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

[palbert]

Well, it looks like Saudi Arabia - somewhat - supports our doing the dirty work.

Al-Faisal (the Foreign Minister) said Saudi Arabia would back a U.S. strike on Syrian government targets, provided the military intervention was "the will of the Syrian people."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/saudi-arabia-syria_n_3853460.html

And we sell them those weapons why?

 

[Callum]

It isn't about what we're going to do or not do. Lost Lover has so many of us on ignore he doesn't have a fucking clue about who has said what. This is all about the huge hate on the LL has for Canada. And Germany. And his apparent inability to actually just Google and get the answer. This is about him hectoring and baiting the Jubbers from other countries by presenting the false case that the US is always left to go it alone in any military action that pops into their President's mind at any given moment. We all know that this is bullshit, but all we get is LL pretending that the entire world is somehow freeloading off the US military industrial complex. Canada has said that it will do the same as we did in Libya...send warships to help protect the American fleet. When Canada, among other countries calls for a firm response...it doesn't mean that the first thing you do is bomb everything.


By the way...just for the record...before LL et al get so up in arms about chemical weapons and chemical warfare...can y'all tell me when the US destroyed the last of its own stockpile of CW's. Hint: Not yet.

Oh. Then I'm putting him on ignore, because that's just annoying as fuck.

It does make me wonder, if the House says 'no', if he'll do anything anyway...will be an interesting two weeks.

 

[Lostlover]

The alleged intelligence is too sketchy to bother with.



And numerous posters have already told you why Canada isn't doing anything. In your own thread too. Learn to read.

What world are you living in? Australia, Austria, Canada (Harper agreed to a "firm response" to the attacks), France, Germany, Israel, Italy (indirectly), Qatar, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, the US and The Arab League (moments ago) have all concluded that Assad had used chemical weapons. What intelligence are you using that contradicts theirs and their conclusions?

Please do answer that.

And what do you think Harper meant when he called for a "firm response"?

A firm statement?

 

[Lostlover]

But Syrians who say Obama is a coward are wrong. He's not a coward but he lets his personal agenda in party politics dictate everything. Everything Obama has even done is political in nature and geared to bolstering his party. I cannot think of any President so keyed into party politics as he has been.

IMO Obama is disgusting.

What are you basing any of this on? What personal agenda are you talking about? I'm serious. I don't have a clue on anything you're referring to.

The biggest supporters of military action are two Republicans (Graham and McCain). A Rhode Island senator whose name is skipping me is supporting Obama. Pelosi is supporting Obama. David Gergen, on CNN, said that he sees no way that Congress doesn't authorize action.

 

[Lostlover]

I've asked repeatedly for the intelligence and sources people here are using to say that American intelligence on Syria isn't reliable and they can't reference anything. That sounds like people who've made up their mind and facts aren't changing it.

I encourage people to look at the link below to see how various countries have responded to the chemical attacks. Australia, Austria, Canada (Harper agreed to a "firm response" to the attacks), France, Germany, Israel, Italy (indirectly), Qatar, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, the US and The Arab League (moments ago) have all concluded that Assad had used chemical weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ghouta_attacks

Facts and reality do not matter when you have an agenda. All of these countries have concluded that Syria used chemical weapons against civilians and the naysayers here have insider access to intelligence they can't share that contradicts all of these countries' findings.

Their silence matters. When the US strikes Syria, unfortunately, there will be some casualties. And some of the whiners will be the ones silent now. (One person said that Australia won't do anything about Syria's usage of chemical weapons because Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons. And that was a silly response from a poster offering a serious answer.) My point is: you can't be MIA now and complain later.

 

[palbert]

.... Facts and reality do not matter when you have an agenda. ....

So true. Now learn.

You will not bear the cross of jingoism long.

 

[Lostlover]

So true. Now learn.

You will not bear the cross of jingoism long.

So please tell me how staying out of this matter will play out? I'm dying to hear your response.

 

[palbert]

So please tell me how staying out of this matter will play out? I'm dying to hear your response.

As the advocate of action it is incumbent upon you to tell me how your scenario will play out.

One remembers the military's vigorousness.

 

[Telstra]

I've asked repeatedly for the intelligence and sources people here are using to say that American intelligence on Syria isn't reliable and they can't reference anything. That sounds like people who've made up their mind and facts aren't changing it.

I encourage people to look at the link below to see how various countries have responded to the chemical attacks. Australia, Austria, Canada (Harper agreed to a "firm response" to the attacks), France, Germany, Israel, Italy (indirectly), Qatar, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, the US and The Arab League (moments ago) have all concluded that Assad had used chemical weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ghouta_attacks

Facts and reality do not matter when you have an agenda. All of these countries have concluded that Syria used chemical weapons against civilians and the naysayers here have insider access to intelligence they can't share that contradicts all of these countries' findings.

Their silence matters. When the US strikes Syria, unfortunately, there will be some casualties. And some of the whiners will be the ones silent now. (One person said that Australia won't do anything about Syria's usage of chemical weapons because Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons. And that was a silly response from a poster offering a serious answer.) My point is: you can't be MIA now and complain later.

I was making fun.
Australia is too far away. Why not the closest countries to something first ?

 

[Lostlover]

As the advocate of action it is incumbent upon you to tell me how your scenario will play out.

Since I'm not a war planner and am going off of what I've read and heard on TV, I would guess that the strikes would hit war centers, government buildings (like the Defense Ministry offices in Damascus) and possibly even some terrorists fighting with the rebels. Obama has been inconsistent and appearing amateurish lately, but I don't think he's a liar. When he says that there will be no soldiers in Syria, I believe him. When he says the strikes will be limited, I believe him. When he says the goal of the strikes isn't regime change, I believe him. That's why I support him.

If I felt that Obama's actions would tilt the battle either way, I wouldn't support him. America and France don't need to own what happens to Syria which I feel will be a lot more bloodshed. Furthermore, letting a dictator kill civilians with banned weapons isn't something the international community should ignore.

All of these countries, and the US, have signed on to the chemical weapons ban treaty. And they have decided to be spectators, because "they don't have to get involved." Now it's time for the adults in the room to act like adults.

 

[cgymike]

What are you basing any of this on? What personal agenda are you talking about? I'm serious. I don't have a clue on anything you're referring to.

The biggest supporters of military action are two Republicans (Graham and McCain). A Rhode Island senator whose name is skipping me is supporting Obama. Pelosi is supporting Obama. David Gergen, on CNN, said that he sees no way that Congress doesn't authorize action.

If that's true why would Obama waste time going thru the expected rubber stamp of a Congress "not in his camp"...ah...to show his LACK of partisanship? LOL. Now, THAT may make some sense at last but given his agenda ...nope. Oh and it's not a personal agenda but a political one. Unless you think the man cannot be separated from the office.

But any way you look at it. 100% chance of approval. The action will be almost just a formality in terms of the "attack" of course. Iran doesn't make any difference either. Russia might if they threaten a break of diplomacy over it or something almost impossible. Won't happen. Any more than Korea sending troops or Bolivia etc....

Somethings are kinda etched in stone. Obama's agenda is one of them.

 

[palbert]

Since I'm not a war planner and am going off of what I've read and heard on TV, I would guess that the strikes would hit war centers, government buildings (like the Defense Ministry offices in Damascus) and possibly even some terrorists fighting with the rebels. Obama has been inconsistent and appearing amateurish lately, but I don't think he's a liar. When he says that there will be no soldiers in Syria, I believe him. When he says the strikes will be limited, I believe him. When he says the goal of the strikes isn't regime change, I believe him. That's why I support him.

If I felt that Obama's actions would tilt the battle either way, I wouldn't not support him. America and France don't need to own what happens to Syria which I feel will be a lot more bloodshed. Furthermore, letting a dictator kill civilians with banned weapons isn't something the international community should ignore.

Do you even comprehend how non-productive that fatuous statement (in bold) is?

I am thankful you have a commanding officer (I think).

 

[cgymike]

What are you basing any of this on? What personal agenda are you talking about? I'm serious. I don't have a clue on anything you're referring to.

The biggest supporters of military action are two Republicans (Graham and McCain). A Rhode Island senator whose name is skipping me is supporting Obama. Pelosi is supporting Obama. David Gergen, on CNN, said that he sees no way that Congress doesn't authorize action.

Support is merely token and not voting plus Gergen is not an authoritative source. But for once he's correct.

 

[Lostlover]

If that's true why would Obama waste time going thru the expected rubber stamp of a Congress "not in his camp"...ah...to show his LACK of partisanship? LOL. Now, THAT may make some sense at last but given his agenda ...nope. Oh and it's not a personal agenda but a political one. Unless you think the man cannot be separated from the office.

But any way you look at it. 100% chance of approval. The action will be almost just a formality in terms of the "attack" of course. Iran doesn't make any difference either. Russia might if they threaten a break of diplomacy over it or something almost impossible. Won't happen. Any more than Korea sending troops or Bolivia etc....

Somethings are kinda etched in stone. Obama's agenda is one of them.

Do you remember when Bush acted outside the domestic and international laws? Remember when Bush turned the DoJ into a political department, firing "liberal" prosecutors? Do you remember all of the things Bush did that stepped on the constitution?

Well, Obama is trying to be the exactly opposite. He can't criticize Bush to get elected and then use the same tactics that he just admonished him for. Obama, clearly, had to work within the law, and go through Congress which is only natural.

If Obama wanted to strike Syria, he would have done it two years ago without 100,000+ Syrians dying in interim. I can't find the article I read it in, but it said that after Syrian missiles landed in Turkey, the Turkish PM wanted NATO to get involved since an attack on one is seen as an attack on all NATO members. That would have brought the US and Europe isn't the Syrian matter. Obama persuaded the Turkish PM not to do this, instead offering him Patriot missile batteries as an alternative.

(Ironically, all the people here from other countries can thank Obama for persuading Turkey to not call on NATO to get involved in the crisis. Otherwise, a year ago, they would have participated in this conflict.)

Obama is someone who I feel doesn't want war. He boxed himself in with his red line comments a year ago. To say that this is political is unfounded.

 

[Telstra]

Here is what Australia is going to do about Syria:

 

[T-Rexx]

I think a lot of this is coming down to his own ego, frankly, and possibly whoever has been in his ear egging him on with this.

Agreed.

When you draw a line in the sand and then threaten another with harm if he crosses it, it becomes a matter of ego when the line is crossed. Obama doesn't want to look impotent to the world. He needs to rough up Assad a little so he can look like a tough guy.

This isn't about the Syrian people. It's about Obama's ego.

Sounds like his Chief of Staff was able to break through and talk some sense into him on Friday night. Hopefully, warhawk Hillary is also taking good notes of this situation if she plans to run in 2016. The country has vastly changed and when they say they aren't going to tolerate the continuation of the Bush Foreign Policy, they mean it.

I think Obama is vacillating because virtually every leader of every nation on earth is telling him not to do this. Even the American people are telling him not to do it.

This whole thing is a catastrophe in the making.... Congress, please vote no... and Mr. President, ACCEPT that result.

It is remarkable to me that, for once, almost everyone understands what a catastrophe attacking Syria would be. Except, of course, for the president and Mr. Kerry, who have been replaced with clones of Bush and Rumsfeld.

But Syrians who say Obama is a coward are wrong. He's not a coward but he lets his personal agenda in party politics dictate everything. Everything Obama has even done is political in nature and geared to bolstering his party. I cannot think of any President so keyed into party politics as he has been.

I could not disagree more.

President Obama has copied most of the policies of the George W. Bush administration, much to the frustration of those of us who wanted a Democrat in the White House. He gave up on fair taxation of rich people. He gave us the Republican Party plan for private health care, not the comprehensive care America needs. He has continued detaining prisoners indefinitely in illegal prisons without trial. He has continued massive surveillance of Americans without warrants. He has kept up a wall of obsessive secrecy around his administration and he has pursued whistleblowers more aggressively than any administration in history. Now, he is repeating GWB's policy of attacking middle eastern countries unprovoked.

Obama is no partisan Democrat. A partisan Republican, perhaps, but this man is no Democrat.

 

[Lostlover]

Obama is no partisan Democrat. A partisan Republican, perhaps, but this man is no Democrat.

...seriously?

 

[cgymike]

Do you remember when Bush acted outside the domestic and international laws? Remember when Bush turned the DoJ into a political department, firing "liberal" prosecutors? Do you remember all of the things Bush did that stepped on the constitution?

Well, Obama is trying to be the exactly opposite. He can't criticize Bush to get elected and then use the same tactics that he just admonished him for. Obama, clearly, had to work within the law, and go through Congress which is only natural.

If Obama wanted to strike Syria, he would have done it two years ago without 100,000+ Syrians dying in interim. I can't find the article I read it in, but it said that after Syrian missiles landed in Turkey, the Turkish PM wanted NATO to get involved since an attack on one is seen as an attack on all NATO members. That would have brought the US and Europe isn't the Syrian matter. Obama persuaded the Turkish PM not to do this, instead offering him Patriot missile batteries as an alternative.

(Ironically, all the people here from other countries can thank Obama for persuading Turkey to not call on NATO to get involved in the crisis. Otherwise, a year ago, they would have participated in this conflict.)

Obama is someone who I feel doesn't want war. He boxed himself in with his red line comments a year ago. To say that this is political is unfounded.

Please don't obfuscate things with an invalid contrast to what Bush did. Obama must stand on his own here, in his second term, and well-divorced from anything Bush did (Bush did nothing of ANY importance in Syria). Your feelings about Obama not wanting war maybe correct but we will never know Obama's personal views behind the iron mask of his political identity. Of course this is political. What the hell else could it be. You sound like a nice guy but quite naïve IMO.

 

[Lostlover]

Please don't obfuscate things with an invalid contrast to what Bush did. Obama must stand on his own here, in his second term, and well-divorced from anything Bush did (Bush did nothing of ANY importance in Syria). Your feelings about Obama not wanting war maybe correct but we will never know Obama's personal views behind the iron mask of his political identity. Of course this is political. What the hell else could it be. You sound like a nice guy but quite naïve IMO.

What's making it political? Or politically beneficial to Obama? Syria will still be a quagmire after the strikes. Success won't be obvious to Americans. There's more risk than anything.

 

[cgymike]

...seriously?

Wow...I'm with you on that lost...T-Rexx MUST be kidding. Obama a Republican? I can't find anything supporting he has defected from his party.