Justify Syria

"One could argue that the attack on US soil gave Bush added leverage but other than that I do not see much difference"

HUGE difference

The American people were scared, and eagerly supported any measure the government wanted to take to "make them safe".

Patriot Act? If you are not doing anything wrong, don't worry.

Iraq? Yeah, sure, let's kill some arabs, and take their oil. Who cares if it's the ones who attacked or not?

Should have invaded Saudi Arabia, if anyone.

Syria is about the same, xcpt Obama is not going to try and sell the American people on invading and occupying Syria in order to establish a democracy in the ME in order to create stability and make the world a safer place, and create the illusion of "doing something" to "keep us safe".

He is smarter than that, and gives the people credit for being smarter than that.

If "he" does anything, it will be after carefully considering all of the angles, and hearing all of the arguments, and considering the real effect on our interests.

The American people are somewhat recovered from the shock of 9/11, and the general interest privacy, rights, liberties and even common sense are crawling back, somewhat.

HUGE difference

Like it or not, Israel is a big part of the equation.

I'd prefer the US ignore other countries' civil wars, but that might not be the smartest play
 
xUT said:
It's not our business.
Stay the F### out!
B) xUT
Click to expand...

Col Ralph Peters makes good arguments that echo your thoughts.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QLQSeVTp_Tg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQLQSeVTp_Tg
 
Ifly2 said:
"One could argue that the attack on US soil gave Bush added leverage but other than that I do not see much difference"

HUGE difference

The American people were scared, and eagerly supported any measure the government wanted to take to "make them safe".

Patriot Act? If you are not doing anything wrong, don't worry.

Iraq? Yeah, sure, let's kill some arabs, and take their oil. Who cares if it's the ones who attacked or not?

Should have invaded Saudi Arabia, if anyone.

Syria is about the same, xcpt Obama is not going to try and sell the American people on invading and occupying Syria in order to establish a democracy in the ME in order to create stability and make the world a safer place, and create the illusion of "doing something" to "keep us safe".

He is smarter than that, and gives the people credit for being smarter than that.

If "he" does anything, it will be after carefully considering all of the angles, and hearing all of the arguments, and considering the real effect on our interests.

The American people are somewhat recovered from the shock of 9/11, and the general interest privacy, rights, liberties and even common sense are crawling back, somewhat.

HUGE difference

Like it or not, Israel is a big part of the equation.

I'd prefer the US ignore other countries' civil wars, but that might not be the smartest play
Click to expand...

Well bears...unlike you, I seem to think that Obama is becoming kind of "Bushy" on Syria. Does he REALLY think that Syria's gas poses a threat to the US? I don't. And if I'm wrong - then join with me and millions of other liberals and...get this...millions of other conservatives....and let's bomb the #### out of Syria. Even a nuke wouldn't be off limits. I (we) are no more threatened by Syria's gas than we were from Saddams nonexistant nukes.

And IF we do anything else...even a cruise missile from a sub, those zanies in Iran will most likely start carpet bombing Israel. And if they do that - it's boots on the ground time for the US. With 2 fronts - a westerm front on the Israeli border and am eastern front in Iran. And why? Because two groups who hate us are killing each other in Syria? Sorry my friend, but if Obama does ANYTHING in Syria, he will make W look like a Rhodes scholar cum laude.
 
KC,

I'm not Bears, either...

The obvious choice is to stay out of Syria

Oddly, some of the same folks criticizing O for not doing enough in Egypt, Libya, etal are now criticizing him for even thinking about doing anything in Syria.

Coincidentally, they are led by the Bushies, who,would have elected McCain, who if you believe what he says would have us still occupying Iraq, attempting to provide long term security and stabilitymin Afghanistan, hunting terrorists in Pakistan, AND in shooting wars with half of North Africa and at least "supporting" the rebels in Syria.

That is a transparent attempt to make Bush not look so bad, or continue to justify his war.

Every president in modern times has launched a few missles, or sent a small invasion force, or authorized limited attacks on narrowly defined targets. Without a declaration of war, or congressional approval, or vuilding a coalition, etc. They have all had arms deals and various scandals.

That might be bad enough, but it comes nowhere near Bush deliberately lying to the American people, on several counts and occasions, during a time of shock over 9/11 when the public just wanted somebody to do something to make them safe - and strike back - to justify a full scale invasion and occupation Of The WRONG COUNTRY which cost so many so much, and the country a debt it will never erase.

You might be right about the escalation of force if we take any military action. You might be wrong. The same people who are now jumping on the "obamaBush" bandwagon have been saying all along that our inaction emboldens the bad players to act out. Now they say action will provoke the bad players to act out. Maybe they are right, too, both times?

That is why we have diplomats and smart people studying these things, and arguing them out, and making a case. And,,thankfully, this time, smart, honest people making the decisions.

It is also why the ranting heads and talk radio experts on everything are not the decision makers. It is easy tomsound like younknow something, or make your point sound like the truth. Ask any old time medicine show or religious revival con artist.

Actually dealing with the issues is a bit more complicated.

Let's hope this administration gets it right.
 
(KC I know who were addressing) With all this CRAP going on in the M E, I have been slowly but surely getting to 'this' point, which is that I'm not so sure ISRAEL is worth all the Trouble, that they've caused (directly or Indirectly), with thier "presence" (for us) EVERYONE with a brain..knows that Israel is front and center about everthing over there !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Sunni's / Shites / Farsi's and Kurds have been and will be trying to Innihilate each other until "Kingdom Come".
Whether or not the Jews should even BE in 'Israel' is water-over-the-damn !!!!!!!!!! The Jews are 'BIG BOYS now, as it comes to being able to take care of themselves. (That doesn't mean that IF theres a direct assault on them, that we shouldn't lend NON-BOOTS-ON-THE-GROUND assistance to them. But I'm getting sick up to here (holding flat hand waaaaay over head) of having to be thier Biggest Bodyguard all the F'N time. Name me ONE other country, (G B excepted) that automatically R U N S to them each and every time. I want to 'run to help' as fast as France or Spain or the Scandinavian countries or Poland or Italy or Ausrailia or Canada etc does,..B U T...NOT faster !!!!!!!!!!!

Russia will NEVER directly attack us and visa-versa. And I'm getting SICK of IRAN'S horse-shitte too. If they want to 'make a move', than fine. I say 'LEAP FROGGY' show me what you got. But thats not gonna happen neither. If RUSSIA wouldn't directly attack the US, Iran would have to be OUT-OF-THIER-MIND...to do it.
If that means Israel get the shite kicked out of them,..well so be it. As long as Israel has the BIG one,....they may get F'd up,...BUT they'll F U thier combatant worse.
The young Israelis (men and women) over there have the BALLS to fight, but I dont see the young american born Jews RUSHING over there enmass to join up. Theres a VERY good reason Israel has the MOST MONEY over HERE(next to within Israel). It's called PROTECTION MONEY, and I'm to the point that I'm not so much 'interested' in the 'job' anymore !!
 
Well Bears, in some ways I may have agreed with you in the past HOWEVER...you have to remember what we are dealing with here. Which side in Syria is the "friendly side"? I can't think of one.

Second question - how many in the Arab world who are outraged that a group was gassed would applaud US action? Again...I can't think of one. If anything, their outrage at the group that gassed people whould be intensified fourfold and directed at...yep....the good old Great Satan.

Then we have Iran....and this is where I have to come to the defense of Israel. Iran reminds me of this Monty Python sketch

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=imxb8IShtoc#t=94[/video]

....the US is the one who is telling the one child how bad they are. John Clese is Iran and the kid he slaps is Israel. In other words, Israel hasn't done anything here, but somehow THEY are the ones at risk of seeing the MOST casualties. When we have two groups who hate us killing each other in Syria - why the hell stop them?

And I am EXTREMELY disappointed in Obama and his Bushy talk about these weapons posing a threat to the US.
 
US should take military action against Syria


[Breaking news alert 2:05 p.m.]
President Barack Obama said that the United States "should take military action against Syrian targets" in a Rose Garden address Saturday. However, he said he would seek congressional authorization when federal lawmakers return from recess.

The president appealed for congressional leaders to consider their responsibilities and values in debating U.S. military action in Syria over its alleged chemical weapons use."Some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment," he said. "Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are united as one nation."

Click to expand...


WTF? What message are you sending NoBama!

B) xUT
 
Looks like Obama is going to look for Congressional approval. I hope Congress has grown a pair between 2003 and now. They need to tell Obama no and he needs to listen. If Syria needs help let the Saudi's and who ever else wants to help send troops and missles over there. No reason for us to get involved in yet another hopeless endeavor with no hope of a good out come.
 
^^^^^^
Agree

Hope they do the right thing

Forgive the lengthy cut and paste... The discussion brings to mind several in history, and there is no point in me rewriting what has been written

Reasonable, sincere, intelligent, patriotic people can disagree, and. Both be right, and wrong, and sometimes we don't know beforehand who is...

From the Barbary Wars:


In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [20]
Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World.[21] The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages.[citation needed] A $1 million payment in ransom and tribute to the privateering states would have amounted to approximately ten percent of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800.[22]
Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became increasingly possible for America to refuse paying tribute, although by now the long-standing habit was hard to overturn.
Declaration of war and naval blockade[edit source | editbeta]

"Immediately prior to Jefferson's inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that 'shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.' … In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to 'protect our commerce & chastise their insolence — by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.'"[23] On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, on May 10, 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.[24] Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.
In response, "Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'" He told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."[23] Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." The American squadron joined a Swedish flotilla under Rudolf Cederström in blockading Tripoli, the Swedes having been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800.
 
The consequences of indecision:



Syrian Media Declares 'Historic American Retreat'
by Scott Neuman

September 01, 2013 8:42 AM
Syrian state media on Sunday reacted to President Obama's decision to ask Congress for authorization to strike President Bashar al-Assad's regime, calling the move the start of a U.S. retreat.
"Whether the Congress gives the red or green light for an aggression, and whether the prospects of war have been enhanced or faded, President Obama has announced yesterday, by prevaricating or hinting, the start of the historic American retreat," Al-Thawra said.
The newspaper, seen as an official mouthpiece, also said the U.S. president's decision to go to Congress was due to a "sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies."
Apparently weary of the long British involvement in Iraq, the House of Commons issued Prime Minister David Cameron a stinging defeat last week when it voted not to sign on with Washington in a military strike on Syria.
Meanwhile, Syria's opposition coalition called on U.S. lawmakers to approve military action against Assad's regime to punish him for his use of chemical weapons against the rebels, including the more than 1,400 people the White House says were killed in an Aug. 21 nerve agent attack on the outskirts of the capital, Damascus.
"The Syrian Coalition believes any possible military action should be carried out in conjunction with an effort to arm the Free Syrian Army. This will be vital in restraining Assad and ending the killing," the coalition said in a statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Knotbuyinit
Crossing the "Red Line"
4 5 6
Replies
81
Views
9K
Ifly2
I
M
Criminality of the GOP - put up or shut up
Replies
5
Views
2K
tech2101
tech2101
C
January 1 Airline News
Replies
2
Views
2K
cubfan02us
C
I
Resume Of An Anti-president
Replies
12
Views
2K
atabuy
A

Latest posts

Back
Top