War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Indofred]

Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.

The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!

The argument was, Syria is a danger to America's nation security.
You freely admit there is no such danger, thus your government is lying.

Assuming your argument is valid, I assume you'll be calling for America's WMDs to be decommissioned as soon as possible.

No nukes, no nukes.........

 

[Claudette]

A resounding HELL NO.

Let the Arab League deal with Syria. If they don't want any part of it then then hell with it.

No reason for us to be in Syria. None at all.

 

[Circe]

They will laugh off a limited strike. The US has to be all in to send a message. Like Charles what's his face said, if a limited strike is all you want, its cheaper to send a text and just as effective

-Geaux

You mean....a text like "Stop that! Stop that!" ?

 

[JoeB131]

Don't worry about it, the Zionists just gave Boehner his marching orders.

AIPAC Endorses Resolution to Strike Syria, Whatever It Says

 

[Mac1958]

.

I like Ted Cruz' line:

"We're not Al Qaeda's Air Force".

A perfect illustration of the inevitable unintended consequences we never seem to consider when we narcissistically stick our nose in the business of others.

.

 

[U2Edge]

Please explain the danger Syria poses to the U.S.
Is it ready to invade new york, bomb the white house or use its massive navy to strike America with missiles?

Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.

The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!

They will laugh off a limited strike. The US has to be all in to send a message. Like Charles what's his face said, if a limited strike is all you want, its cheaper to send a text and just as effective

-Geaux

They will pretend to laugh, but you won't see them using chemical weapons again. Assad is in the middle of a civil war and is struggling to survive. He can't afford to have US intervention against his military. His military already have enough on their plate fighting the rebels.

 

[U2Edge]

Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.

The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!

The argument was, Syria is a danger to America's nation security.
You freely admit there is no such danger, thus your government is lying.

Assuming your argument is valid, I assume you'll be calling for America's WMDs to be decommissioned as soon as possible.

No nukes, no nukes.........

No, the argument is that chemical weapons use by Assad is a danger to US National Security. The issue is chemical weapons use and that is why the United States is about to strike.

The United States has signed the non-proliferation treaty and continues to reduce its stockpile of Nuclear Weapons. At one time decades ago it stood at nearly 30,000 nuclear warheads, but today stands at 7,500 nuclear warheads with only 2,500 of those in active use by the military.

 

[eflatminor]

1) There is no clear and compelling national interest. Humanitarian military interventions are ineffective. Lobbing missiles does not reduce violence. Bottom line, it's not our war.

2) Chemical weapons should not be a 'red line'. Even if Assad used these weapons and not his enemies (far from clear), the case for treating chemical weapons as somehow different than far more deadly conventional weapons is weak. Over 100,000 have been killed in this war with conventional weapons - a tiny fraction by chemical weapons. Dead is dead and as Rwanda proved, you don't need anything more than machetes to kill hundreds of thousands.

3) Victory has not been defined! No one has articulated what victory in Syria looks like. Why should we fight, who are we helping, and how do we know if we've succeeded? If we can't answer these questions, we shouldn't get involved.

4) Missiles and a 'no fly zone' will not be effective. "Limited" action by the US will do no good, according to the experts:

• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told NPR last month, the possible results of enforcing a no-fly zone could "include the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces. It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum..."
• Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained it to the L.A. Times: “Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes,” he said. “Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no."

5) It’s hard to keep limited actions limited. As Chairman Dempsey further cautioned, "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid." John Kerry implied the same yesterday when he said boots on the ground were possible. Great, then what?

6) Deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor. Why are we ignoring history? We wind up entangling the US in civil wars with outcomes clearly not worth the price.

7) The people do not want this war. Every poll clearly indicates the people are not interested in military intervention, chemical weapons or not.

8) If either side wins, it does not help the US. Our enemies are killing our enemies. So what's the problem?

 

[eflatminor]

...the argument is that chemical weapons use by Assad is a danger to US National Security.

Why specifically? Over 100,000 have died in Syria with conventional weapons but only a fraction have died by chemical weapons. Conventional weapons are clearly far deadlier than chemical weapons and there is no evidence that their use in Syria increases the likelihood they'll be used in the US. So again, why specifically is the use of chemical weapons a danger to the US?

 

[Circe]

No, the argument is that chemical weapons use by Assad is a danger to US National Security. The issue is chemical weapons use and that is why the United States is about to strike.

Of course that's simple nonsense to persuade the El Stupidos of America to support his war: it's precisely the argument that Bush made for going into Iraq, and that was bogus,too. How could Assad's chemical weapons possibly be a danger to OUR national security? Can't.

So what is REALLY going on? Besides a possible intent to build this into a war on Iran and clean up that situation.

I think warfare is moving into depopulation wars; they have tended to be that type in the Mideast anyway, forever. Turks killing out as many Armenians as they could catch, and all the many examples of depopulations. Poison gas and nukes (and biologicals, too) are obviously depopulation weapons, not really anti-troops weapons, like machine guns.

For no very obvious reason, we are trying to stop this move. I don't know why, since we have huge stockpiles of depopulation weapons, the most in the world. I don't know why, since the Mideast is grossly overpopulated and it's not our business or our problem anyway. Gross overpopulation and no agriculture to speak of and no economies is what is behind the widespread rioting and civil wars we call the "Arab Spring."

 

[JoeB131]

.

I like Ted Cruz' line:

"We're not Al Qaeda's Air Force".

A perfect illustration of the inevitable unintended consequences we never seem to consider when we narcissistically stick our nose in the business of others.

.

Al Qaeda only exists because we stuck our nose into Afghanistan's business.

You see, those Soviets were teaching women to read, and they couldn't have that.

Here's where I think we have a problem.

We look back at Japan and West Germany, countries we defeated in war, but were able to transform into vibrant democracies.

The thing was, it took major commitments to do that.

Commitments we are unwilling to make today.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.

 

[JoeB131]

There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.

Don't worry about it.

The Zionists have ordered us to take out Assad.

So the REpublicans are getting on line behind Obama.

Couldn't get behind fixing the economy or the health care system, but dammit, Israel says "Jump" and the GOP says, "How High?"

 

[Circe]

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.

Good post: I agree. It's always about something else than we're told. In Bush's case there were no WMD poison gas thingies. In Assad's case, it was probably the rebels using them anyway. I assume they are lying about all the ha-ha supposed limits they are putting on the war in order to get to start up at all. Once they get there, they'll do whatever they want and not tell us and deny reports.

I am guessing it's about getting in there and then parlaying this into a war on Iran, but I can't know that, of course. What do you think is the real reason Obama and Co. want their war?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.

Don't worry about it.

The Zionists have ordered us to take out Assad.

So the REpublicans are getting on line behind Obama.

Couldn't get behind fixing the economy or the health care system, but dammit, Israel says "Jump" and the GOP says, "How High?"

Your frothy partisanship is noted. However, Obama is the one instigating this attack. Republicans are always happy to go to war. But i thought you voted for hope and change? What happened there, Joe?

And I agree, Israel is playing a large role in the push for US intervention. So the question then goes to republicans that claim Obama is anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. What say you?

More than ever before, it's painfully obvious how much the two parties aren't two at all. There is dissenting voices to the status quo within each, but they are one party. Whether D or R.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Don't worry about it.

The Zionists have ordered us to take out Assad.

So the REpublicans are getting on line behind Obama.

Couldn't get behind fixing the economy or the health care system, but dammit, Israel says "Jump" and the GOP says, "How High?"

Your frothy partisanship is noted. However, Obama is the one instigating this attack. Republicans are always happy to go to war. But i thought you voted for hope and change? What happened there, Joe?

And I agree, Israel is playing a large role in the push for US intervention. So the question then goes to republicans that claim Obama is anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. What say you?

More than ever before, it's painfully obvious how much the two parties aren't two at all. There is dissenting voices to the status quo within each, but they are one party. Whether D or R.

Since you get closer to having a discussion than most people do...

1) Not a "partisan" issue for me. I'm a registered Republican who voted for the GOP in every election until 2012 when the inmates took over the asylum.

2) I don't think Obama is "instigating" this in some much as he's painted himself into a corner. After he said he would do something, he has to do it.

3) The reasons WHY Israel and AIPAC are getting behind this are interesting. Their main goal is so they can still have a credible case for using force against Iran. A Syria run by Al Qaeda would be a LOT worse for Israel than one run by the Assad Dynasty, which really hasn't messed with Israel in decades.

4) The unfortunate thing is when it comes to the Middle East, there is no difference between the two parties. My question is, why does the GOP insist on placating a constitency that never votes for them.

 

[HolyHayzoos]

We should just wait for all the arabs to kill each other. Anyways, Syria is a waste of good sand. Arabs are useless unless the white man comes and finds oil for them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here is the plan.

If Obama does nothing, then we blame him.

If Obama drops bombs, we blame him.

If Obama doesn't seek Congressional approval, we blame him.

If Obama seeks congressional approval, we blame him.

Remember: this isn't about Syria. Everything we do, we do against Obama.

Go suck an egg, you Obamunist fucktard.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Don't worry about it, the Zionists just gave Boehner his marching orders.

AIPAC Endorses Resolution to Strike Syria, Whatever It Says

Seig Heil!

And the Nazis seep out of the sewers. Comrade Stalin, your namesake, butchered more Jews than Hitler did - must be why you love and emulate him.

 

[Tuatara]

There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.

Don't worry about it.

The Zionists have ordered us to take out Assad.

So the REpublicans are getting on line behind Obama.

Couldn't get behind fixing the economy or the health care system, but dammit, Israel says "Jump" and the GOP says, "How High?"

Your frothy partisanship is noted. However, Obama is the one instigating this attack. Republicans are always happy to go to war. But i thought you voted for hope and change? What happened there, Joe?

And I agree, Israel is playing a large role in the push for US intervention. So the question then goes to republicans that claim Obama is anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. What say you?

More than ever before, it's painfully obvious how much the two parties aren't two at all. There is dissenting voices to the status quo within each, but they are one party. Whether D or R.

When it comes to US foreign policy there is no such thing as a liberal President.