A Case for Not Bombing Syria

[dellinger63]

It would be catastrophic if our bombing Syria led to a theocratic Islamist based government taking over Syria’s cache of nerve agents and other assorted goodies.

Islamists by their very nature are unable to have ambiguous views because they are bound by a fundamentalist perception of their Koran and religious elders. Children are indoctrinated from little on that the Islamist fundamentalist view of the world is correct because it is stated so in the Koran. The Koran tells them to kill all infidels, and who is anyone to argue with the Koran? They are so far gone they issue death threats to artists of comics they don’t agree with. They riot and kill over a video. And most sad is they kill their own for violating the misperceived honor badge that comes with being a good Muslim.

Looking back at the history of Christianity lends us hope. Christians were able to evolve from the days of the Crusades, later burning witches, to the point of where we are today with lone misguided Christians targeting abortion doctors/clinics with the same false perception of it pleasing God. Fortunately for the world, Christians follow a book that does not dictate all non-believers be killed where they lay or we may have been done millenniums ago.

When Morsi of Egypt, (as far as I’ve read, not radicalized) urged his people to "nurse our children" on hatred for Jews, aka "bloodsuckers" and "sons of apes and pigs”, he should have immediately been called out Paula Deen style, only multiplied to the nth degree. Yet our African American President called giving him congratulations. Our government’s consistent response of dismissing such behavior as cultural is akin to accepting Paula using the N word on her show today and tomorrow, because she grew up in the South. We along with our allies need not walk out of UN conferences and give statements to the effect, ‘we expected it’ but rather call them out and remain diligently consistent doing so.

Fundamental, radical Islam feeds off its successes whether it be electing a Muslim President in Egypt or taking down the twin towers in New York. They attribute their triumphs to Allah in a self-fulfilling endless cycle of intolerant and sometimes inhumane behavior.

We and the rest of the world need to do everything possible to prevent further triumphs and successes. To starve their radical proponents and prophesies creating a more humanly receptive Islam, an ambiguous religion accepting people outside of the faith as fellow human beings and not infidels.

If our bombing of Assad leads to another triumph for the radical Islamists, whether real or conceived it would feed armies fighting new made up fatwahs for years and years. We have bigger more dangerous enemies fighting Assad right now, so stay out and let them fight to the death. Allah will decide who lives and who dies. Besides look how much money we'll save.

[Rudeboyelvis]

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...o_nothing.html

I was in a meeting recently in Washington with a whole bunch of important people, when I heard a chilling phrase: Obama had “no good options” in Syria. It’s become a cliché. Aaron David Miller in a CNN commentary said there were “no good options” for dealing with the situation. Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast wonders if bombing Syria is America’s “best bad option.” This is how Washington talks itself into a war that has little public support and scant basis in facts or logic. It’s completely unclear how much military strikes will weaken Bashar al-Assad’s regime and also completely unclear to what extent a weaker Syrian regime serves American or humanitarian interests. Military engagement has potentially large downsides and essentially no upsides. But we can brush that all under the table with the thought that there are no good options, which makes it OK to endorse some shoddy ones.

Except, in this case, it’s total nonsense. Obama has an excellent option. It’s called “don’t bomb Syria.” Don’t fire cruise missiles at Syria either. Or in any other way conduct acts of war. Condemn Assad’s violations of international humanitarian law. If rebels violate international humanitarian law, condemn them, too.



What makes it a bad option in the eyes of many is the reality that following my advice will lead to the deaths of many Syrian civilians. That is truly and genuinely tragic. On the other hand, it is by no means clear that bombing military institutions will reduce the number of civilian casualties. Historically, military intervention on the side of rebel groups has increased the pace of civilian deaths, not decreased it.

[bigrun]

'Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please'.
Machiavelli

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

'Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please'.
Machiavelli

i posted that very quote on slate...along with this one:

there are three things necessary to wage war
money, money and yet more money

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...roval/Rn0Vk7Fm

I would have signed, but in light of registration required, I don't think so.

BTW what's the difference between registering to sign a WH petition and showing an ID to vote? You can fake identity on the internet?

[Danzig]

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...920dcb7e30b258

Aug. 29, 2013 6:54 AM ET

AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'

By KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZOBy KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press



WASHINGTON (AP) — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.


ok, i know 'benghazi' has become the go-to phrase when people want to criticize...but i can't help but wonder why there were so many contortions to avoid calling that occurrence what it was , terrorism...then there's egypt, it's a coup, but the admin won't call it one, and we all know why.
so, now we have a case that isn't a 'slam dunk', and obama 'declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible'.

i hate inconsistency. this makes no sense. and the more that comes out about the supposed chemical attack, the more unhappy i become. now it's a hundred people? yesterday it was 1000.


i think everyone here knows i'm a history fanatic....
ww1 went on for several years before we entered. several times in the preceding years we had reason to enter, but held off. and for good reason.

same with ww2, had gone on in europe since 1939 and germany invading poland.

but now, we've become so impatient, so anxious to throw our weight around. and to what end?

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._on_syria.html

i cringed when he first mentioned a red line.

what happened to not showing your cards? bah, he's more bush-ie every day.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._on_syria.html

i cringed when he first mentioned a red line.

what happened to not showing your cards? bah, he's more bush-ie every day.

Obama's predecessor said that phrase—along with his "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents—were among his greatest mistakes as president. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner," said Bush. " ‘Wanted, dead or alive’—that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted." The Die Hard–style talk made Bush sound like a cowboy who shot first and asked questions never.

Yes. let's not repeat his style..

And now the Brits want out..


http://news.msn.com/world/ghosts-of-...y-syria-strike

Always chringed when they referred to the 'Coalition' in Iraq..Yeah,
90% U.S.
5% Brits
5% all others..

[Danzig]

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

who said all that, above?? barack obama in 2008.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Mint Press News reporting Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

Quite the opposite of what the White House's news agencies (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al.) would have you believe - www.mintpressnews.com

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

who said all that, above?? barack obama in 2008.

Could someone please remind Congress? I think they like to put their heads down so they can say, "Hey, we had nothing to do with it!" Argh.

[jms62]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-...g-to-be,33662/

[bigrun]

Gearing up to go it alone


http://news.msn.com/us/us-readies-po...-against-syria

[bigrun]

France is with us...so what.

Striking Syria is a lethal quandary: The U.S. has lost track of some chemical weapons storage sites and hitting anywhere could unleash another disaster.

US and France prepare to act on Syria despite UK no vote

http://news.msn.com/world/experts-do...sites-in-syria

[bigrun]

Another country heard from...didn't 'we' liberate these people from Saddam

An Iraqi Shiite militia group on Friday threatened to attack U.S. interests in the Mideast if America launches a military strike on Syria.

http://news.msn.com/world/iraqi-mili...s-if-syria-hit

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

France is with us...so what.








http://news.msn.com/world/experts-do...sites-in-syria

comforting isn't it, having france to back us up.....

[jms62]

I guess the genocide that took place and killings that continue to take place in Africa is somehow below the threshold of what our government deems the standard for intervention. These guys Dems/Repubs et all are beyond contemptible. Have a nice weekend.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

I guess the genocide that took place and killings that continue to take place in Africa is somehow below the threshold of what our government deems the standard for intervention. These guys Dems/Repubs et all are beyond contemptible. Have a nice weekend.

yeah, some how it's decided that some things are national security issues, others aren't.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, some how it's decided that some things are national security issues, others aren't.

Maybe Obama doesnt get it but going in with 2 wars and exiting with 3 would mark his legacy as a failure. Even more so then his campaign against sending jobs overseas and seeing NOTHING during his reign to stem the tide. Overall though better than the alternative.