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

[Ninja108]

If the Arab League is that outraged,make them take up arms themselves.
Enough is enough with trying to save everyone.

 

[Stardreamer]

Judging from the news coverage this afternoon, It not really if but when, the wheels are already in motion.

Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say

Looks like they aren't even going to bother reaching for the UN fig leaf. Its the 'international coalition' route with the UK, France and Turkey.

 

[Nick4444]

This is an amazing part of the observations I've been making over the last few years, in that I have been struck by the similarities between the 1930's and today, and the responses by the Presidents in power.
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.
Unlike WW II, no American interests would be served by engaging in hostilities with Syria, but I fear Obama will nonetheless be true to his mediocrity and his ideological lack of insight, and involve us in what might turn out to be the commencement of WW III.
Syria is strictly, at most, a regional issue, but the current indications are that Obama is treating it otherwise.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Everything is not "opposite."

We are being told that the USA has incontrovertible evidence that a Middle Eastern country is using weapons of mass destruction against its own people. It is therefore necessary for the USA to attack.

Sound familiar?

Barack Obama is George W. Bush, II

Nope, there are a few very important differences here:

a) Bush DECIDED as early as 2002 to INVADE Iraq (with American troops on the ground) WHATEVER anyone else said, and had Cheney and Rumsfeld and many others on board who were equally war-hungry, and their arrogance was for all too see. Compare with Obama's administration who have been cautious, light-handed, diplomatic, wary to intervene for the start, and are only VERY reluctantly pursuing this action now, in reaction DIRECTLY to a chemical atrocity perpetrated for all to see.

b) Iraq was a neutralised and 'de-clawed' country BEFORE the invasion even took place, after years under a no-fly zone, and there was NO provocation or escalation whatsoever by Saddam, at least in 2003 anyway. Compare with Assad who has unleashed every weapon he has on his own people, caused the deaths of untold tens of thousands of men, women, and children since the rebellion began in 2011, and has caused a humanitarian refugee crisis in the whole region.

c) Bush and his clique of Republican hawks drew up an OCCUPATION plan for Iraq, unleashed 'Shock and Awe', and even had an American-administered occupied command zone in central Baghdad for goodness sake. Compare with Obama's plan which is simply a series of pinpointed missile strikes from ships far off in the Mediterranean, and air bases even more distant, against key targets such as Assad's offensive capability, with the hope that Syrian opposition forces themselves can topple him and take their own country back.

All of the above is why I'm supportive of Obama's action, and was vehemently against Bush's.

 

[Stardreamer]

Bush however did at least take the time to get the fig leaf of involving the UN to give his actions the facade of legitimacy. While some may argue how legitimate that result was, it was at least there. The Administration seems to have decided not to even try for that legitimacy. The NYT article I posted in the other thread points out the problem with that.

 

[Telstra]

Once again...it is up to the Arab League countries to get their own regional act together. If Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States can remain silent about this and sit and do nothing....then does everyone not realize that the Western nations are being set up once again to fail?
You'd think that after 100 years of this, that England, France and the US would have figured it out.

Yes where are the arabs.

 

[Nick4444]

Saudi Arabia is actually a major player in getting diplomatic cooperation behind the ouster of Assad, and has been lobbying the major capitals including Washington, D.C.

 

[Stardreamer]

A little more on the legality question:

US, allies going beyond UN to justify Syria action

It seems Kosovo is the model, which the NYT article called the 'legitimate but illegal' war. What I find interesting and likely a good idea is that it also seems to be the recognition of the principle of 'responsibility to protect' innocents and civilians in war zones. That responsibility is not enshrined in international law but introduces some much needed morality into the international circles. But there is also a second edge to that sword for if we fully embrace it how do we justify NOT being the world's policeman and continuing to ignore not just WMD use but genocide and all the other major ills of the world? An interesting question that I am not sure how to answer.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Bush however did at least take the time to get the fig leaf of involving the UN to give his actions the facade of legitimacy. While some may argue how legitimate that result was, it was at least there.

Bush actually never wanted to bother with the UN route, and couldn't care less about it - it was only Tony Blair's desperate pleadings to Bush that reluctantly persuaded him to go and try, because Blair, at least, was savvy enough to know how awful it would look to the British public in the U.K. if the UN weren't involved.

The Administration seems to have decided not to even try for that legitimacy.

But we all know exactly why - because Russia will NEVER authorise it in the Security Council. Are we to be forever beholden to Vladimir Putin's style of authoritarian homophobic quasi-Soviet principles as the grand arbiter of human rights for the world? This is exactly what I was saying in the other thread about the farce of allowing Russia and China to hold all the power when it comes to deciding worldwide humanitarian affairs. It's just ridiculous.

 

[Jack Springer]

Nope, there are a few very important differences here:

a) Bush DECIDED as early as 2002 to INVADE Iraq (with American troops on the ground) WHATEVER anyone else said, and had Cheney and Rumsfeld and many others on board who were equally war-hungry, and their arrogance was for all too see. Compare with Obama's administration who have been cautious, light-handed, diplomatic, wary to intervene for the start, and are only VERY reluctantly pursuing this action now, in reaction DIRECTLY to a chemical atrocity perpetrated for all to see.

b) Iraq was a neutralised and 'de-clawed' country BEFORE the invasion even took place, after years under a no-fly zone, and there was NO provocation or escalation whatsoever by Saddam, at least in 2003 anyway. Compare with Assad who has unleashed every weapon he has on his own people, caused the deaths of untold tens of thousands of men, women, and children since the rebellion began in 2011, and has caused a humanitarian refugee crisis in the whole region.

c) Bush and his clique of Republican hawks drew up an OCCUPATION plan for Iraq, unleashed 'Shock and Awe', and even had an American-administered occupied command zone in central Baghdad for goodness sake. Compare with Obama's plan which is simply a series of pinpointed missile strikes from ships far off in the Mediterranean, and air bases even more distant, against key targets such as Assad's offensive capability, with the hope that Syrian opposition forces themselves can topple him and take their own country back.

All of the above is why I'm supportive of Obama's action, and was vehemently against Bush's.

Carney said today that regime change was not the purpose of any actions. He said Obama merely wants to make a political statement that you can't use chemical weapons on your own citizens.

The trouble is we don't have any visible knowledge that the chemical warfare were used by Assad. If Obama and you feel so strong about that -- why wasn't something done last year after the Obama's infamous 'red line' was crossed by Assad?

Also, a major problem in your thinking is that both Biden and Obama were very adamant that the POTUS did not have the power to do what Obama now says he is going to do. I'd call that hypocritical on both Biden and Obama.

Bush also went to Congress -- Obama evidently has no intention.

Your justification sounds like you dislike Bush for being prepared and compliment Obama for not having a plan.

 

[Jack Springer]

This is an amazing part of the observations I've been making over the last few years, in that I have been struck by the similarities between the 1930's and today, and the responses by the Presidents in power.
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.
Unlike WW II, no American interests would be served by engaging in hostilities with Syria, but I fear Obama will nonetheless be true to his mediocrity and his ideological lack of insight, and involve us in what might turn out to be the commencement of WW III.
Syria is strictly, at most, a regional issue, but the current indications are that Obama is treating it otherwise.

I remember my grandparents talking about how the Depression would not end and how Roosevelt drew the US into war as a solution.

 

[T-Rexx]

I remember my grandparents talking about how the Depression would not end and how Roosevelt drew the US into war as a solution.

Yes. FDR forced the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor.

 

[Kulindahr]

If the Arab League is that outraged,make them take up arms themselves.
Enough is enough with trying to save everyone.

Obama should have Kerry drop a memo to all those Arab countries we sell planes to and point out they're not there just to look pretty.

 

[opinterph]

Carney said today that regime change was not the purpose of any actions.

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 8/27/2013 (The White House)

Q And as the President weighs his options, does he want to take out Assad? And would his death be a welcomed outcome at this White House?

MR. CARNEY: I appreciate the question. I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change. They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.

We are also very much engaged in an effort to support the opposition in its struggle with the Assad regime as the Assad regime continues to try to massacre its own people in an effort to maintain power. And it is our firm conviction that Syria’s future cannot include Assad in power.

But this deliberation and the actions that we are contemplating are not about regime change. We believe, as I said earlier in answer to Mark’s question, that resolution of this conflict has to come through political negotiation and settlement.

[Press Secretary Jay Carney] said Obama merely wants to make a political statement that you can't use chemical weapons on your own citizens.

I don’t see that in the transcript.

We are very engaged in the process of pursuing a political resolution to this conflict.

We have stated for a long time that there is no military solution available here; that the way to bring about a better future in Syria is through negotiation and a political resolution.

We believe, as I said earlier in answer to Mark’s question, that resolution of this conflict has to come through political negotiation and settlement.

We also maintain a policy with regards to the conflict which has us providing significant support to the opposition, significant humanitarian support to the Syrian people that is designed to help bring about a transition in Syria, a political transition, that will allow Syria the future that its people deserve.

Well, I made clear I think, in answer to other questions, that we completely agree that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria, that there has to be a political transition.

And our policy of support -- as I said multiple times today and yesterday, it is our view that the conflict, the ongoing conflict in Syria has to be resolved through a political transition.

Ultimately, though, there has to be a political process that creates the transition necessary for Syria’s future.

 

[Stardreamer]

Yes. FDR forced the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor.

There are a few conspiracy theorists who believe exactly that, that he intentionally applied sanctions against Japan that would provoke a response. They think that Pearl Harbor was a sacrifice (of largely old battleships as the carriers were 'conveniently' out to sea) to overcome the people's reluctance for war or that he believed that that attack would come closer to Japan and the Pacific Fleet would be intact.

 

[T-Rexx]

Nope, there are a few very important differences here:

a) Bush DECIDED as early as 2002 to INVADE Iraq (with American troops on the ground) WHATEVER anyone else said, and had Cheney and Rumsfeld and many others on board who were equally war-hungry, and their arrogance was for all too see. Compare with Obama's administration who have been cautious, light-handed, diplomatic, wary to intervene for the start, and are only VERY reluctantly pursuing this action now, in reaction DIRECTLY to a chemical atrocity perpetrated for all to see.

b) Iraq was a neutralised and 'de-clawed' country BEFORE the invasion even took place, after years under a no-fly zone, and there was NO provocation or escalation whatsoever by Saddam, at least in 2003 anyway. Compare with Assad who has unleashed every weapon he has on his own people, caused the deaths of untold tens of thousands of men, women, and children since the rebellion began in 2011, and has caused a humanitarian refugee crisis in the whole region.

c) Bush and his clique of Republican hawks drew up an OCCUPATION plan for Iraq, unleashed 'Shock and Awe', and even had an American-administered occupied command zone in central Baghdad for goodness sake. Compare with Obama's plan which is simply a series of pinpointed missile strikes from ships far off in the Mediterranean, and air bases even more distant, against key targets such as Assad's offensive capability, with the hope that Syrian opposition forces themselves can topple him and take their own country back.

All of the above is why I'm supportive of Obama's action, and was vehemently against Bush's.

There is no question whatsoever but that GWB intended to invade Iraq from the moment of his appointment to the presidency by the Supreme Court of the United States. He fabricated evidence to justify such an invasion, and would have proceeded with such action regardless of what the UN or the US Congress decided.

Obama certainly did not intend the invasion of Syria when he was elected in 2008.

However, the Obama administration's Syria policy is closely modeled after GWB's Iraq policy. Obama is a great admirer of GWB and has tried to emulate the latter's domestic and foreign policy, to the extent he has been able.

Bush however did at least take the time to get the fig leaf of involving the UN to give his actions the facade of legitimacy. While some may argue how legitimate that result was, it was at least there. The Administration seems to have decided not to even try for that legitimacy. The NYT article I posted in the other thread points out the problem with that.

Meaningless gesture.

The GWB administration lied about everything it presented to the U.N. There is no way the U.N. could have made an informed decision, based on the disinformation being made available to them.

That's probably not an option for the Obama administration. Obama seems to want to maintain at least the illusion of honesty in his administration. And, post-Bush, there is no way the U.N. will ever again accept anything the USA states as fact, in any case.

 

[T-Rexx]

There are a few conspiracy theorists who believe exactly that, that he intentionally applied sanctions against Japan that would provoke a response. They think that Pearl Harbor was a sacrifice (of largely old battleships as the carriers were 'conveniently' out to sea) to overcome the people's reluctance for war or that he believed that that attack would come closer to Japan and the Pacific Fleet would be intact.

I am well aware of the conspiracy theories.

There are also people who believe that extra-terrestrial UFOs attacked us at Pearl Harbor, not the Japanese.

 

[Lostlover]

I love countries like Germany, Canada, Australia and other European countries that are as quiet as a church mouse on these matters. If something goes wrong, while the US, UK, France and Turkey attempt to degrade Assad's ability to kill his own people, you can bet that these people from these silent countries will have an opinion.

Canada where are you?

Australia?

Germany?

Is anyone there?

I wish Obama would dare these silent countries into taking a stance. Obama always says that Syria is acting outside the norms of the international community. I say that one can't sit idly by as a dictator uses chemical weapons and not make a peep as others, reluctantly, put together plans to cripple this dictator.

Oh how nice it is to be living in one of these silent countries.

Heads, you win by keeping out of it.

Tails, you win if Assad is toppled, because you'll ride the UK's and France's coattails.

 

[T-Rexx]

Bush also went to Congress -- Obama evidently has no intention.

I can't imagine any point in Obama going to Congress about anything.

Tom Coburn and Kent Bentivolio want to impeach Obama for being elected to a second term. The House wants to shut down the government because it looks like a few more Americans might be able to buy health insurance. And John Boehner says he wants the House to repeal bills, not pass them. This Congress has been the least productive in all of American history. That's not hyperbole. It is on track to pass fewer bills than any Congress in history.

If Obama proposed a resolution to invade Syria to the House, the Republicans would reject it. If Obama proposed a resolution not to invade Syria to the House, the Republicans would reject that, too.

Under such circumstances, the president's best option is to avoid the Congress entirely.

 

[Stardreamer]

I can't imagine any point in Obama going to Congress about anything.

Tom Coburn and Kent Bentivolio want to impeach Obama for being elected to a second term. The House wants to shut down the government because it looks like a few more Americans might be able to buy health insurance. And John Boehner says he wants the House to repeal bills, not pass them.

If Obama proposed a resolution to invade Syria to the House, the Republicans would reject it. If Obama propose a resolution not to invade Syria to the House, the Republicans would reject that, too.

Under such circumstances, the president's best option is to avoid the Congress entirely.

So if you can't get your way you should just chuck that whole democracy and balance of powers thing? (chuckles)

Don't need the UN, they won't cooperate with us anyway. Don't need Congress and a declaration of war, they won't cooperate with us anyway. Shaky legal grounds, questions about the intelligence and evidence. Gee this is sounding so familiar somehow. (laughs)