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

[opinterph]

I want to know why America is always tasked to do this. I want to know where Canada, Australia, Germany and the other silent majority of countries is?

Of course, the other countries will take a back seat. They figure, "Hell, let the U.S. spend their own damn money and we will just cheer on from the sidelines."

Maybe other countries think the US is better prepared for the challenge. Last year US military expenditures[SUP]*[/SUP] were about 8 times more than the combined total spent by Canada, Australia, and Germany.

[SUP]*[/SUP]Includes WMD

U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending (The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)​

 

[MystikWizard]

It's not about picking and choosing when to get involved. Countries have responsibilities especially if you're signing treaties to ban chemical weapons usage you are obligated to deter and prevent countries from using them. Australia and Canada have both sided with America in condemning Syria[/URL], but have yet to say what they'll offer besides words. And part of me believes that this is these countries' right, however their people get on other country's cases who are actually willing to right a wrong.

Two questions just so I better understand your thoughts.

1) Are you saying the U.S. should go it alone and suffer whatever consequences come with it ... even if it means getting into another new long drawn-out war if Iran and others get involved?

2) Should the President bother going to Congress for a vote, or do you think he should act on his own and bypass Congress?

 

[Lostlover]

Maybe other countries think the US is better prepared for the challenge. Last year US military expenditures[SUP]*[/SUP] were about 8 times more than the combined total spent by Canada, Australia, and Germany.

[SUP]*[/SUP]Includes WMD

U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending (The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)​

And that's their right. But when things go wrong, you can bet there's those silent people, unwilling to help or even offer solutions, getting on their soapboxes talking about American hegemony.

Their alternative is to sit and watch which I believe is unethical.

 

[Lostlover]

Two questions just so I better understand your thoughts.

1) Are you saying the U.S. should go it alone and suffer whatever consequences come with it ... even if it means getting into another new long drawn-out war if Iran and others get involved?

I'm saying that there should be an international coalition condemning and acting on Syria. So far, only Turkey, the US, the UK and France have talked about actually doing something. Where's Canada? Brazil? Germany? Australia? Japan?

We have no historical ties with Syria (France) and yet we feel that it's an international issue anytime a leader uses these types of weapons against the people.

President Obama has repeatedly said that the airstrikes won't include US soldiers in Syria and will be limited in scope and duration. There's going to be no occupation. This whole talk about WWIII is premature.

2) Should the President bother going to Congress for a vote, or do you think he should act on his own and bypass Congress?

I think the US president should go to the Congress for its input even though it isn't actually needed since this isn't an "all-out war." President Obama's foot-dragging and allowing the UN to complete its assessment is a result of the Cowboy in 2003 who said fuck the world and the constitution. Consensus isn't a bad thing.

Whatever the UN finds will be immaterial and useless. Their mission is to find out if chemical agents were used, not who actually used them which makes me wonder why they're even there. Furthermore, Russia and China will veto any measure against Syria, but Obama is still playing the game and trying to stay within international law by going through the UN and this makes sense. You can't say Syria is acting outside of international norms when you're bypassing the UN.

 

[T-Rexx]

That's exactly what I think Obama is thinking, as well. That way, he sounds tough, but can blame it on Congress if it fails and take him off the hook. Exactly.

I wonder what the Republicans will do with that.

Obama asks for support in Syria, but really wants the Republicans to reject him.

Do they reject the president by not approving military action is Syria, or do they reject the president by approving military action in Syria?

What a dilemma for the party of "no!"

 

[Telstra]

I wonder what the Republicans will do with that.

Obama asks for support in Syria, but really wants the Republicans to reject him.

Do they reject the president by not approving military action is Syria, or do they reject the president by approving military action in Syria?

What a dilemma for the party of "no!"

In Australia the conservative is also a party of "No" to everything

 

[naglfarii]

lot of political experts seem to think its a gamble for obama and he'll look bad if congress says no but I also thought, you know, isn't he really kinda letting congress be the bad guy either way?

 

[MystikWizard]

I'm saying that there should be an international coalition condemning and acting on Syria. So far, only Turkey, the US, the UK and France have talked about actually doing something. Where's Canada? Brazil? Germany? Australia? Japan?

Well, I think it's time to differentiate from being an idealist and being a realist. What you are saying about an international coalition is simply not going to happen. So going back to the question, do you think the U.S. should go it alone or not?

President Obama has repeatedly said that the airstrikes won't include US soldiers in Syria and will be limited in scope and duration. There's going to be no occupation. This whole talk about WWIII is premature. I think the US president should go to the Congress for its input even though it isn't actually needed since this isn't an "all-out war."

And do you really think it will be that easy? You think by us striking them, that there isn't going to be retaliation on their part that is unquestionably going to escalate and draw us into a war? If you are conducting a strike inside another country, you are essentially declaring war because there is no way they aren't going to retaliate and fire back by targeting our allies such as Turkey and Israel ... which will eventually draw everyone into a war ... which will inevitably lead to an occupation of their country to try to resume control and maintain order.

 

[kallipolis]

Missiles strikes are not going to make any difference to a dictatorial government totally lacking any humanitarian regard for its own people; armed by Russia, China, and Iran with weaponry that is modern, and effective in reaching targets inside Israel,Turkey, Cyprus and neighbouring Arab states.

An American orchestrated invasion is still being played out twelve years later in neighbouring Iraq where thousands of civilians die every year in a proxy civil war in addition to the million or so civilians and soldiers who died during the invasion by Western forces....this apart from Afghanistan where another civil war rages despite another American intervention to degrade the influence of The Taliban.

That the UK parliament has voted for no British intervention, and that President Obama has delayed American action until Congress debates the issue, after the return from the Summer recess (sometime next week?) might indicate that second thoughts are prevailing, and that the so called overwhelming evidence that Assad's forces used chemical weapons against innocent civilians, is now being revisited....what else is being denied public scrutiny?

 

[rareboy]

I wonder what the Republicans will do with that.

Obama asks for support in Syria, but really wants the Republicans to reject him.

Do they reject the president by not approving military action is Syria, or do they reject the president by approving military action in Syria?

What a dilemma for the party of "no!"

The dilemma is truly delicious.

Their military industrial complex owners are going to be pushing for war....and to use up some more of those stockpiled missiles... but it would mean giving Obama what he's asking for...what to do, what to do....

 

[palbert]

The proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force is at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/164538584/AUMF-Resolution-Text

Looks more open-ended than I am comfortable with.

 

[rareboy]

Has it ever occurred to anyone (like Lostlover for instance), that the Assad regime may be inviting a US strike because it would give them and their imperial overlords carte blanche to launch attacks against Israel or other neighbouring allied states...thereby giving the Syrians a common external enemy and the opportunity to crush the internal opposition forces once and for all?

Today the Assad regime is fairly taunting the US to strike...pointing out that Obama's plan to go Congress signals the classic American retreat manouvre. The only reason for this arrogance can only be the gamble that the US entry into this conflict will, in fact, trigger off a firestorm in the mideast that will leave the Assad regime in place and will give Russia and China the total balance of power in the region.

 

[Telstra]

Has it ever occurred to anyone (like Lostlover for instance), that the Assad regime may be inviting a US strike because it would give them and their imperial overlords carte blanche to launch attacks against Israel or other neighbouring allied states...thereby giving the Syrians a common external enemy and the opportunity to crush the internal opposition forces once and for all?

Today the Assad regime is fairly taunting the US to strike...pointing out that Obama's plan to go Congress signals the classic American retreat manouvre. The only reason for this arrogance can only be the gamble that the US entry into this conflict will, in fact, trigger off a firestorm in the mideast that will leave the Assad regime in place and will give Russia and China the total balance of power in the region.

Good post.

The US should leave Syria alone.
Those surrounding Arab countries should do something about it if they REALLY want to help these poor Syrian civilians.

 

[Lostlover]

Well, I think it's time to differentiate from being an idealist and being a realist. What you are saying about an international coalition is simply not going to happen. So going back to the question, do you think the U.S. should go it alone or not?

Obama can get more of an international coalition that includes more than just four countries when there are nearly 200 countries in the world. This is not a US issue. The US, if the other countries puss out, will have to go at it alone, but I think France and Turkey are willing to be an adult in a room full of children.

The link I posted earlier had various countries' responses and there are many countries that say wait for the UN to assess what happened. Brazil and Sweden have taken this stance. So, I ask them, when the UN returns with evidence that chemical weapons were used, what are you prepared to do?

And do you really think it will be that easy? You think by us striking them, that there isn't going to be retaliation on their part that is unquestionably going to escalate and draw us into a war? If you are conducting a strike inside another country, you are essentially declaring war because there is no way they aren't going to retaliate and fire back by targeting our allies such as Turkey and Israel ... which will eventually draw everyone into a war ... which will inevitably lead to an occupation of their country to try to resume control and maintain order.

Getting the strikes done will be easy. Who knows what Syria will try to do, but one shouldn't act out of fear of what might happen. It gives Assad complete impunity from his actions.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

FDR's failures to revitalize the crippled economy of the time, his unconstitutional over-reach, his articulation of leftist values and programs would have marked him as a major Presidential failure, but for the involvement of the USA in World War II. The war is what actually got us out of the depression, but somehow, Roosevelt's status was elevated.

Interesting, though, that this "presidential failure" was able to win a THIRD term with nearly 55% of the popular vote and 449 electoral votes a full year prior to Pearl Harbor.

 

[MystikWizard]

Obama can get more of an international coalition that includes more than just four countries when there are nearly 200 countries in the world. This is not a US issue. The US, if the other countries puss out, will have to go at it alone, but I think France and Turkey are willing to be an adult in a room full of children.

The link I posted earlier had various countries' responses and there are many countries that say wait for the UN to assess what happened. Brazil and Sweden have taken this stance. So, I ask them, when the UN returns with evidence that chemical weapons were used, what are you prepared to do?

France seems pretty definite about joining in, as does Turkey if the U.S. does something. But if it doesn't pass Congress, which I have very little doubt that it won't be passing, then it's a moot point as Obama will not act without Congressional approval. He will be impeached if he does. This will end in Congress with a "No" vote.

Getting the strikes done will be easy. Who knows what Syria will try to do, but one shouldn't act out of fear of what might happen. It gives Assad complete impunity from his actions.

Ride em' cowboy.

Whereas you and I seem to agree with most political issues, we obviously couldn't be further apart on this ... and we both tend to feel pretty strongly about our positions. With you, there are no borders when it comes to humanitarian causes, it seems ... even if it means getting into war.

For me, I feel reality has sunk in, as it seems it has with most Americans, where as it just is not realistically possible to get involved in everyone else's business around the world and not have it affect the lives of the people within this country. It simply is not fair to our citizens.

Be it whether:

1) It escalates into another full blown war/occupation of another country and costs thousands of lives

2) It increases terrorism which puts our own innocent civilians at risk

3) Whether we get into even further debt, which devalues our dollar and causes another recession

This is something that is not fair to subject our own citizens to. Our national security interests being affected are one thing .... that is not the case with this conflict. Like Bush, this is another optional conflict that I have no doubt will result in war with Syria and her allies ... mainly Iran.

You are overthrowing one dictator for an Al Qaeda-backed government.

If a strike occurs and it does result in a war ... if you believe in this cause so much, are you ready to enlist?

 

[Lostlover]

Ride em' cowboy.

Whereas you and I seem to agree with most political issues, we obviously couldn't be further apart on this ... and we both tend to feel pretty strongly about our positions. With you, there are no borders when it comes to humanitarian causes, it seems ... even if it means getting into war.

For me, I feel reality has sunk in, as it seems it has with most Americans, where as it just is not realistically possible to get involved in everyone else's business around the world and not have it affect the lives of the people within this country. It simply is not fair to our citizens.

Be it whether:

1) It escalates into another full blown war/occupation of another country and costs thousands of lives

2) It increases terrorism which puts our own innocent civilians at risk

3) Whether we get into even further debt, which devalues our dollar and causes another recession

This is something that is not fair to subject our own citizens to. Our national security interests being affected are one thing .... that is not the case with this conflict. Like Bush, this is another optional conflict that I have no doubt will result in war with Syria and her allies ... mainly Iran.

You are overthrowing one dictator for an Al Qaeda-backed government.

If a strike occurs and it does result in a war ... if you believe in this cause so much, are you ready to enlist?

Think about what you're suggesting: we shouldn't get involved in a humanitarian situation because it's bad for our budget and it could escalate into a full-blown war (that Syria and Iran would lose and all wars potentially could escalate further so this isn't a new concern).

There are always reasons not to act.

There's going to be no mission creep because the goals are limited. There's no need for anyone to enlist. Obama will not send boots over there and if he does, it would be a huge breach of trust in my opinion because that would probably be a deal-breaker to 99% of Americans (myself included).

I love how now Syria is this military threat to the US. Israel struck it three times in the last few years, invading its airspace twice and Syria responded all three times by doing nothing. Did you know that? Did you know Israel sent in fighter jets to bomb a nuclear plant being built and Assad retaliated by saying he will retaliate if Israel did that again?

Do you know that every time Syria antagonized Israel over the last ten years, Israel sent in fighter jets over Assad's Damascus palace in protest? And every time Assad has done absolutely nothing in return to show his disapproval.

Did you know that two months ago Israel struck the Republican Guard in Damascus right next to the Presidential Palace? Do you know how Assad responded? He said he'd respond the next time Israel entered Syrian airspace.

It sounds like Assad's practicing non-violence when his country's sovereignty has been challenged.

 

[rareboy]

Obama can get more of an international coalition that includes more than just four countries when there are nearly 200 countries in the world. This is not a US issue. The US, if the other countries puss out, will have to go at it alone, but I think France and Turkey are willing to be an adult in a room full of children.

The link I posted earlier had various countries' responses and there are many countries that say wait for the UN to assess what happened. Brazil and Sweden have taken this stance. So, I ask them, when the UN returns with evidence that chemical weapons were used, what are you prepared to do?




Getting the strikes done will be easy. Who knows what Syria will try to do, but one shouldn't act out of fear of what might happen. It gives Assad complete impunity from his actions.

What a broken record.

You can always seem to list Canada and Australia but never list the countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, The UAE, or any of the other states in the region that have the most to gain and lose in this game. How they must laugh, to see the US time after time blunder into a situation like this, drawing lines and making threats and then de-stabilizing the region even more by blowing more innocents up.....all while the Sheikhs sit, sipping tea in their palaces.

At this point, has it occurred to you that out of the '200' countries in the world there may be a reason why only France (?) is on board as the one western nation eager to drop some bombs?

I hate to tell you Sunshine, but I doubt if there is any treaty on earth that requires bombing of a country that uses CW. If there was, as many have pointed out in these threads, the US would have been a target as well.

Maybe the State run paper taunting the US will get you what you want....more people in the world who have good reason to hate the US when their families get blown to smithereens.

 

[MystikWizard]

Think about what you're suggesting: we shouldn't get involved in a humanitarian situation because it's bad for our budget and it could escalate into a full-blown war (that Syria and Iran would lose and all wars potentially could escalate further so this isn't a new concern).

There are always reasons not to act.

I don't think you seem to feel the repercussions of what those lil' ol' consequences seem to be that I listed. Maybe the last recession didn't affect you if you made good money, but it most certainly affected middle class Main Street America who felt the pinch at the gas station, the supermarket, going out to eat, etc. Anything that relies on transportation and uses fuel to get commodities to their destinations will be affected by an all-out war.

Again, this does not affect our national security interests. If it did, I would have a different perspective. But it doesn't. To those people that were affected by this attack, I am sorry ... at the same time it is not the business of the United States' citizens. I understand that sounds cold, but after seeing what we've seen this past decade, enough is enough and the majority of the public wants the U.S. to reverse course on foreign policy. That was one of the key reasons Obama was elected. Most definitely was one of the key reasons I voted for him.

There's going to be no mission creep because the goals are limited. There's no need for anyone to enlist. Obama will not send boots over there and if he does, it would be a huge breach of trust in my opinion because that would probably be a deal-breaker to 99% of Americans (myself included).

You don't know that, Lost. Sure, Obama can say that now that he is not looking to send boots there. That is assuming war doesn't break out. What happens if war does break out? I don't feel you are analyzing all of the possible outcomes and reactions to this lil' ol' strike Obama was planning. War breaking is most definitely a very real and I feel likely possibility. The armed forces will have to get involved if that occurs.

I love how now Syria is this military threat to the US. Israel struck it three times in the last few years, invading its airspace twice and Syria responded all three times by doing nothing. Did you know that? Did you know Israel sent in fighter jets to bomb a nuclear plant being built and Assad retaliated by saying he will retaliate if Israel did that again?

Did you know that two months ago Israel struck the Republican Guard in Damascus right next to the Presidential Palace? Do you know how Assad responded? He said he'd respond the next time Israel entered Syrian airspace.

Doesn't sound like a military threat.

I am not saying Syria will ever win a conflict with the United States or the team of Syria and Iran. What I am saying is that "it isn't our God-damned business", Lost. We have zero to gain by getting involved. Get rid of one dictator and replace him with an Al Qaeda-backed government. Wonderful.

Dennis Kucinich hit the nail on the head with this. Obama made the right move yesterday.

The way former Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich sees the situation, if President Obama goes around Congress and acts unilaterally on Syria, he risks impeachment for going against the Constitution.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...es-around-congress-and-attacks-syria-n1688366

 

[darden]

what's the next escalation step if we bomb Assad and he keeps on using chemical weapons?

and god help us if we accidentally kill a single civilian, both sides of the civil war will start calling for American blood... I just don't see an up side for the USA getting directly involved. it would be a different story if it were part of a broader, UN or AL-led peacekeeping mission.