'+syria'
[2023-11-14 20:01:57] - Although I guess Syria is an exception. -Paul
[2021-03-24 18:24:51] - paul: i remember the pulse nightclub shooting. looks like daniel and aaron posted here about it, but nobody discussed it in detail. if you're asking us to use only our memories, i didn't remember the details: but i would NOT have said it was a "vanilla" hate crime. looking up stuff, it was a gay club, and the shooter was involved with (swore allegiance to?) abu bakr al-baghdadi and was mad about stuff happening in iraq and syria? ~a
[2021-01-11 14:28:10] - I had an admittedly stupid and incredibly unlikely thought about this whole thing: What if, in a few months, President Biden announces over Twitter that he intends to send American troops into Syria (or really any country) to help stabilize the country? Wouldn't that be clearly an immediate and direct call for violent action? -Paul
[2020-09-25 15:47:57] - Daniel: I guess it's confusing because I voted NO on the wall and YES on refugees from Syria, which seems to go against two of the biggest Trump things (since they didn't ask about a trade war with China). As for my answers being "pretty R"... I guess? Part of it feels like the "D" answers have moved pretty far left... -Paul
[2019-02-06 15:52:02] - paul: it's an interesting story, but i don't buy it. you credit them with simplifying the tax code: they did not do this, source. you mention the libyan airstrikes but you don't mention the syrian ones. he hasn't gotten us out of syria, but he has gotten us further in. his administration claims it defeated isis and that's a lie. ~a
[2018-04-10 09:51:05] - Paul: Give it a few days. We'll probably see another strike on Syria and that will increase the media attention on the issue and possibly get some good numbers out. Particularly if he "accidentally" hits some Russian troops at the same time. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 11:19:53] - a: In the end, I think we're on the same side here. Civilian casualties suck. I suspect this military action in Syria is misguided at best. This is a bad thing for the Trump administration. Doesn't matter that he's not a Democrat (officially)
-Paul[2017-07-19 10:56:31] - a: Which is fine, but Obama was often criticized for not doing enough against ISIS and in Syria, while most of my criticism of him was regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan drone strikes, I think. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:50:50] - a: Also, I think it's worth looking at the respective situations. Not to excuse Trump's bombing at all, but I think there's a difference in degrees in bombing an active war zone like Syria and bombing convoys in the middle of relatively peaceful countries like Pakistan. -Paul
[2017-07-17 10:34:50] - paul: jesus is that true? i know you were a huge fan of this in the last administration, why haven't you been informing us of this now? ~a
[2017-04-08 00:48:44] - a: There's an even better one where he says Obama should make sure to ask congress before bombing Syria. -Paul
[2016-12-15 10:06:17] - mig: The gist is, I'm sure, that failure to take action to do something (ideally something productive) to improve the lives of people in Aleppo (that's always the key word I see, not "Syria") then we're morally lacking and future generations will judge us. -- Xpovos
[2016-12-14 13:27:25] - Lots of Syria related posts showing up in my feed the last 2 days. I get that things are bad over there and that's tragic, but it feels like there's an subtle nudge of "do something!" behind these posts and I'm not quite exactly sure what it is people want to happen. - mig
[2013-11-21 17:19:01] - http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/21/the-us-isnt-leaving-afghanistan At what point can we finally do away with the myth that Obama was (or is) in any way an anti-war politician? Wasn't he supposed to end all of these wars and not go around looking to start new ones? *cough*Libya*cough*Syria*cough* -Paul
[2013-09-27 11:44:26] - xpovos: yeah, ok, obama agreed not to bomb syria, and i thought that was awesome. but i'm still focusing on the NSA thing. so this is different. read the message board title i put up
~a[2013-09-27 11:39:07] - a: Kind of like Obama agreeing to not bomb Syria... maybe? -- Xpovos
[2013-09-16 12:47:43] - a: Yeah, I should be clear that ultimately, the end result makes me very happy. We're not bombing Syria and there is at least lip service towards Congress having a say about when we go to war. I just don't give as much credit to Obama as I think you do. -Paul
[2013-09-16 12:36:05] - Is it so crazy that Obama really wanted to bomb Syria but thought he should try to go about it in the right way (Congressional approval)? -Daniel
[2013-09-16 10:51:34] - a: well only partially. I don't recall you being very enthusiastic about the whole bomb Syria thing in the first place, and you didn't seem to agree that it was a brilliant plan either. - mig
[2013-09-16 10:47:30] - mig: uhhh, that's what i was saying(ish). minus the kerry remarks. "be honest, if congress denied his proposal to bomb the fuck out of syria, and he went and did it anyways, wouldn't you think that would hurt him politically (if not legally)? there's no way it's going to play out like that. he's saying what he's saying now to scare the fuck out of syrian ..." ~a
[2013-09-16 10:44:12] - and this was not far removed from some rather enthusiastic calls to bomb Syria before the Kerry remarks. - mig
[2013-09-16 10:06:34] - mig: I'm still completely baffled by why Obama decided to ask congress for authorization. I thought it was a way of trying to back out of bombing Syria, but it looks like he was just as intent on bombing Syria, he just wanted to throw in the possibility of having Congress explicitly turn him down... -Paul
[2013-09-13 20:17:57] - so apprently this syria thing is going to die down because an off-handed comment by the secretary of state ended up being taken seriously as a peace proposal, potentially saving the president of the US the embaressment of having a call for war rejected by the legislative branch. It would be comical if the consequences of such actions weren't so serious. - mig
[2013-09-10 14:09:48] - I was unaware of all of the oil implications of Syria. It does cast a different light on it. For all of our discussion of morality and obligations it might indeed mostly just be about energy production / money. -Daniel
[2013-09-10 12:59:14] - Interesting post about Syria and why it matters to different countries http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts -Daniel
[2013-09-09 13:36:29] - surprising syrian story. update? ~a
[2013-09-09 12:49:18] - a: In Syria, we're talking about a fairly small number of deaths by chemical weapons, and I'm not sure what action can be taken to help reduce violence in that area. -Paul
[2013-09-09 12:29:57] - a: Are we talking about WW2 or Syria here?
-Paul[2013-09-09 12:18:02] - But anyways, going back to Syria, I think besides the lack of justification (imo), the plan itself doesn't make any sense. So we essentially just lob some cruise missiles at military targets. By design, the strikes themselves aren't meant to do much (certainly it will not contribute to toppling the Assad regime), but they show they the US did *something*. - mig
[2013-09-09 12:09:56] - a: I tend to agree with you, but I also have to ask; so what do we do? If we carpet bomb Syria, we're still "letting murderous regimes fight it out", only we've add to the death-toll ourselves. This is a 100-year project of regime change. It takes that long because you need two full generations to adapt the culture. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-09 11:29:02] - a: if you can articulate the national security threat the Libya and Syria pose(d), i'd love to hear it. - mig
[2013-09-06 13:25:26] - a: He's spent so much of his presidency blaming Bush for the economy and Republicans for everything else (despite having majorities in both branches of Congress for a bit and still having a majority in the Senate) that it's hard for me to see this as anything except a way to shirk responsibility for what has to be called a pretty clumsy policy towards Syria so far. -P
[2013-09-06 13:19:03] - "do you think he has actually changed his mind about needing congressional authorization to legally bomb Syria" idk. ~a
[2013-09-06 13:17:04] - a: Ok, I actually kinda agree with what you're saying, but I guess I didn't ask specific enough of a question. I more meant, do you think he has actually changed his mind about needing congressional authorization to legally bomb Syria? -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:50:15] - a: I still pretty strongly believe that Obama and his administration fully believe it would be perfectly legal for them to bomb Syria even if Congress votes against authorization. -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:24:01] - be honest, if congress denied his proposal to bomb the fuck out of syria, and he went and did it anyways, wouldn't you think that would hurt him politically (if not legally)? there's no way it's going to play out like that. he's saying what he's saying now to scare the fuck out of syrian administration. it's diplomacy. it's politics at the international level. ~a
[2013-09-06 11:59:06] - a: I'll give him full credit, since although he did say he didn't need congressional approval, it appears he won't act (overtly) without it. And that's enough for me right now. And it's what the situation needs anyway. Non-overt action. At least until such time as we can figure out how to judo-throw Syria. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-06 10:54:35] - for clarifcation i mean a split between republicans and democrats who are against the syria intervention. - mig
[2013-09-06 10:40:33] - apparently, the nsa can "break encryption" news that hopefully doesn't get drowned out due to syria. this is new, because before we thought the nsa was getting everything from faux-court-orders. ~a
[2013-09-06 10:29:59] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/05/prospects-for-syria-resolution-dimming-in-house/ so I'm trying to make sense of this sentence "Over the last two days, scores of members — most of them Republicans, but many of them Democrats" Maybe it's poor wording but it just sounds really weird. - mig
[2013-09-06 10:28:01] - paul: "I can't figure out why Obama has decided to seek congressional authorization for Syria" do you credit him for this at least? even if you disagree with going to war with syria, can you at least admit it's a little bit awesome he didn't follow the status quo of going to war without getting congressional approval? shouldn't ron paul be proud(ish)? ~a
[2013-09-04 10:23:55] - John McCain is sure taking this debate seriously. - mig
[2013-09-04 09:55:25] - mig: I can't figure out why Obama has decided to seek congressional authorization for Syria. At first I thought it was his way of basically backing out, after realizing he probably overstepped since the UK backed out and it's wildly unpopular at home... -Paul
[2013-09-03 14:43:51] - The people who have come out in support of Syria strikes is a virtual who's who list of people who I really want to be voted out of power. -Paul
[2013-09-03 14:42:43] - Now that Republican leadership has come out in support of Syria strikes, though, I can't imagine anything that would make me want more for Congress to vote against authorization. -Paul
[2013-09-03 13:36:54] - I'm trying to understand what the deal is for the proposed action on Syria. Is it really just lobbing some cruise missles at some military targets in the hopes that it'll teach the Syrian government a "lesson"? Is that basically it? Because that sounds like a plan made up by a 5-year old. - mig
[2013-08-29 21:08:25] - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579042571741346530.html uk parliament rejects intervention in Syria. - mig
[2013-08-27 15:56:03] - paul: not surprising, but pretty sad how much of a polar opposite candidate Obama and Presiden Obama's stances on Libya and (probably) Syria is. - mig
[2013-08-26 09:23:09] - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013824134639716658.html Can everyone here at least agree that in this case with Syria, it really should be a decision made by congress and not the president? -Paul
[2013-08-23 12:13:29] - As long as Syria was just a civil war, I was OK with doing nothing. The tipping point is this past week's nerve gas attack near Damascus. That's not a civil war anymore, it's a use of extreme force by an illegitimate government against it's own people. More akin to Nazi Germany. -- Xpovos
[2013-08-23 12:00:41] - a: Are we still involved in Libya? I agree with the logic that we can't be involved everywhere, but it looks like Syria or Egypt could slide right in to the Libya slot that is currently vacated. -Paul
[2013-08-23 10:22:53] - Paul: I wouldn't put Egypt in the same situation as Libya / Syria yet. I think Syria is much more comparable. If we did decide to intervene in Syria I don't know that I would be upset. I don't think intervening in Libya requires intervening in Syria though. I think from what I know Syria feels more civil warish and Libya didn't feel that way to me would be my...
[2013-08-23 10:02:38] - Daniel: What's your rationale for intervening in Libya but not Syria and Egypt, then? They seem like very similar situations. -Paul
[2013-08-23 09:25:59] - Paul: I was anti-involvement in Libya. I was pretty non-interventionist with Syria and completely ambivalent to Egypt. The latest news makes me significantly more supportive of possible measures in Syria including potentially the use of force. Egypt's still kind of a little ball of pain, not much to be done there except remove $1.5B in military aid. -- Xpovos
[2013-08-23 09:07:56] - Xpovos: I've mentioned this a number of times on the message board, but I find it amusing that many of the voices who were so supportive of intervention in Libya are now much quieter about Syria and Egypt. -Paul
[2013-08-22 22:30:55] - Syria? -- Xpovos
[2013-06-21 12:17:13] - a: http://aporter.org/msg/?action=search&search=syria It's the same reason I keep bringing up Syria, even though nobody takes the bait. I'm pretty sure I pointed out this exact scenario when saying intervening in Libya was a slippery slope, and now we're getting involved in Syria and I want to see if people have changed their minds. -Paul
[2013-06-14 13:04:03] - anyone else feel that the situation in Syria feels like Clinton's bosnia misdirection? - mig
[2012-08-03 15:29:47] - mig: I feel like there was a lot of support on the message board for intervening in Libya, so I'm wondering if those same people think we should intervene in Syria. -Paul
[2012-08-03 14:36:38] - Can anybody explain to me why we haven't intervened in Syria yet like we did in Libya? I know they are different situations, but on the surface, they seem pretty similar. -Paul
[2012-02-09 11:28:20] - Aaron: So should we be getting involved in Syria too? On the surface, it appears to be a pretty similar situation, but I admit that I don't know a lot of specifics. -Paul
[2012-02-09 09:45:47] - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/world/africa/libyas-new-government-unable-to-control-militias.html?_r=2 I'm wondering if anybody who was pro-Libyan intervention would like to re-visit the issue. Do you still think it was a good idea? Should we go back? Why aren't we intervening in Syria? -Paul
[2011-08-16 11:42:38] - Paul: I think it's because compared to Syria, the stakes in Libya were lower and the chances of success higher. Overly pragmatic, perhaps, but that's my hunch. - Stephen
[2011-08-16 11:27:15] - Stephen: Yeah, I'm certainly not advocating getting involved in Syria, but it seems strange that we undertook a "humanitarian" mission to help out armed rebels in Libya, but ignore the unarmed civilians in Syria. -Paul
[2011-08-16 11:14:58] - Paul: I do think that we've been strangely complacent regarding Syria. Syria's opposition has yet to crystallize into an armed force, even a ragtag one, though, so I'm not sure what bombing Syria would do. Oh, except for make all hell break loose in Lebanon and Israel. - Stephen
[2011-08-16 09:48:31] - http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/08/16/syria.unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 CNN article about all the unrest in Syria. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I wonder how the people who were in favor of the Libya bombing feel now. Do they still support the bombing campaign? Do they think Obama should've gotten Congressional approval? Should we intervene in Syria? -Paul
[2011-03-25 14:22:40] - Paul: I don't think Syria sounds the same as Libya to me yet. It sounds more like Tunisia and Egypt so far where some people died but it wasn't cities of people being bombed, shelled, or having tanks sent at them. Once we get to that point in Syria I'll reevaluate. -Daniel
[2011-03-25 13:46:58] - http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/25/syria.unrest/index.html?hpt=T1 "Syria's security forces are showing the same cruel disregard for protesters' lives as their counterparts in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain". Who's ready to bomb Syria? -Paul
[2010-01-05 16:02:45] - paul: italian army in syria in '05 baby! - aaron
[2003-04-11 16:52:00] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/08/wsyria08.xml syria is next on bush's shit list
[2003-04-10 21:51:00] - http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/4/10/122010/516 looting tips for people in syria and iran. - mig