Does Anybody Think Obama is Right about Bombing Syria?
Posted in the Coopersburg Forum
#1 Sep 4, 2013
I know most are opposed, but I was just wondering if anyone on here actually agrees with the president's idea of "limited" bombing in retaliation for Assad's alleged chemical attacks on civilians and is willing to discuss the reasons why. I'd like to hear what you have to say without name calling and/or insults (if that's possible).
#2 Sep 4, 2013
well reducing the military capability of Syria has it's advantages.
it reinforces the idea that using wmd's has consequences.
for example say in the invasion of Iraq saddam used a chemical attack on the US soldiers.
would that change the way that war was waged?
i doubt the US would have retaliated in kind but the gloves would come off and say carpet bombing for example might be on the table.
and had a chemical warhead landed on Israel i do not think the US could restrain the Israeli's from vengeance.
another facet is that by involvement overt or covert gives the US a say in the outcome.
that does not mean any gratitude will last.
saddam owed us and that turned out badly.
however using President Reagan and the Libya attack for example.
that quieted Qaddafi for some time.
the US has decided to act as a world policeman (and has for quite some time), sometimes you have to use the baton.
#3 Sep 4, 2013
As usual, dbar does what any good bot will do; he's standing firm with the president...even though he balked about Bush doing the same thing in Iraq for the same reason.
dbar, who pulls your strings?
#4 Sep 4, 2013
The problem is unintended consequences. Depending on who you're listening to, the most powerful segment of the Syrian opposition is Al Qaeda. Do we really want to help them or other Muslim extremists gain power and control over Syria and its chemical weapons cache?
If the argument is made on humanitarian grounds, why is this different from the 100,000 Syrian deaths before it? Or the horrendous rights abuses in Darfour, China, and you-name-it?
GHW Bush's limited war on Saddam left him in power and didn't stop his atrocities. The second war was supposedly about oil, which is now being sold to China, while Iraq cozies up to Iran and Russia. Egypt and Libya are a mess and Afghanistan will revert to the Taliban as soon as we leave.
What is our national interest in picking this scab? Why can't we pursue covert strategies to topple Assad and replace him with a moderate? Every "limited" military action we've been involved with since Vietnam has killed and maimed tens of thousands of Americans and cost trillions of dollars with little or no benefit to our national security - I wouldn't send my son or daughter on this mission. Would you? Would Obama? Saudi Arabia has a well-trained air force - so does Turkey - why don't THEY take the lead? After all, it's Arabs who are being gassed.
#5 Sep 4, 2013
Senators, Representatives, and Military Officers have been screaming for weeks for the President to bomb Syria. Now, all of the sudden, it's Obama's idea.
#6 Sep 4, 2013
and did President Obama rely on a agent known as curveball?
or declare mobile labs to exist when they did not?
try reading the "downing street memo"
let me know how President Obama did the same and get back to me.
#7 Sep 4, 2013
Syria is in the midst of a civil war...
Syrians are killing Syrians...
Chemical weapons are used to kill Syrians and now the U.S. suddenly cares how Syrians are killed.
I heard Syria bombed Syria. So we're gonna bomb Syria to prevent Syria from bombing Syria.
#8 Sep 4, 2013
Names of these "screamers"? Last time I looked, the president was the commander-in-chief. It was and is his red line and his idea.
#9 Sep 4, 2013
(CNN)- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that the red line he outlined last year regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons came from international treaties and past congressional action, and now it is time for the international community to make good on its opposition to the banned armaments.
"I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line," Obama told reporters on the first day of a four-day trip to Sweden and Russia to attend a G-20 summit in St. Petersburg.
#10 Sep 4, 2013
and what are the unintended consequences of doing nothing?
that is a big problem.
with involvement you have some say.
when you stand aside others may get more influence.
as to air forces i saw an article referencing the Syrians had bought a rather good air defense system from Russia that the Israeli's considered a threat to their air force.
also to be fair,there may be classified info as to threats that have not been revealed.
#11 Sep 4, 2013
I think any military campaign against Syria is misguided. But unfortunately GOPers have now politicized Obama's decision-making throughout the process and seem determined to score political points in 2014. With that said and in the interest of protecting the Senate and retaking the House for the American people, it may be prudent for Obama to launch a very limited attack against Syria.
#12 Sep 4, 2013
Don't be silly. Name any Republican who has changed his view on Syria in the last week. If anything, the Republicans, yet again, are ready to cave to Obama in order to get along.
It appears as if you are more concerned with politics by advocating for the death of Syrians in order to "protect the Senate and retake the House." Explain how your view is not about politics.
#13 Sep 4, 2013
I can't see the future, but Dubya was criticized for not having thought things through about when Saddam was toppled. Has this President? Why have 97000 Syrian deaths not caused military intervention but now 1500 will? 400 children? It's said that Obama himself has ordered drone attacks resulting in the death of 200 children.
Who gives this president the authority to order an act of war on another country despite overwhelming opposition to it? Are we served by this President or ruled by him? Assad has already moved his weapons into civilian areas and civilians into military targets - the surprise factor is lost. This has to end badly - unless there's a shock and awe attack and Assad is killed and his infrastructure decimated.
Then what? Will Russia stand for that? Will the Israelis let themselves be attacked? What will Al Qaeda or Hezbollah do with chemical weapons? Why is this our fight? If Mitt Romney were President, would any Democrat support this action? Obama and Biden would be screaming "NO!" from the rafters - you can take that to the bank.
#14 Sep 4, 2013
The American people don't want military action in Syria, but just as with Obamacare, he isn't listening. There's no assurance any attack will be limited. It's funny how some Liberals blame Bush and the invasion of Iraq for the rise of Muslim extremism, but think that Obama's incursion into Egyptian, Libyan, and now Syrian civil wars will not incite more terrorism aimed at U.S. interests and allies.
#15 Sep 4, 2013
"Dubya was criticized for not having thought things through about when Saddam was toppled"
is a heavy understatement.
for starters the first gulf war was stopped before we broke it and owned it.
so the second war should have had planning and it did not.
objections were made as to the number of troops which could have held order after the takeover rather than the mess it became.
in effect all of the things that caused the first war to stop came to happen after the second.
so the criticism was well justified.
as to Syria.
the death of civilians with conventional arms has occurred without intervention as it has in numerous places and times.
the question becomes one of national interest.
BTW it is a cheap shot at President Obama ordering drone strikes that have killed children.
yes children did die but not by deliberate design.
unlike the chemical attacks in Syria.
by that same logic plenty of children died in Iraq due to sanctions/war and who is responsible for that.
President Bush had plenty of faults but deliberately killing children is not one of them.
so equating the actions of President Obama and Assad is not correct.
As to foreign policy the Constitution gives the President the capability to order such strikes.
did President Reagan check with anyone before ordering the raid on Libya?
were we served by President Reagan or ruled by him?
as to moving civilians into military areas saddam had his hostages and how did that work out?
time will tell whether it ends badly or not.
Russia will posture but do nothing.
Israel will do what it wants.
if attacked they will respond.
Al-Queda with chemical weapons?
care to bet that we have no assets(perhaps in country) eyeballing those weapons?
you might be surprised by the number of various surveillance systems that we have.
if a mouse farts within a mile of those storage sites we will most likely know about it.
in the first gulf war an individual truck could be tracked anywhere in Iraq.
the systems have gotten even better since then.
#16 Sep 4, 2013
"Why is this our fight?"
the chemical warfare launched by saddam was something the US should have dealt with however President Reagan thought it more important to contain Iran then to care about the deaths of civilians.
then you have
"On May 6, 2002, the Under Secretary of State for
Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, stated:
‘‘The United States also knows that Syria has long had a
chemical warfare program. It has a stockpile of the nerve
agent sarin and is engaged in research and development of
the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX. Syria, which
has signed but not ratified the [Biological Weapons Convention],
is pursuing the development of biological weapons and is able
to produce at least small amounts of biological warfare agents.’’.
" the Government of Syria should halt the development
and deployment of medium- and long-range surface-to-surface
missiles and cease the development and production of biological
and chemical weapons"
" Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missile programs threaten the security of the Middle
East and the national security interests of the United States"
"Given the Constitution's commitment to the Presidency of the authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory, giving them the due weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreign policy.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 12, 2003.
as to romney being President and all the Democrats shouting to the rooftops?
that is pure conjecture.
the issue of using chemical weapons would most likely change the views of many Democrats as you have seen with republicans who would like nothing better than to hamstring President Obama,who now support such action.
#17 Sep 5, 2013
Why would a attack , No matter what party matter when we are dealing with killer chemicals ? This is a huge problem ,That could be ours real quick regardless of what we do or don't. I don't like Obama, Nor do I , fancy a country that would show off by using this on their own.But we are talking about chemicals that kill and the capacity to do so. We and other countries need to act . Unless this is all set up to get military control for Obama to stay in office .
#18 Sep 5, 2013
Why is China so silent???
#19 Sep 5, 2013
I think we should stay out of it, or at least put no troops or even advisers on the ground.
#20 Sep 5, 2013
I don't get why the senate voted in favor of us going to war, when it's clear that only 29 pcent of the population is in favor ! They even reported that their own constituents were sending emails to them showing opposition.
I am Totally against the US getting involved!
Add your comments below
|Need a great hair stylist||16 hr||marie||13|
|school bus.||20 hr||marie||21|
|New Sign on 309||Fri||Kathy||14|
|More Pedophile Priests Placed on Leave (Mar '11)||Dec 15||Loretta||25|
|November, and THE OLD FARTS IN WASHINGTON DC. (Sep '11)||Dec 14||Catatonic||2|
|The Local Restaurant||Dec 13||Mary||13|
|Quakertown Electric (Jul '10)||Dec 9||Jennifer schaible||65|
Find what you want!
Search Coopersburg Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC