We are going to war in Iraq and Syria, and yet DU is strangely quiet about it.

[Vattel]

Is this what we should be doing?

[JoePhilly]

1. I thought we were going to invade Syria LAST summer.

It didn't happen, but I'm sure I heard that somewhere.

[Vattel]

3. Dumb luck kept us out of war then. I wouldn't count on getting lucky again.

The team is being assembled, everyone is on board with the idea that ISIS must be "dismantled" and that containment is not a viable option. Everyone says that ISIS can't be dismantled if we limit ourselves to attacking them in Iraq. Tell me if I am wrong, but it sure looks like we are committed to airstrikes in Syria and increasing our airstrikes in Iraq. I do think that we are intending to avoid sending regular ground troops to do combat in Iraq or Syria. Special Operations units, I would assume, will be doing some combat missions on the ground.

[morningfog]

49. Did DUers really suggest that we were going to invade Syria?

I know Obama was going to bomb Assad and Syria, but I don't remember thinking there would be a ground invasion.

It seems DU was just premature (of course, the plans last year got thwarted by the people of the UK and the US). We'll have that Syrian bombing campaign yet.

[JoePhilly]

58. Yes. Read the responses to my post.

Obama was going to invade, and DU stopped him.

And we didn't need to bomb last year thanks to the US State Department's year long efforts prior to the agreement.

By the way, is the reason we might bomb in Syria now, the same as it was a year ago? Or is the reason different?

[morningfog]

59. I don't remember any discussion of ground troops previously.

The bombing now is, on part, for a different reason. Then, it was to punish Assad for using chemical weapons, and to tip the scale of the civil war and ultimately regime change.

Now, it is to destroy IS, but it is still maintained that Assad has to go. And since our strategy is going to be building the FSA and acting as its Air Force (at a minimum), it will have the US fighting Assad as well.

I'd like to see the posts suggesting we were going to be using ground troops last year in Syria.

[JoePhilly]

60. I did not save them. But I mocked them.

Repeatedly. And they didn't "suggest" it, they said it was absolutely going to happen. Often claiming it was going to be just like the Iraq war.

What kind of war do you think the OP means?

One of the responses to me here says "We stopped them". I'm fairly certain he was one of the folks who was "sure" we were invading.

Its kind of fun watching the latest hair on fire discussions on this point. Having been wrong last year, some of them are being a little more careful this time around. But not by much.

[morningfog]

61. We were set to bomb Syria last year.

And it didn't happen because the people of the UK first stopped the momentum and then public opinion did here. That lead to the breathing space for the destruction of weapons agreement.

The resolution drafted by the President and Congress made clear we were going to bomb them. I honestly don't remember anyone saying there would be boots on the ground last year.

Do you honestly believe that the US intending to strike inside Syria now? The administration has been quite clear that is the intention.

[grahamhgreen]

55. They tried. We stopped them.

[Thinkingabout]

2. I think many here realize the seriousness of ISIS. It is something which needs attention.

[Vattel]

4. I'm sure many do, and maybe the silence reflects just how hard the question of what

ought to be done is.

[Thinkingabout]

12. Do you think this group is going to disband? They are see super radical

And see with the ransoms paid they are doing well. They do not have a nation, just trying to seize enough territory so it will not be a front to fire upon. Since many nations do not negotiate it probably will not be any peace talks so it does not leave lots of options. Gathering many allies with one goal in sight needs to come together. It has been proven in Iraq jet power has shown to be effective.

[spanone]

5. really? what time?

du is quietly strange.

edit: i hope not

[Vattel]

6. some time soon, no? see post 3

[leftstreet]

7. There's a Democrat in office

If Bush/Cheney were still in office, DU would be noisy

[randome]

19. There is a Democrat in office. So you can count on us using our military in a responsible manner.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

26. Same folks predicting war now did so last

summer too.

They are just as sure this time.

[QC]

23. Bingo. n/t

[cwydro]

25. Yup.

[SammyWinstonJack]

63. Oh yeah.

[Initech]

8. Iraq War 3: With A Vengeance

[RobertEarl]

9. Well, cheney is happy. n/t

[Chan790]

10. Silence is generally, but not always, consent when it comes to public actions.

It's not fucking, there's no necessity of affirmative consent. (I do actually believe in affirmative consent in boudoir interactions. Consent is sexy. The sort of woman that is turned-off rather than turned-on by the question "May I kiss you?" isn't the right woman for me.)

All asides aside, opposition is vocal regarding war. Assenting parties typically feel no need to be vocal in affirmation of conflict that the state is predisposed to.

[jaysunb]

11. There's an important election coming up....it could be the difference between

war and peace. GOTV !

[MohRokTah]

13. And Social Security is being thrown under the bus. And Obama is about to attack Iran.

Give it a fucking break.

[Vattel]

14. Geez, don't be paranoid.

I am not certain what we should do about ISIS. If you think we aren't going to try to "dismantle" ISIS, or that we will confine our airstrikes to Iraq, let me know why.

[JoePhilly]

27. We were going to war with Syria last summer.

DU was absolutely positive.

[morningfog]

42. It was to be bombings. Those who were opposed weren't wrong.

Those who predicted the strikes were coming were just premature.

And they helped delay the bombings.

One thing that Obama has done very well is to re-frame acts of war as everything but.

[morningfog]

38. We're bombing Iraq daily at $7.5 million a day.

This isn't acedemic. Blithe dismissal won't work here. Sorry, bud.

[MohRokTah]

39. HA!

$7.5 million a day is nothing.

And yes, I will blithely dismiss this because quite frankly, the DU history on speculating what bad things Obama will do in the future is lacking anything approaching reality.

[morningfog]

40. We are bombing Iraq daily. We will be expanding into Syria.

This military action will last months. At least.

None of that is in dispute. You may think $7.5 million a day to bomb another country is nothing, but a less callous person would consider what good that money could do.

[MohRokTah]

45. Yeah, and DU said we were putting ground troops into Syria long ago and said we'd bomb Iran.

Forgive me if I don't buy into the paranoid bullshit.

[morningfog]

47. Which part are you saying is paranoid?

That we are bombing Iraq daily? That we will bomb Syria? That it will go on for years?

[MohRokTah]

48. #1, bombings in Iraq are limited and targeted to ISIL.

2&3 are paranoid silliness.

[morningfog]

50. You aren't paying attention.

The US is currently pressuring the newly formed coalition, in support of expanded bombings in Iraq, to join in a military campaign in Syria. The coalition is reluctant, but the US is forging ahead. The US has been quite open about it lasting 3 years or more.

Catch up.

[MohRokTah]

51. You aren't being realistic

Catch up.

[morningfog]

52. Oh, I thought you were serious.

Clearly, you are not.

Do you want to put on the record right not that it is "paranoid silliness" and "not realistic" that the US will be carrying out bombings in Syria?

[MohRokTah]

53. I'm done with this.

It's impossible to discuss a serious matter like this with you any further.

Good evening.

[morningfog]

54. Dodge! LOL. It's all good. You already said it. Come Wednesday and later,

I will gladly supply you with the quotes to show you who was actually "silly."

[morningfog]

62. Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-prepared-to-order-airstrikes-in-syria-as-part-of-strategy-against-islamic-state/2014/09/09/058199e2-3834-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html

[Vattel]

15. The serious discussion of what to do is happening here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002549

some good posts in that thread, some pro-war, some anti-war

[B Calm]

16. 15 of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and Bush attacked Iraq. This time

we have a president with common sense!

[Vattel]

17. So we should just trust Obama to do the right thing?

[B Calm]

18. That's why We voted for him!

[randome]

20. I thought we voted for him to put every move up to a public vote.

But what do I know about representative Democracy?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[B Calm]

22. We live in a Democratic Republic. .

[randome]

24. Eh. A technicality.

We are still governed by our representatives.
http://www.answers.com/topic/what-kind-of-government-does-the-united-states-have

While many people describe the form of government in the United States as a democracy, it is technically defined as a federal republic; "federal" means that the individual states have some power but that a central national government has authority over them. Republics and democracies are, in fact, very similar, and in some cases, interchangeable. In a republic, the people have the power to elect leaders who govern according to a set of laws (in the United States the Constitution and the Bill of Rights lay the groundwork for all laws that follow). That definition is very close to that of a kind of government called constitutional democracy; in that type of government, people exercise political power by electing leaders. These leaders, and the citizens of the country, are bound by a set of laws that guarantee certain freedoms, like the right to speak freely or practice any religion. While the U.S. government may be defined as a republic, many of its governmental processes are democratic in spirit.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

46. How many of the 9/11 terrorists were from IS?

[B Calm]

56. We'll find out in three days.

Last edited Mon Sep 8, 2014, 08:01 AM - Edit history (1)

ISIS has hijacked 11 planes from the Tripoli airport.

http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/11-missing-commercial-aircraft-from-tripoli-airport-stolen-by-islamic-terrorists/

[morningfog]

57. That wasn't ISIS. Nor does the discussion involve Libya.

[ileus]

21. This time the threat is real, and we had leadership we can trust.

[morningfog]

44. The time the threat is better marketed.

[Katashi_itto]

28. I plan on having Waffles.

[upaloopa]

29. I don't understand the need to feel superior

and put a whole board down in one OP.
You don't know shit about what people are thinking or doing elsewhere.
And stop guilt tripping the rest of is!

[geek tragedy]

31. We have people here who claim that

ISIS are not 'the real terrorists.'

[Vattel]

32. wow, you really misinterpreted my intent, but I looking again at what I said,

I can see why you were misled. I wasn't trying to put anyone down. I was just genuinely surprised by how little discussion there was about this important issue. My guess is that the lack of discussion is partly due to how difficult the issue is. I apologize for not being clearer in my intent.

[AnalystInParadise]

30. But people can't freaking shut up

about wanting to get into a scrap with Russia. Is this DU?

[IronGate]

33. Really?

Can you posts some links of those here that want to get into a "scrap with Russia"?

[AnalystInParadise]

34. Go into any Russia thread

....

[IronGate]

35. I've participated in many of them,

and I've yet to see anyone wanting to go to war with Russia, so, I ask again, can you provide any links to anyone here wanting to get into a "scrap" with Russia?

[AnalystInParadise]

36. I look forward to you moving the goalposts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5498113

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5498358

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5497988

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5493827


There is plenty more, but I am betting you are going to move the goalposts and say I am not seeing what my own two eyes are seeing........

[IronGate]

37. Not moving the goal posts at all.

I asked you to provide links and you did so.
Thanks.

[AnalystInParadise]

41. Thank you.

Sorry......usually many people around here try to weasel out of the situation when confronted with information. I thank you for being fair and I apologize for sniping.....

[IronGate]

43. No problem.

Have a good night.

[Rex]

64. Calm before the storm.

World wars seem to be heating up again. Gonna be a hot summer.

[davidpdx]

65. We are not going to war in Syria

There is no way we would help Assad. I do question what we are doing in Iraq still.

[951-Riverside]

66. If you can fool half of the fools half of the time...

This is how it works:

When a republican is in office: Most of the left is anti-war/anti-intervention and most of the right is pro-war.

When a democrat is in office: Most of the left is pro-war and most of the right is anti-war/anti-intervention.

During the Bush admin if you spoke out against the iraq war, you were labeled an anti american terrorist sympathizer and of course now that Obama is president and you speak out against war, you are an Obama hating right wing racist.

Neither of the knuckle dragging morons spewing this garbage actually stand for anything moral, its all about politics and nothing more.