Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    22 Jun '13 19:04
    The most recent debacle paining Obama and this country is the humanitarian disaster in Syria. Liberals and conservatives alike agree that this response is too little, too late; that the time to act was two years ago, and both Iran and Russia have taken the opportunity provided by the inaction of the United States to displace it as the region's hegemon.

    Which has got me to thinking: what good things have come out of Obama's presidency? Surely there have to be some. Who has benefited from Obama's presidency? What in American has been made better for his presence?

    I'm anxious to hear any and all viewpoints.
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    22 Jun '13 19:06
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    The most recent debacle paining Obama and this country is the humanitarian disaster in Syria. Liberals and conservatives alike agree that this response is too little, too late; that the time to act was two years ago, and both Iran and Russia have taken the opportunity provided by the inaction of the United States to displace it as the region's hegemon. ...[text shortened]... erican has been made better for his presence?

    I'm anxious to hear any and all viewpoints.
    Osama DOWN!
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Jun '13 19:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    The most recent debacle paining Obama and this country is the humanitarian disaster in Syria. Liberals and conservatives alike agree that this response is too little, too late; that the time to act was two years ago, and both Iran and Russia have taken the opportunity provided by the inaction of the United States to displace it as the region's hegemon. erican has been made better for his presence?

    I'm anxious to hear any and all viewpoints.
    What should have been done in Syria two years ago? The same thing that was done in Iraq 10 years ago?

    Why should the US have "hegemony" in Syria or any place else in the Middle East? What price are you willing to pay for it to have "hegemony"?
  4. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    22 Jun '13 19:27
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Osama DOWN!
    Ok. Good point...one for Obama.
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    22 Jun '13 19:34
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What should have been done in Syria two years ago? The same thing that was done in Iraq 10 years ago?

    Why should the US have "hegemony" in Syria or any place else in the Middle East? What price are you willing to pay for it to have "hegemony"?
    You can like this or not like it, but the fact remains, the United States is still the world's foremost superpower. Do you argue that the US should not protect Israel (I seem to recall you making that argument, but on isolationist grounds)? Or, that balancing the aggression of Russia, Iran, and the other powerful entities in the region are not in our interests? Or perhaps that we do not have enemies in the region in the form of non-state actors who would do us grave harm if given the opportunity, which might be provided by our lack of presence there?
  6. 22 Jun '13 19:57
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    The most recent debacle paining Obama and this country is the humanitarian disaster in Syria. Liberals and conservatives alike agree that this response is too little, too late; that the time to act was two years ago, and both Iran and Russia have taken the opportunity provided by the inaction of the United States to displace it as the region's hegemon. ...[text shortened]... erican has been made better for his presence?

    I'm anxious to hear any and all viewpoints.
    I don't perceive the Syrian Civil War as a clear-cut battle between tyranny
    and prospective democracy. I perceive it more as a largely communal or
    sectarian struggle for power between people from the Sunni Muslim majority
    (including Al-Qaeda groups) who loathe Assad, an Alawite Muslim, and a
    loose coalition of everyone else (by default pro-Assad): Alawites, Shia,
    Druze, Christians (who regard Assad's secular regime as a lesser evil than
    a potential Sunni Muslim theocracy), and even some Sunni Muslims.
    Some men on that side have made the point that they believe they are
    fighting more for Syria, at least the ideal of Syria as a comparatively
    secular society, rather than for Assad personally.

    I know that Assad's regime has discriminated in favour of the Alawite
    minority and against the Sunni majority. I know that Assad's regime can
    be ruthless in crushing opposition. But the USA has supported, or at least
    been able to coexist with, some even more brutal dictators. The USA
    has no mandate to overthrow every undemocratic regime in the world.

    With regard to Assad's supposed use of chemical weapons, I could
    understand why Assad could resort to chemical weapons if he were
    extremely desperate and believed using them could give him a significant
    military advantage, which would mean that--rationally, not morally--he
    should use chemical weapons on a large scale if he would use them at all.
    But Assad's position is far from desperate--he seems to be winning on the
    battlefield--and it would make no military sense for him to use chemical
    weapons on a small scale to kill a few civilians. But the chemical weapons
    issue seems like a useful cover to argue for Western military intervention.

    Which side would I support if I were a Syrian in Syria and unable to leave?
    That would chiefly depend upon what kind of Syrian I was or perceived to
    be and where I was located (it would be dangerous to be in a tiny minority
    locally). If I were a Sunni, I naturally would resent Assad's discrimination
    against Sunnis in favour of Alawites, yet I also would be worried about the
    influence of too theocratic Sunnis in the anti-Assad coalition. If I were
    an Alawite, while I would dislike Assad's dictatorship, I might believe that I
    would have hardly any choice but to support him because I would be afraid
    that Assad's downfall would lead to brutal reprisals against all Alawites,
    whom the anti-Assad forces already tend to presume must be pro-Assad.

    Let's suppose that, with enough Western military aid and intervention
    (assuming that Iran and Russia did not counter by raising the stakes),
    the anti-Assad coalition won, and brutal reprisals (including communal
    massacres) against the Alawites and other non-Sunni minorites followed.
    Almost all the surviving Alawites became refugees (where? Lebanon?).
    Syria likely would become much more of a theocratic Sunni Muslim state.
    Would that be a post-Assad Syria well worth fighting for?

    I believe that the least bad outcome would be to encourage negotiation
    in the Syrian Civil War, though it's hard to see how both sides can be
    reconciled. The fault line between the Sunni majority and the Shia (and
    other Muslim sects) minority cuts deeply into the heart of the Middle East.
  7. 22 Jun '13 23:43 / 1 edit
    Reportedly in June 2013, Mohammed Katta, a 14 year old Syrian lad in
    Aleppo (which was under the control of the anti-Assad side in the civil war)
    made an apparently innocuous joke, mentioning the Prophet Muhammad.
    Two anti-Assad fighters overheard him, seized him, beat him up, and
    shot him dead for allegedly insulting the Prophet.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Jun '13 00:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    You can like this or not like it, but the fact remains, the United States is still the world's foremost superpower. Do you argue that the US should not protect Israel (I seem to recall you making that argument, but on isolationist grounds)? Or, that balancing the aggression of Russia, Iran, and the other powerful entities in the region are not in our ...[text shortened]... us grave harm if given the opportunity, which might be provided by our lack of presence there?
    What "aggression" of Russia are you referring to?

    What "aggression" of Iran are you referring to?

    The more we meddle in the Middle East and elsewhere the more "non-state actors who would do us grave harm if given the opportunity" we create. Our "lack of presence" there would surely have the opposite effect.

    EDIT: I do notice that you did not answer my question as to what you would do. Presumably this is to give you room to hysterically criticize whatever path the Obama administration takes.
  9. 23 Jun '13 00:34
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I do notice that you did not answer my question as to what you would do. Presumably this is to give you room to hysterically criticize whatever path the Obama administration takes.
    It does not matter what Obama does as President, Sasquatch will hysterically criticize. Sasquatch has no principles but only hate, a sheer personal hatred of the President and the First Family.

    Sasquatch would welcome sacrificing America in a second if he could somehow spin it to criticize the President. Sasquatch is very unAmerican.
  10. 23 Jun '13 00:56
    Originally posted by moon1969
    It does not matter what Obama does as President, Sasquatch will hysterically criticize. Sasquatch has no principles but only hate, a sheer personal hatred of the President and the First Family.

    Sasquatch would welcome sacrificing America in a second if he could somehow spin it to criticize the President. Sasquatch is very unAmerican.
    I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!" -Hillary Clinton

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0‎
  11. 23 Jun '13 01:08
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!" -Hillary Clinton

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0‎
    President Obama: Position A
    Sasquatch: Position B

    President Obama: Position B
    Sasquatch: Position A
  12. 23 Jun '13 02:22
    If Romney were in office he would be doing the same things. That is why he lost the third debate and the election. Basically he just sat there with a stupid look on his face as he said he would do pretty much the same things, only better!!
  13. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    23 Jun '13 07:51 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    The most recent debacle paining Obama and this country is the humanitarian disaster in Syria. Liberals and conservatives alike agree that this response is too little, too late; that the time to act was two years ago, and both Iran and Russia have taken the opportunity provided by the inaction of the United States to displace it as the region's hegemon. erican has been made better for his presence?

    I'm anxious to hear any and all viewpoints.
    And your solution to the Syria situation is what? Launch lots of rockets? 100,000 boots on the ground? We're still paying the bills on that strategy in Iraq and Afganistan, and will be for years to come. It's time to face the fact that America does not have the resources to police the world. On the other hand, if President Obama had gotten America more involved in the Syrian situation, the American taxpayer would be shelling out massive sums of money in aid rebuilding to that country also, then you'd be complaining about how stupid Obama was in repeating the mistakes of the recent past. So, it really doesn't matter what President Obama does, or dosen't do, because you're not going to like it.

    What good things have come out of Obama's Presidency? Well, I'm sure your opinion would be nothing. Since I work in the Real Estate field, I can honestly say "a lot!" In 2009 47% of the housing sales in Seattle were short sales (people sold their homes for less than the amount owed). Last quarter that figure was 17%. Forclosures have dropped by 60%, the unemployment rate has dropped from 8.8% to 6.6%, the NYSE and DOW are up a great deal since 2009. In addition President Obama has strengthened laws regarding mortgage lending and securities rating (yes...it's called government regulation, and we need it!), drawing down troop levels in Iraq and Afganistan in an orderly way, thus saving America billions in the cost of prolonged wars, I guess we didn't find any of those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...huh?, allocation of resources for small business, as opposed to "too big to fail, improved medical facilities for our injured war veterans, and the faster development of clean, renewable energy such as solar and wind energy, which a bit more progressive than "drill baby drill". Other than these...I can't think of anything.

    Awhile back you asked me "How's that hope and change working for you?" My answer would be: Just fine!