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

[Kulindahr]

This point I quite understand, and I am actually sympathetic to Obama's position on the issue but I don't seem to remember there being a 'Black Democrat/Tea Party' clause in the Constitution or the War Powers Act concerning the exercise of war powers.

Now I did hear something today that there was an attempt to link the Syrian Chemical Weapon use to a terrorism threat to use the AUMF that Bush used for Afghanistan and Iraq. Its a bit of an inventive stretch, basically saying that if the Assad regime falls the chemical weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists so therefore we should attack Assad under the guise of Bush's War on Terror. What do you think, does that fly?

Simply?

No.

 

[MystikWizard]

Motion seconded.

And to be frank, it should actually come from the U.N. on this, and not our Congress ... since this should be a U.N. effort, not a U.S. effort. And if the U.N. is not acting, then neither should the U.S.

But if Obama does act without any vote from our own government, then he needs to be shown the door.

 

[Kulindahr]

I imagine once they have burning communications centers, airfields, missile batteries and command facilities, they will have heard the message rather clearly.

Superbly answered here:

If we are that proficient and effective, we will have acted as al-Qaeda's air force, in effect. You think the secularists will be strong enough to take control of the country, bring stability? Plus now Syria has had, and may well continue to have, a grace period of days to move the stuff most important in the defense of the Assad regime to locales that cruise missiles can't do as much damage. You think the Assad regime, the Iranians, Hezbollah and Russia will just allow their meal ticket to be blown away without finding a way to hit at us somehow?

 

[Kulindahr]

And to be frank, it should actually come from the U.N. on this, and not our Congress ... since this should be a U.N. effort, not a U.S. effort. And if the U.N. is not acting, then neither should the U.S.

But if Obama does act without any vote from our own government, then he needs to be shown the door.

OTOH this is on NATO's border, and we may have an obligation there if NATO decided to do something.

Otherwise, yes -- impeach the man.

 

[Stardreamer]

And to be frank, it should actually come from the U.N. on this, and not our Congress ... since this should be a U.N. effort, not a U.S. effort. And if the U.N. is not acting, then neither should the U.S.

But if Obama does act without any vote from our own government, then he needs to be shown the door.

The UN will not do anything. This problem suffers from the fatal flaw in the UN structure, namely that one of BIG Five (Russia) has a vested interest in nothing happening.

 

[MystikWizard]

Based on the President's remarks a couple minutes ago, he clearly is doing the right thing by going to Congress to seek Congressional approval for military action. However, he seems to be publicly expressing confidence that Congress will provide him that authorization. I can understand why he feels he has to publicly show confidence in that, but I honestly question if he truly believes he will get it?

It is seriously doubtful he will get approval from the Senate, but there is no way in Hell he is going to get approval from the House on this.

The same thing that happened in Britain with David Cameron will happen to Obama. The public is saying "mind your own business" and the representatives in Congress will hear that message loud and clear this week.

 

[T-Rexx]

Well I will say that Hitler sure capitulated when we went in with [guns and] bombs.

No, he didn't. We're not talking (I hope) about invading Syria. We're talking about bombing it. That never works.

We bombed the hell out of Germany, and yet she continued to fight tenaciously. She even developed new weapons (V1 and V2 and jet fighters) after we had flattened her cities.

I have parenthized your "guns" comment because you are trying to argue that bombing a country is as effective as a physical invasion with troops. You are trying to argue the effectiveness of one strategy on the basis of the effectiveness of a totally unrelated strategy. That is every bit as intellectually dishonest as you are aware.

Al Qaeda sure did take to the caves when we went in to Afghanistan with guns and bombs.

If you call the largest and most luxurious villa in Abbottabad a "cave," then, yes.

But, again, that was an invasion and not a bombing of nonspecific targets.

There is a place for weaponry and military tactics and they are successful when used appropriately.

That's the point. "When used appropriately."

If we were trying to destroy a nuclear weapons or chemical weapons production facility, that might be understandable. But there is no tactical mission here. There is no defined goal. The idea is just to bomb something so that Assad will be frightened into capitulation. That's amazingly stupid.

Targeting a regime in Syria that uses chemical weapons on its own people is necessary to ensure the adherence to the ban on chemical weapons and to protect the human rights of the citizens of Syria who are nothing now but pawns to a dictator who has shown he will do anything to hold on to power.

If bombing Syria accomplished what you claim it will, then it might be justifiable. But, as discussed, bombing Syria will not and cannot improve the lives of oppressed Syrian people. There is no protection of human rights here. There is only the killing of more Syrians. The only real goal here is to make leaders like Obama feel like they have done something, however useless, to reinforce their impressions of themselves that they are great leaders and useful people.

 

[T-Rexx]

Based on the President's remarks a couple minutes ago, he clearly is doing the right thing by going to Congress to seek Congressional approval for military action. However, he seems to be publicly expressing confidence that Congress will provide him that authorization. I can understand why he feels he has to publicly show confidence in that, but I honestly question if he truly believes he will get it?

It is seriously doubtful he will get approval from the Senate, but there is no way in Hell he is going to get approval from the House on this.

The same thing that happened in Britain with David Cameron will happen to Obama. The public is saying "mind your own business" and the representatives in Congress will hear that message loud and clear this week.

I agree. I hope and expect that Congress will refuse to rubber stamp this stupidity.

I wonder how Obama will react when that happens. Maybe Obama is hoping for a rejection, to take him off the hook for backing up his bellicose rhetoric.

 

[tigerfan482]

Just a reminder. The US couldn't be convinced for love or money to enter WWII until its own interests were directly assaulted. Up until that point....it followed a neutral, isolationist course. By that time...millions of people had been exterminated...so I really wouldn't be using WWII as a good example of America's rush to save humanity.

It is a perfect example of how to learn from past mistakes. Standing around "minding our own business" while countries like Syria "test the waters" on chemical extermination of its citizens has been shown to be a position that should not be taken. While it should not be the job of the US or the international community to militarily intervene on all armed conflicts, there are certain actions (such as the use of chemical weapons) that should elicit a response. I'm disappointed in the lack of any type of action, political or military, from a number of western nations on this matter, especially given the belief that if one of them were attacked by chemical weapons, they would expect a full showing of support for their cause.

Tigerfan, Can you explain to me why it is bad when others use CW but OK when we or our (then) surrogates use CW?

Does the US need to send a lesson to itself?

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thr...mical-attack?p=9067538&viewfull=1#post9067538

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thr...mical-attack?p=9068860&viewfull=1#post9068860

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thr...mical-attack?p=9069242&viewfull=1#post9069242

Yes I can.

Iraq/Iran - there is a difference in being aware of the fact that a country is manufacturing and storing chemical weapons with the possibility they may use them and being supportive of the use of them. It has been known for many years that Syria manufactured and stored chemical weapons and no suggestion of military force against Syria was made on that fact. Now that they have used the chemicals (and not on military targets but civilian populations), there is a cause for action. Additionally, the assistance provided to Iraq occurred in the 1980's under a completely different administration. By your logic, because I can't find any evidence at the time of you publicly stating your opposition to Iraq using chemical weapons, I can only assume you supported the use and thus cannot ever take a stance against using chemical weapons ever.

White Phosphorous - It is clearly stated in many sources, including the ones you like to link despite being heavily biased, that white phosphorous is not considered a chemical weapon under any treaty that the US has signed on to. (See here and here). The use of white phosphorous as a screening weapon or against locations to flush out enemy combatants is a widely accepted and legal practice of warfare. On the other hand, using nerve agents (which is what Syria is accused of using) has no legally accepted military use and is strictly prohibited by numerous international treaties.

And to be frank, it should actually come from the U.N. on this, and not our Congress ... since this should be a U.N. effort, not a U.S. effort. And if the U.N. is not acting, then neither should the U.S.

But if Obama does act without any vote from our own government, then he needs to be shown the door.

The War Powers Resolution is Constitutionally questionable and has been viewed as unconstitutional by every administration since it was passed. There are no grounds for impeachment if the President exercises his Constitutional powers of commanding the military. If Congress doesn't want forces used, then they need to either a) pass a law expressly forbidding the use of forces in this situation and b) not provide funding for the effort. Those are their Constitutionally granted powers. Requiring the Executive Branch to obtain permission before commanding the military forces is not within their Constitutional powers.

More information here.

No, he didn't. We're not talking (I hope) about invading Syria. We're talking about bombing it. That never works.

We bombed the hell out of Germany, and yet she continued to fight tenaciously. She even developed new weapons (V1 and V2 and jet fighters) after we had flattened her cities.

I have parenthized your "guns" comment because you are trying to argue that bombing a country is as effective as a physical invasion with troops. You are trying to argue the effectiveness of one strategy on the basis of the effectiveness of a totally unrelated strategy. That is every bit as intellectually dishonest as you are aware.

Actually, my position is that we're arguing two different things. The goal when we entered WWII was to remove Hitler and to drive back German and Japanese advances made. We responded with the appropriate level of military intervention and accomplished our goals. The goal with Syria is NOT to invade the country or to directly cause regime change. The goal is to a) punish for the use of chemical weapons and b) level the playing field for the opposition to achieve regime change. Thus, the level of military involvement that we demonstrated in WWII is not needed in this situation, where all we need to do is weaken and not defeat. That can easily be accomplished by bombing. A recent example of that is Libya.

If you call the largest and most luxurious villa in Abbottabad a "cave," then, yes.

But, again, that was an invasion and not a bombing of nonspecific targets.

If you consider Osama bin Laden to be the totality of al Qaeda, then you have some more research to do. If you believed he lived in that villa for the entirety of the war, you have even more reading and research to do. And many additional al Qaeda operatives have been successfully eliminated via bombing campaigns.

That's the point. "When used appropriately."

If we were trying to destroy a nuclear weapons or chemical weapons production facility, that might be understandable. But there is no tactical mission here. There is no defined goal. The idea is just to bomb something so that Assad will be frightened into capitulation. That's amazingly stupid.

What I consider amazingly stupid is the fact that you assume that just because you don't know the exact targets of any bombing campaign, then there must not be any and instead we'll just bomb indiscriminately. There seems to be the same idea here that people like to express in the threads on NSA where people somehow seem to believe that the government should just publish all of their plans so the public can have their curiosity satisfied and there can be some mythical popular vote on whether they are good plans or not. You not being privy to military plans doesn't mean they don't exist and that they wouldn't be effective. You're arguing the efficacy of plans and strategies you have absolutely no information on.

If bombing Syria accomplished what you claim it will, then it might be justifiable. But, as discussed, bombing Syria will not and cannot improve the lives of oppressed Syrian people. There is no protection of human rights here. There is only the killing of more Syrians. The only real goal here is to make leaders like Obama feel like they have done something, however useless, to reinforce their impressions of themselves that they are great leaders and useful people.

On what basis can you make this statement? You can't see the future. You don't know what targets they would go after. You don't know the intelligence they have on Syria. You don't know what weapons and tactics they plan on using. You really don't know anything at all on this topic yet you claim there is absolutely no way for anything to work. This is a perfect example of an illogical and unsupported argument. Until you can show you have SOME facts to base your position on instead of political cartoons, you're doing nothing more than writing a fictional novel via forum posts.

 

[Telstra]

^ But the government must show in details why they need to bomb Syria and what is the end game ?

 

[Sausy]

He may with the roughest of prodding pull the Senate his way... but if he gets a "yes" from the Republican held, hostile House, I'll be greatly surprised. If he gets a "no" he will possibly "save face" and call the action against Syria off but he will have blown his credibility to smithereens. Not one of the intended targets of this action, to be certain. It would be the right move since there are NO good or easy solutions on the horizon for Syria but with all his blustering he will come off as a paper tiger and will embolden the bad actors in the region, as well as Russia which benefits at our impotence and increasing self- inflicted irrelevance.

 

[Telstra]

^ why is "save face" that important when you make a life or death decision for other people?
Save face shouldn't be taken into account.

 

[tigerfan482]

^ But the government must show in details why they need to bomb Syria and what is the end game ?

When in the history of the world has any military force ever provided to the public details of their military plans? That would defeat the whole purpose of military planning when you just publish them for your target to see and adjust as needed. It doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Telstra]

When in the history of the world has any military force ever provided to the public details of their military plans? That would defeat the whole purpose of military planning when you just publish them for your target to see and adjust as needed. It doesn't make any sense at all.

But this is not a self defense.
Put everything on the table to the public is the right thing to do.

 

[Jack Springer]

When in the history of the world has any military force ever provided to the public details of their military plans? That would defeat the whole purpose of military planning when you just publish them for your target to see and adjust as needed. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Someone who hates the military and doesn't have a clue about tactical plans. Someone who is confused about their role and lacks leadership abilities. Someone who publicly gives two views of the same issue in the same day.

 

[Telstra]

Someone who hates the military and doesn't have a clue about tactical plans. Someone who is confused about their role and lacks leadership abilities. Someone who publicly gives two views of the same issue in the same day.

Someone who goes to war first and find the evidence later.

 

[MystikWizard]

I agree. I hope and expect that Congress will refuse to rubber stamp this stupidity.

I wonder how Obama will react when that happens. Maybe Obama is hoping for a rejection, to take him off the hook for backing up his bellicose rhetoric.

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.

 

[Lostlover]

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 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? The US isn't the only signatory to the chemical weapons treaty.

 

[MystikWizard]

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? The US isn't the only signatory to the chemical weapons treaty.

Well, I think the problem is that the U.S. always seems to task itself with this. The public is getting tired of this stuff. 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."

If that is the approach everyone else wants to take, then so be it. Maybe the U.S. should take note. We seemed to have gone back to Pre World War II thinking after the Bush years. But to be fair, if there is going to be a strike and it won't be approved by the U.N. (because of Russia), then the NATO countries need to agree and attack unilaterally. If that isn't happening, and it is not, then the U.S. needs to stay out.

 

[Lostlover]

Well, I think the problem is that the U.S. always seems to task itself with this. The public is getting tired of this stuff. 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."

If that is the approach everyone else wants to take, then so be it. Maybe the U.S. should take note. We seemed to have gone back to Pre World War II thinking after the Bush years. But to be fair, if there is going to be a strike and it won't be approved by the U.N. (because of Russia), then the NATO countries need to agree and attack unilaterally. If that isn't happening, and it is not, then the U.S. needs to stay out.

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.