[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

No, and the humanitarian reasons are weak. I can name 30 countries at least as deserving of a regime change due to brutality against a nation's own people, but given that most are in sub-Saharan Africa, no one cares.

 

Uh, no. Just no. Russia absolutely does not want to see American intervention of any kind. Even in the absolute worst-case scenario where we charge in with soldiers and turn Syria into another Iraq, that still means that we've toppled a significant Russian ally, and at the end of the day, it's far easier for Islamic terrorists to strike at Russia than the United States, not to mention Russia's continued problems with Muslims in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

So, Russia is not chomping at the bit. Neither is Iran.

 

Yes -- only if we have a coalition, congressional approval, and a UN resolution (which is unlikely). I want to help the Syrian people. I have Christian relatives in Syria and I fear what will happen to them if Assad is toppled and a militant oppressive force sympathetic to al-Qaida takes his place. The Assad's are terrible people. This is not the first time his family has massacred thousands of their own people, and it won't be the last.

Unfortunately, a solo military strike would do absolutely nothing, imo. What do you attack? Are we even sure it was the government who released the chemical weapons? How many more will die if we don't do anything? Won't that just breed more animosity towards the US?

It's a lose-lose situation for the US, and last I heard the UK was out, but no worries because France is still in! They're coming back to annex Lebanon!!

 

I'm not voting as I am leaning no but that is very qualified and I think John Kerry is making a very good case.

If action is taken though I would like to see this as an international action and not just a unilateral US action. That is going to be a lot harder now if the UK isn't in.

 

Reports coming in of another chemical attack at a school

 

The Assad regime and Al Qaeda is facing off against a coalition of Hezbollah, Iran, and Islamists. Why should we replace Assad with a just-as-bad government? The economic effects would be enormous. Oil prices would skyrocket, and the U.S. economy would stagnate as Americans stop spending money. Let's not forget about Russia, China, and Iran. Any of those countries entering the conflict would change its entire dynamic. Obama has done a poor job gathering support for a strike.

Let's look back at the beginning of the Iraq War:
16 UN Resolutions
5 countries involved in the invasion, 40+ in the ensuing conflict
Near unanimous support in Congress

 

Thousands of Americans had just been murdered too by an attack on our soil. Much different circumstances.

Having said that...I wish we would just stay out of that mess.

 

Saving innocent people from chemical weapons isn't in the budget this year.

 

exactly. Barack and Michelle have important African vacations to take, you know! That costs money!!

 

Is this straight from your eleven year old source?

 

It's not like he's out shaking hands with a walrus.

 

I now think the case should be made in The Hague, though it would be trying Assad in absentia. A way out of this would be for Putin and Assad to send up a scapegoat, a rogue general who "fired without orders".

Anyway, this is going to stew for another week before anything happens from a US standpoint

In other developments:

UN experts are analysing evidence gathered in Syria to determine whether chemical weapons attacks have taken place

Arab League foreign ministers urged the world community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures" against Syria. But several members - including Lebanon and Iraq - did not back the call

Jordan - a key US ally in the region - ruled out joining any US-led coalition against Damascus

 

Who? Obama? He'd rather make a speech then immediately run off to shake hands with a golf club than consort with a walrus; although, Obama was getting friendly with Chris Christie not too long ago so it's hard to be certain.

 

While I don't agree with bigtexxx's general ideological anti-Obama rants, he's dead right that Obama made a huge blunder with his war rhetoric about red lines and all that. Obama is forcing an issue that very few of the general public support, with unclear military objectives and with unclear consequences that may end up creating another Afghanistan-like terror state which will be far costlier in capital and lives to address in the near future than the sectarian war hapening now which has little to do with the US.

Here's what I would do instead:
1. Denounce the chemical weapon use and leave the justice to The Hague instead of the Pentagon. If the concern is the plight of civillians, then help them, don't bomb them.
2. Give aid to Syrian refugees already in Turkey and Jordan, and offer medical personnel and aid at the borders, and possibly in Kurd held areas and Israel as well, where they are also helping the wounded. And by aid I mean toys, teachers, sleeping bags, food, clothing, and Arabic speaking counsling to help people with shock, all of which is a hell of a lot cheaper than cruise missiles or the life of one single US pilot.
3. Take the actual moral high ground and use your resources to do something positive and take lead. Draw attention to the efforts by Kurds, Jordanians, Turks and Israelis to help all that have been affected (and to diffuse sectarian spindoctoring), ask the world to contribute to the charities involved there, and look like a leader instead of an opportunistic chicken-hawk.
4. Call out Russia and China to help in a humanitarian effort and when they balk, look even better.

 

So, I mentioned this last week and no one seemed to care.

USS Nimitz aircraft carrier group rerouted to help US strike on Syria, if needed - report

http://rt.com/news/us-aircraft-carrier-red-sea-286/

I commented at the time that I thought it odd that the focus of news reports was on a few destroyers and now an amphibious ship entering the area, when we have an entire CVBG in the region that can throw much more firepower their way if we deem necessary. It's public knowledge, so it's not like the Syrians didn't know it - the only relevant body who is likely ignorant of its presence is the American people. So why hide its presence form the American people?

There are now rumors that the plan is being modified and will be much more intensive and involved. First missile hasn't even flown yet and mission creep is already getting us...

I just hope Congress shuts this party down before it gets going.

 

From Wikipedia, LOL:

2013 deployment[edit source | editbeta]
On 22 July 2013, Carrier Strike Group Ten departed Norfolk Naval Base, Virginia, for its 2013 deployment to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. The group is scheduled to join the U.S. Fifth Fleet in mid-August, and is slated to relieve Carrier Strike Group Eleven.[82][83] The duration of this deployment was estimated to be between eight to nine month in length. The surface warfare duties for the strike group will be coordinated by the 1st Combined Destroyer Squadron, a combined American-Briish staff.[83] Carrier Strike Group Ten joined the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea in two sections. The first section consisted of the cruiser San Jacinto and the two destroyers, joining the fleet on 26 July 26 2013. The second section consisted of the carrier Harry S. Truman and the cruiser Gettysburg, joining on 29 July 2013. This is the first time that the strike group has operated with the Sixth Fleet since 2010.[84]
On 19 August 2013, Carrier Strike Group Ten transited the Suez Canal and joined the U.S. Fifth Fleet.[85] Carrier Strike Group Ten relieved Carrier Strike Group Eleven on 26 August 2013 and began combat air operations in support of the War in Afghanistan on 27 August 2013.[86] Both U.S. Navy carrier strike groups remained in the north Arabian Sea area pending potential military action against Syria amid allegations that the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons during the ongoing Syrian civil war, including the gas attacks that occurred on 21 August 2013.

And from Carrier Strike Group Eleven's page:

Carrier Strike Group Eleven was relieved by Carrier Strike Group Ten on 26 August 2013.[102] Both U.S. Navy carrier strike groups remained in the north Arabian Sea area pending potential military action against Syria amid allegations that the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons during the ongoing Syrian civil war, including the gas attacks that occurred on 21 August 2013.[103]
On 2 September 2013, Carrier Strike Group Eleven moved into the Red Sea for potential combat operations against Syria in the aftermath of the gas attacks that occurred on 21 August 2013. At the time of this redeployment, the strike group consisted of the carrier Nimitz, the cruiser Princeton, and the destroyers William P. Lawrence, Stockdale, and Shoup.

So, we currently have TWO carrier groups in the area, and they're talking about... Five destroyers and an amphibious ship. 1) How convenient that this crisis happens right when we are doing a carrier rotation and happen to have to carrier groups in the area, and 2) this simply doesn't smell right.

 

No.

Sick and tired of being the world police. Why doesn't big ole China, or India, or Russia strongly condemn this chemical warfare?

 

Hasn't been long enough since the boy who cried WMD used that card. Seeing it being pulled from the deck again has everyone skeptical about intent.

 

Because money.

 

This entire situation with Syria and the US response outlines once again, why public leaders really need to be careful on what to say and when to say things. If Obama never made the comments about a red-line being crossed, the POTUS mightve been able to avoid having to directly act in this civil conflict.

I do understand that no response makes our military and country look weak on an international setting, but unilaterally attacking Syria could have significant regional effects and could lead to a massive global conflict...Expect Congress to give a resounding heck no; similar to the response the British parliament gave their Prime Minister.

Secondly, if we do decide to attack, we have to go in with the understanding that we have to render Assad's military incapable of being able to mount a response to the action. So telling them we are gonna attack, and playing this cat and mouse game, has allowed the Syrian Military to make appropriate defensive stands.

And finally, all this really boils down to the actions that we took going into Iraq and Afghanistan. This has taken a toll on everyone, and people are tried of creating another war torn country, as our resources, capital and children are being depleted and killed. Many folks are sick and tired of going into the middle east and their people despise Americans because of our leaders. Its great to have a fly swatter, but we dont have to hit every fly we see...