[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

Your attendance is not required, posting in the D&D is purely self-entertainment.

 

Why are you looking at only one side of a multi-sided die? There are numerous groups, factions, what-have-you in Syria, or that would quickly enter Syria, who would loooooove nothing more than to kill US soldiers or be martyred while trying to do so.

If there is only the "possibility" of casualties, as you seem to believe, then why not send U.N. blue helmets to do the job? We're sending U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war where both sides hate us. Casualties are a certainty.

 

Triple-triple-triple!!!!!! POST. That's quite a bit of "self-entertainment" there, Randy.

 

Except Obama never said his military strikes were going to wipe out Syria's chemical weapons.

 

i just have no idea how america survived the first 200+ years with peace in syria

 

I agree that there are so many factors and possibilities in this conflict that nobody can really predict what is going to happen - including which troops are going to be sent to do the cleanup. It's quite possible that it would be US troops but until then, I will reserve judgment or make any predictions.

My point is , if we are sending troops there, I would rather have US troops go there with premise of just doing cleanup rather than killing people. I am sure that most if not all of us will agree to that and any negative talks about "boots on the ground" is just rhetoric that has nothing to do with providing a solution - just another "see what he did wrong here" editorial. Even though it has moved from "lets go to war" to "lets talk about how we can make a compromise", folks are still trying to find a way to put a negative spin to it.

 

this is the most humorous post of the day.

 

Here Judoka stubbornly clings to a common bias. That essetially centrists are more fact based. Facts are facts.

Ok.

And again what evidence? Obama largely a continuation of American foreign policy.

Gitmo.

Drones Drones Drones

Violation of the international borders of Pakistan,, Somalia, Yemen and other various countries without even a nod toward international law.

Outrage at violence against Arab Spring protesters in Syria or Lybya who are not our allies to the extent of military action or arms. At best the typical tactic of voicing some feint concern for the same actions in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia our allies.


In general convenient posing as the ultimate defender of international law due to our nobleness.

Support for the coup in Honduras when opposed by virtually every country in Latin America.

Cuba policy which has been condemned by international law.

Being a virtual hostage to right wing Israeli policies which clearly violate international law.

Trying to maintain an Iraq presence until virtually kicked out.

Still in Afghanistan. Constant trial balloons about remaining many years in the future.

NSA spying on virtually everyone.

Going after whistle blowers who report violations by our soldiers abroad.

Pushing for secret trade deals that support the top corporations. Pacific Tans Partnership Agreement (IIRC the name)
etc.

DON'T GET ME WRONG OBAMA DOES OCCASIONALLY VOICE SOME DISCONTENT WITH THE POLICIES HE STILL CONTINUES and to an unknown extent he might even want to change things if he could.

 

Er, sorry, when did I say that he said that?

Please follow along, FB. Read the article I posted and then read the relevant posts before you comment on it.

 

Putin is a hoot.

He could make a living in the movies as a Russian gangster.

 

Obviously since he is one

 

Obama tried to close it and Congress wouldn't let him.

Would you prefer sending troops in? Obama has said several times going back to the campaign that he will continue to pursue Al Qaeda. I will grant you that is continuation of war but as noted earlier that is doing war on the cheap and far far different than what the previous Admin or even what the Clinton Admin did.

Huh?

He am not clear what you are talking about as Obama has expressed several times outrage against violence towards Arab Spring protestors be they in Egypt or Syria. Keep in mind people were first blaming Obama for keeping Mubarak in power, then were blaming for keeping the military junta in power, then for keeping the Muslim Brotherhood in Power. Obama can't get a break no matter what side he takes on the Arab Spring.

As far as the military support in Libya and Syria those were no longer protests but an actual war. Remember Obama did nothing but offer rhetoric when they were just protests. I agree things are bad in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia but those haven't turned into a war and anyway the Obama Admin has criticized those countries regarding heavy handed treatment. Basically the same thing he did to Libya and Syria until fighting broke out.

Obama's policy specifically? What directly does that have to do with Syria? You are trying to conflate things that are not directly related.

I wonder what Netanyahu thinks about that. If you haven't noticed Obama has criticized Israel's policies quite a bit. Further Israel's aid is written in law and Obama cannot the unilaterally change it. The same with the trade embargo on Cuba.

Yet we have left and it was Obama that promised during the campaign to leave.

And yet we are leaving as Obama promised.

Granted none of those are good but what do they have to do with Syria?

And once again what does that have to do with Syria?

All you've done is layed a lot of things that do not directly deal with Syria. This is why your argument is circumstantial and speculative that Obama is determined to go to war in Syria at all cost. The facts about what Obama has actually done in Syria point instead towards what is seemingly a confused policy marked by rhetoric and then stalling.

 

He probably is but that is one reason why this thing is such a mess. Obama going back to the campaign is clearly a believer in a just war. In his Nobel prize speech he basically defended the use of power. If you and Glynch are arguing he is no dove yes he isn't. Where your argument though is weak though is specifically applied to the Syrian situation. If anything Obama is being dragged along by the situation and given recent develops appears to rather than looking to go to war is looking for ways out of it. None of his actions, asking for Congressional vote and then getting behind the half baked Russian / Syrian proposal makes sense except that he is looking to avoid war.

Glynch and I guess you, seem determined to look at this as machiavellian moves on Obama based on other things but if you look at my reply to Glynch none of those directly relate to Syria. Further if you look at some of the things Glynch cited, floating trial balloons to keep some forces in Afghanistan and Iraq given that they were quickly dropped compare this to the prior Admin. that just went ahead and did things no matter what the opposition was to them. What those show me is less war monger and more an Administration that isn't that decisive and over analyzes these situations.

 

Could always make it in American p*rn as 'Vlad the Impaler'.

 

Not that anyone here cares one bit, but there's a very important segment that is quite opposed to intervention in Syria:

Troops oppose strikes on Syria by 3-1 margin

http://www.militarytimes.com/interactive/article/20130911/NEWS/309110009/Troops-oppose-strikes-Syria-by-3-1-margin

 

yup, they are as confused and divided as everyone else since the situation is all shades of grey and none black and white.

None of them seem to frame it as only a limited response to chemical weapons.

 

I care what the troops think. Always have. So do a lot of other people around here.

 

Er, farming it as a "limited response to chemical weapons" begs the question "Why bother?"

Launching a few Tomahawks that do nothing to actually remove Assad's capabilities is simply doing something for the sake of doing something. It's worse than counterproductive because 1) it doesn't address the actual issue, and 2) it sends the message that we're not willing to go the distance. And it wastes a bunch of money.

If, on the other hand, you are actually willing to go the distance (a possibility that Assad evidently considers at least somewhat realistic) then you will have to launch an extended air campaign at the least, with the possible result that the scales are tipped too much towards the rebels that Assad falls. It is this possibility that spurred the Russians and Assad into action this week. And of course, if that happens - Assad falls - then you have metrich sh^tloads of CBW sitting in a lawless area governed by Hizbollah and Al Qaeda-linked rebels - which would likely necessitate putting ground troops in to seize the weapons before they fell into the wrong hands.

Why can't you guys game this crap out? The military has, which is why they want no part in it. Obama likely has, too, which is why he grasped at the first straw that Putin threw him.

Your whole "limited response to chemical weapons" will either be a wasted effort that has the opposite effect intended or it will end up not being so limited and carry enormous risks going forward. It's a terrible idea, and a product of knee-jerk, shallow thinking.