Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-27-2013, 09:19 PM
Junior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-10-08
Location: USA
Posts: 48
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Intervening in Syria

Imagine you lived in a housing community with an association. You had to pay your monthly bill for upkeep of the grounds. Yet, the association kept spending all the funds to help outside home owners that aren't in your community. That's kind of how our government makes me feel. Certain cities, like Detroit, aren't they kind of like mini developing countries? We have homeless. More people in America are food insecure than any time I remember. Many people unemployed. It just seems like we focus so much finances on getting involved in other parts of the world. I'm not one for big government at home or abroad, but if they feel the need...why not worry about the suffering right here at home?

Also, I'd like to say I'm very sorry if any of that sounds insensitive. That's not my intention. I don't have or watch a TV. My main source of news is getting on Google News for about 10 minutes a day and glancing at the headlines. So maybe there is just something I don't know or understand. Are you for or against getting involved in Syria?
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2013, 06:06 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Syria is going to be (actually, it already is if the wrong decisions are made in the coming days) the start of WWIII.
Syrian affairs are none of our business and I don't believe for a second that the Assad government has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people. He's been warned against it and I don't think their government would be that stupid. This smells like a frame job by the west.
That is a lie that will be used to destabilize Syria, something that was a foregone conclusion long ago.
The PTB decided ages ago that Syria and Iran needed to be bombed and destabilized to further their goals.
They lied about WMD to get into Iraq.
They lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to go into Vietnam.
They lied to go into Libya.
Governments are corrupt, including ours. There's no good reason to take what they say on faith.
If chemical weapons were used in Syria, let's find out who did it and how with an independent, verifiable, irrefutable investigation!
Without that, there's no reason to believe ANY government or what they say happened.

Prove it or it didn't happen.
We have no business being in Syria. It's an internal matter.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2013, 06:47 AM
South's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,489
iTrader: 1 / 100%
I completely understand your frustration with seeing money leave when there's suffering at home, but you need to understand that there is no amount of money that will address the problems in cities like Detroit. America has a system in place that will solve them. It's called the free market. Ignoring that system through years of liberal politicians and union rule did, does, and will always result in turning prosperity into ruin. Only time and free market expansion in those areas will bring the jobs, money, and sustainable relief they need. Throwing government money at it only solidifies the problem and turns it into a permanent state of being.

I'm torn on Syria. I want to see what's behind all the curtains before taking a hard position on it. The only thing I feel is almost certainly correct is what Zap said. I do believe it's the trigger for a massive war to come and if that happens, the world is about to change drastically for everyone.
__________________
Angry Mob Member
 
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2013, 06:09 PM
Junior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-10-08
Location: USA
Posts: 48
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Syria is going to be (actually, it already is if the wrong decisions are made in the coming days) the start of WWIII.
I'm not sure about WWIII. Iran threatened to attack Israel. Although, they might be bluffing. Iran has a history of crazy talk. The sanctions against them have taken a toll. Besides Iran condemns the use of chemical weapons. How can they justify attacking Israel if it's proven Syria is using them? They may very well do nothing. If they do, you know Israel and the US will attack them. If that happens I don't see anyone coming to their aid. Venezuela won't do anything. Russia seems mostly self-concerned. They will probably just sell weapons to everyone. That's my take. Of course, I may be completely wrong.

Who else do you think will get involved?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Syrian affairs are none of our business and I don't believe for a second that the Assad government has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people. He's been warned against it and I don't think their government would be that stupid.
I guess they could have mass murdered their own people using other methods. I don't understand why chemicals are considered a red line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
This smells like a frame job by the west.
That is a lie that will be used to destabilize Syria, something that was a foregone conclusion long ago. The PTB decided ages ago that Syria and Iran needed to be bombed and destabilized to further their goals.
If the US wanted to bomb Iran, I think we would have done it long ago. The nuclear weapon "negotiation" has been going on forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Governments are corrupt, including ours. There's no good reason to take what they say on faith.
Absolutely. It only seems to be getting worse. Corruption and lies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
If chemical weapons were used in Syria, let's find out who did it and how with an independent, verifiable, irrefutable investigation!
Although I don't want to do the investigation on the American tax dollar.


Quote:
Originally Posted by South View Post
I completely understand your frustration with seeing money leave when there's suffering at home, but you need to understand that there is no amount of money that will address the problems in cities like Detroit. America has a system in place that will solve them. It's called the free market. Ignoring that system through years of liberal politicians and union rule did, does, and will always result in turning prosperity into ruin. Only time and free market expansion in those areas will bring the jobs, money, and sustainable relief they need. Throwing government money at it only solidifies the problem and turns it into a permanent state of being.
Good point.

Last edited by coco; 08-28-2013 at 06:15 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2013, 06:05 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-24-13
Location: Carmel, IN
Posts: 57
iTrader: 0 / 0%
It's tough. I see the Syrian conflict, more or less, as terrorists vs. terrorists. The Assad regime is brutal and dangerous but the rebels are savages that eat the hearts of those they've killed (search Youtube, if you have the stomach for it). Not to mention Al Qaeda and Iran's support of the rebels. Neither side is worth aligning with.

And why is the use of chemicals the "red line"? 100,000 people had died in that conflict before the use of chemical weapons. I certainly understand that using chemicals means indiscriminate killing of women, children, and other innocents but why, if we're going to make a fuss now, did we not take issue before?

My personal opinion is that we should leave it alone. Britain clearly doesn't want to get involved and neither should we.
 
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-30-2013, 07:14 AM
Junior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-10-08
Location: USA
Posts: 48
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by snotrocket View Post
It's tough. I see the Syrian conflict, more or less, as terrorists vs. terrorists. The Assad regime is brutal and dangerous but the rebels are savages that eat the hearts of those they've killed (search Youtube, if you have the stomach for it). Not to mention Al Qaeda and Iran's support of the rebels. Neither side is worth aligning with.

And why is the use of chemicals the "red line"? 100,000 people had died in that conflict before the use of chemical weapons. I certainly understand that using chemicals means indiscriminate killing of women, children, and other innocents but why, if we're going to make a fuss now, did we not take issue before?

My personal opinion is that we should leave it alone. Britain clearly doesn't want to get involved and neither should we.
I wonder that as well. No doubt, a toxic chemical would be a terrifying way to die. With sarin I guess it makes you lose control of your muscles and suffocate. Yet, it would also be horrible to be stabbed to death with a knife or have an arm blown off and bleed to death.

Obama wants to "send a signal..." He says it will make us safer? I don't think so. I think it will make us poorer and less safe.
 
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2013, 09:33 PM
JamesLeeOnline's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-29-13
Location: Singapore
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I don't know what Obama has any business with Syrian internal affairs. just because you are strong, you don't have rights to attack countries with natural resources one after another.
If Syrian Govt really did the horrendous act which is claimed by US, let the qualified people from UN involving representatives from unbiased countries submit the detailed report.

I saw a comment from OBAMA couple of days back, it goes like this "we are not really waiting for UN to take a decision". It show their arrogance & the motive.
 
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2013, 09:25 AM
Junior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-10-08
Location: USA
Posts: 48
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesLeeOnline View Post
I don't know what Obama has any business with Syrian internal affairs. just because you are strong, you don't have rights to attack countries with natural resources one after another.
If Syrian Govt really did the horrendous act which is claimed by US, let the qualified people from UN involving representatives from unbiased countries submit the detailed report.

I saw a comment from OBAMA couple of days back, it goes like this "we are not really waiting for UN to take a decision". It show their arrogance & the motive.
Everyone has a motive. Saudi Arabia want us to attack. Turkey is disappointed by the US saying we would do a limited airstrike. What they really want is for the government to be toppled. The Islamist rebels are upset with our decision to hold off on an airstrike, even to seek Congress approval. Israel isn't happy with us waiting either.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2013, 09:25 PM
Junior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-10-08
Location: USA
Posts: 48
iTrader: 0 / 0%
UPDATE: Apparently, Syria has crossed Al Qaeda's "red line." They are planning their own strike against the government.

Quote:
"The meeting factions decided to carry out the "Volcano of Revenge" invasion in response to the regime's massacres against our people in Eastern Ghouta, the last of which was the chemical weapons massacre," Source: Reuters
 
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-02-2013, 08:33 PM
JamesLeeOnline's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-29-13
Location: Singapore
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by coco View Post
Everyone has a motive. Saudi Arabia want us to attack. Turkey is disappointed by the US saying we would do a limited airstrike. What they really want is for the government to be toppled. The Islamist rebels are upset with our decision to hold off on an airstrike, even to seek Congress approval. Israel isn't happy with us waiting either.
yes, I have read the news about all the information you have mentioned.

So, the bottom line is more political than human. why to pose the world as if "I am (US pres) the savior of mankind". simply attack & say I don't like Asad as a Syrian president.

The words are from 99% neutral minds.
 
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-02-2013, 11:26 PM
Junior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-10-08
Location: USA
Posts: 48
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesLeeOnline View Post
yes, I have read the news about all the information you have mentioned.

So, the bottom line is more political than human. why to pose the world as if "I am (US pres) the savior of mankind". simply attack & say I don't like Asad as a Syrian president.

The words are from 99% neutral minds.
But if he were to be absolutely truthful, I don't think he would have put it quite as you have. There are leaders all over the world that we don't particularly like. Still haven't invaded them. Obama is trying to get a limited strike approved in Congress, this means "no American boots on the ground." We have weapons that are very targeted within 1000 miles. They can be programmed to hit an exact location. So, it would weaken the regime for takeover by the rebels. Then what? Many of them are Islamic extremists, some even associated with Al-Qaeda. This makes no sense to me at all. If he were to be honest, I think he would have to say something about doing the bidding for other countries? I don't know. I did write to my representatives in Congress today and let them know how I feel. Although there seems to be a disconnect between what our government does and what we want them to do.

Last edited by coco; 09-02-2013 at 11:29 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-03-2013, 05:22 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Let's suppose, for a moment, that the US actually does have credible evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.
There is no such evidence. But let's pretend that there is and we've all seen it and let's pretend that we all agree that Assad used chemical weapons.

How is a bombing campaign, aimed at Assad and the Syrian people, supposed to make the situation better?
How is the act of dropping bombs on Syrians supposed to put an end to the violence against innocent civilians?
 
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-03-2013, 01:04 PM
The Controversial Coder
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-01-06
Location: Manchester; UK
Posts: 2,708
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I think that most people agree that chemical weapons have been used, whether it's Sarin Gas or some other type of chemical weapon so many people (caught by amateur footage) display so many of the symptoms of such an attack.

Whether or not Assad's force have used them is another matter. The common people have seen no real evidence supporting the claim that it was Assad. Chemical Weapons are outlawed by UN International Law, whether that gives the US legitimacy for deploying strikes to Syria is another matter.

Another city that has stood for thousands of years will undoubtedly be destroyed before this is over.
 
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-03-2013, 01:53 PM
claudia_la's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-19-13
Location: Turkey
Posts: 70
iTrader: 0 / 0%
there is a chance to destroy the world!
 
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-04-2013, 02:15 AM
craiggrant27's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 09-04-13
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I think that this war that is about to happen is on false pretenses again. Just like Iraq. But I understand the frustration of some people that the amount of worldly money it needs to fuel an attack of this multitude is crazy. The money could be used to fix so much more in this world. I mean look at the suffering and hungry people all over the world that that money could help.

Such a good statement. They are just going to kill more civilians than anything. Did the attack on Iraq cost this world over 100k lives already? how is this attack going to be any different.

Last edited by snakeair; 09-04-2013 at 07:27 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-04-2013, 04:57 AM
JamesLeeOnline's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-29-13
Location: Singapore
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by coco View Post
UPDATE: Apparently, Syria has crossed Al Qaeda's "red line." They are planning their own strike against the government.
This is completely a game.

Saudi arabia & al queda supports a kind of Islam. dont want to name it. Iran & syria are different kinds.

Saudi arabia wants to dismiss Asad from that pres postion and place some one from their community. In this game, US & Al queda coming together.
 
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-05-2013, 08:07 AM
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 09-06-07
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,345
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by coco View Post
I'm not one for big government at home or abroad, but if they feel the need...why not worry about the suffering right here at home?
Couldn't agree with that more. We can't fix every problem in the world anymore than I can fix every problem on my block.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coco View Post
Are you for or against getting involved in Syria?
Against. There is no side in that conflict worthy of support so let them fight it out amongst themselves. Yes people will die there but people are dying all over the world including here at home and we can't save them all.

People make the mistake of thinking we can somehow fix all the problems in the middle east. Wars have been raging in that region for centuries. You can't just make the ill will they have towards each other go away. In the end if they are not ready and willing to resolve their issues how are we going to force them?
 
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-10-2013, 12:41 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 04-11-08
Location: UK
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I think Obama will be very disappointed if he can't drop a few bombs on Syria. He's like a man obsessed at the moment, along with his poodles Cameron and the French President Hollande.

This time at least the British parliament had the sense to stop Cameron's thirst for war.

Just seems so sad to me that the US and the UK claim they have no money to solve all their internal problems and have made some big cuts in things like pensions, benefits and services, but let it come to spending billions on war and somehow they find the money easily enough!
 
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2013, 05:35 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 09-19-13
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
If Assad has been using chemical weapons then the world can't stand by and turn a blind eye to it, or else it shows we accept it.

The problem is the Syrian war is a war with terrorists on both sides. By getting involved, even just by doing a one-off bombing, we take sides. Who knows what happens then...

But it looks like that ain't happening anymore.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thoughts on Pelosi in Syria Buskerdoo Controversial Social Issues 12 04-06-2007 08:13 PM
War on Syria/Iran? Thoughts? Dark_Matter Controversial Social Issues 265 10-04-2004 10:36 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Escalate Media




Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.