Syria at hand

Quakertown, PA

#1 Aug 27, 2013
Launching an attack however meager will not be taken lightly by Russia and China.

Do you think the US should get involved?

Please begin with a YES or NO.
Syria at hand

Quakertown, PA

#2 Aug 27, 2013
NO

US is being baited into a war again to drain financial sector.

Europe is so concerned, let them take care of the neighbors.
diesel

White Haven, PA

#3 Aug 27, 2013
Russia has begun to evacuate its citizens from Syria, as its deputy prime minister stated that the West was acting in the Islamic world like "a monkey with a grenade".
NOway

Quakertown, PA

#4 Aug 27, 2013
US should stay out of everyone else's business. They are hated for murdering around the world. Pull out of all wars & use the $$ to rebuild this country.
diesel

White Haven, PA

#5 Aug 27, 2013
Say NO to war! Unless a Democrat is President...
Info

Quakertown, PA

#6 Aug 27, 2013
diesel wrote:
Say NO to war! Unless a Democrat is President...
Funny how they'll be for it when one of their own is in office.

Maybe they'll pull a Kerry and be for the war before they were against the war.

This will be Iraq 2.0.
Joe

Brooklyn, NY

#7 Aug 27, 2013
Syria at hand wrote:
Launching an attack however meager will not be taken lightly by Russia and China.

Do you think the US should get involved?

Please begin with a YES or NO.
No. The US had no national security interest in this matter. Even Israel secretly prefers Assad to what may come next.

However, I don't believe any US strike against Syria would force the hand of Russia or China. Even if Assad was in trouble (which he isn't), Russia and especially China would not sacrifice their relations with the US over him. Both nations would strongly condemn a US attack, but that's it.
Retriever

Hatfield, PA

#8 Aug 27, 2013
No, I'm tired of seeing our young soldiers die just to line the pockets of the rich in this country.
Retriever

Hatfield, PA

#9 Aug 27, 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldview...

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#10 Aug 27, 2013
No. Although I wish Obama would have kept his mouth shut about that "red line." Now it seems we have to do something to save face with many unintended consequences attached. I'm no fan of Assad or using chemical weapons on civilians and children, but millions of people have been killed in Africa, Russia, and China over the years. I don't remember Democrats talking about attacking Saddam Hussein when he gassed the Kurds.

The people likely to replace Assad are not our friends. Like those in the Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libyan debacles, these are the same people who danced in the street on 911 and chant "Death to America" at every opportunity - except when they want our help or money. I wouldn't send my son or daughter to risk their lives on this mission. Would Obama or any member of Congress?

Surprisingly, I have to agree with Joe. There's no national security interest here for the US - except for the very real possibility of the chemical weapons getting into the hands of Al Qaeda, Hesbollah, or Hamas. Even if Iran, Russia, and China don't get involved, Israel will likely be attacked and we'll be forced to help them. It's a no-win situation.
Syria at hand

Quakertown, PA

#11 Aug 28, 2013
Bill O'Reilly says Obama should be methodical and that he has made look weak to Russia and China with his indecisiveness.

Do you think we look weak?
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#12 Aug 28, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
No. Although I wish Obama would have kept his mouth shut about that "red line." Now it seems we have to do something to save face with many unintended consequences attached. I'm no fan of Assad or using chemical weapons on civilians and children, but millions of people have been killed in Africa, Russia, and China over the years. I don't remember Democrats talking about attacking Saddam Hussein when he gassed the Kurds.
The people likely to replace Assad are not our friends. Like those in the Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libyan debacles, these are the same people who danced in the street on 911 and chant "Death to America" at every opportunity - except when they want our help or money. I wouldn't send my son or daughter to risk their lives on this mission. Would Obama or any member of Congress?
Surprisingly, I have to agree with Joe. There's no national security interest here for the US - except for the very real possibility of the chemical weapons getting into the hands of Al Qaeda, Hesbollah, or Hamas. Even if Iran, Russia, and China don't get involved, Israel will likely be attacked and we'll be forced to help them. It's a no-win situation.
"Democrats talking about attacking Saddam Hussein when he gassed the Kurds.
true but you had

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Ge...

"Peter W. Galbraith, then a staff member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations drafted the bill. Senators Claiborne Pell, Jesse Helms, Christopher S. Bond, Wendell H. Ford, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Richard G. Lugar and William Proxmire sponsored it.[6]
The bill aimed to punish Iraq by embargoing all dual-use technological exports, stopping all Export-Import bank credits, banning US imports of Iraqi oil, and mandating US opposition to any loans by the International Monetary Fund or any other multilateral financial institution.

"This legislation will help demonstrate to the Iraqi regime just how seriously our country views its campaign against the Kurds. In addition, it will help assure that US tax dollars do not subsidize the Iraqis.

— Jesse Helms

The bill was defeated – in part due to intense lobbying of Congress by the Reagan-Bush White House and a veto threat from President Reagan.

and for what it is worth.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/...

so it depends upon the national interests at the time.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#13 Aug 28, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Democrats talking about attacking Saddam Hussein when he gassed the Kurds.
true but you had
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Ge...
"Peter W. Galbraith, then a staff member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations drafted the bill. Senators Claiborne Pell, Jesse Helms, Christopher S. Bond, Wendell H. Ford, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Richard G. Lugar and William Proxmire sponsored it.[6]
The bill aimed to punish Iraq by embargoing all dual-use technological exports, stopping all Export-Import bank credits, banning US imports of Iraqi oil, and mandating US opposition to any loans by the International Monetary Fund or any other multilateral financial institution.
"This legislation will help demonstrate to the Iraqi regime just how seriously our country views its campaign against the Kurds. In addition, it will help assure that US tax dollars do not subsidize the Iraqis.
— Jesse Helms
The bill was defeated – in part due to intense lobbying of Congress by the Reagan-Bush White House and a veto threat from President Reagan.
and for what it is worth.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/...
so it depends upon the national interests at the time.
Absolutely - the list of tyrants we've supported due to politics and economics is long AND bipartisan. Democracy is not always in our best interest, nor does it ensure stability as the much lauded "Arab Spring" has shown.
Joe

Brooklyn, NY

#14 Aug 28, 2013
Syria at hand wrote:
Bill O'Reilly says Obama should be methodical and that he has made look weak to Russia and China with his indecisiveness.

Do you think we look weak?
No. We look like blustering idiots intervening where we have no business.

Russia has an interest in supporting the Syrian government because:

1. Syria hosts a small naval base in Tartus.
2. Syria buys Russian military equipment.
3. 20,0000 Russian citizens live in Syria.
UsedtotheLies

Quakertown, PA

#15 Aug 29, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
No. We look like blustering idiots intervening where we have no business.
Russia has an interest in supporting the Syrian government because:
1. Syria hosts a small naval base in Tartus.
2. Syria buys Russian military equipment.
3. 20,0000 Russian citizens live in Syria.
20,0000 Russian citizens live in Syria
Now, there's something I did not know. I wonder if I can count to that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What's going in the former First Niagara Bank b... 16 hr marion 2
Old HOBO's....now Yellow Tail? Thu Steve 10
new dog park in quakertown somewhere Feb 10 suemarl 7
Richland Township Board of Supervisors Feb 5 Jack Frost 1 5
Richland Township police at Walmart Feb 4 Respect 14
yum yum house Feb 4 amber 5
Milford Snowy Sidewalks Feb 4 Holy cow 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Coopersburg Mortgages