Why is Syria different? My answer.

[Quantum Windbag]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Syria. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position, and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I like the second to last bullet: It is against US law to aid and abet our enemies, in fact, according to the Constitution, Article III, Section 3, it is Treason, and is punihsable by death.

I would cut off my left nut to see Mccain and Obama publicly hang for treason.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

I don't support "war" in Syria, nor did I support Afghanistan or Iraq. (Nor any other US military action since WWII).

But I think I can answer some of those questions.

1. Attacking Syria will accomplish putting pressure on Assad on behalf of Qatar.
2. Then that sucks, I guess.
3. I have no idea.
4. Because he's being mean to Qatar.
5. We're not.
6. Probably not.
7. See #4.
8. Some of them.
9. We're not supporting Al-nustra or ISI.
10. "Chemical Weapons" are an excuse, nothing more.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think a case could have been made, easily, for action in Syria. It has little to do with the different factions and more to do with the use of gas, which is intolerable.
Obama has failed to make that case. Everything he has proposed will not do anything to lessen the possibility of renewed use of poison gas. Ineffective posturing is not governing or making policy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

But you’ve not addressed the ‘difference’ between Libya and Syria.

Likely because there is none.

The problem is most on the right supported an attack on Libya in 2011, but now oppose an identical strike on Syria – that’s hypocrisy.

As a rightist perhaps you could address that hypocrisy, as it’s perfectly appropriate to infer that conservative opposition to a strike against Syria is purely partisan.

Indeed, conservative and republican opposition to military action against Syria is completely inconsistent with fundamental neo-con and rightist foreign policy dogma for at least the last 30 years – where Reagan, GHWB, and GWB all authorized military action against countries such as Libya, Granada, Lebanon, Panama, Iraq (Kuwait), Iraq again, and Afghanistan predicated on the need to punish or diminish the military power of a particular dictator or ruler on international law/humanitarian grounds.

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

This makes no sense.

First, no one is advocating ‘going to war,’ including the president.

Second, no one is in support of the limited strikes “simply because the president tells us it is a good idea.”

Last, if you’re aware of the WPA, then you know a given president is acting both legally and Constitutionally when authorizing military action during an initial 60-day period. Until such time as Congress either repeals the WPA, or a Federal court determines the Act un-Constitutional or the Executive’s interpretation of the Act un-Constitutional, the president’s actions are legal and presumed to be warranted.

If you believe the WPA conflicts with the original intent of the Framers, then advocate for its repeal. Until such time as the Act is repealed, however, you’re in no position to make the claim that any president is ‘violating’ the Constitution when invoking the authority granted him by the WPA.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont think we need a barking mad lib to tell us what "neo-con" policy is.

Syria and Libya are two very different conflicts and very different times. And there was lots of opposition to action in Libya at the time from conservatives.

The question is why Democraps opposed Iraq but are supporting Syria. Ohyeah, a lot of them aren't. But Obama, who never met an action by Bush he could vote for, is now pursuing the exact same policy. Just not as well, of course.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I dont think we need a barking mad lib to tell us what "neo-con" policy is.

Syria and Libya are two very different conflicts and very different times. And there was lots of opposition to action in Libya at the time from conservatives.

The question is why Democraps opposed Iraq but are supporting Syria. Ohyeah, a lot of them aren't. But Obama, who never met an action by Bush he could vote for, is now pursuing the exact same policy. Just not as well, of course.

If it's the exact same policy as Bush and Iraq,

why aren't you supporting it? You supported the Iraq war didn't you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

A super thoughtful OP. I believe we should strike Syria but not engage in an invasion. If we can knock out the chemical stock, all the better. If Russia keeps supplying Assad with sarin, then all the better for the USA to publicize it to the world.

Doing nothing in this case is not the right or best thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont think we need a barking mad lib to tell us what "neo-con" policy is.

Syria and Libya are two very different conflicts and very different times. And there was lots of opposition to action in Libya at the time from conservatives.

The question is why Democraps opposed Iraq but are supporting Syria. Ohyeah, a lot of them aren't. But Obama, who never met an action by Bush he could vote for, is now pursuing the exact same policy. Just not as well, of course.

If it's the exact same policy as Bush and Iraq,

why aren't you supporting it? You supported the Iraq war didn't you?

The question is why are you supporting it?

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's war on Syria is against the few Christians still living there. Bush didn't support al quaeda, or arm the people who intend to use those weapons against us or our allies. obama does. It's not the same policy as Bush and Iraq. When you come up with Bush's policy in Iraq as killing Christians let us know.

oama supports terrorists. The same ones who flew those planes into our buildings. He supports the same people who killed our ambassador in Libya. That might explain why he just can't bring himself to find out who did it.

At least part of the fighting in Syria is the holy war muslims are fighting against infidels. oama already told us what he would do in such a conflict. He wrote it in his book, The Audacity of Hope.
Page 261.

Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

He was already sympathetic to arabs and Pakistanis finding them victims of white racism.

 

[Redfish]

obama's war on Syria is against the few Christians still living there. Bush didn't support al quaeda, or arm the people who intend to use those weapons against us or our allies. obama does. It's not the same policy as Bush and Iraq. When you come up with Bush's policy in Iraq as killing Christians let us know.

oama supports terrorists. The same ones who flew those planes into our buildings. He supports the same people who killed our ambassador in Libya. That might explain why he just can't bring himself to find out who did it.

At least part of the fighting in Syria is the holy war muslims are fighting against infidels. oama already told us what he would do in such a conflict. He wrote it in his book, The Audacity of Hope.
Page 261.

Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

He was already sympathetic to arabs and Pakistanis finding them victims of white racism.

the Manchurian candidate?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I dont think we need a barking mad lib to tell us what "neo-con" policy is.

Syria and Libya are two very different conflicts and very different times. And there was lots of opposition to action in Libya at the time from conservatives.

The question is why Democraps opposed Iraq but are supporting Syria. Ohyeah, a lot of them aren't. But Obama, who never met an action by Bush he could vote for, is now pursuing the exact same policy. Just not as well, of course.

If it's the exact same policy as Bush and Iraq,

why aren't you supporting it? You supported the Iraq war didn't you?

The question is why are you supporting it?

I'm not.

Let me repeat the question:

If it's the exact same policy as Bush and Iraq, why aren't you supporting it?

 

[The Rabbi]

If it's the exact same policy as Bush and Iraq,

why aren't you supporting it? You supported the Iraq war didn't you?

The question is why are you supporting it?

I'm not.

Let me repeat the question:

If it's the exact same policy as Bush and Iraq, why aren't you supporting it?

Do you oppose Obama because he's black?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

I'll ask you what I asked elsewhere:

1. Do the prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons represent an enforcement obligation to the United States, since the US is a signatory to those prohibitions?

2. If yes, does the President have an obligation to attempt to execute enforcement?

3. If yes, does the President have an obligation to go to Congress if the threat to the US is not imminent?

4. If yes, what is Obama doing that is wrong?

 

[Redfish]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

I'll ask you what I asked elsewhere:

1. Do the prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons represent an enforcement obligation to the United States, since the US is a signatory to those prohibitions?

2. If yes, does the President have an obligation to attempt to execute enforcement?

3. If yes, does the President have an obligation to go to Congress if the threat to the US is not imminent?

4. If yes, what is Obama doing that is wrong?

1 NO

2, 3, 4 See 1

 

[Contumacious]

What will attacking Syria accomplish?.

You must study the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSLlIRf-aQI"]USS Liberty[/ame] affair to understand that we are being governed by criminals.

The CIA, the Mossad and Saudi Arabia concocted a plan which required the rebels to gas children and other civilians and then blame Assad.

Then the US would attack Syria because we are the "good guys" and Assad "crossed the redline" (wink, wink).

Of course they know that Iran and Lebanon will respond to the attack.

Obama will then claim that it has to respond to the Iran and Lebanon attack.

Obama will impress the Saudi Arabians by placing the Sunnis in control of Syria. Israel will be very happy to see Iran destroyed.

And so it goes.

.

 

[Redfish]

What will attacking Syria accomplish?.

You must study the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSLlIRf-aQI"]USS Liberty[/ame] affair to understand that we are being governed by criminals.

The CIA, the Mossad and Saudi Arabia concocted a plan which required the rebels to gas children and other civilians and then blame Assad.

Then the US would attack Syria because we are the "good guys" and Assad "crossed the redline" (wink, wink).

Of course they know that Iran and Lebanon will respond to the attack.

Obama will then claim that it has to respond to the Iran and Lebanon attack.

Obama will impress the Saudi Arabians by placing the Sunnis in control of Syria. Israel will be very happy to see Iran destroyed.

And so it goes.

.

and the US will sacrifice thousands of american kids and billions of dollars--------------will we never learn?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The question is why are you supporting it?

I'm not.

Let me repeat the question:

If it's the exact same policy as Bush and Iraq, why aren't you supporting it?

Do you oppose Obama because he's black?

Now that you've been trapped into making a fool of yourself, again, your best bet might be to shut the fuck up. Cut your losses.

 

[chikenwing]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

I'll ask you what I asked elsewhere:

1. Do the prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons represent an enforcement obligation to the United States, since the US is a signatory to those prohibitions?

2. If yes, does the President have an obligation to attempt to execute enforcement?

3. If yes, does the President have an obligation to go to Congress if the threat to the US is not imminent?

4. If yes, what is Obama doing that is wrong?

Well your doing a great job justifying action in Iraq,a position you have never taken.


You must have evolved.

 

[Contumacious]

What will attacking Syria accomplish?.

You must study the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSLlIRf-aQI"]USS Liberty[/ame] affair to understand that we are being governed by criminals.

The CIA, the Mossad and Saudi Arabia concocted a plan which required the rebels to gas children and other civilians and then blame Assad.

Then the US would attack Syria because we are the "good guys" and Assad "crossed the redline" (wink, wink).

Of course they know that Iran and Lebanon will respond to the attack.

Obama will then claim that it has to respond to the Iran and Lebanon attack.

Obama will impress the Saudi Arabians by placing the Sunnis in control of Syria. Israel will be very happy to see Iran destroyed.

And so it goes.

.

and the US will sacrifice thousands of american kids and billions of dollars--------------will we never learn?

That is no problem. The motherfuckers are ruthless.

LBJ was willing to have the USS Liberty's sailors murdered and the ship sunk to the bottom of the Mediterranean sea in order to have the pretext to militarily steal Egypt from the USSR.

.