Syria? Should We or Shouldn't We?

Since Teddy won't comment.....

I think Obama has backed himself into the proverbial corner with his "red line" comments. I really do not see an alternative at this point both for his own credibility (who cares) and American credibility. The bigger question I have is what will/can he do. There are WAY too many intricacies for me to have a clue which what is best except to say it had best not be a slap on the wrist.

 

I gave you my opinion back on June 3, 2012. Here it is:

Of course, I really enjoyed your response to Arizona Jack:

So, we know your opinion. We care about "selling weapons". Obama won't be attacking Syria to "spread democracy". He won't be attacking Syria to "save civilians". He won't be attacking Syria to "get rid of a dictator". The reason Obama will be attacking Syria is because he "will be attacking a Russian cash cow".

Just remember that when the attack happens.

 

So in your opinion(Wow! an actual opinion Okie), you think we should attack them with everything we have. I think that you should read C jay piece in Okie's thread. You might change your mind. I could happen.

 

Joe, I showed your opinion from over a year ago. What's your opinion now? Has it changed at all? Should Obama attack? If so, why?

 

Does not change a thing I have said. Obama stuck his foot in his mouth and now he has got to get it out. What alternatives does he have? NONE! It is his corner so he has to live with it. Do I agree with his policies getting us here. Not only NO, but HELL NO. I would have either settled this years ago or stayed out, put Putin in his place 5 years ago, stopped negotiating with Iran years ago, and so on. Wouldda, coulda, shoulda does not help where we are today.

BTW, please warn me when you are going to happen. I will duck first.

 

Let's hear yours.

 

Did you forget/not learn how to read? Go back and really read post #22!

 

I don't care about Libya. Your cowardly evasive comrade just can't bring herself to the point of expressing her opinion but would rather sit back and ridicule others for their opinions. So cowardly that it is almost funny. Sad but funny too.

 

OMG! It is in English - " I don't want Obama to intervene in Syria either"

 

RLM, I believe he's drunk. The alcohol seems to have impaired his vision. But, maybe if I enlarge the text from Post #22 he can read it:

"I don't want Obama to intervene in Syria either"​

Can you read that, Little Joe?​

​

​

 

Maybe he is hung over from that DDS at the US mint.

BTW, now it is there 4 time for him to read. I wonder if he can catch the drift now.

 

I'm sure he has read it by now. I'm just waiting to hear whether or not he still agrees with his own opinion from a year ago. I'd like to know if he agrees or disagrees with Obama and the reasons for the imminent attack on Syria and, if so, why. Do you think he has the courage to tell us his honest opinion?

 

You guys just don't get it, do you?
If BO does it or says it, it can't be disputed because, well, BO is the greatest, smartest, funniest...he's just perfect...and to question him just shows your own ignorance. Tell 'em dr moen, tell 'em.

 

I know when we've reached that point where you 3 are just talking about me to each other that you've lost yet another round. Your cowardly comrade has demonstrated to everyone that her panties are showing from underneath her dress and can't run with the men.

Jack is so right about you three. You let me beat the crap out of you and simply fall into your usual circle jerk for safety. I have to admit, it is entertaining.

 

So, confirming the fact you are nothing more than a partisan hack is considered a success in your world? Hmmmmm....I think you need to get clueless posting again so you aren't the stupidest person here.

 

Oh, I think we got it. Hence the question BEFORE Obama does something/nothing. And now Teddy proven that he cannot act without BO's directive.

 

This is a direct question to JoeNation: Do you think Obama should attack Syria?

It's a simple question, really. The Defense Department has indicated that the attack is imminent and the articles you copied/pasted reiterate that claim. However, the bigger question is whether or not Obama SHOULD attack Syria. I've given you my opinion and it's an unequivocal "No, he should not". Now, would you please give your opinion?

 

If that is your answer, then I will give an equally detailed answer.

In my opinion, he should not get us involved in Syria.

If you would have bothered to read my response to c jay in your thread, you'd know this already.

 

Thank you for giving an answer.

 

I'd say that we lost the moral high ground on WMD's back during the Reagan/Bush Era.

CIA Files Show America Helped Saddam Hussein As He Gassed Iran
By: DSWrightMonday August 26, 2013 7:30 am

As the United States government prepares for war with Syria over an alleged chemical weapons attack, a report by Foreign Policy magazine details CIA files that prove that the U.S. knew Saddam Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history and provided him assistance anyway. Previously it was a matter of debate as to how familiar American officials were with Hussein’s chemical weapons use. Now there is no doubt that the U.S. government knew about the attacks and continued support.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.​

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.​

​

​

To be clear, the United States government not only knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons they were helping him effectively use them by providing actionable intelligence to him. Perhaps this underwrote some of the confidence by the Bush Administration – packed to the gills with former Reagan officials - that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction going into the 2003 invasion.
In any case, the CIA files aptly demonstrate American complicity in Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons complicating public commitments the U.S. government had made to non-proliferation and the use of WMDs.

​

In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.​

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons’ use — even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet ​

Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.​

Such moral courage. Is this not the greatest country in the history of history?
Regardless of the posturing America takes regarding the use of chemical weapons, the reality is evident – unacceptable for our enemies, acceptable for our friends. So in the future, or really the now, it would be advisable to look at the complete picture of a conflict before pretending that certain “red lines” such as the use of chemical weapons wholly drive policy decisions. It is a line America doesn’t mind everyone crossing. In fact, we’ll even help you under the right circumstances.