2012 campaign, but most of the time no one thinks about it - and even when it is brought up, most people would think "oh my god, that's outrageous" and proceed to carry on with their daily lives.

i also believe that negligence on the part of governments is as equally detrimental as slaughter. so although you say that there are many tragedies in the world that can be mitigated by a social response, the fact of the matter is that governments in less developed countries are either unwilling or at least unable to respond adequately. at least in the US, when an event like a public shooting occurs, at least we are willing to have a dialogue about how to curtail it in the future (though much remains to be said for any substantial action). but, say, in a muslim country, if a group of girls burn to death in a building fire, no one cares enough to revise building codes.

[Rehab]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-chemical-weapons-inspectors-arrive-in-beirut-on-their-way-back-to-syria/2013/09/25/e0605eee-25a8-11e3-9372-92606241ae9c_story_1.html

11 of the biggest armed Syrian rebel factions, which claim to represent 75 percent of all rebel forces fighting to topple Assad, broke with the Syrian National coalition (the Turkey-based political arm of the Free Syrian Army) yesterday, and announced the creation of an alliance dedicated to creating an Islamic state. In explaining their decision, group leaders cited disappointment with anemic levels of Western support. (for reference, the first shipment of U.S. arms, promised like a year ago or something, just got there less than a week ago). For many rebels, the realization that even a chemical weapons attack would not trigger military intervention by the West has led to more radicalization.

(I'm mad, not that it matters)

Edited September 26, 2013 by Rehab

[Guest meibum]

Are people really surprised that Obama is no different than every previous American President? oh,..

America makes money off war. What else is there to say?