![]() |
A Case for Not Bombing Syria
It would be catastrophic if our bombing Syria led to a theocratic Islamist based government taking over Syria’s cache of nerve agents and other assorted goodies.
Islamists by their very nature are unable to have ambiguous views because they are bound by a fundamentalist perception of their Koran and religious elders. Children are indoctrinated from little on that the Islamist fundamentalist view of the world is correct because it is stated so in the Koran. The Koran tells them to kill all infidels, and who is anyone to argue with the Koran? They are so far gone they issue death threats to artists of comics they don’t agree with. They riot and kill over a video. And most sad is they kill their own for violating the misperceived honor badge that comes with being a good Muslim. Looking back at the history of Christianity lends us hope. Christians were able to evolve from the days of the Crusades, later burning witches, to the point of where we are today with lone misguided Christians targeting abortion doctors/clinics with the same false perception of it pleasing God. Fortunately for the world, Christians follow a book that does not dictate all non-believers be killed where they lay or we may have been done millenniums ago. When Morsi of Egypt, (as far as I’ve read, not radicalized) urged his people to "nurse our children" on hatred for Jews, aka "bloodsuckers" and "sons of apes and pigs”, he should have immediately been called out Paula Deen style, only multiplied to the nth degree. Yet our African American President called giving him congratulations. Our government’s consistent response of dismissing such behavior as cultural is akin to accepting Paula using the N word on her show today and tomorrow, because she grew up in the South. We along with our allies need not walk out of UN conferences and give statements to the effect, ‘we expected it’ but rather call them out and remain diligently consistent doing so. Fundamental, radical Islam feeds off its successes whether it be electing a Muslim President in Egypt or taking down the twin towers in New York. They attribute their triumphs to Allah in a self-fulfilling endless cycle of intolerant and sometimes inhumane behavior. We and the rest of the world need to do everything possible to prevent further triumphs and successes. To starve their radical proponents and prophesies creating a more humanly receptive Islam, an ambiguous religion accepting people outside of the faith as fellow human beings and not infidels. If our bombing of Assad leads to another triumph for the radical Islamists, whether real or conceived it would feed armies fighting new made up fatwahs for years and years. We have bigger more dangerous enemies fighting Assad right now, so stay out and let them fight to the death. Allah will decide who lives and who dies. Besides look how much money we'll save.:$: |
![]() |
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...o_nothing.html
I was in a meeting recently in Washington with a whole bunch of important people, when I heard a chilling phrase: Obama had “no good options” in Syria. It’s become a cliché. Aaron David Miller in a CNN commentary said there were “no good options” for dealing with the situation. Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast wonders if bombing Syria is America’s “best bad option.” This is how Washington talks itself into a war that has little public support and scant basis in facts or logic. It’s completely unclear how much military strikes will weaken Bashar al-Assad’s regime and also completely unclear to what extent a weaker Syrian regime serves American or humanitarian interests. Military engagement has potentially large downsides and essentially no upsides. But we can brush that all under the table with the thought that there are no good options, which makes it OK to endorse some shoddy ones. Except, in this case, it’s total nonsense. Obama has an excellent option. It’s called “don’t bomb Syria.” Don’t fire cruise missiles at Syria either. Or in any other way conduct acts of war. Condemn Assad’s violations of international humanitarian law. If rebels violate international humanitarian law, condemn them, too. What makes it a bad option in the eyes of many is the reality that following my advice will lead to the deaths of many Syrian civilians. That is truly and genuinely tragic. On the other hand, it is by no means clear that bombing military institutions will reduce the number of civilian casualties. Historically, military intervention on the side of rebel groups has increased the pace of civilian deaths, not decreased it. |
Pay attention leaders..
'Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please'.
Machiavelli |
Quote:
there are three things necessary to wage war money, money and yet more money |
Quote:
BTW what's the difference between registering to sign a WH petition and showing an ID to vote? You can fake identity on the internet? :wf |
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...920dcb7e30b258
Aug. 29, 2013 6:54 AM ET AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk' By KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZOBy KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say. President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike. "We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences." However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong. A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said. ok, i know 'benghazi' has become the go-to phrase when people want to criticize...but i can't help but wonder why there were so many contortions to avoid calling that occurrence what it was , terrorism...then there's egypt, it's a coup, but the admin won't call it one, and we all know why. so, now we have a case that isn't a 'slam dunk', and obama 'declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible'. i hate inconsistency. this makes no sense. and the more that comes out about the supposed chemical attack, the more unhappy i become. now it's a hundred people? yesterday it was 1000. i think everyone here knows i'm a history fanatic.... ww1 went on for several years before we entered. several times in the preceding years we had reason to enter, but held off. and for good reason. same with ww2, had gone on in europe since 1939 and germany invading poland. but now, we've become so impatient, so anxious to throw our weight around. and to what end? |
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._on_syria.html
i cringed when he first mentioned a red line. what happened to not showing your cards? bah, he's more bush-ie every day. |
Quote:
Quote:
And now the Brits want out..:wf http://news.msn.com/world/ghosts-of-...y-syria-strike Always chringed when they referred to the 'Coalition' in Iraq..Yeah, 90% U.S. 5% Brits 5% all others..:mad: |
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. who said all that, above?? barack obama in 2008. |
Mint Press News reporting Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.
Quite the opposite of what the White House's news agencies (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al.) would have you believe - www.mintpressnews.com |
Quote:
|
|
|
France is with us:wf...so what.
Quote:
Quote:
http://news.msn.com/world/experts-do...sites-in-syria |
Another country heard from...didn't 'we' liberate these people from Saddam:zz:
Quote:
http://news.msn.com/world/iraqi-mili...s-if-syria-hit |
Quote:
|
I guess the genocide that took place and killings that continue to take place in Africa is somehow below the threshold of what our government deems the standard for intervention. These guys Dems/Repubs et all are beyond contemptible. Have a nice weekend.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Now that the President did the right thing and is going to wait for Congress, it took Fox two seconds to spin this against the President. Hannity must be pissed he isn't on today to turn it on him! If the President would have went it alone, Fox and Hannity would have been all over Obama. Now they have to figure out another way to attack. I never trust anyone who cant say one good thing about the other side whether they are on the right or left. Ever notice when O'Reilly says the spin stops here? Thats because he knows the Dickhead Hannity follows him!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
good, i'm glad he's taking it to them, as he should have from the get go. finally realizes he isn't the only one thats supposed to have a say.
|
Quote:
![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
our foreign policy moves have been godawful for years now. but yes, it seems that lately it's a headless snake, thrashing about aimlessly. and we are paying dearly for the debacle known as iraq. we need a doctrine for the middle east. right now it's whack a mole. |
Quote:
|
i'm serious. we stand here with a big mallet and try to take care of things as they pop up. not a great strategy at all. we've become a huge international player, but with no game plan. what is our goal?
i think the president has an opportunity to get things straight. i think he should formulate a middle east doctrine, and take it to the un, and explain what we see as how things should be. that the goal is peace, freedom and prosperity. that we will not involve ourselves in conflicts such as syria, but that these certain weapons must never be used, and that the international community must be willing to back international law, else those laws mean nothing. we must weigh evidence, and must act. the un security council must change. it should be a majority vote. we also need to call out ALL illegal goings on, right israel? |
Here's a good Q @ A on Syria..
Syria: Questions about a chaotic, tormented land. Quote:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/na...a36600e2c.html |
And here's a rebel soldier, the side we would help by bombing Assad, point of view.
Quote:
Sharia law whether consensual or forced should not be tolerated and should be contained and extracted similar to how the world treats an oil spill or nuclear meltdown. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...g20uqtYAqgv63N |
Fantastic to see John McCain, whom ever since escaping from a tiger cage as a POW in 'Nam has never seen a war that he thought would be a good idea to stay out of, playing games on his iphone during the hearings:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...aring/2761445/ All this on the heels of Kerry now proclaiming that the unsubstantiated reports of WMD's....err....Chemical Weapons - are not as important a reason to invade as is our "credibility" >>>It matters because a lot of other countries, whose polices challenges these international norms, are watching. They are watching. They want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say. It is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something. They are watching to see if Syria can get away with it, because then maybe they too can put the world at greater risk.<<< http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ement/2749051/ He has also eluded to and opened the door for the US to deploy ground troops, and then quickly backpedaled when he quickly noticed the expressions on the faces of the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nd-troops.html >>>"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country," he said. Mr Kerry's comment was immediately picked up on by Senator Robert Menendez, his predecessor as the committee chair, who said the American people saw the issue of ground troops as an "overriding issue". The secretary of state was also criticised by Senator Bob Corker, the committee's leading Republican, who said the answer was not "very appropriate"<<< What country did I wake up in? |
|
we shouldn't act unilaterally. it should be thru the u.n. we haven't been attacked, so we shouldn't act alone...
or in tandem with france. yeah, france....:rolleyes: putin said that un action isn't off the table. |
Quote:
I think it's pretty clear that an American attack, without the sanction of the United Nations, the support of allies, the authorization of Congress -- or, it must be said, much hope of meaningful success -- would violate the Constitution. As Jack Goldsmith writes in Lawfare, it "will push presidential war power beyond where it has gone before.", Given this president's complete and utter disregard for the document, I guess we can expect to see the same outcomes as we've seen in Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, et al. where we've stuck our nose into other sovereign nation's matters, involved the lives of our sons and daughters along with billions upon billions of dollars we don't have, only to cut and run after we've created the mess, all under the auspices of the self-proclaimed "World Police". Meanwhile our infrastructure continues to collapse, major cities declare bankruptcy, welfare soars to it's highest level in recorded history - and THIS is the main focus. I must be the crazy one. |
Quote:
we need to stay the hell out of the middle east. welll, we need to get out of parts of it first! and then stay out of it. it's a cesspool. |
Quote:
|
iraq invasion was bs too. i have no doubt we'd have been done and gone from afganistan years ago if not for the stupid iraq invasion.
is iraq better off? are we? is that region better off? no, no and no. yes, a brutal dictator is gone. what's followed his demise? |
Quote:
:zz: All the countries taking in fleeing Syrians.Turkey,Egypt,Lebanon et all can no longer handle the influx...all these questions and no answers... |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.