• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

aberrant85 said:
Russia already seems to be distancing itself from Syria, they've encouraged their citizens living there to leave and have not threatened retaliation against western aggression. Iran might do something, or Hezbollah or Syria against Israel. That's the nightmare scenario. Hopefully they just take a missile strike as a slap on the wrist, promise not to use CW again, and continue with the war without it spreading into the region.
Click to expand...

Is your last sentence sarcastic?
 
SBu said:
Is your last sentence sarcastic?
Click to expand...


Glib, maybe, but no, not sarcastic. It seems apparent that the Syrian regime f****d up an killed more people in the attack then they wanted to, and have been wetting their pants since Kerry made his statements about holding them accountable. They have a lot to lose if the US strikes. Iran and Syria might be trying to deter a strike by threatening Israel, but if the US does act, and they bomb Israel, what would there be to gain? Israel could f*** them up, and we'd probably be committed to doing the same. What would Syria or Iran have to gain?

On the other hand, the Syrian regime could take the hit and choose to not antagonize the U.S. further. They know that they can go back to indiscriminately slaughtering civilians as long as they don't use CW. I just think they're rational enough to realize that.
 
aberrant85 said:
Glib, maybe, but no, not sarcastic. It seems apparent that the Syrian regime f****d up an killed more people in the attack then they wanted to, and have been wetting their pants since Kerry made his statements about holding them accountable. They have a lot to lose if the US strikes. Iran and Syria might be trying to deter a strike by threatening Israel, but if the US does act, and they bomb Israel, what would there be to gain? Israel could f*** them up, and we'd probably be committed to doing the same. What would Syria or Iran have to gain?

On the other hand, the Syrian regime could take the hit and choose to not antagonize the U.S. further. They know that they can go back to indiscriminately slaughtering civilians as long as they don't use CW. I just think they're rational enough to realize that.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. The problem is that is the BEST case scenario...and it isn't even all that good, more like adequate. I personally believe that Iran is chomping at the bit to get us into another proxy war. Many of the "insurgents" in Iraq were Iranian agents/R.G. I also believe that Iran senses our reluctance to do more if this escalates. They WILL call our bluff. You see, the most they have to lose is we get more involved in Syria than we planned. The most they have to gain is either another proxy war this time in Syria, or (if we don't take the bait) no American response to escalation. Sure Israel will respond in kind, but they won't expose themselves beyond superficial retaliation. They can't afford to over expose themselves.
 
Last edited:
SBu said:
Thank you for the clarification. The problem is that is the BEST case scenario...and it isn't even all that good, more like adequate. I personally believe that Iran is chomping at the bit to get us into another proxy war. Many of the "insurgents" in Iraq were Iranian agents/R.G. I also believe that Iran senses our reluctance to do more if this escalates. They WILL call our bluff. You see, the most they have to lose is we get more involved in Syria than we planned. The most they have to gain is either another proxy war this time in Syria, or (if we don't take the bait) no American response to escalation. Sure Israel will respond in kind, but they won't expose themselves beyond superficial retaliation. They can't afford to over expose themselves.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's not the best case scenario, that would be the Syrian regime crumbling from the attacks, which I doubt, but I get your point. Syria ceasing from using chemical weapons is just a good scenario.

The reason I think Iran retaliating against Israel is unlikely is because of how close we are to going to war with them anyway. Netanyahu's already drawn his red line, but he'd be up for fighting them before then if he's given the chance. I guess I'm just being optimistic in supposing that the parties involved are aware that WWIII could erupt over this if they overreact, and have enough rational self-interest to avoid that.
 
SBu said:
I think Congress will not authorize it. Obama doesn't have a strategy and the bad that can happen far outweighs the good. Most Americans have no cause to be war weary...maybe weary of talking about it or tired of seeing it on the news. Obama at least has cause to be weary of war, or at least weary of dealing with it.

Limited air strike is the worst thing we could do. It highlights our lack of conviction. The president basically said as much by admitting his war weariness. If we strike, our adversaries in the region will correctly diagnose it as a weak response to save face. They, in turn, will escalate. What do we do then? Lose more credibility?
Click to expand...
Credibility? We still have the largest miltiary budget ih the entire world.

I don't know that conviction is the right word. Pragmatic, perhaps. A measured response. One strategy might be to take out Assad's telecommunications, his air fields, his missle launch sites, his palaces, a few newspaper and television stations, etc. However, it might not be a good idea to strike the chemical plants because if the plant isn't totally obliverated then some of the chemical gases could escape and kill thousands more than Assad did. That wouldn't look good, either.

We have only two options: 1) go in with overwhelming force to secure chem weapons (or achieve some other quantifiable objective), or 2) stay out completely

I vote 2, because we're not sure who are the good guys vice the bad guys in this. Likely both sides are both.
Click to expand...
Lets face it, both sides are bad. To take Assad out (regime change) is almost guarrentee that fundamental extremists will fill the void. I don't think the Russians want the latter to happen. Anyway, I think there is another option and that is to separate Syria into two countries. In a nut shell...

Assad has everything to lose and the rebels have nothing to lose.

Imo, separating Syria into two countries might be Assad's best option simply because its better than nothing which is what he will have if he keeps fighting. Diviidning Syria will at least leave Assad with a country to control albeit much smaller and the rebels who had nothing will also have something. Imo, that option opens the door to diplomatic intervention and solution.
 
aberrant85 said:
I'd say it's not the best case scenario, that would be the Syrian regime crumbling from the attacks, which I doubt, but I get your point. Syria ceasing from using chemical weapons is just a good scenario.

The reason I think Iran retaliating against Israel is unlikely is because of how close we are to going to war with them anyway. Netanyahu's already drawn his red line, but he'd be up for fighting them before then if he's given the chance. I guess I'm just being optimistic in supposing that the parties involved are aware that WWIII could erupt over this if they overreact, and have enough rational self-interest to avoid that.
Click to expand...

Not so sure that Assad's government crumbling is even in our best interest. We are told by our media day in and day out that Assad is a thug and commits atrocities, which is probably true. However, Russian tv shows the atrocities of the rebels. Truth is, atrocities are committed by both sides and both sides are courting support and have an interest in hiding their respective atrocities.

I don't quite think that WWIII is on the horizon, but I do think that Iran could attack Israel indirectly through Hezbollah or Syria if they calculate that we are unwilling to step in. And we've pretty much told them that.

Either way, we have to ask ourselves if we are willing to accept the possibility if it's realistic...and that's a decision the president must make.

and thank you for the like - I know that I'm new on here, but extremely happy that I can have conversation with people that care about these issues.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I just realized something about the title of the OP's citation article. Doesn't "war-weary" national leader presses for an "act of war" seem like an oxymoron?
Click to expand...

I figure Obama's take is we have to stop this guy before he becomes the next Hitler, but at the same time he is thinking he is really tired of putting troops in harm's way. We live in a very dangerous time; and I don't envy anyone having to be POTUS these days. Obama has what - 2 years and change left? Imagine what the next POTUS has to deal with: Iran and North Korea. Who would even want that job?!?!?!
 
Moot said:
Credibility? We still have the largest miltiary budget ih the entire world.

I don't know that conviction is the right word. Pragmatic, perhaps. A measured response. One strategy might be to take out Assad's telecommunications, his air fields, his missle launch sites, his palaces, a few newspaper and television stations, etc. However, it might not be a good idea to strike the chemical plants because if the plant isn't totally obliverated then some of the chemical gases could escape and kill thousands more than Assad did. That wouldn't look good, either.

Lets face it, both sides are bad. To take Assad out (regime change) is almost guarrentee that fundamental extremists will fill the void. I don't think the Russians want the latter to happen. Anyway, I think there is another option and that is to separate Syria into two countries. In a nut shell...

Assad has everything to lose and the rebels have nothing to lose.

Imo, separating Syria into two countries might be Assad's best option simply because its better than nothing which is what he will have if he keeps fighting. Diviidning Syria will at least leave Assad with a country to control albeit much smaller and the rebels who had nothing will also have something. Imo, that option opens the door to diplomatic intervention and solution.
Click to expand...

By lack of conviction, I mean that it highlights our lack of resolve to accomplish an objective. Obama has said "no boots on the ground" no "no fly zone" etc. He has basically said we are not willing to get serious. Now you may agree or disagree, but the result is unchanged...enemies will sense weakness.

Your suggestions about target are almost certainly among the top. However, how does that resolve the reasons for getting involved in the first place? More importantly, what is the next step IF escalation occurs?

I think getting both sides to agree to a "two-state solution" is unrealistic. Please google a map of rebel held syrian areas on a map, then respond to how likely a two state solution is.

Lastly, despite our passionate disagreement, thank you.
 
Snappo said:
I figure Obama's take is we have to stop this guy before he becomes the next Hitler, but at the same time he is thinking he is really tired of putting troops in harm's way. We live in a very dangerous time; and I don't envy anyone having to be POTUS these days. Obama has what - 2 years and change left? Imagine what the next POTUS has to deal with: Iran and North Korea. Who would even want that job?!?!?!
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the topic? We should feel sorry for the President who sought out the job?
 
SBu said:
Not so sure that Assad's government crumbling is even in our best interest. We are told by our media day in and day out that Assad is a thug and commits atrocities, which is probably true. However, Russian tv shows the atrocities of the rebels. Truth is, atrocities are committed by both sides and both sides are courting support and have an interest in hiding their respective atrocities.

I don't quite think that WWIII is on the horizon, but I do think that Iran could attack Israel indirectly through Hezbollah or Syria if they calculate that we are unwilling to step in. And we've pretty much told them that.

Either way, we have to ask ourselves if we are willing to accept the possibility if it's realistic...and that's a decision the president must make.
Click to expand...

WWIII may be an overstatement, though I've heard WWI invoked a lot (and if it's a repeat of that, wouldn't that be WWIII?). The risk of Al Qaeda gaining influence in Assad's fall is possible, and has been invoked as a reason to steer clear of this whole debacle by a lot of smart people, but I have to give the Syrians some credit. They didn't like putting up with Assad's brutality, and I don't think they'd put up with Al Qaeda's. Even in Iraq and Libya Al Qaeda overplayed their hand.

The biggest threat to the world is if Al Qaeda gets their hands on those chemical weapons. That's why the best solution would be to force a negotiated peace, keeping them out of the picture.
 
aberrant85 said:
WWIII may be an overstatement, though I've heard WWI invoked a lot (and if it's a repeat of that, wouldn't that be WWIII?). The risk of Al Qaeda gaining influence in Assad's fall is possible, and has been invoked as a reason to steer clear of this whole debacle by a lot of smart people, but I have to give the Syrians some credit. They didn't like putting up with Assad's brutality, and I don't think they'd put up with Al Qaeda's. Even in Iraq and Libya Al Qaeda overplayed their hand.

The biggest threat to the world is if Al Qaeda gets their hands on those chemical weapons. That's why the best solution would be to force a negotiated peace, keeping them out of the picture.
Click to expand...

So, your position is what exactly? I guess because I only see two possible positions. Strike or not strike. I think we are far passed a negotiated settlement.
 
Last edited:
SBu said:
So, your position is what exactly? I guess because I only see two possible positions. Strike or not strike. I think we are far passed a negotiated settlement.
Click to expand...

I think it's possible to leverage a negotiated peace only when Assad is convinced he can't win. He already seems vulnerable, otherwise he wouldn't have ordered CW strikes with the world watching. If the war starts to turn against him, he might call in the Russians to help settle the matter diplomatically. Kosovo would be the historic example.
 
aberrant85 said:
I think it's possible to leverage a negotiated peace only when Assad is convinced he can't win. He already seems vulnerable, otherwise he wouldn't have ordered CW strikes with the world watching. If the war starts to turn against him, he might call in the Russians to help settle the matter diplomatically. Kosovo would be the historic example.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. The Russians have much more to lose in this situation. Also, you haven't addressed the Iranian component. The UN likes to talk a big game, but they have an extremely poor record when it comes to negotiated peace.

In the mean time: We should 1) not stirke 2) provide gas masks to the opposition groups that are not Al Quaeda, and 3) intensify covert ops to undermine chemical weapons usage
 
aberrant85 said:
I think it's possible to leverage a negotiated peace only when Assad is convinced he can't win. He already seems vulnerable, otherwise he wouldn't have ordered CW strikes with the world watching. If the war starts to turn against him, he might call in the Russians to help settle the matter diplomatically. Kosovo would be the historic example.
Click to expand...

There were airstrikes involved in our case. It was pressure to put the parties to the table. Of course the leaders did not sit on the table for Milloschevich was indicted for war crimes. Assad might be indicted too.
 
Snappo said:
I figure Obama's take is we have to stop this guy before he becomes the next Hitler, but at the same time he is thinking he is really tired of putting troops in harm's way. We live in a very dangerous time; and I don't envy anyone having to be POTUS these days. Obama has what - 2 years and change left? Imagine what the next POTUS has to deal with: Iran and North Korea. Who would even want that job?!?!?!
Click to expand...

My take is he wishes he hadn't postured so much by drawing that "red line in the sand."

Comparing Assad to Hitler is like comparing a tribal chieftain to Genghis Khan. Hitler was a world class threat; Assad? Not so much.

We had no business drawing any "line in the sand" in the first place. We are not the World's Policeman, and should not act like one.
 
Captain Adverse said:
My take is he wishes he hadn't postured so much by drawing that "red line in the sand."

Comparing Assad to Hitler is like comparing a tribal chieftain to Genghis Khan. Hitler was a world class threat; Assad? Not so much.

We had no business drawing any "line in the sand" in the first place. We are not the World's Policeman, and should not act like one.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Moot said:
Call me a fool then because I think it will be a limited air assault and it will be done with congressial approval. Obama isn't the only one who is war weary....the majority of the American people are too. So it will be interesting to see how congress votes.
Click to expand...

Can anybody even agree upon what "limited strike" means. General Eisenhower said that when hostilities begin, all plans go out the window.
 
Moot said:
Retaliation? Assad has already cyber attacked three major US news organizations. One of the attacks caused the Dow Jones to drop 140 points in a matter of minutes. The "Syrian Electronic Army" is fast becoming a serious threat to the US. It's just a matter of time before they try to attack our transportion and/or electric grid. Rolling blackouts? Imagine huge swaths of the US going without electricity for weeks in the dead of winter. That is a serious threat imo, and shouldn't be ignored or taken lightly.
Click to expand...

Yes of course. Can you imagine mushroom clouds over US cities, too? The attacks you reference are in retaliation of the US CIA training and arming Islamist extremist and sending them into Syria with hopes of toppling a government that the US hasn't liked for a long while now. Why is it so difficult for people to make the obvious conclusion that US foreign policy in the ME is provocative at best.
 
Moot said:
Retaliation?
Click to expand...

Yes, we drop some bombs; he shoots a few rockets at one of those ships nearby... Or the Alquaida allies use one of those heat-seekers they got in Benghazi and suddenly there's justification for escalation.

Assad has already cyber attacked three major US news organizations. One of the attacks caused the Dow Jones to drop 140 points in a matter of minutes.
Click to expand...

Really? You do know that a good hacker on the Internet can be anyone from anywhere; and could even spoof the ip addresses...

The "Syrian Electronic Army" is fast becoming a serious threat to the US. It's just a matter of time before they try to attack our transportion and/or electric grid. Rolling blackouts? Imagine huge swaths of the US going without electricity for weeks in the dead of winter. That is a serious threat imo, and shouldn't be ignored or taken lightly.
Click to expand...

You actually believe this??

Infrastructure is not hooked into any Internet, the equipment might be networked with other similar equipment in a system, but not hooked into any Internet for just this reason. The ONLY WAY to "hack" infrastructure and systems like this is to have physical access to the equipment.

Don't let anyone tell you different... It's just not true.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes of course. Can you imagine mushroom clouds over US cities, too? The attacks you reference are in retaliation of the US CIA training and arming Islamist extremist and sending them into Syria with hopes of toppling a government that the US hasn't liked for a long while now. Why is it so difficult for people to make the obvious conclusion that US foreign policy in the ME is provocative at best.
Click to expand...

If we are going to assume that these stories are true, then yes my sentiments exactly.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Montecresto said:
You can't go around attacking nations because you think they may be a threat one day.
Click to expand...
How many nations sit around the energy center of the world and uses chemical warfare against it's people? And remember, we thought that one time when Hitler was gobbling up countries in Europe.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Bob N said:
How many nations sit around the energy center of the world and uses chemical warfare against it's people? And remember, we thought that one time when Hitler was gobbling up countries in Europe.
Click to expand...

This is nowhere near Hitler's Germany of the 30s. No need to go hyperbolic yet. All one has to do I believe is show how attacking Syria is in America's interests.
 
BmanMcfly said:
If we are going to assume that these stories are true, then yes my sentiments exactly.
Click to expand...

Two reports in recent days have suggested that establishment-backed Syrian “rebel” forces trained and led by American, Israeli, and Jordanian commanders entered Syria and began pushing toward the capital city of Damascus this month. According to sources cited in the international reports, the foreign-led opposition fighters began the latest offensive in mid-August, prior to the reported chemical-weapon attack in the Ghouta region of Syria widely said to have claimed hundreds of civilian lives so far.

Sources seeking to blame the Bashar al-Assad regime for the August 21 massacre have seized on the reports to claim that the dictator, despite repeated vows not to use weapons of mass destruction absent a foreign invasion, resorted to such desperate measures to beat back the latest offensive. Those suggesting the attack was a so-called “false-flag operation” perpetrated by opposition fighters to blame on the regime, meanwhile, have pointed to the news as yet another indicator that the rebels were indeed responsible for deploying the chemical weapons.

According to a report dated August 21 by DEBKAfile, an Israeli intelligence and analysis service, the first contingent of 250 foreign-trained “rebel” fighters entered Syria from Jordan on August 17 under foreign command. The opposition fighters were trained in “special operations tactics” by U.S. and Jordanian instructors and armed with Russian-made weapons supplied by the Obama administration and the Islamist rulers of Saudi Arabia, the report continued. “They are fighting under U.S. and Jordanian commanders based in the Hashemite Kingdom,” DEBKAfile reported referring to Jordan, adding that additional rebel fighters were standing by ready to be deployed.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...rebels-sent-into-syria-before-chemical-attack
 
Last edited:
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Bob N said:
How many nations sit around the energy center of the world and uses chemical warfare against it's people? And remember, we thought that one time when Hitler was gobbling up countries in Europe.
Click to expand...


Are you STILL accusing the Syrian government of the Islamist extremists act?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom