just to interject here.....any prolonged involvement will incur added deficit spending and extended QE, both of which are relevant and polarizing political issues
to those who think that the rebels gassed civilians to get the west to respond with military strikes; where did the rebels get sarin gas and the ability to use it?
old Libyan stockpiles or possibly brought in by the UN and/or the State Dept to push agenda's in the region. Remember Benghazi was just a front for weapons going into Syria via Turkey and Jordan. Rumors are they "lost" a bunch of manpads but truth is probably they gave them away to be used in the proxy war with Syria.
There is nothing the US can do other than provide humanitarian care. Syria is Russia and Iran's sphere if influence, not ours.
The rebels have used gas bombs in March, 2013. 12 rebels with 12 kg sarin gas were captured by Turkish troop in May. Syria's chemical weapon = Iraq's WMD to USA. USA is blaming Syria government for the recent gas attack in no time. Put things together, I am not surprised that the sarin gas is from USA.
What do we gain by intervention? First thing is saving lives, in theory, of the innocent civilians. Second, is putting a government in place that is stable AND will play ball with us. What do we want from Syria? Another friend in the Middle East? It is sad, but the civilians are not the reason we are helping. Iraq was a disaster and has gotten even worse since we pulled out.
I'm an evidence and facts kind of guy. I don't think political orientation matters a damn in situations like this and I don't think any sitting French, British or American leader is going to act all that differently under the same circumstances. 1. The evidence of the chemical weapons being used by Assad comes from Israel's army signal inteligence. I don't think they'd invent something like this, especially when Israel would prefer Assad to Sunni radicals in Syria, who are much less predictable and have much less to lose in any future conflicts. 2. The best thing to do is nothing: It's a sectarian civil war, it would worsen relations with Russia, and Iran and Syria have both promised to strike Israel if the west does anything. 3. If the west absolutely feels compelled to act, then the concern should be targeting chemical weapons with airstrikes and cruise missiles (and that only). The Israeli airforce has done it in the recent past -- it shouldn't be rocket science to know where they are stockpiled and take them out.
The rebels have been caught red handed gassing people and trying to blame it on Assad to get the US military involved but this time I'm supposed to believe Assad did it? And that that somehow changes something? How convenient for the US which has been (not so) secretly backing the rebels the entire time. I have no doubt the decision to blow Syria to hell was made at least a year ago. The government has just been looking/manufacturing an excuse they think the US people will buy. Polls seem to indicate its not working.
Stay our of it; none of our business. Let the middle eastern countries deal with their own backyard. We should have never invaded Iraq. What a disaster. Why can't the US keep out of other people's affairs. Let the U.N. deal with the chemical weapons issue.
From the news reports (CNBC) today, this is sort of what is being talked about. From what I heard, the thinking right now is that the US will basically bomb Syria's delivery systems to prevent them from being able to launch these types of attacks. Not necessarily the weapons themselves, though - I'm not exactly sure what happens if you blow up a chemical weapons storage facility, but it seems like it may be a bad idea.
Not sure what counts as liberal or conservative here. If I'm fiscally conservative or morally conservative, does that make me conservative on foreign policy too? And, what is the conservative posture in foreign policy? Isolationism? Or, are we just talking here about Obama, for or against? I general, I don't want any involvement in Syria. And, it seems plain to me Obama doesn't either. But, I could understand why he might feel compelled to act, and he's got a lot more information than I do. So, if he does something (believing as I do, that he really isn't eager to) I can give him the benefit of the doubt and go along for awhile. If he does nothing at this point, he'll look craven (though it may be wise regardless).
