Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Why Kerry Wants to Strike Syria?

Hybrid View

  1. -1
    BAMAPHIN 22's Avatar
    FinHeaven Elite

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    19,668
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Huntsville, AL
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Why Kerry Wants to Strike Syria?

    The Kerry camp’s argument breaks down as follows:
    1. Rwanda. The administration can’t sit idly by as the civil war claims hundreds of victims a day. The official U.S. position is that we feel very bad about what happened in Rwanda in 1994, so we shouldn’t let this sort of thing happen again (Samantha Power, Obama’s nominee for United Nations ambassador, has popularized the idea that “Never Again,” in practice, has meant only that, “Never again we will allow the Germans to kill the Jews in the 1940s.”) It is true that while Syria civil war might not yet possess the characteristics of genocide, the humanitarian imperative here is profound.
    2. For negotiations to work, the regime of Bashar al-Assad must feel that its existence is threatened. This might be the most important point, or at least the most immediately relevant one. Kerry wants upcoming peace talks in Geneva to work. In order for that to happen, he believes that the playing field in Syria must be leveled; in recent days, regime forces, which now include the Iranian proxy Hezbollah, have been swatting back the rebels with comparative ease. Airstrikes, and other U.S. measures, would provide the regime with the incentive to sit down and talk. There is no reason to talk compromise with the opposition when you are winning. This is true even for people who aren’t psychopathic mass murderers.
    3. Whether we like it or not, we are in a conflict with Iran, and our credibility is on the line. Obama seems eager to exit the Middle East. Most foreign policy experts, up to and including the secretary of state, believe that there is no hiding from its problems. The U.S. must play a leadership role in the Mideast or the vacuum left by its departure will be filled by radicals, of both the Shiite and Sunni varieties. It is true, as Dempsey has argued, that there is no exit strategy for Syria (in part because there’s not much of an entrance strategy, either), but the U.S. will soon face even bigger problems in the region if it doesn’t intervene now. Kerry understands the price of intervention. This is the lesson of Iraq. But he has also argued that there is a price to be paid for nonintervention.
    4. We made a promise. President Obama threatened unspecified, but dire-sounding, action against Assad if he deployed chemical weapons (or even if he shifted them around). Assad has both moved chemical weapons and used them. U.S. intelligence estimates are that 150 people have been killed by them so far. When Obama made his promise, no one thought that his reaction to the use of chemical weapons would be: Let’s send the rebels a bunch of rifles and ammunition. There was a general expectation of something more serious, and Kerry believes that the serious consequence of chemical weapons use should be airstrikes against regime airfields.
    5. The Israelis did it, and so can we. Kerry himself, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t made this argument to the generals -- knowing, I assume, that it would, if nothing else, irritate them like nothing else. But others in the interventionist camp have raised the issue. Israel, has struck at Syrian targets three times recently, using standoff weapons fired from over the border. Israel thinks that it made its point: There will be consequences if Syria transfers weapons and delivery systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Dempsey, in the White House situation room last week, argued that in order to launch an effective attack on regime targets, the U.S. would have to first suppress Syria’s air-defense system, which would require at least 700 sorties. Interventionists tend to believe that the Pentagon -- and the White House -- are using this an excuse for inaction.
    One through line you will notice in all of this: a belief, on the part of Kerry and others, that passivity has a price. The Pentagon and the president, however, believe that they are being prudent, not passive.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ike-syria.html
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    Gonzo's Avatar
    Administrator

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2004
    Posts:
    20,845
    vCash:
    20615
    Loc:
    Brooklyn
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Hydra logo
Gift received at 05-21-2014, 12:20 PM from DisturbedShifty1972 Dolphins Logo
    7. There is no difference between the "libs" and the "cons" in Washington, but they absolutely love that you think there is. War baby! Stimulate that corporate cli..."economy."





    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,825
    vCash:
    5030
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo View Post
    7. There is no difference between the "libs" and the "cons" in Washington, but they absolutely love that you think there is. War baby! Stimulate that corporate cli..."economy."
    The only liberal candidate I can think of off the top of my head in Washington is Elizabeth Warren. Democrats here are center-right, while Republicans are just farther right. Liberals just vote Democrat because they align more closely on social issues than Republicans do. I'd love to see how bad the right would freak out if a true liberal were running. I already see the hate Elizabeth Warren gets by the right here, I can only imagine if she was an actual candidate...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    The only liberal candidate I can think of off the top of my head in Washington is Elizabeth Warren. Democrats here are center-right, while Republicans are just farther right. Liberals just vote Democrat because they align more closely on social issues than Republicans do. I'd love to see how bad the right would freak out if a true liberal were running. I already see the hate Elizabeth Warren gets by the right here, I can only imagine if she was an actual candidate...
    i would never say anything bad about elizabeth warren. after all, she is 1/100th cherokee indian. i would never insult someone of my same heritage.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,825
    vCash:
    5030
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    i would never say anything bad about elizabeth warren. after all, she is 1/100th cherokee indian. i would never insult someone of my same heritage.


    You joke about that, but I hear it all the time here. With people being dead serious about it. If you're a member of the Navajo nation, you get a monthly stipend from the tribe. You have to prove that you are at least 1/8th Navajo or something along those lines. So you get some of the whitest people you've seen in your life coming forward and claiming to be part native. Though the last girl I dated before I married Nina was as white as you can imagine, and she was a verified member of the tribe. Laws on the reservations are weird to say the least...
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    Gonzo's Avatar
    Administrator

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2004
    Posts:
    20,845
    vCash:
    20615
    Loc:
    Brooklyn
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Hydra logo
Gift received at 05-21-2014, 12:20 PM from DisturbedShifty1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post


    You joke about that, but I hear it all the time here. With people being dead serious about it. If you're a member of the Navajo nation, you get a monthly stipend from the tribe. You have to prove that you are at least 1/8th Navajo or something along those lines. So you get some of the whitest people you've seen in your life coming forward and claiming to be part native. Though the last girl I dated before I married Nina was as white as you can imagine, and she was a verified member of the tribe. Laws on the reservations are weird to say the least...
    Not 1/8th or I'd qualify as Navajo. My step-brothers get the benefits at 1/4th. Not sure what the cut off is, at least for educational benefits.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post


    You joke about that, but I hear it all the time here. With people being dead serious about it. If you're a member of the Navajo nation, you get a monthly stipend from the tribe. You have to prove that you are at least 1/8th Navajo or something along those lines. So you get some of the whitest people you've seen in your life coming forward and claiming to be part native. Though the last girl I dated before I married Nina was as white as you can imagine, and she was a verified member of the tribe. Laws on the reservations are weird to say the least...
    I've heard that. Im have a tan complextion but I would never be confused for a Native American. My great grandmother was full blooded (I think that makes me 1/8). I always give my wife **** because she pulled the Spanish card to get a grant for tuition at fsu. Even though she doesn't speak a lick of Spanish.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    Harry_Bagpipe's Avatar
    Archibald Meatpants

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,968
    vCash:
    6881
    Loc:
    Fort lauderdale
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Snakes!Dolphins HomerDolphin
    I've got a 1/4 of awesomeness. If someone should be getting paid its me.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,748
    vCash:
    14295
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Why Kerry Wants to Strike Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    The only liberal candidate I can think of off the top of my head in Washington is Elizabeth Warren. Democrats here are center-right, while Republicans are just farther right. Liberals just vote Democrat because they align more closely on social issues than Republicans do. I'd love to see how bad the right would freak out if a true liberal were running. I already see the hate Elizabeth Warren gets by the right here, I can only imagine if she was an actual candidate...
    I would say that the Republicans are center to slightly right and most dems start at center left and go way left from there. This works police crap is not a conservative concept...we like some military isolation to a degree and have learned that straying from this concept yields horrific results (see GWB Presidency).
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,825
    vCash:
    5030
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    I would say that the Republicans are center to slightly right and most dems start at center left and go way left from there. This works police crap is not a conservative concept...we like some military isolation to a degree and have learned that straying from this concept yields horrific results (see GWB Presidency).
    No way. A truly far-left party would never have voted the Monsanto Protection Act into law. They would never approve the use of drone strikes, or approve of spying on it's own citizens. A true left party would never have taxes so low on the richest people (the proposed rates from Obama are still much lower than they would be under a left President). A truly left party would have legalized marijuana years ago, as well done something about the pseudo-fair pay to women. I think you're confusing left of conservatives as left in general. Democrats are just much less conservative than Republicans are...
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Fearing a U.S. strike, Syria warns of global "chaos
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-27-2013, 10:51 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 05:15 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 06:59 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-11-2004, 06:07 PM
  5. Heinz Kerry boosts Kerry health plan
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-11-2004, 12:59 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
  •