Senators Call For Military Action Against Syria

[Jermyn Davidson]

Whatever!
There's a concept of "Just War" and "Unjust War".

Not all war is evil.
Not all war is bad.
Sometimes, war is justified and good.

Afghanistan was a Just War.
Iraq was an Unjust War.

As I think about it, I can't think of any other Unjust War that America has ever fought-- other than the 2nd Iraq War. I have read some people refer to the War of 1812 as an Unjust War, but I don't know enough about that war.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Whatever!
There's a concept of "Just War" and "Unjust War".

Not all war is evil.
Not all war is bad.
Sometimes, war is justified and good.

Afghanistan was a Just War.
Iraq was an Unjust War.

As I think about it, I can't think of any other Unjust War that America has ever fought-- other than the 2nd Iraq War. I have read some people refer to the War of 1812 as an Unjust War, but I don't know enough about that war.

Do you believe Syria would be a just war?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Do you believe Syria would be a just war?

I think we should help their civil war along by providing air support to the rebels.

It is just for the rebels to rebel.
It is just for us to help the rebels get rid of their idiot.
It is not just for us to send ground troops in to fight this civil war for the Syrians.

Their freedom will only be more valuable to them if the majority of the blood spilled in their civil war is their blood. The Syrians need to OWN their freedom.

However, while responding to your question, I had the thought that Syria would make a great proxy-war location for us to fight the Iranians. I think the main reason we haven't stepped in to help the Syrians yet is because we are waiting on the right moment, the right situation, the right justification, to go into Syria, do what we need to do to help stability while attacking Iran's nuclear capabilities.

I am unsure how I feel about the justice of America's involvement in such a scenario. Then again, do we want a nuclear Iran who will no doubt share their knowledge and success with Syria and Hezbollah?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I think we should help their civil war along by providing air support to the rebels.

It is just for the rebels to rebel.
It is just for us to help the rebels get rid of their idiot.
It is not just for us to send ground troops in to fight this civil war for the Syrians.

Their freedom will only be more valuable to them if the majority of the blood spilled in their civil war is their blood. The Syrians need to OWN their freedom.

However, while responding to your question, I had the thought that Syria would make a great proxy-war location for us to fight the Iranians. I think the main reason we haven't stepped in to help the Syrians yet is because we are waiting on the right moment, the right situation, the right justification, to go into Syria, do what we need to do to help stability while attacking Iran's nuclear capabilities.

I am unsure how I feel about the justice of America's involvement in such a scenario. Then again, do we want a nuclear Iran who will no doubt share their knowledge and success with Syria and Hezbollah?

It's not just to spend billions more fighting someone else's war when we have an economy and jobs in shambles.

It's not just to use drones or piloted planes to fire missles that will claim civilian casualties, no matter the accuracy.

It's not just that we give support to a group of rebels, who will in turn use the support and weapons against us.

It was the US who built Sadaam Husseins arsenal, including his WMDs.

It was the US who gave Osama bin laden weapons and support and made him into the jihadist he was.

Mark it, should the US intervene in Syria, it will create more bloodshed, more foreign terror, and more hatred against the US.

John McCain is a bloodthirsty warmonger. He and the other hawks live for conflict and blood and war.

I'm sick of these Congressmen using our military as fodder for their unjust wars.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Whatever!
There's a concept of "Just War" and "Unjust War".

Not all war is evil.
Not all war is bad.
Sometimes, war is justified and good.

Afghanistan was a Just War.
Iraq was an Unjust War.

As I think about it, I can't think of any other Unjust War that America has ever fought-- other than the 2nd Iraq War. I have read some people refer to the War of 1812 as an Unjust War, but I don't know enough about that war.

WWI was completely an unjust war, as was the "Civil War". Both were completely unnecessary.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I think we should help their civil war along by providing air support to the rebels.

It is just for the rebels to rebel.
It is just for us to help the rebels get rid of their idiot.
It is not just for us to send ground troops in to fight this civil war for the Syrians.

Their freedom will only be more valuable to them if the majority of the blood spilled in their civil war is their blood. The Syrians need to OWN their freedom.

However, while responding to your question, I had the thought that Syria would make a great proxy-war location for us to fight the Iranians. I think the main reason we haven't stepped in to help the Syrians yet is because we are waiting on the right moment, the right situation, the right justification, to go into Syria, do what we need to do to help stability while attacking Iran's nuclear capabilities.

I am unsure how I feel about the justice of America's involvement in such a scenario. Then again, do we want a nuclear Iran who will no doubt share their knowledge and success with Syria and Hezbollah?

The rebels are Al-Quaeda.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

It's not just to spend billions more fighting someone else's war when we have an economy and jobs in shambles.

Going to war would actually "fix" that problem, but this reason alone is not a justification for war.

Originally Posted by n david

It's not just to use drones or piloted planes to fire missles that will claim civilian casualties, no matter the accuracy.

It's not unjust either. It's a sad reality, but you're right-- there's nothing just about innocent civillians dying.

Originally Posted by n david

It's not just that we give support to a group of rebels, who will in turn use the support and weapons against us.

You are lumping weapons and support together as if the two are one in the same. You are mistaken to do this. Furthermore, you have pre-judged the rebels to be our enemies when not all of the rebel factions in Syria want to be our enemy-- only a few of them.

Originally Posted by n david

It was the US who built Sadaam Husseins arsenal, including his WMDs.

It was GOP Foreign Policy to strengthen Hussein by providing him with weapons. The strategic use of our air assets in toppling the Syrian regime would not be nearly as risky as helping a single dictator with a known history of brutality.

Originally Posted by n david

It was the US who gave Osama bin laden weapons and support and made him into the jihadist he was.

Absolutely FALSE! Bin laden never sought support from the U.S. and we never supported him. Even when we were arming the Afghans directly in order to help them defeat the Russians, bin laden REFUSED to accept our help. He NEVER trusted the American government!

Originally Posted by n david

Mark it, should the US intervene in Syria, it will create more bloodshed, more foreign terror, and more hatred against the US.

We should not make domestic or foreign policy decisions based on fear of the response of others. We should make domestic and foreign policy decisions based on what's right and what's in the best interest of our country first and our allies second.

Originally Posted by n david

John McCain is a bloodthirsty warmonger. He and the other hawks live for conflict and blood and war.

The truth of this statement has no bearing on whether or not it is a good thing to help the Syrian rebels topple their oppressive regime. If we provide DECISIVE help to the rebels, the Syrian civillian death toll will probably not climb to 80,000. On their own, over 70,000 Syrian civillians have died in this war.

Originally Posted by n david

I'm sick of these Congressmen using our military as fodder for their unjust wars.

This response is emotional, but not rational.
Men and women join the military to fight and you have yet to prove that our involvement in helping the rebels with close air support is unjust.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The rebels are Al-Quaeda.

Not all of them-- but I am sure there are elements of Al-Quaeda or like-thinking idiots involved.

In a way, this is all the more reason for us to be involved so that the Al-Quaeda sympathizers do not take advantage of this situation.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Originalist

WWI was completely an unjust war, as was the "Civil War". Both were completely unnecessary.

Please explain your rationale for these statements.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you at the moment, but let me hear you out.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Going to war would actually "fix" that problem, but this reason alone is not a justification for war.

W said that about the Iraq war, and look what it's cost us. I'm sure you remember W's claims that the war would be paid for with profits of Iraqi oil. They also claimed that war is profitable. That has since been proven to be false.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It's not unjust either. It's a sad reality, but you're right-- there's nothing just about innocent civillians dying.

It is unjust or it's not unjust...which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

You are lumping weapons and support together as if the two are one in the same. You are mistaken to do this. Furthermore, you have pre-judged the rebels to be our enemies when not all of the rebel factions in Syria want to be our enemy-- only a few of them.

It's already been reported that we've given weapons to the rebels....which include factions of al queda. We've also provided financial and intelligence support to the rebels.

Let's go back to Iraq and Afghanistan. W and the admin then claimed that we would be welcomed by the people in those countries. But we weren't.

Listen, call it pre-judging or whatever; I call it history repeated time and again. The US supports some rebels via finance, intelligence, weapons, boots on the ground or air sorties...and EVERY SINGLE TIME once the rebels have won, they have turned against us. That is a fact. I don't want to spend a penny supporting these rebels.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It was GOP Foreign Policy to strengthen Hussein by providing him with weapons. The strategic use of our air assets in toppling the Syrian regime would not be nearly as risky as helping a single dictator with a known history of brutality.

Only because Reagan was in the WH. Had a Democrat been there, it would've been the same. We didn't want Iran to beat Iraq, so we helped Hussein, who in turn rose against us. At the time we helped Hussein, he did not have "a known history of brutality."

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Absolutely FALSE! Bin laden never sought support from the U.S. and we never supported him. Even when we were arming the Afghans directly in order to help them defeat the Russians, bin laden REFUSED to accept our help. He NEVER trusted the American government!

You are correct that OBL never asked for our support. You are wrong that we didn't support him anyway. There a Saudi prince that stated OBL, in the 80s, was appreciative and thankful for the support of the US. Now, the CIA of course won't admit to helping OBL. But the Saudi's say he did accept our support. His anger against the US was for leaving Afghanistan high and dry and also maintaining bases in the middle east.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

We should not make domestic or foreign policy decisions based on fear of the response of others. We should make domestic and foreign policy decisions based on what's right and what's in the best interest of our country first and our allies second.

That's obvious. Sorry, I don't believe it's our best interest to waste money on a war that is not our fight.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The truth of this statement has no bearing on whether or not it is a good thing to help the Syrian rebels topple their oppressive regime. If we provide DECISIVE help to the rebels, the Syrian civillian death toll will probably not climb to 80,000. On their own, over 70,000 Syrian civillians have died in this war.

You have no evidence that could be true. How many innocent civilians have been killed in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan? The death toll would be lucky to stay under 150,000 or more were we to get involved.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

This response is emotional, but not rational. Men and women join the military to fight and you have yet to prove that our involvement in helping the rebels with close air support is unjust.

I've done more than enough to show it's unjust. We are not the world's policeman. We're not the world's savior. We need to stop this endless, destructive pattern of war.