Are we going to war with Syria?

Ms. Bliss, I'm so angry right now. There is so much I would like to get off my chest. It's late and I'm going to bed, but I would like to express my feelings to you directly tomorrow. I think we are about to enter a grave situation that will affect us all. Take care Ms. Bliss.

 

No problem, BlackTiger. I am all ears. Get some rest and will look forward to your perspective on it when you have more time. God Bless.

 

We should be collaborating with Latin American countries a lot more than we do. By simply adjusting some of our economic policies and being more open to new ideas most of the major problems of Latin America could be solved economically. Its a missed opportunity when you don't reach out to "democratically" elected presidents. Anyway Russia should be the main ones trying to stop the madness in Syria, of course the only thing they care about is Assad staying in power because they are all for dictatorships.

Unfortunately the prospect of profit even makes something as ugly as war look good to those motivated by greed, and quite frankly money has been a motivation for war for centuries. I wholeheartedly disagreed with the Iraq war. However if there is irrefutable evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons then he must go. If it were my call I would do anything in my power to try to avoid putting troops on the ground, but the dictator and his entire regime must not remain in power.

 

and by allowing Dictators that are cordial with terrorist groups like Hezbollah continue to provide them safe haven while they mass murder people with poison gas. That's the strategy you think is going to help keep us safe?

 

Depending on how big this shit gets, the military might wanna hold off on its draw down.

 

David Cameron wanted to go in with the US but he went the wrong way about it. Here in the UK we are still reeling from the huge mess that is Iraq, any Prime Minister wanting to take military action needs to make a water tight argument and just point to the fact that people are clearly being gassed and burned alive (sad but true)

I personally don't want the UK to get involved in force as there are too many factions. I don't believe we in west know quite enough exactly who these rebels are. However I think as permanent members of the security council we NEED to have at the very least done much much more on the humanitarian side of things. Turkey has done alot so far by taking in refugees but she should be given help.

 

You never answered my question. You have an on going bloody war going on in your own backyard and don't even care. Countless people are being mass murdered in mexico but you rather travel across the world to get involved in other peoples matters.

 

If someone drops bombs on Mexico who would they be dropping bombs on specifically? The president of Mexico was elected by his people and bloodshed will not be required to end his term. Can we say this about Assad? The president of Mexico has not used chemical weapons. Can we say that about Assad? Mexico's fighting is largely rooted in the drug wars and chemical weapons are not being used in the conflict. So, yes I would have a problem with Russia bombing Mexico, that's not a logical solution to their problem. Would the Russians bomb the drug dealers?? That does not seem practical to me. I understand that people are going to fight and there will be some civilian casualties, but when someone uses chemical weapons they a showing a blatant disregard for anyone in a certain mile radius young kids and pregnant women included. They often kill more civilians than enemy combatants. Now maybe that is acceptable to some people but I much rather live in a world were people are held accountable for their actions.

 

The Middle East is a totally different neighborhood than Latin America.
You can't equate the global threat of a regional war in the ME to the drug violence in Mexico.

If we, the international community of nations who AGREED on a worldwide ban on the use of chemical weapons, ignore Assad's use of chem weapons on his own people, it's going to come back to haunt us.

Take a look at a map. Notice how close Syria is to Israel. Remember how Assad and Putin were defiant in their denial that Syria gassed its own people, claiming it was the rebels who had mobile delivery systems that shelled Damascus for nearly an hour, after which hundreds of dead bodies were left in the aftermath.
The idea that jihadists had the means or the will to acquire sarin gas, mount it on the warheads of missiles and fire them within Syria is idiotic.

That's an advanced military capability, not something rebel fighters begging for U.S. support are able to execute.

A man who's murdered over 100,000 of his own people should not be given the benefit of the doubt or allowed to obscure the truth because the international community lacks the motivation to deal with him.

This isn't Iraq. No one's theorizing how over a thousand civilians were killed by WMDs. The evidence is apparent.

However if we don't respond with a targeted shelling against Assad's military assets, we essentially are condoning what he did and giving him the incentive to up the ante.

The only way there will be U.S. troops in a military capacity in Syria is if Syrian and Russian troops amass on Israel's border.

Putin is NOT going to go to war for Syria. The Russians may provide logistical, technological and military support, but the Russians generally let their client and allied states fight their own battles.

The problem with setting the precedent that gas attacks are acceptable in modern warfare is that Hezbollah shells the southern border of Israel routinely. If one of those shells were ever tipped with sarin gas, Israel is going to drop a BOMB on someone. And then the world would be fucked.

The comparisons to Kosovo and Bosnia are more appropriate in this case.
When Yugoslav dictator Milosevic was committing a genocide against muslim Bosnians, Clinton ordered air strikes against his army in accordance with the U.N. and NATO.

Again, Russia let one of their close allies go down in defeat rather than extend significant military assets to support his government.

If you really want to prevent a greater regional and global conflict, you send the message, or warning, to Assad, that using WMDs will result in a heavy military response from the rest of the world community.

It sucks the U.S. is the world police, but that's just how it is.
Too often if the U.S. turns their back on a problem, no one in the world gives a damn to take care of it themselves.

Taking an isolationist stance has never made the U.S. stronger diplomatically or geopolitically. Usually what happens is the world gets more fucked up and we eventually have to clean up a bigger mess down the road.

Living in a gated community doesn't make ghettos magically disappear, and trust the rest of the world is mostly 'hood run by thieves and gangsters.

No we shouldn't be fighting wars over made up motivations(Iraq), be we also shouldn't be so passive that we are unwilling to enforce treaties we signed.

Why is the U.N. considered weak?? Because all they really ever do is talk, rarely do they act.

I just don't think that's the model we should follow in foreign affairs.

To me this is no different than if Iran dropped a low grade nuke on Northern France, and we decided to do nothing because the damage was 'limited' and not a threat to the mainland U.S.:smt100

 

Excellent Post

 

How would you know if Assad actually has chem weapons?

Would you just believe what you're told like somebody's field slave??

 

No, like I stated before I would only act on irrefutable evidence. I do not know what the criteria is for such evidence, but if I was a politician I would make it my business to find out. Right now my paycheck is determined by other shit that requires enough thought. Funny you used the term field slave, would have been nice if someone would have held accountable the people that used small pox to kill Native Americans, instead of allowing countless people to die, only to then allow the process of slavery to ensue killing many Africans. Sarin gas is a WMD and in that case so is Small Pox. The main difference is that today people are held accountable for their actions more so than previous years. If Assad knew nobody in the international community would question him, chances are that he would have killed many more people by now using chemical weapons.

 

that is right flaming LOL

 

Those who don't fear reprisal from the international community will often kill as many people as they want for the sake of power, greed or ideology. That is what I learned from history. Now reference my post to FH and feel free to share what you have learned.

 

oh John Kerry, the things that come out of your mouth.

 

Did anyone see Charlie Rose's extensive interview with Assad last night? I was struck by how reasonable he seemed and thought that unless you're predisposed to trust everything the US government says, you could see some merit in some of his positions. And given the history of black people in this country, I have a continuing, abiding, healthy skepticism of what people in authority in this country say.

 

I have been and remain a very big backer of President Obama, for the most part I believe he has done an extraordinary job in the most difficult of circumstances. That being said, i just cannot support (based on the facts I have seen so far) military strikes on Syria. Use of chemical weapons on your own, or any, civilian population is pure evil, but I don't see an imminent threat to the US or our allies. There are other ways to influence change, mainly financial pressuring tactics and more diplomacy with Russia.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/09/fact-checking-claims-about-syria/

 

There is too much momentum now for Obama to back down without any action on Syria. We may strike there before November and I support that decision. What is also probable and lacks my support is the eventual placing of boots on the ground.

 

This guy bombed his own people and his own cities from the air. Men, women and kids

Obama flubbed this current situation and shouldn't attack, but assad is an affront to human values. The world is going to be very uncomfortable with letting an assad stand...

I'm pretty sure obama's gonna stand down. it wouldn't make sense to do anything else. But this is at least the start of a new cold war and proxy war betw the u.s. and russia

 

Doubtful. Russia is now wealthier than it has ever been and has little incentive to enter into a prolonged economic and political conflict with the US.