[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

So do we have evidence that Assad used sarin or was it the opposition who are affiliated with al Qaeda? Who used the sarin?

 

Law without the sword is but words. It's power that promotes peace, strength and will, not law. If you can argue that formal international law is necessary for global security and stability, then surely you must think global security and stability has never existed before. And that is wrong. The Concert of Europe, the aftermath of the Second World War, even the current hegemony where we can quibble today about a military action that is extremely likely not to kill any Americans today. And we've built this stability, and our ancestors did the same, not without speeches or laws, but with power built on an edifice of iron.

How will the international community build that power? Can you trust Europe to, or Russia, or China, or anywhere in the world? Please.

Sustainable? Nothing is sustainable, nothing lasts forever. Every power will fall someday, even a nationalist like myself is aware that someday it will happen. Pursuing sustainability in power is like Qin Shing Huangdi, who in his quest for an eternal elixir of life, drank mercury.

 

The general public hasn't examined the evidence, and we may not ever see it if it involves classified assets. It will basically come down to whether you trust your elected officials or not. We trusted the Bush administration and it turned out they were either incompetent or complicit. The lesson should be that in these subsequent events the Joint Chiefs, NSA, CIA, Congressional Security Committees and the Executive Branch would be doubly sure of the intelligence before they act on it because , in the long run the truth comes out.

( it looks like I am advocating for striking but in fact I don't have any strong opinion on the issue. I am just trying to represent a point of view and debate against the people that think anything Mr. Obama says or does is wrong. I don't think either side of strike or no strike is clearly right. If I were Mr. Obama I think my tact would just be to publicly lay this on Russia and Putin and keep hammering on "Mr. Putin, what are you going to do about this, while gearing up a Marshal Plan of humanitarian aid through Turkey and Jordan)

 

Isn't that what you essentially have in the UN right now? Most of the Security Council is on board with action, including 3 of the 5 permanent members. But two countries - a minority - are dictating policy because they have veto power.

I think there several issue that get mixed up here.

Reliable Intelligence - for people concerned simply about "Iraq WMDs", if we had 100% reliable intelligence, would it change your mind about attacking? My suspicion is that for most, it would not - this is simply using it as an excuse.

Mission Creep - I've already stated my views on this, but Kojirou brings up a good point about ground troops and our involvement. If the ground troop problem exists if Assad's government falls, then what happens if or when the same situation happens without our involvement?

Not our responsibility - This is essentially the isolationism argument, but I'd argue that our interests are at stake because our allies all around the region are impacted - and all want our involvement. Maybe it's not our responsibility, but then we also lose the right to b**** when our interests are hurt. If the world sees Russia aggressively defending their allies' interests and we ignore ours, what is the incentive to get closer to the US instead of Russia?

 

How is the UK on board with this action? Their Parliament voted against it, did they not?

 

The UK Parliament voted against *them* taking action, mostly for domestic reasons. They still think action should be taken, and signed onto the G20 document supporting action.

As of today (with Germany joining), 11 G20 nations support US action: US, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Turkey, Canada, Saudi, Australia, Japan, South Korea.

7 are opposed: Russia, China, India, Argentina, Indonesia, Brasil, South Africa.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-germany-westerwelle-idUSBRE9860A720130907

This says the EU as a whole is basically on board.

 

And the sword without law is barbarism.

 

Come now, Syria fretters. Let's think creatively here, especially in light of the early millennium hawks (pro-Bush) turning dovish and their opposition doves (anti-Bush) suddenly becoming today's hawks.

Greece and Italy need money. Saudi Arabia has loads of money, want Assad out and are willing to pay us to wage war. Let's charge the Saudis by the missile (plus 15%) and let the Saudis buy Greek and Italian mercenaries for their "boots on the ground."

For the past 5,000 years or so the Syrians have been a war-loving people. They are happy because they get continuing slaughter; the Saudis are happy because the balance of power remains neutral; Israel is happy because they are bystanders; Greece and Italy are happy because they generate income while reducing some of their excess population; France, England, Germany et al are happy because they can thump their chests while keeping their heads in the sand; Russia is happy because Putin once again spotlights the Chamberlainesque limp noodle weakness of Obama; and the U.S. is happy because we make some money without American blood being spilled while at the same time getting to smile because Iran is forced to show a frowny face.

 

Military intervention is a serious action. If the US can't get Security Council approval (including the consent of all permanent members) then they have not built a strong enough case.

And, again, I don't like the idea of us doing it alone. If its a military intervention, then it should be a collective action. The story here should not be the US flaunting its military might once again in the Middle East.

 

How does that fit with this?

Any time you have a minority reserving the right to lord over a majority, its not sustainable. Syria, and countless other examples, demonstrate that.

As long as 1 out of 15 members opposes (as long as it's one of the big 5), is that not a minority reserving the right to lord over a majority?

Russia is not opposing because of the strength of the case (or lack thereof) against Syria - they are opposing because Syria is a key ally. It's no different than if there was an excellent case to attack Canada - we would oppose it regardless of the reason or quality of evidence.

 

Your arguing over nothing. Lets worry about the strength of the case first and when thats solidified worry about the whos and whys of support.

 

The fact that there are 5 permanent members who can decide to veto an action that is favored by the majority is problematic. The hope is that the interests of these permanent members are varied enough to where its not a minority versus majority situation, but rather a way to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" situation.

I'd be in favor of looking into ways to prevent abuse of the veto power, for example by removing it from members who flagrantly violate international law.

 

Does it matter?
Since chemical Weapons are the KEY WORDS
only thing it would change are the targets . . . Am I right?

Rocket River

 

I'm surprised that so few people seem to be aware of the evidence for Assad's regime's usage of chemical weapons. It has been out in the public for more than a week and I listed it earlier in this thread. I don't know if this is a failure of the Obama Admin. getting this case out, the media or if people just aren't paying attention to that part of the issue.

All that said I find the evidence pretty convincing that chemical weapons were used and that it was the Assad regime and not the rebels who did.

I am with you and I don't have a strong opinion on whether we should strike or not. I am narrowly leaning towards we should but I think the Admin. has done a terrible job with this issue. The Marshal plan idea you are outlining should've been worked on at least a year ago but instead the Admin. has been letting events dictate policy rather than getting ahead of the issue.

I also don't think the very limited strikes will do much and the repercussions haven't been thought through.

 

Hypothetically speaking
even if the weapons were used by the Rebels
we would in theory have to strike them for the same reason
we striking Assad?

Basically . . .this strike is about Chemical Weapons
the people who are dead, the civil war all that isht is irrelevant
this is all about stopping the large scale use of chemical weapons?

Rocket River

 

If there was solid proof the rebels were using chemical weapons we probably wouldn't strike them, at least not in the same way we would the Assad Regime. The infrastructure and organization (or lack of) of the rebels isn't the same. If the rebels were using chemical weapons the first determination would be what group? An Al Qaeda aligned group we would probably just use the same strategy that we have been using against Al Qaeda already.

If it was the Free Syrian Army we would probably work on cutting off support for them and seize assets. The actions against them would probably more resemble an international criminal effort than military.

Anyway there is still a possibility that the rebels did use chemical weapons, there was a report of some accidently killing themselves last week. That said it doesn't look like the rebels have the ability to launch a wide scale attack with them in the way that the latest attack was carried out.

While the primary reason is chemical weapons as far as who carried them out does matter. The US clearly prefers the rebels to Assad that also colors what type of response.

 

If it is I support a strike. But limited to special forces and CIA operating in the country on a small scale to locate and assure destruction via stealth bombers and cruise missiles.


No training or support of any group, no more than needed to destroy chemical weapons.

 

You're right that it is a fantasy to think my scenario would ever happen.

 

And there are still significant risks, and there will still be boots on the ground - more than a handful. My point here is that anyone who says that they guarantee that there will be no ground troops used is lying through their teeth. They don't know that, and in the end it's probably more likely than not.

Honestly, in the event Assad falls I would be Ok with going in and securing the CW from capture by either Hizbollah or the AQ affiliates, because that actually *would* pose a risk to national security. Assad's possession of them doesn't.

So, is it more likely or [i/]less likely[/i] that the CW fall into jihadists' hands if we strike Assad? Of course, it is more likely.