While the US supported Saddam in the war with Iran, Saddam used chemical weapons
against the Iranians, and even against the Kurds in his own country. That was
fine with the US, and they continued to support him. So even if Assad did use
chemical weapons against his own people, which is denied by Assad and rejected
by many analysts, it is totally hypocritical for the US to seek to punish Assad
on moral grounds. Do a web search for "war plans wesley clark" and
listen to a retired four star general explain how regime change wars with 7
middle eastern countries has long been planned by the pentagon. This is all
1st of all -- where were you people for the past 12 years?2nd - Why
was Romney talking about invading Syria BEFORE Chemical weapons - a Good idea by
Republicans, and now suddenly it's a Bad idea? 3rd - 100,000
killed in civil war in Syria is a public outrage, yet when 2,000,000 are hacked
to death by machetes in oil-less Rwanda you didn't make a peep?I just want you people to be consistent.I just want you people to show
an ounce of integrity.They one's making this a political issue
are the one's seeing an invasion into Iraq under Bush for NOTHING [but oil]
as good, and under Obama for humanitarian efforts as Bad.And if
it's political stunts you want to call it - call it for what it is; a
"BUSHesque" political stunt.The hypocrisy is astounding.
Obama says he didn't draw a red line. He also says he doesn't need
permission from Congress to go to war in this instance. John Kerry says we
shouldn't even call it a war.Yes, U.S. credibility is at stake,
but not in the way we had thought.
The new peace movement will save trillions. We will not need the level of
military in the new age of isolationism.
A couple points: First, substitute "Iraq" for "Syria" in your
second paragraph. Where were you ten years ago? Why were we being told to shut
up and get behind the president then and not now, even though your second
paragraph argument here was at least as much if not more valid back then?
Secondly, and I couch this in context of personally not wanting the US to strike
Syria, I think it's a cheap shot to accuse the President using Syria as a
political distraction. There are real reasons to consider a strike, such as
horrific human rights violations and chemical attacks by a government on
it's own people. A valid discussion in favour of a strike could be made
with as little argument as 'because we can', or 'it's the
right thing to do'. Whether we do or not, we'll see.
I don't think Obama intends to declare war, so does he really need to get
congressional approval? He just wants to get "involved in the conflict a
little bit. I think he is getting congressional approval, more as a measure to
cover his own backside. As with everything with this guy, when things go bad, he
wants someone else lined up for taking the blame. Funny how the investigation
into Benghazi is still ongoing and we may never get to the bottom of what
happened there, but we have known for a couple of weeks now, what happened in
Syria last month. I am not 100% opposed to action in Syria, in fact I
would like to see us do something more than the usual list of meaningless UN
sponsored actions. I wish in these instances, we could just be a little more
surgical, instead of deploying large amounts of the military. If only we could
just get the influence of the bleeding hearts out of military control.
The second half of this letter is fairly brilliant. It is very possible that
obama is using all of this as a distraction.
Wow what fantastic comments.One thing that is not mentioned that any
action we take in the middle east will be done on borrowed money.I
wonder how many "Hawks" would still have that position if we had an
excess tax to pay for our military adventurism. Pay as you go rather than
defering it to future generations?If we had to cut something
domestically to pay for our military adventurism what would it be that would be
I take issue with "one vote" and his sarcastic characterization of
non-intervention as "isolationism." This is a standard ploy of
war-mongering neoconservatives to disparage those who favor non-intervention.
There is a world of difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. We
can be fully engaged diplomatically, economically, socially and other ways
without intervening militarily. This is what the majority of Americans prefer at
this particular time.Stepping back from the question of Syria in
particular, it should be plain to see that Obama and the major lobbying effort
from AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, have their target set on Iran. This
is not about Syria, it's about the larger picture referred to above by
A hawk is a hawk and a chicken is a chicken.
This is not about Syria. It's about chem warfare, which must NOT go on with
impunity. No precedent can go unpunished.
Open minded Mormon-Where were you when 2 million people were
slaughtered in Rwanda? Or better yet, where was your president Clinton? Who is
the flip flopping hypocrite?Obama has made horribly wrong choices un
the Middle East on who he supports. Look at Egypt. He is worse than jimmy
Great posts, SEY and erichard. Using "isolationism" as a pejorative
definition for non-intervention is being thrown around over the Syrian question
as yet another tactic to get us behind the current administration. Let's
get the definitions straight.Isolationists build walls around their
country, are against international trade, are pro-sanction, and discourage
relations with other countries. In a global economy, no industrial nation can
sustain itself successfully solely on the resources it controls!
Non-interventionism encourages foreign relations as SEY points out, but not to
the point of entanglement.Non-interventionists are, simply put, good neighbors
whereas isolationists are not. Intervention into the affairs of
other nations almost always result in deleterious consequences, such as the
blowback that has occurred by the US intervening elsewhere in the Middle East.
The unintended consequences of intervening in Syria may be some of the most
drastic to date, considering Syria's allies.
There is also a huge difference between bravery and stupidity.
To accuse the Obama admistration as using the atrociticies in Syria as a
political "Wag the Dog", is to imply that the United States slaso
had some sort of hand in the access and use of chemical WMDs against civilians
just to divert attention from Obamacare.Ridiculous! is what I
say,and fabricting such "Conspriacy Theories" is childish, if not
dangerously foolish!But there certain radio shows who have made them
selves insainly wealthy by suggesting such crazy "opinions".
I guess the ONE good thing we have for have the Republicans suddenly about face
and become such anti-war pacifists -- Is they won't be able to spend
another $3 Trillion in another unfunded war!
I have an idea for Obama. A way he can intervene both militarily and give arms
to the rebels without using borrowed money. First the aid. All he needs to do
is sell "small arms" to North Korea for cash. What harm can "small
arms" do. Next take that cash and buy weapons and munitions and other aid
for the rebels he thinks will build an American democracy. There's only
1,000 different groups so the decision shouldn't be hard. Next
just go ahead and attack the targets you think will be in our best interest and
just after you give the launch command call Congress and tell them what you have
done and ask what they think about it. What do you think..good
idea? Some how the idea sounds familiar too me but I can't think where.
I've only followed politics since around the late 80's so maybe it was
slightly before then.
Irrelevant comments such as "Where were you 10 years ago?" are
representative of Mr. Obama's flawed war plan. He is fighting the last war
as are those who keep looking back at Afghanistan and Iraq. Apply what the US
learned in Libya and Egypt - there aren't any good guys. The neo-war hawks
like Pelosi and Biden are only supporting the president and they have no concept
of the unintended consequences. When in doubt, don't do it and especially
don't do anything certifiably dumb.
@erichard", it is totally hypocritical for the US to seek to punish
Assad on moral grounds."Different administration, it's not
Obama's fault that Reagan supported Saddam's use of chemical
weapons.@Hutterite"I think it's a cheap shot to
accuse the President using Syria as a political distraction. "Besides, the first rule of political distractions is to pick something that
has more than 30% approval.
@airnaut "To accuse the Obama admistration [sic] as using the atrociticies
[sic] in Syria as a political "Wag the Dog", is to imply that the
United States slaso [sic] had some sort of hand in the access and use of
chemical WMDs against civilians just to divert attention from Obamacare."Not true. Tragedies are exploited all the time by people who didn't
cause the original circumstances.Never let a good crisis go to
waste, right? Think of how Obama exploited the financial crisis to pass
Porkulus. Or how he exploited the auto crisis to bail out his union friends. Or
how he exploited the BP spill to bring a halt to oil exploration. Or how he
exploited Newtown to push for more gun control. He has a pattern of exploiting
crises. This, apparently, is how community organizers "govern."No one is saying that Obama caused all of these tragedies. He only exploited
them after the fact.
"...fabricating [sic] such "Conspriacy [sic] Theories" is
childish..."What is more childish: Believing conspiracy theories
or denying their existence?
Barack's "little war" is about as well thought through as
Obamacare. Tuesday those who can stomach to listen and watch Barack attempt to
justify his "shot across the bow" will hear a teleprompter speech
crafted by his campaign advisors ....in other words this will be a lot of blame
congress and blame the GOP and blame blame blame...mixed in with a heavy dose of
hypothetical hot air. Rewind time and erase that silly and stupid red line
comment made to puff up Barack for the 2012 election and I 100% guarantee you
there would be ZERO talk of bombing Syria. This is ALL about Barack and NOTHING
to do with US interests. Again - the low information crowd will be impressed on
Tuesday night - the rest ought to not waste your time.
To "Irony Guy" and who do you attack in Syria? Do you attack the
Dictator who has killed 100,000+ people or do you attack the terrorist supported
rebels that have?In this case, there is no group fighting for
freedom. We have 2 thugs fighiting for control.The bigger question
is who set off the chemical weapons? It was documented earlier this year that
Syrian rebels had some chemical weapons. Since they were being supported by
terrorists, it is reasonable to assume that they would use them if it would pull
the US or other nations into helping them.
@RedShirt"In this case, there is no group fighting for freedom.
"The Free Syrian Army, the largest subset of rebels. Those are
the Syrian people who were protesting at the start and are the primary
opposition. In the intervening two years there's been primarily foreign
groups that you referred to who have fought against Assad as well. The Free
Syrian Army is not fond of these groups but right now rather needs them as an
ally of convenience since well... they're losing, and nobody else is really
doing much to help them.
To "atl134" is that the same "Free Syrian Army" that had a
member of its militia filmed cutting out the heart of an enemy soldier, and
eating it? (See "Face-to-face with Abu Sakkar, Syria's
'heart-eating cannibal'" in BBC) The Free Syrian Army is also
attacking and destroying Christian villages. (See "Syria: Christians take
up arms for first time" in UK Telegraph.)So again, what group is
fighting for freedom? You have the the Muslim Brotherhood backed rebels, Al
Qaeda backed rebels, and the Free Syrian Army that is looking to implement its
own brand of Islam.Which brand of Islam do you want in Syria? What
do you think will happen to the groups that lose.