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

[T-Rexx]

The opposition to Syrian intervention is purely emotional. Please show me where Obama or any one in the administration has said that striking people--civilians--is a part of the war strategy.

I've asked for links on many occasions in the last few days that would back up some of the claims people have said here to oppose America striking Assad and I haven't received one link yet.

Siding with the people would include sending a swift, but strong, message to a dictator that using sarin isn't permissible.

Please explain to me how it is even possible to blow up stuff in Syria without risking civilian lives.

And please provide links to support that conclusion, since links are what impresses you so much.

 

[Kulindahr]

Please explain to me how it is even possible to blow up stuff in Syria without risking civilian lives.

And please provide links to support that conclusion, since links are what impresses you so much.

Yes. They're proposing two or three hundred cruise missile strikes -- there's no way there won't be civilian casualties.

 

[rareboy]

And for the 300-1200 people ostensibly killed by the chemical weapons attack....how many civilian lives lost in 200-300 missile attacks will be enough to prove the point to Assad and Co. 250? 285? 340? 458? 673? 895? 1264? 2899? 5677? 11,001? 22,437? 63,344? Tell me all those who would like to start lobbing missiles...tell me how many collateral 'casualties make up for the deaths by Sarin? When apparently over 100,000 lives lost in the civil war to date haven't mattered a good goddamn to any one, least of all all the homos chattering on this site about the need to go in and teach Assad and his henchmen a lesson.

 

[Lostlover]

Please explain to me how it is even possible to blow up stuff in Syria without risking civilian lives.

And please provide links to support that conclusion, since links are what impresses you so much.

No. I asked you a question. Please reread: Please show me where Obama or any one in the administration has said that striking people is a part of the war strategy?

Don't answer the simple question with a question.

I'm all ears.

 

[T-Rexx]

And for the 300-1200 people ostensibly killed by the chemical weapons attack

French intelligence says it is 281 casualties, not the 1,400+ claimed by the Obama administration.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23928871#TWEET876206

I'm sorry to say it, but I'm inclined to believe the French. American intelligence has a history of failure after failure after falure.

....how many civilian lives lost in 200-300 missile attacks will be enough to prove the point to Assad and Co. 250? 285? 340? 458? 673? 895? 1264? 2899? 5677? 11,001? 22,437? 63,344? Tell me all those who would like to start lobbing missiles...tell me how many collateral 'casualties make up for the deaths by Sarin? When apparently over 100,000 lives lost in the civil war to date haven't mattered a good goddamn to any one, least of all all the homos chattering on this site about the need to go in and teach Assad and his henchmen a lesson.

If we kill enough of the same people Assad is trying to kill, it will probably frighten him into becoming a better person.

 

[rareboy]

No. I asked you a question. Please reread: Please show me where Obama or any one in the administration has said that striking people is a part of the war strategy?

Don't answer the simple question with a question.

I'm all ears.

The US has never been able to bomb shit without costing hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives. Even today...in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other areas where the drones get sent in....collateral deaths seem to be of absolutely no importance at all.

 

[MystikWizard]

Siding with which people -- Al Qaeda and the other terrorists? the Islamists?

I raised that concern several times. Get rid of Assad and replace him with an Al-Qaeda supported government that can institute Sharia Law against it's people. Great job, USA!! Well worth the effort of the missile strikes and whatever casualties that may come from it (sarcasm).

 

[Jack Springer]

I am a Canadian transplant so maybe so. Sounds like a good read anyway and am looking for some new material. Thanks. :||

But in the Senate they aren't the most powerful faction.

Sarah Palin says "Let Allah Sort it Out"

http://www.teaparty.org/palin-on-syria-let-allah-sort-it-out-28026/

Just a cursory glance at tea party page indicates they are crackpots.

Why not let the Sunni's and Shia's fight it out between themselves. Their conflict is the low-key war that been going on for a long time. We don't need to get involved.

Plus, we have no proof that Assad used chemical weapons. There are some rebel groups that took credit for the attacks.

 

[MystikWizard]

Oh here we go. Nothing quite like former GOP Presidential candidate John McWar and his sidekick, Lindsey Graham, getting invited to the White House to lobby President Obama for a more powerful, robust military campaign in Syria to permanently get rid of Assad.

Two hawkish Republicans -- Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- head to the White House on Monday to argue their call for a robust military campaign against Syria intended to significantly weaken the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/02/politics/us-syria-defense/index.html

Looks like they are also lobbying to restore military funding which was cut by austerity measures, as well. Anything else, guys? If you ever needed examples of who in Congress are owned by the military industrial complex, look no further?

So they want those funds re-instated to the military PLUS a long campaign to ouster Assad and bring about regime change. I guess if Obama agrees to this, they think they can get the votes from the GOP in the House.

My thoughts are both parties here are going to get put in their place and shown to be nothing more than the big-talkers they are. I think the GOP in the House along with the anti-war Democrats are going to put their feet down to both Obama and the Neocons he invited to the White House for a meeting today.

 

[Jack Springer]

If the Obama Administration still hasn't found out what happened at Benghazi after almost one year -- how the hell can they come to a conclusion about Syria using chemical weapons so quickly?

Maybe there's a youtube video involved somewhere.

 

[rareboy]

Oh here we go. Nothing quite like former GOP Presidential candidate John McWar and his sidekick, Lindsey Graham, getting invited to the White House to lobby President Obama for a more powerful, robust military campaign in Syria to permanently get rid of Assad.



Looks like they are also lobbying to restore military funding which was cut by austerity measures, as well. Anything else, guys? If you ever needed examples of who in Congress are owned by the military industrial complex, look no further?

So they want those funds re-instated to the military PLUS a long campaign to ouster Assad and bring about regime change. I guess if Obama agrees to this, they think they can get the votes from the GOP in the House.

My thoughts are both parties here are going to get put in their place and shown to be nothing more than the big-talkers they are. I think the GOP in the House along with the anti-war Democrats are going to put their feet down to both Obama and the Neocons he invited to the White House for a meeting today.

We can only hope.

 

[palbert]

A critique of the proposed AUMF.

Note: The author was an attorney in the Bush Administration.

The Administration's Syria AUMF Is Very Broad [UPDATE on Ground Troops]

There is much more here than at first meets the eye. The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the-administrations-proposed-syria-aumf-is-very-broad/

Senate Democrats Drafting New Language For Authorization Of Military Force In Syria: Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/senate-democrats-syria_n_3853449.html

 

[Telstra]

What if this is true America would look stupid ...
"Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi Supplied Rebels behind Chemical Attack"

 

[MystikWizard]

You know, Telstra ... in these past 2 days, I have seen these claims coming out that it was Saudis, who coincidentally are also cheerleading us off to war with Syria, that supplied these chemical weapons for this attack. Is it really that much of a stretch that these weapons were supplied by either Saudi Arabia, who want Assad gone ... or Al Qaeda who also want Assad gone ... and these weapons were used to lure the U.S. into a conflict and ouster Assad?

The U.S. could and perhaps is being played for a fool. What evidence is there that Assad and his government used these weapons? Because civilians were attacked? Do we not think Al Qaeda or other insurgents that want Assad gone would stage an attack to make the rest of the world think Assad was behind it?

No solid evidence of this incident other than physically seeing You Tube videos of civilians being injured ... and no concrete evidence showing Assad's forces were the culprits. But our government, and even some on here ... wants us to immediately rush off to war. Makes you really wonder about the forces at work behind our government officials as this seems no different than Bush's goal of regime change in the Middle East and Obama seems to simply be trying to continue Bush's work towards this goal.

Because inevitably Iran would get involved and there we can kill two birds with one stone.

Obama: "Well, it was not my intention with these strikes for this to turn into a full-scare war, but since Iran and Syria have joined forces and are attacking our allies, we have no other alternative than to launch a full-scare Shock and Awe military operation against these countries."

 

[Yuki Sohma]

USS Nimitz Carrier in Red Sea, But No Orders for Syria
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/uss-nimitz-carrier-moving-toward-red-sea-but-no-orders-for-syria/

Wouldn't it be just like the US to send a US carrier group (the Nimitz does not sail alone) closer to Syria only to launch an air attack from let's say Nevada or Missouri or Colorado or from a secret location in Saudi Arabia or from any of 63 Secret Drone bases located inside the United States ( http://www.knowthelies.com/node/7406 ).

Maybe we strike maybe we don't. I, yes I Yuki Sohma, lay odds at 50/50 as of today.

 

[Telstra]

You know, Telstra ... in these past 2 days, I have seen these claims coming out that it was Saudis, who coincidentally are also cheerleading us off to war with Syria, that supplied these chemical weapons for this attack. Is it really that much of a stretch that these weapons were supplied by either Saudi Arabia, who want Assad gone ... or Al Qaeda who also want Assad gone ... and these weapons were used to lure the U.S. into a conflict and ouster Assad?

The U.S. could and perhaps is being played for a fool. What evidence is there that Assad and his government used these weapons? Because civilians were attacked? Do we not think Al Qaeda or other insurgents that want Assad gone would stage an attack to make the rest of the world think Assad was behind it?

No solid evidence other than civilians being injured ... but our government wants us to immediately rush off to war. Makes you really wonder about the forces at work behind our government officials as this seems no different than Bush's goal of regime change in the Middle East and Obama seems to simply be trying to continue Bush's work towards this goal.

Because inevitably Iran would get involved and there we can kill two birds with one stone.

Obama: "Well, it was not my intention with these strikes for this to turn into a full-scare war, but since Iran and Syria have joined forces and are attacking our allies, we have no other alternative than to launch a full-scare Shock and Awe military operation against these countries."

If these things happen, America is at fault yet again ...

 

[Yuki Sohma]

Quote Originally Posted by MystikWizard View Post

"... Because inevitably Iran would get involved and there we can kill two birds with one stone.

Obama: "Well, it was not my intention with these strikes for this to turn into a full-scare war, but since Iran and Syria have joined forces and are attacking our allies, we have no other alternative than to launch a full-scare Shock and Awe military operation against these countries."

OMG A Shock and Awe military operation against Iran. Holy $hit Batman.

 

[Kulindahr]

I still say we should target just the guy who ordered the attack, if we can determine who it was.

 

[MystikWizard]

I still say we should target just the guy who ordered the attack, if we can determine who it was.

I opt for a more conservative approach and say we just mind our own business.

 

[Ninja108]

We can't be the world's policemen. As bad as it is,nothing good will come out of us getting involved.
If the Arab League is bothered by what is happening over there,let them deal with it.