[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

This can't be considered strong evidence, since the administration is unwilling to actually present the satellite imagery or the transcripts to the Security Council, let alone the public, with the excuse that it is "classified". Given that, and the fact that it is the rebels (and supporting entities) that are motivated to lure the US into this conflict, there's very good reason to be skeptical about this whole thing.

 

Aware of that. Maybe I'm ignorant on how we have historically reacts to broken international law. But I think we (and others nations) have routinely ignored and done nothing about international law that have been broken, especially when it would involve military actions. Nothing wrong with that... it's common sense that calculation involve more than just laws are broken... there is our interests, our allies interests, economic and political reasons, blah blah blah and do we actually have a good chance at accomplishing what we want. It's a good excuse, but not a convincing reason why we should get involved. I haven't heard of anything that is convincing enough to get involve.

 

Good post... I agree 100% that there needs to be clear international protocols for enforcing war crimes.

 

While the US hasn't released satellite imagery and transcripts that chemical weapons were used against rebel held territory has been corroborated from witnesses and the UN. Also that the regime initially blocked inspectors and shelled the area in question for four days is a fact.

 

It is very interesting to see the Pope encouraging opposition to the proposed war. (Yes one state bombing another state is "war").

People tend to forget that Israeli/US preferred policy of frequent wars affect negatively Christians who do outnumber Jewish folks in the Middle East very greatly, though the "Christians" in the US who slavishly support Israel don't seem concerned over this.

Granted the Christians living there tend to be Catholics, who are not into seeking Armageddon.

 

It is very interesting to see the Pope encouraging opposition to the proposed war. (Yes one state bombing another state is "war").

People tend to forget that Israeli/US preferred policy of frequent wars affect negatively Christians who do outnumber Jewish folks in the Middle East very greatly, though the "Christians" in the US who slavishly support Israel don't seem concerned over this.

Granted the Christians living there tend to be Catholics and not Evangelicals who are into the theology of Armageddon.

http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-100-000-attend-syria-peace-vigil-192800844.html

Vatican: 100,000 attend Syria peace vigil

 

I am wondering though how will the US not attacking Syria lead to a quicker peace in Syria? The conflict seems to have ebbs and flows with the rebels gaining momentum and then the regime gaining momentum but it doesn't appear like either side has an overwhelming upper hand.

I can understand all the reasons for the US not getting involved in Syria but I don't think that peace in Syria is one of them. If the US does nothing in Syria the war will still continue likely for a long while. Plus if the Assad regimes wins there will likely be a huge blood bath of rebels and those who supported them at the hands of the regime.

The converse will probably be true if the Rebels win.

As I said I don't have a strong opinion either way but I don't see the US not getting involved as a humanitarian gesture or a move that hastens the end to the conflict.

 

I've already posted the Geneva Protocol and other conventions forbidding the use of chemical weapons, and stated both my support of that worldwide ban on those WMD's, even mentioning Hitler foregoing the use of them during WWII, and Reagan helping Saddam use his in the late 1980's. No one seemed to care. Well, I do care. Just because a previous American President, Ronald Reagan, not only ignored Saddam's use of poison gas, but actually assisted him with intelligence so he could use them more effectively, doesn't mean that the current President believing in the Geneva Protocol somehow makes that irrelevant. My beef with Obama now is that he didn't do what McCain is rightfully criticizing him for, which is strike immediately after it was clear that Syria had conducted what was obviously a massive use of them in several locations on a single day. There has been reports of the "small" use of them already, but this time, their use was clear, and it certainly, in my opinion (and what I've read so far backs that opinion up) was the act of the government of Syria against civilians.

We should have already acted. The use of WMD's in the form of chemical weapons in unacceptable. Their use has been outlawed internationally for many decades. Not the possession of them, but the use of them. That people are having a difficult time with that concept baffles me.

 

Please explain the enforcement mechanisms involved in either the Geneva Protocols or the CWC treaty. (yes, that is a trick question, there are none)

Stop pussyfooting around. Either advocate a full invasion and regime change, with the inevitable police action to follow, or be quiet. Unless you replace Assad nothing you do is going to matter. A "limited" and "punitive" strike will be ineffectual by definition. You wanna punish Assad and set an example for other dictators? Kill the motherfu^ker. Take out his whole tribe. Anything short of that is going to be interpreted as weakness by everyone observing. In that region only strength is respected; half-a$$ed measures will be correctly seen for what they are.

And stop pretending that a truly punishing strike is not going to tip the balance heavily against Assad or necessitate deeper and extended involvement in the war. The only way it's one-and-done is if it's a completely ineffectual strike. The brass knows this, which is another reason they oppose it. They don't appreciate being used as props in politicians' games.

OK... so let me try this again. Answer these questions satisfactorily or you get no war:

1) What is the compelling national security interest we have in Syria?

2) How exactly does use of CBW in an internal civil war pose a threat to the national security of the US?

3) What is military goal of the proposed strikes?

4) What is the political goal of the proposed strikes?

5) What is the exit strategy? What is the endstate that we desire?

6) What will our course of action be if Assad ignores our strikes and launches another CBW strike?

7) In any military campaign casualties are likely (Assad could launch land-based SSMs at our ships, planes/pilots could be shot down, they have a couple of subs that could cause problems, etc) How many casualties are we willing to take? And what will our response be to taking casualties?

8) What will our response be if Iran, Hizbollah, and/or Iraqi militants (or other jihadists) attack US assets in response to our strikes?

9) Given Murphy's Law in war, are we prepared to be drawn into a deeper engagement in Syria itself, possibly with ground forces?

10) Given Murphy's Law in war, what will our course of action be if the conflict spreads beyond Syria's borders because of our actions?

I am going to keep asking these questions until they are answered satisfactorily. And you can bet that some variation of these questions are being asked by lawmakers. If the answers they get are as lame as we've seen so far, POTUS gets no AUMF.

The time to act was back in 2011, before the rebels were gobbled up by AQ-types. Now, there is no remotely likely good outcome from intervention.

As I mentioned earlier, I am actually OK with going in and seizing the CBW if it appears that they will be transferred to Hizbollah or captured by the rebels. CW in their hands would be a threat to US national security, because they may actually use it against us. Assad, on the other hand, presents us no threat.

What baffles me is how we can gloss over the 100k or so people killed there in the prior 2 years and suddenly freak out about the 200-1400+ (depending upon whose numbers you use) who died in the gas attack.

Had Assad simply leveled a massive artillery barrage in the same area and killed 1400 people by tearing them to pieces and peppering them with shrapnel and blasted concrete, what would we be talking about right now? Probably Zimmerman's divorce or some sh^t like that.

This is entirely about rescuing POTUS from his own foot he shoved in his mouth. That is insufficient reason to go to war.

 

Hmm.. And now Kerry is saying, "Turn over your chemical weapons within 1 week and we will leave you be". Pretty damn strange the words and actions coming from the US govt on this. What about this red line? Cross it and get a talking to so long as you hand over your toys?

 

Stop pussyfooting around. Either advocate a full invasion and regime change, with the inevitable police action to follow, or be quiet. Unless you replace Assad nothing you do is going to matter. "

I addressed your issues when you posted them from the administrations stand point. What you cannot seem to grasp is Mr. Obama's planned actions are simply a response to the use of chemical weapons. It's like handing out a ticket for speeding in a school zone, the fine is big, big enough to make you not do it again, but you don't loose your license to drive.

Most political issues are ended by compromise. The parties take a hardline to settle back to something everyone hates. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends with Russia saying they will come in an secure all Syrian chemicals.

 

WTF ...really ? Did I really just read that ? Pretty sure hitler used chemicals to gas millions of people . Just because he gathered these people up first makes no difference . Hitler is responsible for killing far more people with chemical weapons then everyone else put together .

 

I just saw a breaking news report that Russia has negotiated with Syria to put their chemical weapons under control and Syria has agreed.

That seems like a step that might end this situation, no?

 

Works for me and probably 1000x more effective than telegraphed missile strikes.

 

Under who's control? If it was under control of the UN, US, or even Russia, that would completely be acceptable, and actually be more effective in stopping future attacks.

 

I wouldn't give them to anyone. If anything I would destroy them in front of the inspectors. Otherwise you're just giving WMD's to countries that have a precedent of using "foreign" materials in false flag attacks to get themselves into the mix.

 

That's a good step and the Obama Admin. should follow up with this. The big question though as with all these things is how do you make sure Syria actually follows through with this.

 

You gave the same lame-a$$ answers the administration has given - you "answered" the questions without actually answering them. I gave you kudos for the attempt, but the answers you gave are not remotely satisfactory, so I will keep asking those questions.

Uh, NO, this is NOT like handing out a freaking speeding ticket - it is an act of WAR. You don't approach this situation in remotely the same way you approach handing out a speeding ticket. We are talking about killing people here and interjecting ourselves into a conflict that has already killed over 100k people, and that carries the possibility of us being dragged into a more expansive war with several nations and actors.

The fact that this could be compared to handing out a speeding ticket just shows how *fundamentally unseriously* those advocating intervention are approaching this episode.

 

Link to report, please? That would be an acceptable outcome for all involved, I think (not sure Assad would go for it, though).

Oh, and look at this:

Kerry vows ‘unbelievably small’ strike on Syria

http://news.yahoo.com/-kerry-vows-%25E2%2580%2598unbelievably-small%25E2%2580%2599-strike-on-syria--150302777.html

Seriously, if I didn't know better I'd have thought this was an Onion article. But it's not. Yes, our SoS is actually running around telling everyone that this will be an "unbelievably small" strike. No big deal. doesn't even BEGIN to cover my feelings on this.

This is ABSURD.