• 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

Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

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.
Seriously. Are you kidding? You tell that to the Jewish people living there that got rounded up and sent to detention camps - and we all remember what happened next. And tell that to the people in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and France.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Are you STILL accusing the Syrian government of the Islamist extremists act?
I never said anything at all about that. You're the one that mentioned that.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I think that anybody who uses the term "boots on the ground" needs to be sent to Syria to be gassed. That is an incredibly dehumanizing term. Our military troops are people, human beings.

It's actually an intramilitary term.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I think it does need response. On the International Relations scale, we'd be foolish not to respond. I do, however, dislike the unwillingness to hear the UN report. Hopefully it will be out before Congress convenes anyway.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I never said anything at all about that. You're the one that mentioned that.

Oh ok, I see. I thought you mentioned using chemical weapons against its people.
 
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.

Reports: U.S.-led Rebels Sent into Syria Before Chemical Attack

Interesting article. Certainly there has been a strong effort to unify the rebel leaders by the U.S. and its allies, and I'm certain intel officers are in nation in huge numbers, but the notion of them being equivalent of military officers seems unlikely. And the notion that the U.S. would aid in the orchestration of a false flag attack of this sort seems to be stretching it. But, without further details, who can say?
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Drawing more lines in the sand. LOL. 5th grade stuff and he's the President.

He's turned us into the laughing stock of the world.

Americans certainly didn't need any help from Obama for being a laughing stock around the world...
 
Interesting article. Certainly there has been a strong effort to unify the rebel leaders by the U.S. and its allies, and I'm certain intel officers are in nation in huge numbers, but the notion of them being equivalent of military officers seems unlikely. And the notion that the U.S. would aid in the orchestration of a false flag attack of this sort seems to be stretching it. But, without further details, who can say?

I hope you don't excuse the US on the premonition that there isn't precedence of false flag operations to start conflicts in times past.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Drawing more lines in the sand. LOL. 5th grade stuff and he's the President.

He's turned us into the laughing stock of the world.

Yeah because we should be in a hurry to attack another country and throw the region into chaos, like Bush did..

Bottomline: Obama smart/Bush dumb.
 
I hope you don't excuse the US on the premonition that there isn't precedence of false flag operations to start conflicts in times past.

Certainly not. Just that, as a former intelligence officer, this, at least with the given information, doesn't seem like a scenario where we would use a false flag.
 
Certainly not. Just that, as a former intelligence officer, this, at least with the given information, doesn't seem like a scenario where we would use a false flag.


Ok I understand and it may not be. If so we won't learn about it for sometime. But chemical weaponry was used in some fashion and there is absolutely no logic to it having been the syrian government. But given the long term US foreign policy goal regarding Syria, there's clear motive and the Islamic extremists we are working with there, well of course they have motive to stage an attack and hope it could be pinned on the Syrian government. And look, you know China and Russia have repeatedly stressed to their Syrian ally that under NO circumstances can they target civilians or ever pull out chemical weapons because it would undermine their support. So, there just is no place for logic in an Assad chemical attack on anyone.
 
What does this have to do with the topic? We should feel sorry for the President who sought out the job?

It has everything to do with the topic. I have asserted that Obama is war-weary, and people are denying it merely because they want to attack Obama at a time when culturally our media and citizens would attack any POTUS.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Yeah because we should be in a hurry to attack another country and throw the region into chaos, like Bush did..

I do not believe the actions of USA are throwing islam into chaos. The sects of the religion hate each other, the Koran has some rather disturbing instructions in it, and the founder did things that in this day and age are considered beyond perverse (marrying a six year old and consummating the marriage when the child became age eight). Islam needs to work out it's issues in order to survive in the 21st century; but I do not think what USA is doing in any way alters the religion.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I do not believe the actions of USA are throwing islam into chaos. The sects of the religion hate each other, the Koran has some rather disturbing instructions in it, and the founder did things that in this day and age are considered beyond perverse (marrying a six year old and consummating the marriage when the child became age eight). Islam needs to work out it's issues in order to survive in the 21st century; but I do not think what USA is doing in any way alters the religion.

Other than we actually may be arrogant enough to believe that we can alter the religion.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Yeah because we should be in a hurry to attack another country and throw the region into chaos, like Bush did..

Bottomline: Obama smart/Bush dumb.
You mean the region wasnt in chaos before that? Smart :lamo

If he was smart he wouldnt be in the position he is in today having to renege on his so called Red line at least a couple times now. He also shouldnt have announced his plans openly

I also have to question your ability to make a fair comparison here as Obama got involved in both Libya & Egypt and I wouldnt exactly call those places non-chaotic.
 
Ok I understand and it may not be. If so we won't learn about it for sometime. But chemical weaponry was used in some fashion and there is absolutely no logic to it having been the syrian government. But given the long term US foreign policy goal regarding Syria, there's clear motive and the Islamic extremists we are working with there, well of course they have motive to stage an attack and hope it could be pinned on the Syrian government. And look, you know China and Russia have repeatedly stressed to their Syrian ally that under NO circumstances can they target civilians or ever pull out chemical weapons because it would undermine their support. So, there just is no place for logic in an Assad chemical attack on anyone.

I certainly agree with you in that it could be a false flag attack, but it seems even less likely the U.S. would use WMDs as a means of orchestrating a false flag. Certainly there's a motive for a false flag, but given how things are handled in the intelligence community, using a WMD in any case would be foolish. I wouldn't go so far as to say there is no logic for Assad using a chemical weapon. In my experience, the things "allies" stress to one another aren't followed often at all.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Americans certainly didn't need any help from Obama for being a laughing stock around the world...


Americans are doing ok. The rest of the world certainly isn't in such great shape.
 
Can anybody even agree upon what "limited strike" means. General Eisenhower said that when hostilities begin, all plans go out the window.

To me a 'limited strike' means "damaging the Syrian governments military and weapons enough to make it difficult to conduct more chemical weapons attacks."

What does it mean to you?


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.

Do you have a link to your CIA claim?


The Syrian Electronic Army made another strike on US interests today.....

'Syrian Electronic Army' hacks Marines website - NYPOST.com
 
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.

If the objective is not to determine an outcome for Syria but merely to prevent Assad's military from using chemical weapons on civilians again, then isn't that enough? Why does it have to be all or nothing?
 
If the objective is not to determine an outcome for Syria but merely to prevent Assad's military from using chemical weapons on civilians again, then isn't that enough? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

Because it's highly unlikely that a limited attack would actually accomplish that.
 
Because it's highly unlikely that a limited attack would actually accomplish that.

What do you think might happen if the US does make a limited strike?
 
What do you think might happen if the US does make a limited strike?

No one can say for sure. But I think it's likely we would see retaliation in some shape or fashion. Increased cyber events, hezbollah rocket attacks against Israel, perhaps violent protests orchestrated by Iran which could be violent...these are almost certain. Depending on how ballsy Iran and Syria feel, it could be much worse i.e. bombings in Israel, unleashing more and larger chem attacks, etc. I don't think we would see outright military confrontation against us or Israel...that would be too exposing.

So all of these possibilities...for what? ...and why? That's why I'm saying if you are going to risk these outcomes then you have to accomplish some real, meaningful objective. If you are not willing to accept these risks, then stay out.
 
No one can say for sure. But I think it's likely we would see retaliation in some shape or fashion. Increased cyber events, hezbollah rocket attacks against Israel, perhaps violent protests orchestrated by Iran which could be violent...these are almost certain. Depending on how ballsy Iran and Syria feel, it could be much worse i.e. bombings in Israel, unleashing more and larger chem attacks, etc. I don't think we would see outright military confrontation against us or Israel...that would be too exposing.

So all of these possibilities...for what? ...and why? That's why I'm saying if you are going to risk these outcomes then you have to accomplish some real, meaningful objective. If you are not willing to accept these risks, then stay out.

I don't know that I am willing to accept such risks. But after reading this article, it appears we already are involved......

The Syrian opposition: who's doing the talking? | Charlie Skelton | Comment is free | theguardian.com
 
Back
Top Bottom