War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[whitehall]

Simplistic and perhaps insulting question regarding an extremely complicated issue. What kind of war? Who the hell are we fighting?

I don't think it's all that complicated. And i certainly don't think it's insulting to ask the question. Do you want War with Syria or not? Go with your gut and answer.

"Go with your gut" when war isn't defined or the enemy isn't identified? War in Iraq was relatively clear cut. Saddam violated perhaps a hundred UN sanctions and the UN (and congress) authorized intervention. Bill Clinton and the best intelligence at the time indicated that Saddam was developing WMD's. President Bush gave Saddam a year to comply (and ship the WMD technology to Iran?). Should we land in Syria with tanks and artillery or should we launch cruise missiles? Maybe we should send a couple of Seal teams in to capture somebody. They are acts of war and vastly different. Who should we target? The muslem brotherhood or the regime? What next?

 

[Kondor3]

Arab League Rejects Attack Against Syria

New York Times --- By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and MARK LANDLER --- Published: August 27, 2013

CAIRO — The leaders of the Arab world on Tuesday blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people last week, but declined to back a retaliatory military strike, leaving President Obama without the broad regional support he had for his last military intervention in the Middle East, in Libya in 2011.

While the Obama administration has robust European backing and more muted Arab support for a strike on Syria, the position of the Arab League and the unlikelihood of securing authorization from the United Nations Security Council complicate the legal and diplomatic case for the White House.

The White House said Tuesday that there was “no doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack — an assessment shared by Britain, France and other allies — but it has yet to make clear if it has any intelligence directly linking Mr. Assad to the attack. The administration said it planned to provide intelligence on the attack later this week.

As Mr. Obama sought to shore up international support for military action, telephoning Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, administration officials said they did not regard the lack of an imprimatur from the Security Council or the Arab League as insurmountable hurdles, given the carnage last week.

Administration officials have declined to spell out the legal justification that Mr. Obama would use in ordering a strike, beyond saying that the large-scale use of chemical weapons violates international norms. But officials said he could draw on a range of treaties and statutes, from the Geneva Conventions to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr. Obama, they said, could also cite the need to protect a vulnerable population, as his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, did in ordering NATO’s 78-day air campaign on Kosovo in 1999. Or he could invoke the principle of “responsibility to protect,” which some officials cited to justify the American-led bombing campaign in Libya.

“There is no doubt here that chemical weapons were used on a massive scale on Aug. 21 outside of Damascus,” said the White House spokesman, Jay Carney. “There is also very little doubt, and should be no doubt for anyone who approaches this logically, that the Syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 outside of Damascus.”

A number of nations in Europe and the Middle East, along with several humanitarian organizations, have joined the United States in the assessment. But with the specter of the faulty intelligence assessments before the Iraq war still hanging over American decision making, and with polls showing that only a small fraction of the American public supports military intervention in Syria, some officials in Washington realize that there needs to be some kind of a public presentation making the case for war.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/arab-league-rejects-attack-against-syria.html?_r=0

 

[Connery]

Under the circumstances Yes. Further, there is precedent, law and good reason to join in with NATO allies and take care of this situation.

 

[Camp]

For all those that imagine the President doesn't have authorty to strike, or could be impeached if he did, mull on this. Turkey is a member of NATO and shares a border with Syria. Missile strikes and artilery rounds have been launched in the past from Syria into Turkey. America, as part of NATO responded by placing a number of Patriot Missile Batterys on the Turkish/Syrian border. That means that American military personel are in striking range of illegal WMD's known and admitted by Syria to be in the Syrian arsonal. The President has the legal and moral obligation to protect our troops. When Syria decided to implement the use of there weapon, they indeed crossed a red line. They gave the USA legal authority to defend themselves against these weapons, including pre-emptive strikes.

 

[Circe]

War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...With some help from France and UK, and go ahead from the Arab League. Some patience.

I see most people don't believe normalizing the use of poison gas is the reason, but I believe it is.

Consider: poison gas is so yucky a death, a weapon, that it gives war a bad name. It would be harder to fight wars, to get soldiers volunteering, if gas is a weapon they have to expect. So much for fresh-faced young Americans in the Join The Army ads --- it would only be those evil monster gas masks. They need to preserve warfighting ability.

 

[francoHFW]

Arab League must want proof now- this won't happen tonight, as I said...


Momentum Grows for Military Action Against Syria - ABC News
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syria-defend-attack-20078364
7 hours ago ... The Arab League also threw its weight behind calls for punitive action, blaming
the Syrian government for the attack and calling for those ...

 

[francoHFW]

It's against the Geneva Convention, in short...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.

NO EFFING WAY..
We have NO BUSINESS sending one soldier to Syria...
Those people do not want us there. They don't even want our money. Same for Egypt.
We send billions. They spit at us, burn our flag and wish death upon us.
What more do those knuckleheads in Washington have to be told before they get the message.

 

[Circe]

Barry's poll numbers are now down around 35%........

43.8 according to RealClearPolitics, but that is quite low -- I had no idea his numbers had gone down so low! Imagine what will happen if his war goes badly.....

 

[Wildman]

absolutely positively fucking NO !!

but we know that fucking mulatto muslime will sacrifice our good Christian men to help his Al Qweerda brotherhood buddies.

personally i can not think of any thing better than having muslimes killing other muslimes. ...

 

[MikeK]

Not only no, but fuck no! There is nothing to be gained by military adventurism in Syria, only loss.

There is much to be gained from it -- by the Military Industrial Complex. And therein lies the tale.

It really is that simple.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Listen ............... just because the Syrian president is backed by Russians, and in Russian culture MEN carry a purse, doesn't mean we should stand our ground and shove their purses up their asses ........ just because we can .............. this sends the wrong message to all.

 

[Wildman]

meh.... i have no problem with them killing each other off. Less of them to hate us.

Dear young lady, your avatar photos are very TITillating

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A war to support obama's lies? No.

You really are a partisan moron.

UN Official, Syrian Rebels Used Sarin Nerve Gas, Not Assad?s Army | Live Trading News

 

[TemplarKormac]

Simply put, no. But I will gladly sit by and watch as Obama's own party eats him alive for it.

And when my children ask me 10 years down the road, "Daddy why are we still at war with Syria?"

I'll tell them the story of how a president named Obama got mad at Bush for Iraq and for Afghanistan, but started that darned war in Syria, because they crossed a frickkun red line.

 

[Sallow]

If someone says yes they better explain themselves.

I say maybe and for the following reasons.

The entire world has agreed that the use of chemical weapons is forbidden. The US really screwed the pooch during the Iraq/Iran war and this is the result. If this gets a pass, more and more chemical weapons will be used. They are cheap and very effective. They also leave a really big mess.

That posted, the President should follow the Constitution on this one.

He should wait until the UN inspections are done. If they show that Chemical Weapons were used, he should come up with a plan for limited action with very specific goals and definable benchmarks.

Once done, he should go to congress and present the case for war..allow robust debate and abide by their decision.

 

[Brain357]

It's nice to see something that at least the great majority of people here can agree on. Didn't think that was possible.

 

[AceRothstein]

No, our tinkering in that area of the world has not led to any positive outcomes.

We supported bin Laden in the 80's in Afghanistan, that came back to bite us in the ass. Afghanistan is worse off now than it was 40 years ago.
We fucked around in Iran for 30 years and they have been one of our biggest adversaries since.
Our dealings in Iraq over the last 30 years have left that place on the verge of civil war today.
We've been striking Yemen with drones since the Bush days and it has turned into a safe haven for Al Qaeda.
Then you have Lebanon, Libya and Somalia to go along with these.

Let's stay the fuck out of it.

 

[deltex1]

So far Syria has cost me 20k this week...lets get on with it...whatever it is,

 

[JoeB131]

I think it's an honest question.

Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?

Because Assad's a murdering asshole?

I think going in would be a bad idea. Because either our attacks will have no effect, in which case, our ability to threaten people with force will be diminished.

Or worse, it might actually work. Then what? The Jihadists win and Turkey expands its influence in the region.