What should the USA do in Syria

Tiger is correct, especially with our nation no longer having real borders.............like last month when 3 illegals walked up to our motorhome in Seminole Canyon State Park asking for food, water, and directions. We have no idea who is entering this country.
 
launching missiles while in itself might not commit you to a war, however you better be ready to go to war before doing so.
 
you fire a few random shells at Fort Sumter and next thing you know, you have a real live war to fight.

I guess Obama was too young to have any friends in Viet Nam.

Playing Napoleon all over the world must be a lot of fun
 
I bit my tongue not trying to bash the President in one of the toughest decisions he has to make, that he would just go with the Poll numbers and low and behold my liberal fire breathing dragon brings it up......go figure the thought process......
 
There has never been a good outcome when we get in between two factions of a country. You can't trust either side because the leaders of whatever side are always more concerned with lining their pockets on the US DoD dollar than resolving the conflicts. We may take a bit of a hit on our credibility scale(red line and all) but we will experience a far greater hit if we don't get our economic house in order.

Leave them to their own devices.
 
Do we want the civil war to continue as long as possible or do we want one side to win? Which side do we want to win and why?

Bottom line is that we have been fighting a proxy war with Iran by supplying arms and intelligence to Syrian rebels. This probably started under Bush and intensified under Obama. I guess we are feeling threatened that Assad will win at any cost and we need to even the playing field. Thus, the goal should be to get rid of the chemical weapons and even the playing field.

But I am against this goal simply because the civil war has to end at some time. And I don't see one advantage of one particular side winning over the other. And it won't stop the proxy war anyway. If Assad wins, he will kill as many enemies as he can. However, I am not so sure it would stop Syrian citizen hate for the Assad regime. And Iran will continue to have to pour resources into Syria and the US will continue providing arms and support to the opposition.
 
another good article on why lobbing missiles is not a good solution.
The Link

I have lobbed a few tomahawks myself and at the time thought it was totally awesome and now realize it was a complete waste of time
 
The days of being the world's police have ended. Due to political correctness, we do not allow our military to go in and do their jobs as they see fit. As a result, we get involved in long, protracted civil wars. Best case scenario here is we oust Assad, and put in some other radical idiot.

I certainly would not tell the enemy what our plans are and I would stick to the constitutional responaibilites of the President. Let those idiots kill themselves.
 
He's going to knock down a few empty buildings with cruise missiles, that's about it. Kind of like when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan. This attack is going to be more token than some of his political appointees.

Mostly he's going to launch an "attack" just because he said that chemical weapons were a "red line". I think the U.S. will suffer an even bigger drop in prestige, if that's possible .
 
I think that I must have misread the earlier polling. I swear that I saw something like 60% support if Syria had used chemical weapons, but it must have been the opposite (60% against intervention).

It is clearly far more against it now.

I am normally not a big fan of polling determining what you do, but with the huge public opposition to intervention I think the politicians should listen. Absent some compelling national interest, you should stay the **** out of something when a huge majority of the public opposes it.
 
paso
YOU Sir are totally correct
" Absent some compelling national interest, you should stay the **** out of something when a huge majority of the public opposes it. "

and maybe the biggest reason is actually that there is no compelling national interest
 
Whatever he does will be too little, too late. So doing nothing is the only decision. If only he hadn't shot off his mouth about a red line. Now the only thing important to him is that he comes out of this looking good. It is always all about him. He is the walking definition of a narcissist.
 
IF the NVA and the VC are killing each other, you stay out of it. If the Chinese and North Koreans are after each other, you leave it alone. If the Nazis and Mussolini were fighting, you let it be. Same for Syria. They all hate the U.S. We have nothing to gain by getting involved.
flag.gif
 
It is funny in a pathetic way that Kerry is trying to use the rationale that the US should stop the WMD use by Assad ( or is it the rebels that he supports? we still don't know)
That Kerry is using the excuse that it is in OUR national interests to stop if before it spreads to other countries and perhaps even here.

isn't that the ' domino" excuse used for Nam?
 
Could this POS BO get any more ridicukous?
from Politico
"President Barack Obama warned Wednesday that the international community’s credibility — though not his — is at risk if there’s no response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, though he expects Congress to agree to take military action against Bashar Assad’s regime.

“My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line,” Obama said at a press conference in Stockholm, Sweden. “And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”



Remind me any supporter WHO drew a red line?
Was it the International community?

does he really think that by saying stupid stuff like this over and over he will get the vote? That we the people will forget about the proof we and many in congress have asked for?
 
Where have all the neocons gone? I have to imagine that Russia and Iran are watching very closely. I expect there will be quite of bit a nuance to the resolution should it pass.
 
Todays news conf in Sweden Obama said "I did not set a red line". What a lying POS. You just can't keep up with the tripe that comes out of his mouth.
 
dillo
Are you surprised?

And still BO's supporters pretend it is the GOP or ' neocons" that are wrong on this issue.

Can you imagine how most people/ governments in the world will react to BO refusing to admit he is the one who set " the red line"?
 
Cana
if that is his fall back then he should take it to the UN, that ' International" body.
Not go around saying he will go it alone
without UN or even congress approval.

but I know you are right. He needs to blame anyone but himself
 
Given the support in Senate, it turns to the House. I find it interesting that given the split in the GOP(despite Boenher and Cantor support) if any resolution does pass, it will be because Pelosi delivered her caucus. So much for the Hastert rule.
 
FWIW, Israel supports a limited strike on Syria but apparently is not gung-ho about intervening in Syria's civil war; better to let the Syrians duke it out among themselves as long as it doesn't threaten Israel. I think that's a wise decision.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
A congressman from Florida made a good point.
IF as BO keeps ranting it was the international community that drew the red line, Not BO
then where are the other 188 nations that singed the no chems pact?
Why doesn't BO get them, the ones he is accusing of drawing the red line, get them together on one side of the table and Assad and the rebels on the other?

If this is the huge deal where is everyone else? The other 188 nations? the UN? NATO?
The silence is deafening

WE as a nation will not look weak if we send missiles and planes into Syria.
No one else wants to

BO will like like the POS he is for making such a stupid declaration and then ignoring it
Until he needed the heat taken off him on domestic issues

It looks like congress will vote against this insane idea.
 
Obama, Kerry etc... are supporting a U.S. bombing campaign in violation of international law that will target the side that has agreed to attend peace talks with the implicit goal of strengthening the side that has refused to talk peace.

This is all about Iran, and has been since some time in 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling Assad, Iran's ally. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind his policy vis a vis Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top