Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I've found it interesting that the term "weapons of mass destruction" has not been mentioned once by the Obama administration despite the fact that that is the reason given by the Obama administration why the U.S. should engage in a military operation in Syria. The weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein purportedly possessed were chemical weapons, the exact class of weapons the Obama administration is now using as justification for participation in a(nother) "dumb war" as Obama called the Iraqi war in 2002.

I think this is the exact sentiment I was getting at with this post:

Cameron just lost the vote in the House of Commons. Looks like the UK won't be joining the venture. I imagine the Brits are sick of war as well.

And Merkel pulled out after saying she'd join. She wants UN Security Council proof of WMDs. I wonder if Colin Powell's free?

This time it might be America and France only. Put away the freedom fries. We're going back to the future.

[unlucky]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

The problems I have with a war are:
a) USA does not have the rest of the world's permission (despite their ability) to be the world's police. They've lost the moral high ground a long time ago.
b) Obama's initial inability to wait for investigation results and just go full throttle into an attack was a very concerning attitude in my eyes.
c) Likewise, the talking heads on TV for over a week saying "Chemical weapons were used in Syria, and so we should attack Assad", but never actually asking WHO actually used the chemical weapons, where they came from etc etc was a huge red flag in my eyes that something was fishy.
d) Russia's report contrasting exactly the supposed evidence that the US has identified Assad is to blame is enough cause for pause. I don't trust either report (btw, where the F is the US' evidence? A report is no more than an opinion without open evidence to inspect) - but would trust a UN inquiry into both.
e) At the end of the day we know this has dick all to do with Chemical weapons that killed a few thousand people, when Assad's military already killed 100,000 by conventional means before that, to say nothing of the millions killed each year in African countries by rogue militaries or dictators where oil and natural gas are either non-existant or not easy to extract any time soon, and which the US has not expressed any interest in bringing democracy or justice to those countries.

In short, I find the vast majority of MSM BS to be insulting to our intelligence, not just for what they say, but mostly for what they are unwilling to ask and delve into.

I think a lot of your points reflect the fact that the situation in Syria is very unclear, it's not possible to pick "goodies versus baddies" and it would certainly be false to argue that supporting one group over another is the morally correct thing to do. I agree with most of your points - although I think Russia's stance is actually simple to understand on the basis that they are wholeheartedly supporting the Assad government, i.e. they are committed to one particular side of the conflict.

The "moral" thing to do would be to raise a massive force to compel the combatants in Syria to stop fighting, and then engage in a lengthy peace-building exercise lasting years or decades to rebuild a secure and peaceful society. That is well beyond the grasp of the US or any other outsider group. So the killing in Syria is going to go on for a long time. Containment and humanitarian aid are the only useful things that the international community can do. It may seem sickening to punish the Syrian government for using chemicals when they continually kill using conventional weapons, but it is sadly rational as part of a policy of containment.

[vt]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Asked how he came up with his reasoning for attacking Syria, Obama said: "I give full credit to George Bush."

Obama then continued, "But my plan is even better!"

[charliebrown]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

the timbre of this attack is all wrong. We have the pres, and sec. of state pounding war drums within days of the attack. Suddenly they know unequivocally that they know who did it. Balderdash. There is some hidden agenda to attack. Is it the nat gas pipeline routes, save presidential face, remove an iranian allgned country, throw the middle east into chaos to prevent an organized opposition to the west. There have been other atrocities in Africa over the last decades without a peep out of our gvt. Once again thousands have been killed in this civil war through conventional means and that seems to be acceptable.

The country that cannot afford to have the white house open for a tour, or dilever the mail, can float a flotilla of ships in the mediterranian sea and fire scores of cruise missiles. Something smells. Is this a tricky ruse? It would be a smart play if the pressure forces assad to give up his chemical weapons and they were destroyed. I think this idea was already floated around, I don't know who rejected it. Our media did not mention this option or who gave it the thumbs down.

Tomahawk land attack missiles can be fired from subs, why all this grand standing and telegraphing? Park a few subs out at sea, they surface pop the hatch and sneak away. Gulf of Tonkin? Not that I support that, but if the only thing you want is a cruise missile attack that is the way to do it. Syria has advanced weaponry from the Soviets, I can understand assad's defensive talk and I don't blame him if he takes a shot at some of those ships. What happens if one goes down??? what's the plan then? Full scale air war?
Does it spill over to Libya, Jordan, Israel, do the Iranians get involved? What about soft European and U.S. interests in the area? This is a hornet's nest best left "unpoked"

[Slimprofits]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

No!

[don]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Asked how he came up with his reasoning for attacking Syria, Obama said: "I give full credit to George Bush."

Obama then continued, "But my plan is even better!"

+1

"When Obama washes off his blackface he's Bush."

[lektrode]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

+1

"When Obama washes off his blackface he's Bush."

ummm... this might be considered a.... uhhhh... less than PC remark, mr don?

but maybe apologies to Al might be in order....

[shiny!]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

the timbre of this attack is all wrong. We have the pres, and sec. of state pounding war drums within days of the attack. Suddenly they know unequivocally that they know who did it. Balderdash. There is some hidden agenda to attack. Is it the nat gas pipeline routes, save presidential face, remove an iranian allgned country, throw the middle east into chaos to prevent an organized opposition to the west. There have been other atrocities in Africa over the last decades without a peep out of our gvt. Once again thousands have been killed in this civil war through conventional means and that seems to be acceptable.

The country that cannot afford to have the white house open for a tour, or dilever the mail, can float a flotilla of ships in the mediterranian sea and fire scores of cruise missiles. Something smells. Is this a tricky ruse? It would be a smart play if the pressure forces assad to give up his chemical weapons and they were destroyed. I think this idea was already floated around, I don't know who rejected it. Our media did not mention this option or who gave it the thumbs down.

Tomahawk land attack missiles can be fired from subs, why all this grand standing and telegraphing? Park a few subs out at sea, they surface pop the hatch and sneak away. Gulf of Tonkin? Not that I support that, but if the only thing you want is a cruise missile attack that is the way to do it. Syria has advanced weaponry from the Soviets, I can understand assad's defensive talk and I don't blame him if he takes a shot at some of those ships. What happens if one goes down??? what's the plan then? Full scale air war?
Does it spill over to Libya, Jordan, Israel, do the Iranians get involved? What about soft European and U.S. interests in the area? This is a hornet's nest best left "unpoked"

I, too, feel like this is a contrived crisis. Remember Clinton dropping bombs whenever the Monica Lewinski problem got too hot for him?

What else is going on that they want to distract us from? The Snowdon/NSA-spying-on-all-of-us revelations? A move to overturn Obamacare? The Debt Ceiling? Bhenghazi? IRS targeting conservatives? Fast-and-Furious? Those are all huge; each one of them could be used as a distraction from the other ones, and from war with Syria. Are they trying to distract us from these stories, or is there something else they want to distract us from? Some new scandal or offensive bit of legislation or Executive Order they don't want people to know about?

Or, and I know this might sound ridiculous, what if Obama really is a Manchurian Candidate? One of the best ways to destroy a country is to saddle it with so much debt that it collapses. Reagan did it to the USSR with his Star Wars defense buildup. Now, some say, the Russians put their puppet in the White House to do the same to us. There is circumstantial evidence to support this theory.

Crazy? Maybe. Or maybe crazy like a fox. To my mind this theory explains much the so-called bungling of the Obama administration better than any other theory.

[lektrode]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I, too, feel like this is a contrived crisis. Remember Clinton dropping bombs whenever the Monica Lewinski problem got too hot for him?

+1
yep, precisely what i've been thinking - esp considering the series of events starting in 1993 - esp one particular event in '95 - that led to a VERY Big Screwup in '96 - other than when we have a .gov run by a bunch of lyers... i mean lawyers, who specialize in delay/denial and obfuscation - after what will come to be seen as The Biggest Screwup in History - if not the biggest conspiracy - as i believe the PTB were manipulated by TBTF,Inc and all conspired together and essentially threw the election 5years ago, since they needed somebody (like all 3 branches worth of power) they could count on to 'fix' what was coming - just like THEY KNOW WHATS COMING now (in the bond market)

and precisely why the lamestream media REFUSES to connect the dots.... (hint: it would make their team look bad)

What else is going on that they want to distract us from? The Snowdon/NSA-spying-on-all-of-us revelations? A move to overturn Obamacare? The Debt Ceiling? Bhenghazi? IRS targeting conservatives? Fast-and-Furious? Those are all huge; each one of them could be used as a distraction from the other ones, and from war with Syria. Are they trying to distract us from these stories, or is there something else they want to distract us from? Some new scandal or offensive bit of legislation or Executive Order they don't want people to know about?

my vote = ALL OF THE ABOVE

Or, and I know this might sound ridiculous, ...... There is circumstantial evidence to support this theory.

Crazy? Maybe. Or maybe crazy like a fox. To my mind this theory explains much the so-called bungling of the Obama administration better than any other theory.

or maybe not so like a fox, more like a PBS - as in: bungling/hiding in plain site, then gives em more plausible deniability, eh?

[vt]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176040...#axzz2eFYXl9MD

Chemical weapon use by Syria is just an excuse. It's always been about Iran and Israel.

[verdo]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

What's funny about all this is that recently, the CIA declassified information showing that the U.S. allowed Saddam to use chemical weapons against Iran during their little war

It's only a crime to use chemical weapons when its against the interests of the United States

[cobben]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Here's a Swedish poll:

Stöder du ett anfall mot Syrien och när kommer anfallet?



Here are a few interesting tidbits, might there be more to the plan than a few airstrikes?

(from a comment, with links - I only pasted in a few short quotes)

Putin Stings America

September 4

. . .

Both Al-Rai and as-Safir have reports confirming that President Assad has said that if Syria is attacked that all the ‘red lines’ will collapse:

In Damascus, it seems that the government’s glass is now full and therefore, it is dealing with the crisis on the basis of "kill or be killed". Sources quoted President Bashar al-Assad as saying that he will not hesitate to use every weapon in his possession against all the directions in the event of a military strike on Syria.

Al-Rai: Sources close to Al-Assad threaten France, Jordan and UNIFIL

. . .

These sources said that the Syrian leadership believes that "the international group, mainly America and its allies, have launched skirmishes in order to open the front of Kalmoun-Zabadani in an operation aimed at igniting several fronts in the face of the Syrian army and dispersing its forces in in preparation for a ground invasion for a land invasion from the Jordanian side in conjunction with an American bombardment from the sea and air".
. . .

The sources stated further that "France’s interests and citizens and the interests and citizens of any country that participates in the war against Syria will be targeted. The peacekeepers in southern Lebanon (a reference to UNIFIL) will not be immune".

[touchring]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Why did all this happened in the first place?

Because the world thinks that Obama is weak, that Obama has got no balls.

That's why the Assad's generals used gas. They didn't take the US seriously - and rightly so judging from the response!

The other 50% responsible lies on Putin. Putin is also weak, he can't even control his own dog.

Once you permit Assad to use Sarin, Al Qaeda and the Chechens will also try to get hold of and learn how to use Sarin in Syria, and maybe one day in the subways of NYC or London or Moscow.... Everyone should get themselves a gas mask.

[flintlock]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I don't think for a moment there is any conclusive proof Assad was behind the gas attack. We are supposed to believe the same people that said Benghazi was a protest gone violent?. And Obama was ready to go with no proof. Just bam, lets go. People need to be asking themselves why are some of these Congressmen so gung-ho to get involved in yet another War in the Middle East? This is not about gas attacks, of that I am relatively sure. These people are playing with fire. They are going to get a lot of people killed, and many may be American citizens this time. Simply amazing how cavalier people can be about killing and war. "just lob a few missiles" as if Syria won't retaliate. Syria is not Libya circa 1986.

[DSpencer]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Once you permit Assad to use Sarin, Al Qaeda and the Chechens will also try to get hold of and learn how to use Sarin in Syria, and maybe one day in the subways of NYC or London or Moscow.... Everyone should get themselves a gas mask.

Are you claiming that somehow trying to enforce a global ban on the use of chemical weapons is going to discourage a terrorist from using whatever means necessary to hurt people? Like somehow it would be more "illegal" to use Sarin in the subways of NYC as opposed to setting off a bomb? And that's going to make them stop and think and decide not to do it, because Obama might not approve?