[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

No, more like a lose-lose situation. Obama strikes immediately, without calling Congress, what precisely do you think the reaction would have been?

 

Yeah, was meant to be a joke. But it's much funnier that you take redcoat formations of the 18th century pretty seriously... also funny that (not quite ending at our shores) you would rather heap more blame on your POTUS than make a crack at the expense of the redcoats.

So you really think Obama is not working with the joint chiefs on this? He's ordering them to do stuff they think is totally stupid? I guess I know your answer already.

 

There is some stuff going on. It's pretty clear that the rebels did this.


HELL NO is my vote.

I'm losing faith. Repubs. Democrats. One in the same.

 

but Obama said it's clear that it was Assad's men

 

As well as Europe. But they're dirty European, so who knows what they're talking about, anyways? I was definitely skeptical at first, but at this point, I think it's willful denial if you don't think it's Assad.

 

If it was Assads men.. why would he gas his own people just before weapons inspectors were to show up? It wasn't his men that's why.. it was rebel Al Qaeda fighters trying to pull the US into the war to fight for them against Syria... under the guise of saving the children.

 

It makes no difference when he used the weapons. Inspectors are only there to say that they were used. They have no ability to make assumption or even give opinions who used them, just that they were used.

 

From what it sounds like, it sounds like it wasn't Assad, directly, but rather some overeager lieutenant or something along those lines - among the intelligence that's been released has been basically guys higher up going "WTF" towards the guys on the field.

And if your response is "Why would Assad gas civilians", my response is "Why would Germany, which has no interest in fighting in Syria anyways, lie about blaming Assad?"

 

The Oatmeal explains a small part of the insanity...

 

Love it.

Edit: Ah. Wanted to rep for that cartoon but apparently I haven't spread the rep lately.

 

And, if you ask me, that's just the tip of the hypocritical bull**** iceberg.

 

Absolutely not. I have never been a supporter of the US going into other countries to "better them" with military force. I especially don't agree with the money going in to fund such movements when the money could be better allocated to healthcare, helping the homeless, education, more grants, R&D on anything beneficial for society in the US, repair of cities road systems, etc. But then again, I do not agree with multiple things the government does, which is why I stay away from talking politics.

 

I absolutely do not support US involvement in Syria.

I believe the chemical attack was a frame job by the rebels. I believe the rebels are many times worse than Assad's regime, someone who has proven to be one of the few moderate voices in the Middle East.

I'm in no way saying I support a government that drops bombs on his own people. But I don't see a good outcome if we get involved. Either it drags us into a larger war and/or someone much worse ends up in power in yet another ME country.

 

For all of us wanting a "no", I hope you'll all contact your house reps.

I will contact mine (a lot of good it will do me with Pelosi).

 

done!

 

Assad's forces also shelled the area for 4 days after the attack and prevented UN inspectors from entering.

I've heard a lot of people claim the rebels did this but have seen very little actual proof supporting that contention. I am not saying that absolutely means we should bomb Assad but I don't think a decision should be made in the other direction based on the speculation that the rebels did this.

 

Apologies, that one flew right over my head... It's the interwebz, it happens. I do think that POTUS stepped in it on this one. It was avoidable. Hard to argue otherwise.

And what are we to make of stuff like this?

Obama: 'I didn't set a red line' on Syria

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-reserves-right-to-buck-congress-on-syria-strike-140227751.html

Really?

Well, his own Chairman of the JCS, Gen. Dempsey, has been pretty outspoken about his ambivalence throughout this whole episode. So yeah, that's pretty much what I think.

Dempsey: Obama’s Delay Impacts Syria Strike
Gen. Martin Dempsey testified Tuesday that the delay in launching airstrikes in Syria is helping the Assad regime prepare.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/03/dempsey-obama-s-delay-impacts-syria-strike.html

Martin Dempsey: Syria options costly, risky

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/martin-dempsey-syria-options-costly-risky-94588.html

Gen. Martin Dempsey Warns U.S. Intervention in Syria Will Trigger Wider War

http://freebeacon.com/gen-martin-dempsey-warns-u-s-intervention-in-syria-will-trigger-wider-war/

General Dempsey's warnings could go unheeded if Obama opts to strike
A multi-tour command veteran of the Iraq war, Dempsey has repeatedly highlighted the risks of US involvement in Syria

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/general-martin-dempsey-obama-syria

This doesn't exactly inspire confidence. And they are just the tip of the Iceberg, Dempsey's been indicating opposition to intervention. Do you think if they were on the same page his CJCS would be running around saying these things? And there have been reports floating around for weeks that POTUS is basically ignoring the military brass on this one, which I would not find surprising at all given past history.

 

thanks, treeman. we are remarkably close to the same page on this one.

I do think that the more you publicly call your military shots, the more pointless they are for any actual mission. it becomes just a PR stunt.

Eisenhower, for me, had the best statement on this topic. He saw no point in being the first to Berlin just for the sake of photo ops at the end of WW2. He kepts his forces at the Elbe and saved some extra American lives (and kept his eye on the prize in shifting focus quickly to the Pacific theater).

 

The thing about that criticism is that it would be lot more valid if it wasn't for the fact that the same people b****ing about Obama not striking, would be the exact same people b****ing that Obama didn't consult Congress if he did strike immediately. I think Dempsey has a valid point, but they can completely ignore Congress. Obama, for better or for worse, has chosen not to.

 

Obama is just a puppet like Dubya was. At least, I can be fair about things.


Time for you to do the same.

Let's all go indy.