Should US bomb Syria?

[Irvine511]

we can't send them to Syria! there's another Obamacare vote scheduled for next week.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

we can't send them to Syria! there's another Obamacare vote scheduled for next week.

Depending on the outcome, will you still support the idea?

[bigjohn2441]

Are we supposed to believe that this is REALLY about chemical weapons?

[Diemen]

Please tell us: what is it REALLY about?

[LuckyNumber7]

The US deep rooting influence in the Middle East out of American interest? Seizing the opportunity.

[bigjohn2441]

I don't know but I smell a rat.

I guess it was OK when the US helped supply Iraq with chemical weapons which they used in the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's.

Oil pipelines perhaps?

[U2DMfan]

I think people, in general, just don't want to deal with complicated issues. They aren't comfortable just saying...'this is a tough decision, there is no clear answer'. Or looking back at history and dealing with the uncomfortable context of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. And so in lieu of getting comfortable with that discomfort, they place an Order over the Chaos. And so we get conspiracy theories about oil.

That's much easier to digest.
And the buffoonery or Vietnam or Iraq only emboldens that stuff.

Whereas the truth is pretty much what it is. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. That's going to be true w/r/t the U.S. for our entire lifetime. And people on all sides taking shots at anything and everything we do. Democrats in charge, Republicans in charge, doesn't matter. We can't win. Whether it's with our own people or the people from the peanut gallery who will never understand the burden. We can't win.

Get used to it.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Please tell us: what is it REALLY about?

It's really about Iran. And Israel.

Like EVERYTHING is. *sigh*

[deep]

sorry, you are wrong

It's about Israel. And Iran

[maycocksean]

We need to develop some sort of consistent approach to dealing with atrocities. The US shouldn't have to go it alone. There should be a UN consensus that when certain things are clearly happening whether it be genocides or the use of chemical weapons or whatever there should be a consistent international response.

I tend to lean away from U.S. involvement without the backing of some sort of UN Coalition. I don't see the argument for why the U.S. should carry greater moral responsibility than the rest of the world for acting against atrocities.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

i don't see the argument for why the u.s. Should carry greater moral responsibility than the rest of the world for acting against atrocities.

zomg! Because we're number one1!!!1!!!!111!!!

[digitize]

The problem is that we are not going to get a UN resolution as long as Russia and China are permanent security council members. As appealing as getting a UN coalition together sounds, at this point, it's a non-option. The options seem to be a French/American intervention or nothing. We have to compare them and only them.

[maycocksean]

^I understand that. And I still lean away from intervention.

So Russia and China are okay with chemical weapons?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

^I understand that. And I still lean away from intervention.

So Russia and China are okay with chemical weapons?

I believe that Russia is not convinced it was Assad that unleashed them.

[U2NativeSon]

Personally, I don't like the U.S. intervening any further in these Middle East problems. I hate to see how we are perceived and all the "hidden agendas" that so many seem to think the U.S. has. We simply can't be the World Police and as sad as these problems are, we just can't solve anything by dropping bombs on suspected regimes.

I think more information and investigation is required before we can commit to military action. It just doesn't seem to make sense, killing for killing.

It also appears as if something larger is looming here. China and Russia have to get on board with the U.N. and stand up if chemical weapons are being used against civilians, but also the U.S. has to respect the U.N. and let their determination of what really happened be brought front and center.

I don't see the congress jumping on this one, and have left a lot to be decided on. Obama on the other hand... he may just do whatever he wants, as he seems very comfortable doing.

I see this as a real problem facing the U.S., not to mention conflicting reports, if ground troops will be needed to secure these chemical weapons. No more dead troops for Middle East nonsense. We have real problems here that need to be dealt with.

I hate to say it, but the Middle East is in turmoil and always will be, Western influence only creates more problems, they will never get along, are quite happy killing one another and always making threats against the U.S.

The world is F*cked UP... tired of seeing U.S. always blamed for everything or seen as aggressors, this Obama administration has made plenty of mistakes, I hope they don't make another by getting involved in this.

[anitram]

The US should stay out of this altogether. What Russia thinks or doesn't think is irrelevant because they have a financial stake here.

But we have aptly shown that we have no idea what goes on in the Middle East, who the parties are, or who benefits in the long term from our interventions. So time to step away. Yes, it is tragic for the civilians, but life on this planet is not fair, never was and never will be.

Really, to me, I feel more revulsion that 100,000+ people were slaughtered by both sides than the fact that several hundred died by way of chemical weapons. Where was the outrage then? The argument for intervention is only partly moral as I see it, but has more to do with setting international precedent that this will not be tolerated. Then you hope that other rogue nations are at least somewhat deterred from following the same course of action.

Time to step away from the Middle East, invest as much $ as possible into renewable and other forms of energy and have that entire region finally realize that the rest of us aren't going to be held hostage by their ongoing squabbling.

I know this post sounds cynical, but to be honest, I'm kind of sick of the Middle East altogether as far as geopolitics go. Enough is enough.

Also I'd like to add that I don't really understand all the strawman arguments here by multiple people claiming that the US will be criticized by doing nothing. Really? Is there anyone here vigorously advocating action and blaming the US? Or anywhere outside of here? It really seems to me that there is no appetite pretty much anywhere for this action and I haven't heard any sort of suggestion that this will be the fault of the US if nothing is done.

[Irvine511]

The Syria rebels have claimed that we are "growing another generation of terrorists" by not stopping Assad from slaughtering them.

[anitram]

Yeah well, I hardly think that what the rebels think carries much weight given they are an appalling group as it is.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

The Syria rebels have claimed that we are "growing another generation of terrorists" by not stopping Assad from slaughtering them.

Sounds like a terrorist claim already. You know... strike fear in the opposition to get what you want...

Oh that's right because they already are terrorists.

[The_Pac_Mule]

It's such a shit situation. I don't really have much of an opinion on what the US should do. I don't really have a problem with sending some cruise missiles at Assad, as it's largely symbolic and won't do much to change the course of the war or stop the killing. If congress does indeed vote for strikes, the best thing that could be accomplished would be to bomb the airfields Assad uses to launch jets from. We know where they all are, and you can't move an airfield. You also can't launch aircraft from a severely cratered runway. That may at least temporarily reduce the amount airstrikes Assad can launch, which has been a huge civilian killer in urban areas. That would be symbolic, hurt Assad's military capability, could possibly reduce civilian deaths in some small way, and just MAYBE convince Assad to refrain from using chemical weapons again. That being said I'll leave it up to congress and will support what they decide to do.

This is heartbreaking:
10-Year-Old Works Alongside Father in Weapons Factory

Issa, who is 10 years old, works with his father in a Free Syrian Army weapons factory in Aleppo, fixing equipment for ten hours a day, six days a week.

When I was ten I was building legos, not mortars.