WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   Sarah Palin on Syria: ‘Let Allah Sort It Out’ (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=799845)

grant_west 09-05-2013 3:51 PM

Sarah Palin on Syria: ‘Let Allah Sort It Out’
 
Do you think what Palin Said is offensive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc2IQ0AR9qw

fly135 09-05-2013 4:53 PM

As much as it pains me I have to agree with her. Our problem is that we have no plausible objective. We've executed two wars with no plausible objective and it's cost us several trillion and who knows what else from being distracted from accomplishing real work. A "shot across the bow" is no objective. An objective is something like... "we are going to destroy his airfields, monitor the airspace, and squash Assad's ability to execute attacks from the air". Killing innocent people to send a weak inconsequential message is a mistake.

It should be obvious by now that the US cannot afford anymore "regime change" operations. We overpay and under perform at that task. We need to know what the task is going to be, how much it's going to cost, whether we intend to fund the rebuilding of their country and govt before we take action. Then Congress should vote on it.

We should also change the international law that forbids the execution/assassination of foreign leaders. It's unreasonable for it to be illegal to assassinate a leader yet legal to execute a war against a nation. No war should ever be fought without first declaring that the leader is the PRIMARY target. The highest priority death should be the person most responsible to us to engage in military action.

And since I don't think "Allah" doesn't handles anything, I find her statement more colorful than offensive.

deuce 09-05-2013 5:22 PM

Well stated, JA

bryce2320 09-05-2013 6:02 PM

Hell no it isnt offensive!

grant_west 09-05-2013 6:36 PM

John; agreed well said

Laker1234 09-05-2013 6:46 PM

Well said, John.

machloosy 09-06-2013 6:26 AM

I don't find it offensive. Tongue-in-cheek sure, but she is outspoken. John hit the nail on the head. We shouldn't just go bumbling into Syria.

bigdtx 09-06-2013 6:59 AM

The only people who want to take action in Syria are the military (lots of medals and promotions to be had), defense contractors (and the congressmen they own), and Israel (and the congressmen they own). This is just another proxy conflict with the Russians. Russia backs Assad, we back the "rebels" (aka Al Quaida in Syria).

Our track record in these actions is abysmal. Fools rush in predicting a quick victory, then when things go wrong (as they always do), they quit and run for cover and "were never really for it in the first place".

The definition of insanity: Repeating the same action, expecting different results.

ord27 09-06-2013 7:38 AM

good thing we didn't vote in a war mongering republican as President, he would have gotten us involved in another unwinnable war.........:rolleyes:

fouroheight68 09-06-2013 9:57 AM

I'm divided on the issue.

I DON'T want another war. I don't think anyone does. I hate the idea of the United States being the "world police". Isn't that what NATO is for? Unfortunately, NATO is being completely c*ckblocked by Russia, so nothing will happen.

Everyone is focused on Syria and the US forcing a regime change. This isn't what this is all about. It's about putting our foot down when Chemical Weapons are used so a precedent isn't set (with Iran, North Korea, etc) that is OK.

This article I feel explains it well on a simpler level http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rassed-to-ask/

"So why would Obama bother with strikes that no one expects to actually solve anything?

Okay, you’re asking here about the Obama administration’s not-so-subtle signals that it wants to launch some cruise missiles at Syria, which would be punishment for what it says is Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians.

It’s true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it’s not supposed to. The strikes wouldn’t be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again."

"one of the world’s few quasi-successes is the “norm” (a fancy way of saying a rule we all agree to follow) against chemical weapons. This norm is frail enough that Syria could drastically weaken it if we ignore Assad’s use of them, but it’s also strong enough that it’s worth protecting. So it’s sort of a low-hanging fruit: firing a few cruise missiles doesn’t cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons."

iShredSAN 09-06-2013 11:07 AM

1 Attachment(s)
...

rdlangston13 09-09-2013 4:43 AM

Here are my thoughts. This is supposed to be a "no boots on the ground" operation. Fire a few cruise missiles and be done with it. Well what if, even after we fire a few cruise missiles, he says "Man, those cruise missiles didn't do crap, lets gas em again!" Then he uses chemical weapons again, what is our reaction now? A few more useless cruise missiles or are we now putting boots on the ground? Also we are going to fire these cruise missiles and kill people who were just following orders. These should be aimed at the person who GAVE the orders. We are punishing the grunts the bosses bad decision. Some of the people these missiles may kill may not have had ANYTHING to do with the gas attacks yet the person who gave the order and has the blood of a few thousand on his hands goes untouched.

STAY OUT OF SYRIA WITHOUT UN SUPPORT.

brettw 09-09-2013 7:17 AM

Syria is a mess. Sure, Assad should be punished for using chemical weapons. It'd be great if we could kill him and his entire family, but whoever takes over will likely be just as bad. As far as Palin, I sort of agree with her, but I think in response someone should send her a picture of some of the hundreds of children murdered with chemical weapons.

DenverRider 09-09-2013 8:08 AM

I am very impressed that most of these responses are well thought out and non political. There may be hope for us yet.

wakedaveup 09-09-2013 8:16 AM

I vote John Anderson for President

shawndoggy 09-09-2013 8:58 AM

No desire to step into syria. Place is a powderkeg now, not sure how throwing a firecracker on top helps things. Syria's alliances with Iran, proximity to Israel, etc., all make this far too hot to handle. If we have learned anything in the past 15 years, it sure better be that "democracy" in the middle east does not mean secular moderate government. When given the choice, voters appear ready to elect their crazies. Our allies in the region (Jordan, S.A.) are monarchies. Egypt is lost.

rdlangston13 09-09-2013 8:47 PM

Sarah Palin on Syria: ‘Let Allah Sort It Out’
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brettw (Post 1843774)
Syria is a mess. Sure, Assad should be punished for using chemical weapons. It'd be great if we could kill him and his entire family, but whoever takes over will likely be just as bad. As far as Palin, I sort of agree with her, but I think in response someone should send her a picture of some of the hundreds of children murdered with chemical weapons.

Then we can show her pictures of burned up Japanese kids from the WWII fire bombing and see of she wants to go to war with the country that did that too!!

Oh wait


Sent from my iPhone

diamonddad 09-10-2013 9:44 PM

Our policy towards the middle east needs to be completely selfish with the understanding that they are f-up and there is no fixing them. Our interest in Syria should be to keep the weapons/power away from radical islam with our least involvement possible. Steer clear and let them bathe in their pathetic culture and don't get involved unless there is a large upside.

cadunkle 09-12-2013 6:14 AM

Who cares what Palin said or if it offends anyone? It's not relevant. Natural rights such as freedom of speech are supposed to be protected in this country (of course they are not though), so it doesn't matter. What matters is that congrass has made no declaration of war, therefore any acts of war or military aggression in Syria is illegal and treasonous.

shawndoggy 09-12-2013 7:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cadunkle (Post 1844454)
Who cares what Palin said or if it offends anyone? It's not relevant. Natural rights such as freedom of speech are supposed to be protected in this country (of course they are not though), so it doesn't matter. What matters is that congrass has made no declaration of war, therefore any acts of war or military aggression in Syria is illegal and treasonous.

like um, duh.... "freedom of speech" is not "freedom from consequence for what you say." I'll defend Palin's right to open her yap, but I won't defend what actually comes out of it. She's responsible for the reaction.

We haven't declared war since WWII. That ship has sailed.

grant_west 09-12-2013 7:15 AM

Cadunkel; I came across a news article that said "Pailin uses offensive words about Sira" I watched it and thought? That wasn't offensive. I know people love to hate her but what if what she said is the truth? I kind of thought it was a classic case of if you don't like the message kill the messenger.

shawndoggy 09-12-2013 7:22 AM

yes, but the point of "freedom of speech" is the freedom to criticize someone's speech. And the freedom to criticize the critic. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. Not all ideas have the same value and some are bad. You have the right to share your bad ideas, and I have the right to tell you they are bad.

grant_west 09-12-2013 8:47 AM

^ Agreed.
I guess I was just taking the pulse Of people here Because like I said I didn't think what she said was offensive.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:11 PM.