Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

[tigerfan482]

It's starting to look more and more like Congress will vote in favor of a military strike. Assad needs to be held accountable for his actions. Gassing people is not an acceptable practice and if he is allowed to get away with it with no punishment or repercussions, then the use of those weapons will continue and increase. It will also create the environment of other countries wanting to produce their own weapons to protect against those who have them and have been shown to use them with consequence. It's a domino effect and I believe it will lead to a chemical arms race in the region (the worst place in the world to have one of those) because countries will want to make sure they have more than their neighbor.

At this point, it seems the only options are for the US to do something with the good will of a good number of countries who say something must be done but are unwilling to do it or to do nothing at all. Russia has already shown they are unwilling to take any actions, either diplomatically or militarily against Syria, so we are left with two bad options. The option of doing nothing just seems like a worse option at this point given the blank check it will basically give to radical regimes all over the world who will see that they can operate with impunity as long as they get Russia or China to fight for them on the Security Council (and let's face it, who won't one of those two countries fight for?)

EDIT: It also looks like we may be getting some more evidence here soon from inside the regime (Syria Defector 'Exposes Assad Chemical Attack')

 

[MystikWizard]

It's starting to look more and more like Congress will vote in favor of a military strike.

CNN is tracking votes and this doesn't appear to be the case at all, at least with the House.

House
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/house.html?hpt=hp_t1

Senate
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[MystikWizard]

"There won't be boots on the ground."

Now, there actually appears there may be according to legislation being drafted ...

POINT:

There won't be boots on the ground. "Let's shut that door as tightly as we can," he said. "There will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war."

COUNTERPOINT:

There might be boots on the ground. A revised bill authorizing military action that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee takes up Wednesday leaves open that possibility for a rescue mission. And right before he made his "shut that door" comment, Kerry said he can't take the option off the table in case Syria "imploded" or chemical weapons landed in the hands of terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/possible-syria-strike-runup/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

[Kulindahr]

"There won't be boots on the ground."

Now, there actually appears there may be according to legislation being drafted ...



http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/possible-syria-strike-runup/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The Senate resolution specifically forbids the use of any ground troops:

SECTION 3. LIMITATION. The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the
United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.

 

[Jack Springer]

Now the Arab countries will foot the bill for the war.

Can it get any crazier?

"Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab counties offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ates/?id=e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

Have we lost our self-respect? Doing the dirty deeds for a bunch of ......

 

[MystikWizard]

The Senate resolution specifically forbids the use of any ground troops:

I think that was referred to as "rescue efforts" above, though. So what happens during a "rescue" effort if the troops are fired upon?

 

[T-Rexx]

Now the Arab countries will foot the bill for the war.

Can it get any crazier?

"Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab counties offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

Sounds remarkably like "The war will cost us nothing! Iraqi oil revenues will pay for everything!"

Obama is resolutely determined to become GWB, Jr.

 

[darden]

just something I thought about today, but what happens if it's discovered that both the Syrian Army and the rebels used chemical weapons on each other? it's not inconceivable that the rebels capture a facility that happened to be a storehouse.

do we just carpet bomb the entire country at that point?

 

[tigerfan482]

just something I thought about today, but what happens if it's discovered that both the Syrian Army and the rebels used chemical weapons on each other? it's not inconceivable that the rebels capture a facility that happened to be a storehouse.

do we just carpet bomb the entire country at that point?

I would say that's highly unlikely since that would be the first thing Assad said when the chemical attacks happened. Rebels capturing a chemical weapons storage depot would be quite the bit of evidence needed to support his claim.

But let's say that did happen. Let's say al-Qaeda did have sizable forces in Syria and they captured a chemical weapons facility and started using them for their purposes. Would it be ok at that point to sit back and say "they can go ahead and have those to use at will so long as it doesn't affect me"?

 

[darden]

I would say that's highly unlikely since that would be the first thing Assad said when the chemical attacks happened. Rebels capturing a chemical weapons storage depot would be quite the bit of evidence needed to support his claim.

But let's say that did happen. Let's say al-Qaeda did have sizable forces in Syria and they captured a chemical weapons facility and started using them for their purposes. Would it be ok at that point to sit back and say "they can go ahead and have those to use at will so long as it doesn't affect me"?

well, we can sit back and say "the US isn't the policeman of the world and there are no good answers here... maybe instead of unilaterally dropping bombs to achieve an unknown outcome, we can continue to press for international support, especially amongst Syria's neighbors."

 

[Jack Springer]

Sounds remarkably like "The war will cost us nothing! Iraqi oil revenues will pay for everything!"

Obama is resolutely determined to become GWB, Jr.

So much like Iraq.

Only one comment about the Arabs paying for the war?

 

[tigerfan482]

So much like Iraq.

Only one comment about the Arabs paying for the war?

And no comments about Russia and Iran paying to prop up the Assad regime. Amazing right?

 

[CoolBlue71]

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria


By The Onion
September 5, 2013 | http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/

WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.

The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.

 

[JayHawk]

You have to wonder at the efficacy of left wing loons and right wing loons agreeing on policy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria


By The Onion
September 5, 2013 | http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/

Priceless:

When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.

 

[tigerfan482]

Assad Unable To Convince Putin That He Used Chemical Weapons On Syrians

That one may even slightly reflect reality.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Just reading the last few pages of this thread.

So I'm guessing by this stage I'm the ONLY person still around here, except for Lostlover, who fully supports strikes against Syria? And I now also find myself (and this is even MORE ridiculous) being apparently Obama's last supporter.... in CE&P. I mean, has the world gone completely crazy?

I'm very disappointed by the sheer mindless pacifist attitude of like 90% of the people on here, it's just ridiculous. I have a SERIOUS question for everyone on this forum....

If Assad developed a super-virulent large scale chemical weapon, used it, and 100,000 Syrians lay dead in an attack, their bodies piled high on the streets with too many to be able to bury, would you THEN support military strikes against Assad's ability to use those weapons?

I don't want prevarication and excuses and ducking the question, I want to know if 100,000 dead at the hands of a psychotic despot would be a justification for a military strike. Why? Because my point is being I know some of you would STILL be against military action because you're against it AT ALL TIMES. You'd be against if if a nuclear weapon was detonated. Sheer mindless pacifism.

So now Obama is thrown under the wheels of the bus by all the frequent supporters he always had on here for actually STANDING UP to the barbaric inhuman slaughtering of innocent people?

Lol! Let's just let Vladimir Putin settle all international responses from now on shall we? Let's just have any tin-pot dictator and tyrant kill as many as he wishes without any sanction shall we?

What was that saying about evil flourishing when good men do nothing? It's never been such a pertient question as now. America ducks back and runs away whimpering in the face of this, then it's a DISASTER for the future rights and dignity of the people of the world. Wake the fuck up.

 

[kallipolis]

Collateral damage, and friendly fire deaths are the likely outcome of so called surgical strikes against Assad's forces with Iraq, and Afghanistan testimony to interventions that years after the fact register no end to the violence.... increasing practical support for anti Assad factions could well shift the balance of power...also recognising that there are anti Assad factions, with a fanatical anti Western ideology determined to fill the void should Assad's forces collapse....further, Assad's forces are equipped with Russian, and Chinese made missiles that as a last resort could be launched against targets in Israel, and Turkey reprisals for direct American intervention.

There is no black, and white action plan that will end the violence, leading to a peaceful Syria.

 

[Jack Springer]

Just reading the last few pages of this thread.

So I'm guessing by this stage I'm the ONLY person still around here, except for Lostlover, who fully supports strikes against Syria? And I now also find myself (and this is even MORE ridiculous) being apparently Obama's last supporter.... in CE&P. I mean, has the world gone completely crazy?

I'm very disappointed by the sheer mindless pacifist attitude of like 90% of the people on here, it's just ridiculous. I have a SERIOUS question for everyone on this forum....

If Assad developed a super-virulent large scale chemical weapon, used it, and 100,000 Syrians lay dead in an attack, their bodies piled high on the streets with too many to be able to bury, would you THEN support military strikes against Assad's ability to use those weapons?

I don't want prevarication and excuses and ducking the question, I want to know if 100,000 dead at the hands of a psychotic despot would be a justification for a military strike. Why? Because my point is being I know some of you would STILL be against military action because you're against it AT ALL TIMES. You'd be against if if a nuclear weapon was detonated. Sheer mindless pacifism.

So now Obama is thrown under the wheels of the bus by all the frequent supporters he always had on here for actually STANDING UP to the barbaric inhuman slaughtering of innocent people?

Lol! Let's just let Vladimir Putin settle all international responses from now on shall we? Let's just have any tin-pot dictator and tyrant kill as many as he wishes without any sanction shall we?

What was that saying about evil flourishing when good men do nothing? It's never been such a pertient question as now. America ducks back and runs away whimpering in the face of this, then it's a DISASTER for the future rights and dignity of the people of the world. Wake the fuck up.

It's simple ... a lack of leadership.

 

[rareboy]

Just reading the last few pages of this thread.

So I'm guessing by this stage I'm the ONLY person still around here, except for Lostlover, who fully supports strikes against Syria? And I now also find myself (and this is even MORE ridiculous) being apparently Obama's last supporter.... in CE&P. I mean, has the world gone completely crazy?

I'm very disappointed by the sheer mindless pacifist attitude of like 90% of the people on here, it's just ridiculous. I have a SERIOUS question for everyone on this forum....

If Assad developed a super-virulent large scale chemical weapon, used it, and 100,000 Syrians lay dead in an attack, their bodies piled high on the streets with too many to be able to bury, would you THEN support military strikes against Assad's ability to use those weapons?

I don't want prevarication and excuses and ducking the question, I want to know if 100,000 dead at the hands of a psychotic despot would be a justification for a military strike. Why? Because my point is being I know some of you would STILL be against military action because you're against it AT ALL TIMES. You'd be against if if a nuclear weapon was detonated. Sheer mindless pacifism.

So now Obama is thrown under the wheels of the bus by all the frequent supporters he always had on here for actually STANDING UP to the barbaric inhuman slaughtering of innocent people?

Lol! Let's just let Vladimir Putin settle all international responses from now on shall we? Let's just have any tin-pot dictator and tyrant kill as many as he wishes without any sanction shall we?

What was that saying about evil flourishing when good men do nothing? It's never been such a pertient question as now. America ducks back and runs away whimpering in the face of this, then it's a DISASTER for the future rights and dignity of the people of the world. Wake the fuck up.

100,000 bodies are already piled up as a result of this conflict and the neighbours of Syria, let alone the West have not seen it necessary to do anything but arm both sides.

Now because another 300 -1400 are dead from a CW attack it suddenly makes a difference? Why? And why aren;t the countires with the most to win or lose doing anything about it?

This entire CW attack is nothing more than a ploy to invite a strike by the west in order for the conflict to expand by invocation of treaties so that the Syrians can directly attack western allies and Iran can overtly be drawn into the conflict as well. It is a zero sum game.

And yes. Sadly body counts do matter. And at a genocidal scale of 100,000 deaths from a CW attack, the threat to other countries would draw everyone into the conflict.

But I ask the ask again. How many innocent Syrians should the West kill with bombing attacks in order to avenge the 350 (GB figure) to 1430 (US figure) innocent people who were killed by gas. Because I can absolutely guarantee you that a strike against Syria is going to result in a collateral 'casualty' toll at least 10 times the figure either source is quoting once the shooting is over.