To "atl134" actually, you are wrong. The Free Syrian Army doesn't
really have problems with Al Qaeda.See "Al-Qaeda-linked rebels
assault Syrian Christian village" in CBS News"Syrian Rebels
Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War" - NY Times"Who Are
the Syrian Rebels? A Basic Intelligence Briefing On the Assad Resistance" at
Policy Mic. Here we find that key rebels have pledged alegiance to Al Qaeda.Nice try, but again, Syrian Rebels are accepting Al Qaeda more and more.
@redshirtWhat part of I do not have the answers confuses you? If you
slow down and read I agree with much of what you are saying. It is one of hose
rare times we mostly agree. i think something needs to be done if possible to
address the treaty ciolation but i appose military intervention in syria.
Someone suggested that the actual treaty outlines what the consequence is,
perhaps that's the place to start. @ happy It is my
understanding the treaty was not done until the mid to late 90's which
would be after the horrible attack on the kerfs.
For those of you who are bending over backwards in favor of enforcing the treaty
against chemical weapons, ask yourself why the world did nothing when those
types of weapons were used against the Kurds in Iraq. And why when Iraq and
Iran were fighting and using them there was nothing done. As Hillary would howl
"What difference does it make?" Face it, Obama put out his red line
comment, and now he is the one whose reputation is on the line. No one elses,
including we the U.S. In spite of what many politicians both liberal and
conservative are saying, I don't agree that the U.S. has to do squat on
this one. And when we do have to act, it should be going after the leader like
we did Bin Laden. Otherwise our military action looks and is weak. I know
assasinations of leaders is considered illegal, but "What difference does it
make?" No one minded when we killed Bin Laden.
re:spring streetThe SMART thing to do is first have clear objectives
and an exit strategy. The DUMB thing is to just go ahead regardless and hope
things somehow work out. A 4 star general was asked yesterday at a briefing to
congress what exactly his objectives were...and his reply was "I don't
know". WOW!! That is vote of confidence for us all. We all know this
proposed action would have never come about had it not been for Barack opening
his mouth prior to the 2012 election and drawing a "red line" just to
puff himself up politically pre-election. As the old saying goes "fools go
where angels fear to tread". We are about to find out the consequences of
that saying and make no mistake Barack will have a list of people to blame when
things go south. He actually already started the blame game in Sweden today
attempting to detach himself from his red line comment and place it on ...every
NATO nation. Nice try Barack. They didn't make the comment - you did!! Own
it now for once!
@CGI will refer you to my post I actually agree lobbing missiles
seems like a bad plan to me. Someone else mentioned in a thread that the actual
actions to be taken are outlined in the treaty. if that is true we should be
following that plan not setting our own agenda. As far as other credibility I
think that is their problem but we must maintain our own by following the treaty
Why don't we just send them a very nasty letter.
To "spring street" why does the chemical attack matter? So far there
have been about 100,000 killed in Syria. Why does it matter now that chemical
weapons have been used on only 2,000? Do the other 98,000 not matter because
they died because of guns and knives? Why does it matter that a few were killed
slowly by chemical instead of quickly by bullets?If chemical weapons
are the issue, why are we not preparing to go into places like North Korea that
also have chemical weapons?Also, who are we going to support? Do
you support Assad, who used the weapons, or do you support Al Qaeda that will
take those weapons and use them elswhere?
spring street wrote:"What is the answer? Honestly I don't
know, we must find someway to address the chemical attack without getting into
nation building. people on the far right seem to think you are smarter then the
president or any of the world leaders why don't you tell us what he answer
is?"I will just guess that it might have something to do with
drones and air strikes against select targets of the Assad regime, and maybe
additional support for the opposition.
@spring street:***"people on the far right seem to think you are
smarter then the president or any of the world leaders".***Most
of the world lives in poverty.--Perhaps people on the far right are smarter then
the president, or any of the world leaders.What grades did Obama
have in college, and how did he pay for his Ivy League school? As his employer,
we should have this infomation.
@Redshirt1701You oversimplified the situation. The Free Syrian Army (the
major rebel group) is generally not fond of the Al-Qaida affiliated Al-Nusra
front even if they're fighting on the same side of the conflict. It's
argued that a lack of international action only would lead to further dependance
of the FSA on the Jihadist backed groups.Now that's not to say
everything's going to turn out alright with an intervention (personally I
oppose it) but it's hardly as simplified as "Assad or Al Qaida".
Well, as we all know Obama's approval numbers are sliding in nearly all
polls. So, its time for another distraction! Yes, Obama will fire a few missiles
into Syria and the new media will whistle and cheer about what a wonderful
"success" it was. Not shown or talked about will be what was actually
accomplished nor will be shown the innocent women and children killed by
collateral damage. All unintended collateral damage was shown ad museum by the
news media during the Iraq war but you see, folks, it depends on who the
@redshirtWhile I think they international community must do
something to address the chemical weapons, I and many "liberals do not
support military intervention. What is the answer? Honestly I don't know,
we must find someway to address the chemical attack without getting into nation
building. people on the far right seem to think you are smarter then the
president or any of the world leaders why don't you tell us what he answer
spring streetAren't Great Britain, France, Russia, and Syria,
amongst more than 100 other countries, also signatories to the chemical weapons
ban treaty?If other countries aren't concerned about their
"credibility", why is it our responsibility to defend the credibility of
the rest of the world?How will lobbing a few missiles into Syria
enhance our credibility?
Ok Obama supporters tell us, who do we side with in Syria?Do we help
the Dictator that is killing his own people or do we help the Al Qaeda backed
rebels that will kill any non-conformists once they take power and begin to
spread out across the globe?If you say neither side, explain to us
why the US should engage in the evil nation building that you accused Bush of.
re:one votePeace doves? Probably a better description is just common
sense. You NEVER go to war with no clear objective and start lobbing bombs into
the middle of a civil war ...among two sides who both hate you. As I recall -
Vietnam was also making good on a promise from some ignorant politician and it
too was supposed to be a small and limited police action. Ten bloody years later
with 60000 dead Americans it didn't exactly turn out that way did it. The
point is you must not only have a clear objective but you must also have a clear
exit strategy. We have neither. What are we blowing up? The chemical weapons
have long since been hidden among the people of Damascus and the rest of the
important military weaponry has disappeared. Blowing up some airport run way and
some communication towers won't do squat other than throw gas on the
already blazing inferno. What if Israel gets attacked? What if Iran responds or
perhaps Russia? Baracks "little war" could then explode in his face.
Sometimes doing nothing is the best part of valor...and smartest.
The spin everything against Obama crowd is looking like peace doves on this
@Badger: You do have it figured out. It's not that complicated.
"Just stay out of Syria".I don't know that exact
reason, but it appears Obama has another agenda he's not telling.
@badger and CGSo if the world community draws up a treaty banning
chemical weapons. which we have, and our congress ratifies it, which they have,
then fails to enforce what do you suppose happens to the credibility of the
world community and our government, including or president and our congress? Yes
Obama credibility is on the line as well but he is far from alone.
If the world's credibility is really at stake, why is the President the
only world leader who seems to be concerned enough to call for military
action?As Badgerbadger said, it seems that the President is more
worried about his own credibility, than that of the world.
Badger - You call your post evidence that you have the whole matter "figured
out"? I just don't think one wobbly paragraph gets it done.
So...McCain wants more than missile strikes, but doesn't want to use
troops...what does that leave? Our army of robots?I'd say at
this point, our credibility on the Syria issue is shot. We've stood by as
over 100,000 people have been killed by conventional methods, but now that 1,400
are killed with chemical weapons, SUDDENLY we need to do something! Where's
the UN been during all of this? Oh...right, sitting on their hands per usual...
And where are all the other countries in the world that typically chastise us
for interfering too much? Well, they're just content to let they Syrians
kill each other off (with the shocking exception of France!) You say
our credibility is on the line Mr. Obama? I'd say we lost that several
It isn't the world's credibility Obama is worried about. It is the
credibility of number one, himself. Sad for a man who is supposed to be a public
servant by virtue of the office he sought and won. If there is to be
intervention in Syria, it needs to come from the neighboring countries, or it
will be rejected completely. Christian are not welcome, nor any friend of
Israel. It has to be a Muslim nation. Perhaps we could support Jordan in their
efforts to help their neighbors. I am not even president, and I
don't even have tons of advisers to show me the light, and I am smart
enough to figure this out.