[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

Once again you have to look at the history of how we got here. Two years ago protest in Syria turn into a full on rebellion. Obama makes some statements about that Assad must go and other than providing limited humanitarian aid does nothing. One year ago reports come of the use of chemical weapons and Obama starts talking about "red lines" if Assad uses them again and pledges military aid to the rebels. Other than that pretty much nothing. The military aid isn't even delivered. One month ago a report of a massive chemical weapon attack comes out and now Obama says we are going to strike. Obama takes weeks building up and ramping up rhetoric and then in the middle of the process suddenly decides to ask for a vote of Congress even while insisting he doesn't need to. Consider why Obama would first take so long to get a strike or even bother with a vote. Reagan didn't ask for Congressional approval when he bombed Libya, Clinton didn't for Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama didn't when he bombed Libya a couple of years ago. Next Obama delays for more than a week making a major speech to the US people about why we should strike Syria and then just the day before he gives his speech jumps on a diplomatic proposal, whether planned or not, and delays the vote and military action on Syria.

None of that indicates someone eager to go to war but on the contrary indicates someone very reluctant to and looking for ways to get out of their own rhetoric.

Now Glynch and some others, perhaps including you, believe that Obama is actually like Dick Cheney and driven by dark forces of US hegemony, MIC and whatever and are hinting that all of this stalling, back pedaling and change of policy is really some secret plan to drag the US into a war. If that is so then this has to be the worst war plan ever.

Again what is the evidence that Obama is eager to go to war when he could've just launched strikes anytime in the last two years like he and other presidents have done in different situations but is instead stalling and grasping onto a proposal that could prevent strikes?

 

Actually I don't believe a strike as Obama outlined could overcome the chaos. Just because I don't go around spouting "Obama is a warmonger!" doesn't mean I fully support the missile strikes. In fact as I've said before I recognize the potential problems and agree with the critics that this isn't an imminent threat to the US, we can't guarantee that Assad won't be able to strike back at us and our interests, we don't know how much this will empower Al Qaeda rebels, will these strikes actually do anything to Assad, and what happens if Assad keeps on using chemical weapons. Those are great points.

Unlike some though I am also considering the other side. I think Obama made some great points in his speech about why the use of chemical weapons shouldn't be just tolerated. At the same time I am pretty sure we will not be all out invading Syria. Finally while some might downplay US credibility is important. I don't think Obama should've been talking about "red lines" but that has already happened.

Let me put this in simpler terms. For better or worse the US is the most powerful country in the world and the only country that can really project power. Pretty much what is happening right now is like listening to a domestic squabble down the street. The husband slaps the wife and we tell him don't do that again or else. The husband slaps the wife again so now do we get involved or do we not? There are plenty of reasons to not get involved, maybe the husband will punch us, maybe the husband's friends will come after us, maybe the wife is actually a bad person, maybe we are just tired of breaking up fights. Not doing anything though means that just accept the situation.

 

I did not say he was eager. Glynch predicted this war-drumming conundrum would continue because, "Chemical weapons are not the main issue and they never have been." (post 479)

You responded to that, asking for evidence. That is the sentiment I replied in regard to - i.e., that of course glynch is right; chemical weapons aren't really the trigger here and more plausible reasons are staring everyone in the face.

If I misinterpreted and you were only interested in Obama's personal feelings on the matter, I apologize. That being said, Obama's "eagerness" seems to play a very small role in his political calculations. Frankly, playing the Obama psychologist here seems tangential.

 

And again what evidence? You are arguing speculation that seems based on ideology.

I've pretty much responded to your other points in my replies to Rhad and B-Bob.

The difference is though I've presented facts. Have even stated why a strike would be a bad idea. To twist a phrase that gets trotted out here a lot, perhaps the facts have a centrist bias.

 

Man, it was nice to take a day off from D&D...

Trouble in paradise already:

Assad: Syria to fulfil chemical weapons initiative if U.S. ends threats - agency

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Syria will fulfil an initiative to hand over its chemical weapons only when the United States stops threatening to strike Syria, RIA news agency quoted President Bashar al-Assad as saying in a television interview.

Assad also said that Damascus will begin handing over information on its chemical weapons stockpiles one month after it joins a anti-chemical weapons convention.

"When we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack, and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists, then we will believe that the necessary processes can be finalized," he was quoted as saying in an interview with Russian state television.

http://news.yahoo.com/assad-syria-fulfil-chemical-weapons-initiative-u-ends-155433528.html

So Assad will start turning over his WMD as soon as the US stops threatening to attack, and as soon as the US agrees to stop arming the rebels. Huh, I don't remember that being part of the deal...

Well, this certainly throws me for a loop. I mean, we have no precedent for this - a Ba'athist dictator in the Middle East who has been accused of gassing his own people, using a weapons-inspections / turn-in process to delay and dissemble? Really, there's absolutely no precedent for it at all. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Right?

Like I said earlier. Keep the cork in the bottle. We're not there yet.

 

Well saying a lot of people want war yes that is true but that isn't evidence that one person who can make it happen right away, Obama, actually does. What Glynch presented wasn't facts that support that Obama wants this or why it will or won't happen but speculation that dark forces are driving things behind the scenes.

Well considering Obama is the Commander and Chief of the US military his view of the situation is the most important. You and Glynch are speculating on back door political calculations. I am looking at actual actions.

 

And a reality check for everyone:

Obama's Wrong, Syria's Chemical Weapons Require Boots on the Ground

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2013/09/how-do-you-secure-chemical-weapons-syria-without-boots-ground/70218/?oref=d-topstory

Take the rose-colored glasses off and have a read.

 

I think your mistake is assuming that the "dark forces" or "back door political calculations" are mutually exclusive from Obama's "view of the situation".

Obama's no political fool. He's weighing every angle of this. Every one.

 

Why would obama secretely want to be in syria? There is nothing thete politically.

 

I don't own an Obama rose-colored glasses so I can't take it off . I don't get what the author is saying here.

If I remember correctly (please correct me if i am wrong), Obama mentions "boots on the ground" in the context of war. Meaning, we are sending soldiers to fight a war. That is completely different than cleaning up the chemical weapons. In addition, why do we automatically presume that it will be American soldiers doing the cleanup?

 

Perhaps you should actually read the article. It is quite clear about the impossibility of actually performing the destruction of the weapons in a war-zone. It would be impossible without boots on the ground - tens of thousands of them.

Really, you guys should read the articles I post before you comment on them.

 

And for anyone who still buys the "Obama/Kerry are geniuses, they had this planned all along / whatever" idea, here are a couple of reality checks articles. Don't worry, they're lib-safe articles from Time and Slate, written by liberals:

Obama and Syria: Stumbling Toward Damascus
The President’s uneven Syria response has damaged his office and weakened the nation. It’s time for one more pivot

http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/11/obama-and-syria-stumbling-toward-damascus/

Dazed and Confused
If your foreign policy has to be rescued by a dictator, you are doing it wrong.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ch_to_syria_the_president_s_strategy_for.html

Go ahead and read. It's lib-safe, guys. Clicky.

 

economically then politically, there are abundance of points:

1. against Russia and Iran
2. stop the oil flowing to china.
3. per the request of Israel.
4. Saudi's money.
5. Syria is US' historical enemy
6. rich politicians need new profits .
7. imperialism is all about war.

Let me say this: It will be a huge loss to everyone of us if peace is in Syria.

 

I did read it and my understanding of the meaning of the term is in conflict with the you and the author's literal interpretation of it. \Boots on the groun

I am sure you will have your own interpretation when Obama says "boots on the ground". To me, when he mentions this in context of going to war, it means casualties. That is why when this is used, it is usually followed or preceded by the word unmanned drones.

 

Boots on the ground means ground troops moving into a warzone absent a ceasefire, where to think that there won't be casualties would be absurd.

So, you think when POTUS said no boots on the ground, he really meant "Oh, we'll put 60k grounds troops there to do the work, but don't worry, they won't get shot at"?

It's amazing how you guys reach for stuff to bail your demigod out.

The Russian deal will require boots on the ground. It will require ground troops, lots of them, to implement. Do you think we will supply them? I doubt it. So who does that leave. The UN? Hah, fat chance.

It leaves Russians. Do you trust the Russians to put 60k or so grounds troops in Syria? Think the rebels will be cool with that?

It's a freaking mess. The Russian plan is not going to happen. It's a stalling tactic.

 

Of course there is always a possibility of casualties as Assad won't be able to control all his soldiers actions. But I guarantee you this, there will be more casualties in the US due to car accidents than soldiers dying from enemy fire if their presence is to only cleanup.

"boots on the ground" + "unmanned drones" ... you do the math.

 

They shouldn't be there in the first place. You can't do this mission in the middle of a warzone. That is the point of the article that you didn't read.

Uh... What?

What in the hell did you think "boots on the ground" meant? Is there confusion about this? It means foreign troops in country. On the ground. It's not confusing, and there's no hidden meaning.

Are you drunk?

Really? So you think the rebels will be kosher with 60k or so Russians flooding the country?

Whose side do you think the Russians are on, anyway? Pretty sure the Russians will not be welcome by the rebels - another point made in the article, which you'd know had you read it. And a hard one to argue against.

Anyway it'll probably never get to that point anyway.

Positive attitude, about what? That our best option is to get played by the Russians and a tinpot dictator?

Putin believes that the US is declining, and its current leader is emblematic of its decline. He is right.

 

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

 

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