Poll: Should the U.S Attack Syria?

[Jason]

I think its important to realize that Russia and China are no threat to the US. Sure they both have nukes, but it would be suicide to actually use the nuclear option. Both countries don't have the means to thwart US forces and they both know it. Sure China has the largest manned army in the world, but what good are a bunch of men if you can't take them from point A to point B. China just purchased its first air craft carrier a while back, and it was an older version that needed serious updating. The US's defense budget and forces are larger then the next 10 largest countries added together. So trust me, no country in their right mind would ever want to "actually" go to war with the US.

 

[Jason]

Well does anybody really care for anybody. I am pretty much sure that Russia doesnt care any more or less for Syria than the USA really cared for the people of Iraq under Sadam. Its all a game really. A silly but dangerous one.

Although saying that, Russia has to care for its allies to the degree that it cant keep letting them down and still retain allies.

World politics is ruthless and if countries think Russia is weak they would side with the USA even if deep down they despised them.

Like I say I dont back any government but right now if I have to prefer Russia as a vain attempt to stop Western hegemony then I will.

The truth of the matter Gary is we have no clue as to why governments do what they do. Why they make the decisions they make or what they are trying to gain from those decisions. Or even what goes into making those decisions. We get the filtered version via the media, and I learned that a long time ago. Its above our pay grade to be honest with you. No one fears Russia as a military option, nor do they fear China Gary. That an honest opinion. But at the end of the day it all boils down to money and power, and who gets what. Thats what all of this is truly about

 

[Gary Cook]

The truth of the matter Gary is we have no clue as to why governments do what they do. Why they make the decisions they make or what they are trying to gain from those decisions. Or even what goes into making those decisions. We get the filtered version via the media, and I learned that a long time ago.

Indeed. I dont even understand why people question that fact.

 

[Jason]

Well does anybody really care for anybody

Indeed. I dont even understand why people question that fact.

Honestly Gary, most people don't question the "fact" because we all have our lives to live, and as long as it doesn't affect our "lives" there's usually no point in questioning it. There's no point in questioning it because we already know its not the whole truth, but we also know the "whole" truth isn't very far from what we're being told. An analogy to this might be when you took you parents car out for the night, and you told them you went to the boardwalk. But you decided to leave out the fact that you stopped for dinner, picked up a girl and dropped her off, and got pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (but only got a warning). Sometimes its just easier to leave out all the noise, especially when dealing with the public. The easier truth is often the best truth...

 

[Gary Cook]

Honestly Gary, most people don't question the "fact" because we all have our lives to live, and as long as it doesn't affect our "lives" there's usually no point in questioning it. There's no point in questioning it because we already know its not the whole truth, but we also know the "whole" truth isn't very far from what we're being told. An analogy to this might be when you took you parents car out for the night, and you told them you went to the boardwalk. But you decided to leave out the fact that you stopped for dinner, picked up a girl and dropped her off, and got pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (but only got a warning). Sometimes its just easier to leave out all the noise, especially when dealing with the public. The easier truth is often the best truth...

True. Although with me I am just sickened with all the violence. The lies are there but are secondary for me.

 

[Jason]

True. Although with me I am just sickened with all the violence. The lies are there but are secondary for me.

Well get used to it Gary, its nothing new. There hasn't been a time in earth's history since humans walked onto the scene where there hasn't been war, violence, and crimes against humanity. Its who we are, not all of us, not even most of us, but the people in power calling the shots surely can be.... Its even in the earliest records of human civilization from the kuran to the holy bible. It's nothing new Gary. So long as we don't look the other way when it happens, and people join together to do the right thing.

 

[Gary Cook]

Well get used to it Gary, its nothing new. There hasn't been a time in earth's history since humans walked onto the scene where there hasn't been war, violence, and crimes against humanity. Its who we are, not all of us, not even most of us, but the people in power calling the shots surely can be.... Its even in the earliest records of human civilization from the kuran to the holy bible. It's nothing new Gary. So long as we don't look the other way when it happens, and people join together to do the right thing.

I dont want to get in to it here because it would not be fair on admin etc but there are ways we can virtually eradicate violence. Much like how a lot of diseases are. It doesnt have to be part of our culture. Apart from of course the random nutters that cant help themselves but they will be so few in number we can deal with their randomness quite easily. Violence seems to be an integral part of the way our system is built by design but I could speak about this a million times on a million different threads and that wouldnt be fair.

 

[deirdre]

I dont want to get in to it here because it would not be fair on admin etc but there are ways we can virtually eradicate violence. Much like how a lot of diseases are. It doesnt have to be part of our culture. Apart from of course the random nutters that cant help themselves but they will be so few in number we can deal with their randomness quite easily. Violence seems to be an integral part of the way our system is built by design but I could speak about this a million times on a million different threads and that wouldnt be fair.

it's harder to get people to change their habits then you might think.

 

[NoParty]

I've got two comments to add to this thread, and I'm deliberately not responding
to any specific poster…I'm not overtly disagreeing with anybody in particular, here:

A) I understand and share the feeling about there being nothing acceptable about
killing innocents via "traditional" (non-chemical) methods. I totally "get" the argument
that "dead is dead, so why should chemical methods be responded to more quickly?"

On the other hand, though, most of humanity seems to have felt that there was just something a bit more evil about these methods…The Hague Convention of 1899 addressed
this sentiment http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-02.asp
a generation before the more famous condemnations beginning in 1915 after the
Germans began using chloride in WWI. It is an especially grotesque manner of killing
that many find especially reprehensible.

B) What the U.N. and International Law may say might be interesting, but if anyone
really believes that--if the U.S. believed it was in its best interest to attack Syria--
the U.S. would be restrained by the U.N. or International Law, well, history does
not support that scenario. Neither Reagan (Nicaragua in 1986) nor Bush [43] (Irag in 2003)
did much more than politely wave at that U.N. as they ignored the U.N.'s wishes.

 

[Gary Cook]

it's harder to get people to change their habits then you might think.

It may be less hard than you think. It is all relative isnt it.

 

[Gary Cook]

I've got two comments to add to this thread, and I'm deliberately not responding
to any specific poster…I'm not overtly disagreeing with anybody in particular, here:

A) I understand and share the feeling about there being nothing acceptable about
killing innocents via "traditional" (non-chemical) methods. I totally "get" the argument
that "dead is dead, so why should chemical methods be responded to more quickly?"

On the other hand, though, most of humanity seems to have felt that there was just something a bit more evil about these methods…The Hague Convention of 1899 addressed
this sentiment http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-02.asp
a generation before the more famous condemnations beginning in 1915 after the
Germans began using chloride in WWI. It is an especially grotesque manner of killing
that many find especially reprehensible.

B) What the U.N. and International Law may say might be interesting, but if anyone
really believes that--if the U.S. believed it was in its best interest to attack Syria--
the U.S. would be restrained by the U.N. or International Law, well, history does
not support that scenario. Neither Reagan (Nicaragua in 1986) nor Bush [43] (Irag in 2003)
did much more than politely wave at that U.N. as they ignored the U.N.'s wishes.

Good point about the UN. I agree it wouldnt stop most politicians. They just see it as a guideline more than an actual rule. Same as the Magna Carta etc etc. But hey, that's surely the only possible outcome when people are voted in that do not even have to keep their election promises. I dont even think that is a political digression. It is hard science.

 

[Mick West]

This thread is devolving into a general politics thread and is being paused.