Syria? Should We or Shouldn't We?

British Parliament Votes Against Military Intervention In Syria

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/british-parliament-syria-vote_n_3839067.html

 

First off...in Obama's defense, I wouldn't characterize actions taken by the President in Lybia as "Obama's war on Lybia". We dragged our Nato allies into two (2) wars and, when they felt they (France, Italy, etc) had a moral obligation to take action in Lybia, we had a moral obligation to back their play.

With that said, I'll be the first to object to ANY President taking hostile action toward another sovereign state without Congressional approval...given our country isn't in imminent threat of attack.

That's a problem with Obama...he's done next to nothing to develop Congressional relationships. He ignores Constitutional mandates and does anything he thinks he can get away with. Democrats support him, but would scream bloody murder if a Republican were doing the same thing.

Now on to the OP question...

No...we should NOT lead a war/retaliation in Syria. Territory that is now Syria and Lebanon were part of the "French Mandate" after World War I...after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It's up to the French to lead any action taken in Syria and we, as a Nato member, have an obligation to assist...if asked.

Any unilateral action taken by the US toward Syria will be considered an attack by Israel. Hezbollah will immediately begin firing accurate, Russian-made missiles into Israel. Israel will retaliate by hitting Iranian nuclear facilities. The war will escalate into another US-Russia "Cold War"-style regional conflict that will send energy prices through the roof.

We can't take ANY action in Syria without Congressional approval and ONLY in a logistical support role to France. Hey, we sold weapons to both the Iranians and Iraqis during their war and just let 'em beat the snot out of each other.

I hate to say it, but until we know who we're dealing with, that's what we should be doing in Syria...and Egypt...maintain a level playing field and let 'em duke it out. If anyone wants to be our friend...let them come to us and ask.

 

No.

About the only people in Syria who really, really want us to do something is probably Al Qaeda. They need some more recruitment material.

 

The problem with these threads about Syria is that none of us want U.S. involvement is Syria. Therefore, those who constantly argue for the sake of argument are prodding and probing for some minor difference of opinion so that they can go on the attack and make every single issue about from the past and well into the future about this one perceived difference.

Can't we just agree that nobody wants us to get involved in the Syrian civil war for our own reasons and leave it at that?

 

So far, it seems that no one here wants us to be involved in Syria. Good, I agree with that stance. However, Obama wants to take us into Syria based on "humanitarian reasons" (to save people from further attacks and/or punish Assad for using chemical weapons).

Obama used the same "humanitarian reasons" to attack Libya in 2011 because Ghaddafi was killing the rebels in his country. A similar situation is (and has been for quite some time) happening in Syria. Obama says he wants to attack Syria for "humanitarian reasons". Yet, there are certain people on this forum in particular who agreed with the Libyan response, but don't agree with the possible Syrian response. I'm just trying to understand the hypocrisy of that reasoning.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum. I suppose you could just "leave it at that" if you don't want to discuss the situation. However, I would honestly like to know how someone could support the action in Libya, but not support an action in Syria based upon the same "humanitarian reasons".

If it's because that person thought Libya was just a minor nation and no one would support them and they could be easily taken out, well at least that's an opinion. Perhaps they think that Syria is too big and by bombing them it would bring Russia into the fray. Who knows? I would just like to understand the reasoning for their hypocrisy.

 

You see hypocrisy because your personal hatred of Obama clouds your vision. I see two entirely different situations because I am not considering who is in the Oval Office but rather the situation on the ground. In Libya, Obama explained that he was not raising the curtain on a new era of humanitarian intervention—that the criteria for U.S. action should depend on an intersection of our interests and our values. Or, as he put it: “we must always measure our interests against the need for action.” Libya was a country, he said, at risk of “violence on a horrific scale” specifically because of what he described as an impending slaughter in the city of Benghazi. Allowing that slaughter, he said, would have “stained the conscience of the world.” That was the values part. The reason that taking action met our interests, Obama said, was because the U.S. enjoyed “a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves.
In Syria, the killing there has been undeniably terrible, with estimates running as high as 13,000 dead since the uprising began. But in Libya, Obama was acting specifically in response to the imminent storming by Gaddafi’s forces of Benghazi, a city of 700,000, where Obama predicted an indiscriminate massacre. There was a consensus that military action in Syria would be far riskier than it was in Libya, thanks to Syria’s more sophisticated military forces and air defenses. The Syrian opposition is even more splintered and inchoate than were the Libyan rebels, and Assad is more popular than was Gaddafi. International bodies like the United Nations and Arab League haven’t called for intervention, and Syria’s ties to Russia–and Iran–also introduce all sorts of strategic complications that didn’t exist in the case of Libya, which had few reliable friends and little geo-strategic import.
So equating the two situations purely for partisan reasons is just a futile exercise in political nonsense designed to score political points not a rational analysis of two very different situations. That is why your cry of hypocrisy is so ill-conceived.

 

Sure about that?

 

Another well thought out contribution?

 

So, you aren't basing your opinion on who happens to be in the White House but rather your opinion is cemented because "Obama explains..."? Ok, got it!

 

Obama has nothing to do with the hypocrisy displayed by some members of this forum for as you've pointed out, it doesn't seem to matter who is in the White House. Please tell me how it isn't hypocritical to support military action in Libya for "humanitarian reasons", but not support it in Syria for the exact same reasons? This I gotta hear.

 

OK. Both Obama and John Kerry have said Assad used chemical weapons on the rebels. Kerry said we shouldn't take his word for it, but that we should look at a newly released intelligence assessment for proof. Is that proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or do you want more proof?

Kerry said this today:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday that there is clear evidence that chemical weapons were used in Syria, as he continued to make the case for intervention in that country. ​

​

​

"I'm not asking you to take my word for it," Kerry said, pointing to a newly released intelligence assessment detailing the chemical weapons use. ​

​

"This is what Assad did to his own people," Kerry said.​

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/30/kerry-says-clear-evidence-chemical-weapons-used-in-syria-as-intelligence/#ixzz2dTScYSis​

 

As I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong), the US supported the NATO response in Libya very reluctantly...and in a "support role", only. I'm not opposed to taking military action for "humanitarian reasons" if/when approved by Congress. That's the key. I don't recall Obama seeking Congressional approval before committing to NATO actions in Libya...and that was wrong.

Given Congressional approval...and in a NATO support role, I don't have a problem with a Syrian intervention. My concern is that this is a calculated move to draw Israel into the conflict...and that could be very counter productive to US interests in the region. I just hope calmer heads prevail and we think this thing through before taking action.

 

Did you read ONLY the first sentence of post #86!!!!! How much clearer can I be? It spells out EXACTLY why these are two different situations.
As I said in the post #84 ...."those who constantly argue for the sake of argument are prodding and probing for some minor difference of opinion so that they can go on the attack and make every single issue about from the past and well into the future about this one perceived difference" You fit this description perfectly and you give away your motive by completely ignoring post #86. You're a hack! Stop asking questions you don't want answers to you dumbass.

 

Here, I fixed this for you. You're welcome.

 

Is this all you are capable of? No wonder people ignore you.

 

Is this all you are capable of? No wonder people ignore you.

 

Parrot boy. View attachment 1956

 

You're only reaffirming my assertion that you're a low-information liberal. If someone says they agree with attacking one country for "humanitarian reasons" then they are a hypocrite for disagreeing to attack another country for the exact same reasons. Can't you get that through your thick skull, you uni-brow, knuckle-dragging neanderthal?

 

Ignore "who"?

...

 

Regardless of the politics, I do applaud the President for asking for a Congressional vote before action. Hopefully, we will be as smart as the UKians were and Just Say No.