• 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!

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

You're the Congressman, and Your Vote on Syria

  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

CanadaJohn said:
Wasn't Obama's "stated goal" last year regime change in Syria?
Click to expand...
Yes but... that was last year. ;)
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

We should do absolutely nothing. The revolutionaries/insurgents are relying upon the USA to win the fight for them, for which in return would get nothing but another radical Islamic theocracy.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Redress said:
Replacing hardware, certainly. Replacing facilities and trained people, not so much, that takes time.
Click to expand...

Facilities are irrelevant in the type of civil war being conducted in Syria. Hardware and munitions, much more relevant and what isn't relocated and secured in two weeks of dithering will be readily replaced by the Russians and Iranians. As for trained people, they're not going to lose any with all the delay in action unless you think the Syrians are just going to round them up in a building with a bullseye on top to help Barry out.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

ttwtt78640 said:
Obama's position, on this issue, has evolved. ;)
Click to expand...
The man's undergoing constant transformation. It's probably the only policy of his which doesn't warrant him the label of hypocrite. :)
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

There is too much information that only a select few get to know for me to weigh in on this from an intelligence perspective.

Also, Congressional Reps have more information on the matter than I do, so my opinion on the matter is based mostly on fairly superficial concerns.

I don't want to see us in another war, though to some degree this matter could be considered a continuation of our war with al Qaeda.

I'm not sure what's necessary here to prevent Israel and Iran from going at each other, which would be a concern of mine, as Israel is "reported" to have nuclear missile submarines within range of Iran.

This is a quagmire.

For all we know, the rebels planted the chemical weapons and exploded them on their own people, just to get our attention and hope we'd do to the government of Syria what we did in Iraq .. I mean, after all, these rebels are greatly al Qaeda.

I would favor greater U.N. participation and to create a watchdog on both sides with regard to keeping weapons within "acceptable" scope and perhaps pushing for peace talks.

Posturing with missile salvos may be self-defeating.

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

iliveonramen said:
Actually I don't think we should be involved in Syria. You kind of entered a conversation mid stream. This is whether or not conservatives are "rational' for supporting Iraq and not supporting Syria.

Yes...Iraq was completely based on WMD's. The presentation to the UN was about Iraq WMD's. The sunday talk shows were filled with Administration members talking about Iraq WMD's.

If the use/ownership of WMD's is a cause for war...why wouldn't be a cause in this situation? How is it rational to call for an actual invasion yet not support strikes?
Click to expand...

Actually, in my recollection, Iraq was about WMD, yes, and Sadaam's unwillingness to live under multiple UN sanctions related to them. In addition, it was about Sadaam not living within the "Oil for Food" UN sanctions and France's double-dealing in that regard - one of the reasons why France vetoed action in Iraq at the time - they were grossly benefitting and feeding money to Sadaam outside the UN sanctions.

Iraq was about many things, not least of which was Sadaam boldly putting up bounties for terrorist's families, I believe it was $25,000 a suicide bomber, to attack Israel and other western targets. It was about an evil, dangerous, dictator ruling his country brutally and thumbing his nose at the UN. And in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush and his administration wasn't going to sit idly by while Sadaam potentially funded an attack with money from France.

These are different times - Assad, for all his evil, has not threatened any nation other than his own and has not participated in any action against another nation such as did Sadaam. There is no equivalency between Iraq in 2003 and Syria in 2013, but a foolish move into Syria could create even greater problems in the region - nobody supported Sadaam - Assad still seems to have some support in the region.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

NAY.

Th USA should not get inolved in any military action in Syria unless Syria directly attacks America or a protected ally that we have a treaty or agreement with.
 
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. Russia is also not in the picture, they are not militarily involved in this question in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

Sherman, I pray you are correct! :thumbs: But if we bomb Syria, which is an ally of theirs, should we expect anger from them? We "mother hen" our allies, wouldn't Russia do the same? That's what has me worried. Russia is a super power, too. :shock:
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

No chance in hell for anything. It's not our problem and we're not the planet's policeman.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I vote nay. Syria is not our problem. Any strikes will bring us into war.Obama,Biden and other democrats gave Bush so much **** for Iraq and argued that we shouldn't attack another country unless they attacked us first or are a direct threat to us.They also pulled out of Iraq before before the job was done, why get into another war we are not going to finish? Plus it seems that when we help another country it comes back later to bite us in the ass.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

polgara said:
Sherman, I pray you are correct! :thumbs: But if we bomb Syria, which is an ally of theirs, should we expect anger from them? We "mother hen" our allies, wouldn't Russia do the same? That's what has me worried. Russia is a super power, too. :shock:
Click to expand...

Russia will of course be upset, they obviously do not want to see Assad bombed or his regime threatened. But the medium of their response and its possible outlets are fairly limited. They can stir political trouble in the Caucuses or Ukraine, they can reverse course and increase support for Iran, and... well beyond that it gets rather limited.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

haymarket said:
NAY.

Th USA should not get inolved in any military action in Syria unless Syria directly attacks America or a protected ally that we have a treaty or agreement with.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, haymarket. :2wave:

:agree: What worries me is that Russia and Syria are allies with each other, and Russia has already made their position known with regard to Syria. Surprisingly, they are urging restraint in this matter by suggesting that America wait until the truth is known about who actually used the chemical weapons!
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Nay. This is a job for the UN. Let the inspectors present their evidence, and act accordingly. No bombs, no artillery, no missiles. If chemical weapons are present, they need to be located, contained, and properly disposed of in a safe location.
 
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. Nobody's the good guys here and an attack isn't likely to get anyone's attention or accomplish anything. You don't jump into a civil war without taking sides, and there's no good side to be on.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

CanadaJohn said:
Actually, in my recollection, Iraq was about WMD, yes, and Sadaam's unwillingness to live under multiple UN sanctions related to them. In addition, it was about Sadaam not living within the "Oil for Food" UN sanctions and France's double-dealing in that regard - one of the reasons why France vetoed action in Iraq at the time - they were grossly benefitting and feeding money to Sadaam outside the UN sanctions.
Click to expand...

Sure...but use of WMD's is just as much a breach of international law as Saddam not living up to UN resolutions.

Iraq was about many things, not least of which was Sadaam boldly putting up bounties for terrorist's families, I believe it was $25,000 a suicide bomber, to attack Israel and other western targets. It was about an evil, dangerous, dictator ruling his country brutally and thumbing his nose at the UN. And in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush and his administration wasn't going to sit idly by while Sadaam potentially funded an attack with money from France.
Click to expand...
Assad co-operated with Iraq. Syria actually participates in state sponsored terrorism. Saddam if anything was an enemy to terrorist organizations. In fact Bin Laden supported groups in Kurd controlled areas that wanted to overthrow the regime.

You don't believe the use of chemical weapons is "thumbing your nose" at the whole international community and the UN?

These are different times - Assad, for all his evil, has not threatened any nation other than his own and has not participated in any action against another nation such as did Sadaam. There is no equivalency between Iraq in 2003 and Syria in 2013, but a foolish move into Syria could create even greater problems in the region - nobody supported Sadaam - Assad still seems to have some support in the region.
Click to expand...

Syria has been accused of carrying out terrorist plots to destabilize Lebanon. Syria has close ties to Hezbollah.

I'm not sure how Saddam who has no history with ties to actual terrorist groups...in fact if anything he was a brutal dictator (like Assad obviously...he did gas his people) but ran a secular dictatorship. Assad on the other hand has a long history with terrorist groups and terrorist actions.


You're right...there's no equivalence between Iraq and Syria...most of the supposed reasons for going into Iraq have were proven to be weak or non-existent. There's no doubt that Syria works with terrorist groups (except for Al queda) they have WMD's (they did just use them).
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

EdwinWillers said:
Hmmm. One could easily argue the stakes and potential costs are are astronomically higher in this situation than they were with Iraq, invasion or not.

As you noted, the stakes and potential costs are completely different, as is the context.

We'd just experienced the worst terrorist attack in our history by Al Quaida two years prior. The use of Iraq as a refuge/base of operations by them was an issue, as was their relationship to Saddam. Oil was an issue, their proximity to it. And of course Saddam's WMDs were an issue too - our enemies getting their hands on WMDs was a huge concern given what they'd just done to us and what their rhetoric constantly threatened.

There are no such issues in our attacking Syria now - save for the ostensible reason that Obama foolishly and ill-advisedly drew a red line in the sand.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the stakes are higher. A long term occupation and nation building are pretty high stakes. We basically destabilized a very oil rich nation that borders Iran. That's some pretty high stakes.

As for the ties between Saddam and terrorism....they are weak at best. The history of Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic groups is one of the Islamic groups trying to over throw Saddam and Saddam trying to prevent the groups from gaining any influence in Iraq.

The Baathist Party is a secular arab nationalist party. It's not a theocratic regime. Saddam has never had a history of co-operating with terrorist groups. Syria on the other hand has a long history of co-operation with terrorist groups.

Everything that's been mentioned about Iraq and has either proven to be either incorrect or close to incorrect is true of Syria.

The confusion/fear after Iraq is the reason people followed along with the war in Iraq but it's not as if the war in Iraq is what has made us safer. It was Afghanistan and a 10 year campaign against Al Queda leaders. I want to point out Al Queda leaders didn't start showing in Iraq until after we invaded and they joined the those fighting out troops.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

iliveonramen said:
Sure...but use of WMD's is just as much a breach of international law as Saddam not living up to UN resolutions.


Assad co-operated with Iraq. Syria actually participates in state sponsored terrorism. Saddam if anything was an enemy to terrorist organizations. In fact Bin Laden supported groups in Kurd controlled areas that wanted to overthrow the regime.

You don't believe the use of chemical weapons is "thumbing your nose" at the whole international community and the UN?



Syria has been accused of carrying out terrorist plots to destabilize Lebanon. Syria has close ties to Hezbollah.

I'm not sure how Saddam who has no history with ties to actual terrorist groups...in fact if anything he was a brutal dictator (like Assad obviously...he did gas his people) but ran a secular dictatorship. Assad on the other hand has a long history with terrorist groups and terrorist actions.


You're right...there's no equivalence between Iraq and Syria...most of the supposed reasons for going into Iraq have were proven to be weak or non-existent. There's no doubt that Syria works with terrorist groups (except for Al queda) they have WMD's (they did just use them).
Click to expand...

Can't say I fully agree with your analysis, but I appreciate you sharing it.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

iliveonramen said:
Actually I don't think we should be involved in Syria. You kind of entered a conversation mid stream. This is whether or not conservatives are "rational' for supporting Iraq and not supporting Syria.
Click to expand...
I apologize for perhaps misunderstanding your position somewhat, and if I am butting into something - sorry. Too late now. And no, we conservatives are never rational. I do believe that a comparison between Syria and Iraq could be instructive if you're just considering Obama's proposed action vs Bush in Iraq, and limiting the discussion to WMD's. The more applicable comparison is between Syria and Bosnia, all in all.

Yes...Iraq was completely based on WMD's. The presentation to the UN was about Iraq WMD's. The sunday talk shows were filled with Administration members talking about Iraq WMD's.
Click to expand...
I would agree if the issue was strictly limited to UN resolutions. We had other additional reasons - the overt support of terrorist attacking Israel and other interests, and yes, the attempted assassination of a president - something we all know and love to talk about, among other things.

If the use/ownership of WMD's is a cause for war...why wouldn't be a cause in this situation? How is it rational to call for an actual invasion yet not support strikes?
Click to expand...
It is serious. The Syrians, like the Iraqis were, are in violation of Protocol II of the Geneva Convention(s). I don't disagree that it does require a serious response after consideration. Why that is singularly focused on military strikes bothers me - there will be repercussions, and they may not come in a time and manner which we can predict. In all honesty, I reluctantly supported the Iraq invasion because I viewed it as an attempt to eliminate a problem or two and also allow a pivot of our forces to confront Iran. You'd be surprised at the number of conservatives that aren't blood thirsty neocons.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

It's a hell of a thing to go to war just to make the President feel better about himself and not look like an idiot.

MaggieD said:
I voted "Yea." I don't want us to do it, but I think we've been put into a position where we have to. When the chips are down, we can't afford not to back the Office of the Presidency.
Click to expand...
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

humbolt said:
I apologize for perhaps misunderstanding your position somewhat, and if I am butting into something - sorry. Too late now. And no, we conservatives are never rational. I do believe that a comparison between Syria and Iraq could be instructive if you're just considering Obama's proposed action vs Bush in Iraq, and limiting the discussion to WMD's. The more applicable comparison is between Syria and Bosnia, all in all.
Click to expand...

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.

I would agree if the issue was strictly limited to UN resolutions. We had other additional reasons - the overt support of terrorist attacking Israel and other interests, and yes, the attempted assassination of a president - something we all know and love to talk about, among other things.
Click to expand...
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.

It is serious. The Syrians, like the Iraqis were, are in violation of Protocol II of the Geneva Convention(s). I don't disagree that it does require a serious response after consideration. Why that is singularly focused on military strikes bothers me - there will be repercussions, and they may not come in a time and manner which we can predict. In all honesty, I reluctantly supported the Iraq invasion because I viewed it as an attempt to eliminate a problem or two and also allow a pivot of our forces to confront Iran. You'd be surprised at the number of conservatives that aren't blood thirsty neocons.
Click to expand...

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

iliveonramen said:
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...
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.

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

What if the rebels were the ones who conducted the chemical attack? (just askin...)

Obama, giving his ill-fated "red line" bombast basically told the rebels what they needed to do to bring the US into the fray.

And it's not like the rebels couldn't have access to chemical weapons. Back in December they took control of a large military base near Aleppo, after which Panetta came out and stated the administration didn't believe Assad would use the weapons, that he "got the message." Back then the concern was Assad would, under pressure of rebel advances, prepare chemical weapons to repel them, but again Panetta was firm that he didn't believe he would. Of course, this [Syria] is another in a long series of Shia-Sunni conflicts throughout the region in which the killing of muslims by muslims is rationalized quite readily.

Bottom line, we still don't have proof of what the administration is trying to hard so make us believe.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Lukas105 said:
It's a hell of a thing to go to war just to make the President feel better about himself and not look like an idiot.
Click to expand...

I don't consider it "going to war." Maybe that's the difference.

He drew a hard line in the sand. Probably was the right thing to do. It's only in hindsight that we wonder if it was. We can't allow other countries to use chemical warfare on their people. Hell, we shouldn't even allow unstable countries to possess chemical weapons. We've fought wars for less.

From August 26th:

Over the weekend, the group Doctors Without Borders announced that three Damascus-area hospitals it supports received an influx of 3,600 patients within three hours on Wednesday morning, 355 which reportedly died, according to the group.

“[T]he reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent,” Dr. Bart Janssens, the group’s director of operations, announced via the Doctors Without Borders website Saturday morning.

Symptoms included “convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress,” Janssens said.
Click to expand...

President Obama’s ‘Red Line’: What He Actually Said About Syria and Chemical Weapons - ABC News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom