Syria? Should We or Shouldn't We?

I think more than anything, our actions in the 80's ties our hands today.

 

We should not. And I have the same question...why us? Let someone else bomb the place if they want to. We've already done enough to have the entire region to want to blow us up. Time to give someone else the pleasure.

 

Here's what I think we should do, but it will require the wisdom and courage that both of the big box political parties seam to be lacking. We should establish refugee zones in boarding countries and provide them with proper, instead of token support and infrastructure. If the situation in Syria is tenable, we should set up demilitarized safety zones for Syrians with enough sense not to get involved, like what the Nazis and others did in Nanking during the Japanese occupation. This would require international cooperation and getting the Russians involved in a joint effort. As for the combatants, I wouldn't support either side, let them fight it out, not our problem. When it's over, we leave, no influencing, no nation building. Under the most difficult circumstances, you're talking decades. We don't have the time or resources. The big win will be with the Syrians citizens we aided. We stand the chance of no longer being perceived as evil Yankees but as the people we hope to be. That would be a real revolution.

 

Unless I am missing something, that would require boots on the ground both in Syria and their boarding (bordering?) countries. There is no way you could possibly have refugee camps without MAJOR protection especially from missiles. It would take less troops just to occupy Syria. Not only that, but I somehow doubt Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Israel would be very amenable to us setting up camps on their land.

 

True, Jordan may help, the others probably not unless public opinion can be swayed. Yes, it will take boots on the ground and a lot of international persuading and cooperation. This is hard to explain; a politically neutral relief force would be more benign to both warring parties than an occupation force with an agenda. There would only be a down side in attacking the camps (I really don't see camps but regions) and creating a powerful enemy. In other word, rocket the neutral zone and you will see B1's coming at you carpet bombing your little operation and we won't give a damn about collateral damage. This would also take the willingness of villages to be included. I don't know what the back waters are like there and on what social or ethnical lines the conflict is drawn. There could be a series of zones with different interest.

 

Rots o ruck! And, FWIW, missiles are not necessarily susceptible to carpet bombing.

 

The two most thought out responses in this thread. Rlm, I'll give you credit for bringing up the "red line" statement.
I see it as a damned if we do and damned if we don't situation.

The problem with the damned if we do and damned if we don't situation is it's more than just President Obama.
It starts that way it would seem with the "red line" statement. If he doesn't comment somehow he's damned. Then he does and he's damned.

The bigger picture, however, is that it damns us as a nation in the eyes of the world. Especially the Mideast. Now is that a surprise to anyone?

I tend to agree with Stu at this point. Let OTHER nations jump in and see how the water is for a change.
IF they choose to do so that is.

It may sound horrible but does anyone think that if other nations basically do nothing there will be more chemical attacks?
Could be but somehow I doubt it.

On the other hand if it does it's a whole new ballgame I suppose.

Innocent people will and already have died for sure. It's been going on for some time in this old world. More people, more deaths it seems but it's not OUR responsibility to "keep people safe". Bottom line is it really doesn't work all that well.

We waste tons of money doing this and wars don't "stimulate the economy" like the "good old days".

 

This is just another case where BO's stupidity & lack of experience are coming back to haunt him...he's damned himself no matter what action he takes (or doesn't take).

 

Considering that there are only a few people here that have even attempted to actually address the OP (Syria? Should We or Shouldn't We?) let's take another angle shall we?

If Obama were not president what would President Romney do?

Would it be a cut and dried, absolutely correct decision that everyone in the U.S. and world for that matter reflected on and said "wow what a genius and a great decision!".

Somehow I doubt it. He'd be in the same position the real President is in.

 

I did not back the Iraq war and I do not back getting in a war with Syria just because there is a Democrat in office. Contrast that with the Right-wingers that defended and continue to defend the Iraq war just because George Bush started it. I'm consistent at least, they are simply partisan. There is a time and a place for war but this certainly isn't it. Was Iraq worth the blood and treasure? Is it a more Democratic peaceful country today? Do they love us? Iraq was a lie and Syria would be a mess that extended well beyond their borders.
My vote? Let's see how many Syrians the Syrians can kill before we start helping them kill each other.

 

Let me ask. Who in Syria asked us to intervene? Specifically who?

 

Actually, I rather doubt he would be in the same position. It took Obama 5 years to paint him inside the box he is in. Along the way, he made many decisions that I doubt Romney would have also made. Two that come quickly to mind are the radar in Europe at Putin's behest and the kid gloves he has used on Iran. Make no mistake, Syria is but a pawn in this. Putin and Iran are the major players. I assure you Romney would not have done the same. Although I have no idea how much, if any, better the results would have been, but I will bet they would have been no worse.

 

Thanks for answering rlm.

In other words you don't know how "President Romney" would have handled this and none of us do. It's a hypothetical question after all.

Syria a pawn? Yep.

It's all business after all.

Still, I have to ask how you can "assure me" when you have no idea.

Other than the "red line" just what has Obama done?

 

As different as those two were, how could you really expect then to even have a shot at doing the same painting. However, you will notice that I did not say that he would necessarily get better results.

 

Ahh! Another Right-wing talking point with zero basis in reality we will hear again and again from now on. The "red line" comment. No matter how many times we show the actual text of Obama's words, the meme is just easier for their simple brains to spew than the actual words. Here we go again.

President Obama’s “red line” on Syria isn’t quite as straightforward as it’s been made out to be.
The president is facing a complicated decision on Syria. With the White House now expressing “very little doubt” that the regime of Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons in an attack Wednesday outside Damascus, some U.S. lawmakers are calling for a military response – or at least an update on what options are being considered.
Today, the office of House Speaker John Boehner asserted that Syria had crossed the “red line” staked out by Obama last year – the use of chemical weapons on its own people.
“The Syrian regime has blatantly crossed President Obama’s red line, the White House has acknowledged, by using chemical weapons on its people,” wrote Boehner communications aide Brendan Buck, calling on Obama to consult with Congress and address the American people if he pursues a response.
“If he chooses to act, the president must explain his decision publicly, clearly and resolutely,” Buck wrote.
The use of chemical weapons, itself, was not exactly Obama’s original “red line,” as he laid it out during a news conference at the White House on Aug. 20, 2012. For purposes of expediency and practicality, media outlets have simplified the “red line” as this: If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House.
But what Obama said was a little less clear.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that “red line” would be. Obama has cautioned that unilateral action, particularly without a U.N. mandate, may be unwise and could run afoul of international law. In keeping with the strategy he used in seeking international cooperation for airstrikes against Libya in 2011, Obama warned in a CNN interview last week that international cooperation is key to military intervention.
To many, Wednesday’s attack outside Damascus would likely qualify as “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons deployed.
Over the weekend, the group Doctors Without Borders announced that three Damascus-area hospitals it supports received an influx of 3,600 patients within three hours on Wednesday morning, 355 which reportedly died, according to the group.
“[T]he reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent,” Dr. Bart Janssens, the group’s director of operations, announced via the Doctors Without Borders website Saturday morning.
Symptoms included “convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress,” Janssens said.
But despite the description of “mass exposure” to nerve gas, whether the “red line” has been crossed seemingly will depend on Obama’s interpretation of how much gas was used and may also depend on whether Obama intended his “red line” to refer to multiple attacks and large-scale movement of weapons, not just a “whole bunch” of neurotoxins deployed at once.
For his part, the president seemed to be moving more seriously toward action.
Over the weekend, Obama’s top military and intelligence advisers presented him with a range of options, the White House announced after a Saturday meeting, and he spoke via phone with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande, discussing “possible responses” from the international community, the White House said.
Those two countries, Britain and France, comprised America’s principal partners in conducting airstrikes against Libya in March 2011.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...tually-said-about-syria-and-chemical-weapons/

 

View attachment 1952

 

Syria is in the midst of a Civil War. The Syrian army/government has chemical weapons (as in Mustard gas, for example). The rebels have captured several areas over the last year, which likely includes stockpiles of chemical weapons. Raw material is typically stored in one-ton containers, and may not be secured properly, or moved in time, for example. Therefore, chemical weapons are likely to be under control of both the Syrian army/government and the rebels.

I have no doubt that chemical weapons exposure has caused deaths in Syria recently. I do have questions as to how that agent was exposed to people.

It may or may not be true that the Syrian army/government authorized and/or used chemical agents to kill rebels, possibly via rockets. It may or may not also be true that a conventional rocket destroyed a container of the chemicals, either intentionally or unintentionally, releasing the chemical agent into the environment.

Until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Syrian army/government intentionally released a chemical weapon on the rebels, I consider it improper to intercede in the Syrian Civil War.

There are too many unanswered questions, and the infamous decision to authorize the Iraq invasion should serve as a reminder to people of what happens when you automatically accept unconfirmed information as truth when it is obvious that it is not truth, only conjecture or outright lies.

 

Interesting how you can cite ABC news as you holy grail but refute everything they say about judge Baugh. BTW, it was very clear what he meant Aug. 20, 2012 was very clear at that time. The fact that you can change what he meant to fit the circumstance today only belittles you and BO.

 

I love this part the most. EVERYTHING these morons hate, and that is a lot of things, comes back to Obama, Too funny.

 

Yes, we know you have another false meme that you and your braindead hillbillies can repeat over and over. You must be so proud Cletus.