You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and why

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

VanceMack said:

I supported the war in Iraq. Id support a war with Syria if the president can actually prove that Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Not some pathetic weak missile strike to show how tough you are or pretend you did something. No...real world end of days ****. Assad must fall IF the president can actually prove Assad did it.

Click to expand...

See...this is what I assumed the reaction would be from individuals that supported war in Iraq. A full scale response to use of chemical weapons.

MY question is...what proof is there? And why didnt the president respond in march when rebels used chemical weapons? is the 'red line' only applicable to Assad? In which case...WTF?

Click to expand...

Well it's kind of hard to target a rebel group with so many different factions.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

iliveonramen said:

See...this is what I assumed the reaction would be from individuals that supported war in Iraq. A full scale response to use of chemical weapons.



Well it's kind of hard to target a rebel group with so many different factions.

Click to expand...

Even harder when they are your boyz, right? When is a 'red line' not a red line? When you are selective about who crosses it.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

polgara said:

Good afternoon, humbolt. :2wave:

BHO might want to take on Syria, Iran, and Russia? China has interests in the area, too, so why not be all-inclusive? :thumbdown: This is getting more absurd and unbelievable by the day! Where are the cooler heads that may not agree that this is in America's best interest?

Click to expand...

It's impossible to say that U. S. influence in the region of late has been a stabilizing force. We've been anything but that. We can't predict the response some of Syria's allies may have to our proposed actions. We think we can, but we have been proven wrong far too many times lately, and this goes back in time for a lot longer than I care to think about. A commitment to principle is fine and I support it, but I think we should want a clearly stated policy and objective before we add a military response to the list of possible responses.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

polgara said:

Since BHO seems determined to assuage his battered ego...and that is what it looks like at this point, since he didn't act two years ago when he could have...our allies look like the only adults here. And how he intends to accomplish this without "no boots on the ground" will be interesting. Will he drone or bomb Russia, too? :wow:

Click to expand...

Personally, I think Russia is more talk and swag than anything else - but I could be completely wrong. I wouldn't want anybody to make a decision based on my opinion. If we could just see a coherent policy within which this action might fit a strategic goal or something, that would be a plus. Right now, I don't see it.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

iliveonramen said:

No apology needed. I just want to point out I don't support Syrian intervention. I'm just arguing that it's not "rational" which was the word used to support a ground invasion and occupation along with nation building and not support missile/air strikes for the use/ownage of WMD's.

Sure...I agree it's humanitarian in nature like Bosnia but the humanitarian reason was also used as a reason for war in Iraq.

In fact every box checked yes for Saddam (even if the link is weak) can be check for Assad.

Ownership of WMD's and usage against his own people...check
Breaking of international law...check
Links to terrorist organization...check and I would argue the link is much closer between Syria than was the case with Iraq. I think the link with Iraq and terrorist groups is pretty weak.


Syria is a strong supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon. As for the attempted assassination of a president...Bush Sr was still President. He didn't launch an invasion into Iraq.



I'm sure there are a lot of conservatives that don't follow under the umbrella of neo-con. My question is leveled at those that did support and continued to support the war in Iraq and don't support a strike against Syria. Sure there are un-intended consequences...which is why I don't support a strike. At the same time...there were a lot of unintended potential consequences involved with a land invasion and occupation of a country.

Click to expand...

Now, that Saddam was paying for Palestinian suicide bomber is not really questionable. He did, and was pretty public about it. The families that received compensation were pretty verbal about it, as well. Bush Sr. had a somewhat larger global framework through which he viewed events than W did. Remember, one of the biggest pastimes of the media now is parsing individual words and extemporaneously providing context, and this is a relatively recently acquired art - always been a part of it, but not the total content of the news until just lately. I don't support a strike as things currently stand unless I can see something positive beyond just blowing a bunch of people and stuff up. Nobody comes remotely close to our expertise in that area.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

No because we arent the world policemen and Syria is unstable and we dont really know who the rebels are and bombing them isnt gonna make a difference its just killing more people.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

While it is horrible that Assad used chemical weapons on his citizens that is not our problem. Syria did not attack the US nor are they a threat to the US and as it stands they are only dealing with the affairs of things happening in their country. I have no reason to consider a government killing their own citizens a reason to declare war. Governments have been doing that nonsense since they came into existence and they will continue to do it for the remainder of their existence.

I also want to mention they could only confirm that 281 died, not 1,429 that Kerry has throwing out there. The Obama Administration hasn't said how they came up with the number 1,429 either. At this point it stands as a number that is entirely unfounded.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Redress said:

Yes for limited strikes, no on ground troops.

Click to expand...

liberalism

made in USA

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

zimmer said:

Your vote?

Yea.
Nay.
Or Obama's favorite... Not Present.

###

At the moment I'd vote no.
This is all about Obama and covering his ass. He's looking to Republicans to save his ass. It's all political as everything is with this Amateur. First he says we can't tolerate this... then on Saturday before going golfing and everyone is expecting him to make a statement about upcoming bombings, he says he's going to Congress.

Isn't it amazing how Obama left Kerry out to hang?

The measures are half assed. A pin prick. Symbolic... Useless... and the problem is 100% of Obama's own making.

Where is the coalition?

Where is Obama's preparation after making the Red Line statement?

Let the Arab League sort this out. We've sold them enough hi-tech equipment... we can assist with AWACs and the like.

There is a reason to vote yea and it is because it's the US, and our credibility is on the line. But sorry, our credibility is damaged and the only thing that will restore it is having a mature adult as president, and the first opportunity for that it 2016.

Click to expand...

I vote nay, and I agree 100% with your post above too.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I vote no right now, if we go into military action of any kind we need to do it right. We should destroy the Assad regime and ensure that a government that serves our interests that is not a militant Islamic or terrorist group comes into power. We don't need another Egypt.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

No we should not declare even limited engagement of force with Syria's military infrastructure even if Assad did order the use of chemical weapons against the resistance. And I suspect that the rebel forces were the ones that did the deed for this reason.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I do not see a compelling reason for us to take "limited military action" for this event. One goes to war to kill, break things and win. You do not shoot at someone and then say ok, you've learned your lesson. War should be saved for when war is really necessary.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

iliveonramen said:

Yeah...nearly 20 years before we invaded.

I'm not sure how that makes the conservative position rational. We'll invade you for using chemical weapons 20 years ago but against strikes for using them now?

Click to expand...

Iraq was an ally of the US then. It is what is called "turning a blind eye to". One reason we invaded Iraq when we did was "daddy's unfinished business".

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

No, its not in our National Interest to get involved. George Washington must be rolling around in his grave.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I wonder...if the vote happens to turn out as AGAINST authorizing the use of force, how will that play out both here and in the media? If the poll here is any indication, approx half the nays are self identified (or obvious) liberals. If the vote in congress turns out with dems coming out against the military action, will the headlines lead "GOP Obstructs Obama"? And who here DOESNT believe that is what Obama WANTS?

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Yes! We need to show a united front to our enemies and would be enemies.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

iliveonramen said:

Yeah...nearly 20 years before we invaded.

I'm not sure how that makes the conservative position rational. We'll invade you for using chemical weapons 20 years ago but against strikes for using them now?

Click to expand...

Not a single Soviet soldier was tried at Nuremburg, either. Your point?

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Sherman123 said:

There is only disagreement amongst people who would prefer to believe that Assad is not responsible.

Click to expand...

Which is more reasonable. that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons with the possible consequences for doing so or Al-Qaeda which had nothing to loose for doing so and targeted rival rebel groups and that could be pinned on Assad anyway?

Russia is also not in the picture, they are not militarily involved in this question in any way, shape, or form.

Click to expand...

Are you playing the ignorant? Russia has other options than a military one to express their displeasure at the U.S. for bombing Assad. Your mindset is someone that is playing checkers against someone who is playing chess be prepared to be outmaneuvered.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

zimmer said:

Your vote?

Yea.
Nay.
Or Obama's favorite... Not Present.

###

At the moment I'd vote no.
This is all about Obama and covering his ass. He's looking to Republicans to save his ass. It's all political as everything is with this Amateur. First he says we can't tolerate this... then on Saturday before going golfing and everyone is expecting him to make a statement about upcoming bombings, he says he's going to Congress.

Isn't it amazing how Obama left Kerry out to hang?

The measures are half assed. A pin prick. Symbolic... Useless... and the problem is 100% of Obama's own making.

Where is the coalition?

Where is Obama's preparation after making the Red Line statement?

Let the Arab League sort this out. We've sold them enough hi-tech equipment... we can assist with AWACs and the like.

There is a reason to vote yea and it is because it's the US, and our credibility is on the line. But sorry, our credibility is damaged and the only thing that will restore it is having a mature adult as president, and the first opportunity for that it 2016.

Click to expand...

This whole scenario sounds just exactly like GW Bush and the Iraq war lies. Those of us that said the gov't was lying at that time were ridiculed and accused of a lack of patriotism. Especially by Republican/NeoCon/WarHawks. Hundreds of thousands died and are still dying as a result of the Rah! Rah! Cheerleading for war. Now the the War Party, and that would be Republicans have found strong objections to the war and it is all partisan. It ain't that complicated. The war creates chaos, death, destruction, and makes great profits for the already wealthy. I suggest everyone search the Internet and see who actually used chemical weapons and make the choice with logic, reason and an eye to humanitarian values. Ignore the mainstream media and do your homework. You will realize you are being led around by the nose by your minders. That's all.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Shadow Serious said:

Which is more reasonable. that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons with the possible consequences for doing so or Al-Qaeda which had nothing to loose for doing so and targeted rival rebel groups and that could be pinned on Assad anyway?




Are you playing the ignorant? Russia has other options than a military one to express their displeasure at the U.S. for bombing Assad. Your mindset is someone that is playing checkers against someone who is playing chess be prepared to be outmaneuvered.

Click to expand...

It is virtually a certainty that regime troops were responsible for the chemical bombardment. They used a mixture of rockets and artillery with unitary or binary shells and exclusively targeted a rebel defended bastion. The FSA (and Islamists) not only lack access to this type of weaponry or its associated munitions they lack the technical experience to handle it and use it with this level of sophistication. One can either believe they have secretly surmounted these technical barriers, acquired this large armament and munitions stockpiles, secreted it across regime controlled territory, and deployed it in the extreme hope that they would never be discovered despite intense intelligence surveillance. Or you can believe either Assad or a local commander decided to fire weapons known to be in their possetion.

The simpler answer makes much more sense to me.

As for Russia yes it does and I've covered that numerous times. Rejecting the military option is something I've had to harp on because of some peoples astonishing willingness to consider it as a plausible possibility. Which it is not.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I'm for supporting the choice that the President makes. He has the actual intelligence (not some half cooked internet discussion board "intel") and grave decision to make. I believe every President has always weighed heavily the consequences of action vs. inaction and acts accordingly. People on the internet think they know better, but I would wager my house that they don't.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Sherman123 said:

It is virtually a certainty that regime troops were responsible for the chemical bombardment. They used a mixture of rockets and artillery with unitary or binary shells and exclusively targeted a rebel defended bastion. The FSA (and Islamists) not only lack access to this type of weaponry or its associated munitions they lack the technical experience to handle it and use it with this level of sophistication. One can either believe they have secretly surmounted these technical barriers, acquired this large armament and munitions stockpiles, secreted it across regime controlled territory, and deployed it in the extreme hope that they would never be discovered despite intense intelligence surveillance. Or you can believe either Assad or a local commander decided to fire weapons known to be in their possetion.

The simpler answer makes much more sense to me.

As for Russia yes it does and I've covered that numerous times. Rejecting the military option is something I've had to harp on because of some peoples astonishing willingness to consider it as a plausible possibility. Which it is not.

Click to expand...

Where did you get the info that the rebels would not have people who had experience with artillery? And could not they got the equipment from a base that was overrun earlier? Also where did you get the info that it was that sophisticated? Some of these are Al_Qaeda who are known for suicide missions. There could have been a limited shelling of the camps and Al_Qaeda would have sneaked in earlier people to release the gas in person.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Shadow Serious said:

Where did you get the info that the rebels would not have people who had experience with artillery? And could not they got the equipment from a base that was overrun earlier? Also where did you get the info that it was that sophisticated? Some of these are Al_Qaeda who are known for suicide missions. There could have been a limited shelling of the camps and Al_Qaeda would have sneaked in earlier people to release the gas in person.

Click to expand...

They do not have experience handling chemical weapons, and they did not have access to rockets or the chemical warheads that were used. The information comes from consistent reports from virtually every media and intelligence source over the past two years. The FSA has never deployed these weapons and has never possessed heavy fixed artillery. Let alone warheads capable of being fitted onto rockets, moreover according to the Guardian and intelligence reports the rockets were littered with neurotoxic material and identified by numerous sources as the delivery system. Again your scenario requires much more complexity and conspiracy. Could al-Qaeda or the FSA or some group somehow have acquired these weapons, smuggled them, and deployed them in a nefarious false flag attack? I mean anything is possible. It just isn't probable. The evidence is overwhelmingly slanted towards this being a regime unit that launched the strike. I'll restate the logical evidence:

1. The delivery method was by artillery and rocket bombardment not local detonation.
2. It used unitary and/or binary chemical shells and warheads (as they were fixed to rockets).
3. No Syrian opposition group has ever shown that it possesses this equipment or the stockpiles of chemical weapons required for a sophisticated attack of this kind. Nor has any been known or thought to possess it.
4. The attack occurred in the midst of a pre-dawn government offensive into the suburbs.
5. The bombardment exclusively targeted opposition held areas.

So you can either believe this is a massive and sophisticated false flag attack or that somehow a regime commander released some of their stockpile for bombardment. It may have even been a rogue commander or an overzealous member of Assad's family. Regardless of why it happened it seems highly implausible that it was anything other than a regime bombardment.

Edit: Moreover the Syrian government has not even attempted to release evidence to the contrary. France, the UK, Turkey, and the US have released intelligence findings and evidence to back up their claims while foreign media sources in Syria have confirmed local reports giving us a more accurate assessment of what occurred. Syrian efforts to delay access to the site and allow evidence to dissipate and degrade is also another piece of logical evidence to throw onto the table.

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Sherman123 said:

It is virtually a certainty that regime troops were responsible for the chemical bombardment. They used a mixture of rockets and artillery with unitary or binary shells and exclusively targeted a rebel defended bastion. The FSA (and Islamists) not only lack access to this type of weaponry or its associated munitions they lack the technical experience to handle it and use it with this level of sophistication. One can either believe they have secretly surmounted these technical barriers, acquired this large armament and munitions stockpiles, secreted it across regime controlled territory, and deployed it in the extreme hope that they would never be discovered despite intense intelligence surveillance. Or you can believe either Assad or a local commander decided to fire weapons known to be in their possetion.

The simpler answer makes much more sense to me.

As for Russia yes it does and I've covered that numerous times. Rejecting the military option is something I've had to harp on because of some peoples astonishing willingness to consider it as a plausible possibility. Which it is not.

Click to expand...

A virtual certainty is it? Based on what evidence? Was it just as certain back in March? Is it a 'virtual certainty' because you WANT it to be a virtual certainty (and even then, only because Obama wants it to be and therefore, you must make it be so)?

You get of course that 'virtual' prior to 'certainty' states that it is therefore NOT certain...right?

Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

VanceMack said:

A virtual certainty is it? Based on what evidence? Was it just as certain back in March? Is it a 'virtual certainty' because you WANT it to be a virtual certainty (and even then, only because Obama wants it to be and therefore, you must make it be so)?

You get of course that 'virtual' prior to 'certainty' states that it is therefore NOT certain...right?

Click to expand...

Semantic quibbling aside I summarized the evidence pretty clearly.