Syria

[Larry L.]

Re: Its not his dog and it didn't bite you anyway;

"First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."

Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria | The Weekly Standard

A master of the spin, twist, deny and deflect art form, isn't he. Or maybe I should say the ATTEMPTED spin, twist, deny and deflect art form. But no one with a normally functioning brain fell for any of it. (He reminds me a lot of Kerry: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." 'Two peas in a pod. No wonder Kerry is his Sec. State.)

'Only thing Obama forgot to mention was that it was Bush's fault that he'd said what he said.

 

[Larry L.]

I strongly feel that the World needs to take a stand, using chemical or nuclear weapons should not be tolerated and absolutly needs to be addressed.

Is there a difference in the degree of dead 'twinxt someone killed by gas, bombs, or bullets? And if not, why have the 120K or so people killed 'conventionally' to this point not enraged the world?

And just why is it when this-or-that country is in trouble of any kind, IT'S ALWAYS THE UNITED STATES from whom the world demands/expects retaliatory action/intervention/assistance on the spot...the SAME United States many of these same countries openly despise any other day of the week?

One would THINK we'd learn.

'Off my soapbox now...

 

[TimB]

Jimbo,

I strongly feel that the World needs to take a stand, using chemical or nuclear weapons should not be tolerated and absolutly needs to be addressed.

So then you agreed with the Iraq war correct? It is undeniable that Saddam used chemical weapons against 40 Kurdish villages

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Is there a difference in the degree of dead 'twinxt someone killed by gas, bombs, or bullets? And if not, why have the 120K or so people killed 'conventionally' to this point not enraged the world?

And just why is it when this-or-that country is in trouble of any kind, IT'S ALWAYS THE UNITED STATES from whom the world demands/expects retaliatory action/intervention/assistance on the spot...the SAME United States many of these same countries openly despise any other day of the week?

One would THINK we'd learn.

'Off my soapbox now...

+1000.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

So then you agreed with the Iraq war correct? It is undeniable that Saddam used chemical weapons against 40 Kurdish villages

Hmmm. Good question Looking forward to the answer.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Re: Its not his dog and it didn't bite you anyway;

How is it possible to agree with a leader who denies what he's said?

"First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."

Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria | The Weekly Standard

 

[Jim Craik]

So then you agreed with the Iraq war correct? It is undeniable that Saddam used chemical weapons against 40 Kurdish villages. Posted by TimB

Tim,

Sadam used chemical weapons, he needed to be taken down, as I recall he was hanged, I strongly agree with the result.

The folks responsibe for Syria gas attacks need to be identified and taken down.

In both Iraq and Syria, I much prefer a smart bomb through their window!

We should not have invaded Iraq, we should not have to invade Syria, but we absolutely need to take down the perpetrator of this crime!

 

[Jack]

If The Congress does not give him his "out" by voting NAY, He'll blame it on the rest of the world, just wait and see. If the Congressional vote is YEA, it won't matter.
Takes it from a "lose-lose" to a "lose-lose-lose" situation.

 

[Grady]

I vote NO help.
Fact.
+SYRIA.Some Muslims gassed other Muslims with WMDs likely from the long convoys from Iraq (1990) while the UN thought about it.
+ The religion allows this practice to met the end desire.
+ WE bombed the Serbs when the Muslims gassed their own children in '95.
+ Evidence says the Saudis trained the Muslim Brotherhood how to deploy the gas.
+Qatar supports the use of our air power to change the Syrian leadership, but they are funding the Islamic Brotherhood (Egypt $11 Billion) and Hezbollah.
+And your asking me to believe these clowns in Washington?

Who is on first?

 

[Jim Craik]

I could never understand the way the Allies handeled the Axis leaders in WW2. The allies never really tried to take out Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo or the Emperor..................

We never bombed the Hitlers Wolf's Lair and the Imperial Palace in Tokyo was "off limits". The closest we came to this was Yamamoto, a military target, but even then, for various reasons, they needed Presidential approval to kill him.

I just can't understand how we felt that carpet bombing of German civilians was OK, fire bombing Japanese cities was OK but going after those responsible was wrong?

How would history have been changed if from day one the target of our military had been nothing but Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo and Hiroheto.

Non-stop bombing of everywhere they could be...............don't kill innocents, kill those responsable!

How would that have effected the war and tyrants since?

I'm guessing the line of future tyrants and those waiting to replace a dead tyrant would be fairly short.

Why attack the Syrian military (assuming they did not act on their own), the target here should always be those responsibe. Get the leaders and nothing but the leaders!

 

[Larry L.]

I can't believe it. I'm in total agreement with Mr. Craik. :stunned:

'Gotta go lay down for a few minutes...

 

[Jack]

I can't believe it. I'm in total agreement with Mr. Craik. :stunned:

'Gotta go lay down for a few minutes...

Me too! Good one Jim.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Does Obama not know that we have search sites? Does he think that if he says something now we will forget what he said before? Or that someone will come up with an explanation of what he actually meant on Aug 21 2012 as a translation of what he said? The sad thing is a great many are so smitten that they will believe what he just said and get a tingle down their leg.

Obama warns Syria not to cross 'red line' - CNN.com

Obama on Syria: 'I didn't set a red line' [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

 

[John Fitzpatrick]

One would THINK we'd learn.

'Off my soapbox now...

Unfortunately, the world has an unlimited supply of 18 year old young men who take their elders word for what is worth dying for. Think how many soldiers last words were "Please, God...", and most to the same God. We have a moral compass that we ignore when we think we're making the world safe for democracy.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Jim, I think your assessment of how all this is going down is bullshit. Here, in my opinion, is what's really happening:

-the Saudis, who hate Assad and the Iranians supporting him, are trying to con us into bombing Syria. They are too chicken to do it themselves, plus they don't have any pilots who can fly straight, so they want us to do it. They had the actual nerve to state in published items that it's the US's job to do this, never mind that it's all happening in their corner of the world. Saudis don't fight, evidently. They write checks and get other people to do it for them. They are a country of cowards. A coward is what I call someone who doesn't have the balls to fight but gets someone else to do it for him. A moron is what I call the someone else, and we are about to be that someone else.
-our President has backed himself into a corner through imprudent rhetoric. His cover for that is getting Congress to go along with bombing Syria- so that if they refuse, he can blame it on them, and if they go along, he's co-opted them. Very clever- but actually not all that clever, because if he hadn't opened his mouth about chemical weapons etc we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
-Mr. Obama has used force overseas plenty of times without consulting Congress. He doesn't give a damn about the War Powers Act etc unless it suits him. The whole business of consulting Congress is a con job. It's more bullshit. It's a farce.

There are NO good alternatives in this situation. Bombing Syria is unlikely to accomplish much of anything except provide a bunch of fools in Washington a chance to strut around in their power ties and bespoke suits trumpeting about how they've made the world safer. The Syrian civil war is way too complex for anything to be solved by an American attempt to degrade his military forces. Such an effort doesn't even begin to address the hugely complicated and shifting political landscape in Syria. Not only will it be ineffective, it is also simple-minded, which is worse.

We could fire a Tomahawk missile straight up Assad's ass between his butt cheeks and blow him into ground chuck and it STILL wouldn't make a difference. There are too many players on all sides of this conflict. It isn't a simple one and it isn't going to be solved by simple gestures organized by simple people. Just watch.

 

[Jim Craik]

We could fire a Tomahawk missile straight up Assad's ass between his butt cheeks and blow him into ground chuck and it STILL wouldn't make a difference.

Jimbo,

So here is a simple question,

Tell me, after we blew Assad into ground chuck, do you think his sucessor would be quick to turn to chemical weapons?

How about Kim Jong Un?

**********

I fully understand, getting involved in the middle east is a fools game. I nor anyone else i know wants to get involved in Syria.

My concern is the cavalier attitude I'm hearing about the use of "gas".

After the horrors of WW1, the use of chemical weapons was outlawed. Even in the depths of WW2, every combatant had chemical weapons, no one used them. Even Hitler as the Russions closed in did not use them! Why, because he was afraid we would use them on him!

From the end of WW1, only two people have ordered weapons grade chemical weapons to be used. Saddam Hussein used them and was hung for it and now Syria.

Since they were outlawed,

ONLY TWO PEOPLE HAVE ORDERED THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS!

You speak of this like it's nothing, why should we care? It makes no difference to us! Why sould we get involved.............Why draw a LINE, it's no big deal.......

You don't want to draw a line......maybe if we just ask nice they'll stop.


You have the nerve to talk of bullshit?

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Jim, you've misrepresented my position on this. Go back and read my posts again. Now:

The USA stood by and did nothing as a hundred thousand people died in Syria. The Syrian civil war began with peaceful protests that were brutally suppressed by Asshat's troops. The use of poison gas is more brutal suppression. This isn't a change from previous behavior. It's more of the same, arguably worse, but more of the same.

I'm against the USA getting involved in Syria because I don't condone pointless grandstanding international gestures by world-class hypocrites. That is exactly what our bombing Syria will be. The Syrians will parade photos of children and women killed by US missiles (the same women and children they are so blithely killing with bombs and gas themselves), the Russians will excoriate us, the Saudis will laugh into their champagne, etc etc. The result will be that it won't make a difference. If you think it will, you are sadly mistaken.

Sooner or later (probably later) the Asshat regime will fall, and Asshat himself will be publicly executed, more than likely. I'll be delighted to see that, but the successor regime to Asshat's will be another tyrant or group of them, probably Muslim fundamentalists. This will delight the Saudis, who do NOT want a democracy in Syria, and infuriate us. We will have spent billions of dollars to ultimately install another regime that hates us.

I agree that the Syrian situation is awful and that it disgraces the entire world. However, there isn't anything we can do about it. If we want to spend money over there, we would be better off sending medical supplies etc to the rebels. Bombing Syria is a fool's errand. There is no upside to it, and drawing an artificial distinction between brutal suppression by the use of conventional weapons and napalm on the one hand and poison gas on the other is sophistry.

If I am the only person on this forum who doesn't favor our intervention in Syria, I'm surprised, but I suspect I'm not. My argument for NOT doing this is that it isn't going to make a difference at all in any part of the world. It will not discourage any other country from using gas or any other WMD, and it will result in our again making fools of ourselves and paying to do so. We can't afford and shouldn't indulge in expansive meaningless gestures. That is EXACTLY what this is, and we will be sorry we did it.

I'm also sick of this country carrying water for the Saudis, who are a bunch of scumbags. If they want Syria bombed so badly, they should do it their own fucking selves. Their public posturing on this makes me want to throw up. What a world-class pile of shit they are, with their public pronouncements about how terrible the Syrian regime is. And that, after they assisted the Bahrainis in killing THEIR own citizens who had the nerve to protest about their brutal government. Just like the Syrians did.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Extremist in the mid east are like bad pennies, they will always be there. If we send a couple of hundred Tomahawks raining down to prove we can with little or no consequence, we might as well set fire to a quarter of a billion dollars to keep warm. This isn't the first time Assad has used chemical weapons and it won't be the last. We've had two years and over 100K people killed without lifting a finger. They have been killing and fighting over there for 2000 years. Fuck the mid east, let the mid east handle it.

 

[Jim Craik]

Extremist in the mid east are like bad pennies, they will always be there. They have been killing and fighting over there for 2000 years. Fuck the mid east, let the mid east handle it.

Absolutly!

I totally agree, I hope you understand, I'm not advocating getting involved in any internal middle east problem.

My only concern is the use of Chemical Weapons!

The world needs to take a stand, yes "Draw a Line".

The use Chemical Weapons will not allowed!

Assuming that the UN has absolute proof that the Syrian leader ordered this attack, I say bomb his homes, bomb his cars, leave his government offices a smoking hole and do not stop until he is dead or they turn him over to the World Court!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Jim, If we had attacked within a few days, without warning, we could have disrupted Assad's delivery systems and sent a message. Right now, we are going to do little delivery system damage and create collateral damage that will be paraded for the world to see. I agree with your feelings about chemical and nuclear weapons, I honestly don't see a good outcome with this much time gone by and our target disclosures.