Delayed action against Syria

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by PounderofBox

Funny you say that. Was our freedom at stake say when Hitler Invaded Poland? America Has learned harsh lessons in the past from not getting involved In world affairs. On the flip we have paid the price for getting involved (Vietnam) but America must protect it's interests at home and abroad. And taking the moral high ground here doesn't it fall to the strong to protect the weak? If what they say is true that they are using chemical weapons on their own people then doesn't it fall to someone to protect them? We just happen to be the biggest kid on the block that's all.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Love how people think these words only apply to americans. B4 you respond know I am a combat vet I served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unless they have adopted our constitution then those words do just belong to Americans. I am sorry, I am tired of seeing the names of dead Americans, who have died for countries that hate us and want to kill us. There are other powers that could handle this situation, why does it always fall on the United States to clean up the shit storms that other assholes make. When Hitler invaded Poland there were other countries that could have stepped up, why does it have to be us. This gassing is just an excuse, Saddam gassed the Kurds, we did not bomb him, that attack was in 1998, Desert Storm was about Kuwait, 2003 Was about WMD's, why didn't we help the Kurds, were they any less worthy of our help. This whole act is about getting rid of a leader that we don't like and replacing him with one of our hand picked successors, where have we heard this before, when has it worked in the last 40 years. We wonder why they hate us, will bombing Syria make up more popular in the region? or will it be just another in a long list of reasons why their blowing up people on the streets of boston.

[Misawahawk]

I like to think our constitution applies to every person in the world. Although the quoted part is in the preamble and technically not the constitution.

When I read Pounders post it reminded me of a Kennedy quote- Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Those 400 kids are our friends in my book.

[Truckman1]

+1 I am also combat vet can home with wounds but could not have said it better. Semper Fi

[bartipero]

First if all, the quoted piece is from the Declaration of Independence and really has nothing to do with the Constitution. So as a philosophical statement it is valid in any context like the current issue. In fact, the document itself was primarilly drafted by Thomas Jefferson for the approval of the Continental Congress. He and others were very much influenced by the great philosophers of the time, particularly the French, not the least if which were Robespierre and John Locke who were very vocal about the proper role of government with its people.

That said, WWII is a good example of what happens when, tired of war, you don't get involved. The debate us still the same. If you want a seat at the table you have to be involved. We really don't have to guess much here as the same issue on involvement occurred, or close enough, in Libya. The points are all well taken, which is why Congress can take it up, but be mindful that their various ulterior motives and dithering bring lost opportunity. This is more complicated than these pages can cover due to the difference in geography and politics given this is not North Africa.

As for Vietnam, involvement there was predicated on a falsehood--the Gulf if Tonkin Resolution, engineered by a false attack claim in the South China Sea, by a president (LBJ) seeking an interventionist outcome. So Congress is no guarantee of vetting, either, particularly since they were not only incorrect and misled there, but also in Iraq. But that is really just one example. The pre-WWII Congress was just as problematic for different reasons. We know how that went.

In the end, though, the real policy has been containment, control and participation in shaping the world whether or not we are successful.

And though imperfect, in large part we have been successful. Each of these situations has succeeded, even Vietnam, though less perfect in most instances than we might like. Communism was contained successfully. We neutered our primary opponents to the point they are now economic competitors, even symbiotic opponents. The current play is still in progress, so we won't know for at least another 20 years. It is doubtful that it will have any more adverse consequences than Iraq or Libya did and can be a limited response. For us whatever the reason, the real question is whether or not in the end intervention will move us toward a 'friendlier' government formation. My guess is the real result is more like 'less hostile.' This is one situation where it probably doesn't matter, but for that seat at the table you have to play.

[pheonix63]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Unless they have adopted our constitution then those words do just belong to Americans. I am sorry, I am tired of seeing the names of dead Americans, who have died for countries that hate us and want to kill us. There are other powers that could handle this situation, why does it always fall on the United States to clean up the shit storms that other assholes make. When Hitler invaded Poland there were other countries that could have stepped up, why does it have to be us. This gassing is just an excuse, Saddam gassed the Kurds, we did not bomb him, that attack was in 1998, Desert Storm was about Kuwait, 2003 Was about WMD's, why didn't we help the Kurds, were they any less worthy of our help. This whole act is about getting rid of a leader that we don't like and replacing him with one of our hand picked successors, where have we heard this before, when has it worked in the last 40 years. We wonder why they hate us, will bombing Syria make up more popular in the region? or will it be just another in a long list of reasons why their blowing up people on the streets of boston.

Originally Posted by PounderofBox

Funny you say that. Was our freedom at stake say when Hitler Invaded Poland? America Has learned harsh lessons in the past from not getting involved In world affairs. On the flip we have paid the price for getting involved (Vietnam) but America must protect it's interests at home and abroad. And taking the moral high ground here doesn't it fall to the strong to protect the weak? If what they say is true that they are using chemical weapons on their own people then doesn't it fall to someone to protect them? We just happen to be the biggest kid on the block that's all.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Love how people think these words only apply to americans. B4 you respond know I am a combat vet I served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Boston was just the most recent attack here, and there will be others if we do or don't strike. In fact the reason behind Boston was because we didn't get involved to help, and the reason for the USS Cole and other attacks like it were because we did get involved. So if we are worried about pissing someone off it is going to happen either way. I like 6 out of 10 Americans that ABC news polled feel like it is not our fight, or problem. So we are the big kid on the block, big fucking deal, even the big kid has to listen to its parents or they will kick its ass. The thing that gets me the most is when they talk about the nations around Syria and how they are doing nothing but the citizens of Syria are flooding into them because they are too chicken shit to fight for their own certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, never mind the counties who could easily help by doing the strikes themselves.

[bartipero]

What would the other countries gain, Phoenix? Their risk is actually greater--no ocean to stop their opponents.

And the inhabitants are fighting the fight. There are the few in every conflict that carry the burden for the many. Wars aren't generally all encompassing. Even WWII didn't sap every person and piece if real estate in the battling countries.

But let's be clear about Boston--that had zero to do with anything other than a disaffected failure of a man and his no count brother led by the nose down a philosophical path of doom. Criminal acts have to be separated from real issues of the day. That didn't even have the legitimacy of a common bank robber who at least has a misplaced financial goal.

[pheonix63]

Originally Posted by bartipero

What would the other countries gain, Phoenix? Their risk is actually greater--no ocean to stop their opponents.

But let's be clear about Boston--that had zero to do with anything other than a disaffected failure of a man and his no count brother led by the nose down a philosophical path of doom. Criminal acts have to be separated from real issues of the day. That didn't even have the legitimacy of a common bank robber who at least has a misplaced financial goal.

Stability on their boarder would be point number one. Two the citizens of the other country going home and being less of a burden to them. Besides the last thing a country wants to do is go to war against all of its neighbors, most of all when they are fighting a civil war. That is the quickest way for your nation to become something else and for you to be .

[Enchanterlingum]

Like we really need to be in country #131.

I long for the day that we come up with something brilliant that will make oil worthless. That way, we can tell those fuckers to eat sand, we don't need ya.

We got 50 million illegals to get rid of, insurmountable debt that we add to by the second, 70+% illegitimacy rate in certain communities, entire cities where the kids cannot read their diplomas, and the dismantling of the military/industrial, prison/industrial, and banking/industrial complexes.

I'd say we're full up on our own problems for the time being.

[JD Barleycorn]

I have to second the fact that those words came from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. The difference is the Declaration if a statement of philosophy and the Constitution is law. The philosophy is universal and the Constitution only applies to Americans and those in this country (illegally or otherwise).

The first question to get answered is WHO used the gas? We don't know yet. We have Obama and Kerry saying that it is Assad beyond all doubt. Unfortunately, they have both been caught in so many lies that they have no credibility with their own people. If we run to every crisis half cocked then someone can fake an attack just to get us into the conflict. We need to know who and then I would like to ask why this time. This is the 14th such attack in Syria.

If it proves to be the Muslim Brotherhood then we let them go at it. If it is Assad then what are our goals? Obama has telegraphed our intentions; a short demonstration of Obama's power, a few buildings shot up and then we're out of there.

Is our goal to punish Assad? When did that become part of foriegn policy? Is it our goal to prevent Assad from doing it again? Now that is a tall order and won't be done without boots on the ground. By telegraphing our basic intentions Assad is now moving his weapons to civilian areas guaranteeing many more civilian casualties than have already happened. To prevent a repeat we will have to interdict Russian shipments and identify all the sites that have chemical weapons. Then we have to isolate them, put troops on them, remove them, and remove ourselves. Can't be done without thousands of special ops guys.

We could take a lesson from the French (yes, they get it right sometimes). When Libya invaded Chad a number of years ago Chad called on their old colonial masters the French for help. France sent the Foreign Legion. They spread out the men of one of two divisions across the entire frontier of Chad. This came to about one man every 100 meters. They set up camp in front of the Libyan army and said that they would resist if the Libyan army came within shooting range. Sounds scary? The other side of the coin was if the Libyan army killed, injured, or captured one single Legion soldier the other half of the Legion would invade Libya and do everything necessary to make sure that the Libyans would never invade another country. Khaddafi stoped his forces short of the Legion line.

Using the same tactic, Obama resigns and US forces set up camps just inside Syria to take in refugees. If any Syria military unit attacks or any US soldier is injured by a Syrian military then we attack Syria with everything. Why does Obama have to resign? Because we need someone with credibility in the Oval Office or, lacking that, an unknown factor.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I have to second the fact that those words came from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. The difference is the Declaration if a statement of philosophy and the Constitution is law. The philosophy is universal and the Constitution only applies to Americans and those in this country (illegally or otherwise).

The first question to get answered is WHO used the gas? We don't know yet. We have Obama and Kerry saying that it is Assad beyond all doubt. Unfortunately, they have both been caught in so many lies that they have no credibility with their own people. If we run to every crisis half cocked then someone can fake an attack just to get us into the conflict. We need to know who and then I would like to ask why this time. This is the 14th such attack in Syria.

If it proves to be the Muslim Brotherhood then we let them go at it. If it is Assad then what are our goals? Obama has telegraphed our intentions; a short demonstration of Obama's power, a few buildings shot up and then we're out of there.

Is our goal to punish Assad? When did that become part of foriegn policy? Is it our goal to prevent Assad from doing it again? Now that is a tall order and won't be done without boots on the ground. By telegraphing our basic intentions Assad is now moving his weapons to civilian areas guaranteeing many more civilian casualties than have already happened. To prevent a repeat we will have to interdict Russian shipments and identify all the sites that have chemical weapons. Then we have to isolate them, put troops on them, remove them, and remove ourselves. Can't be done without thousands of special ops guys.

We could take a lesson from the French (yes, they get it right sometimes). When Libya invaded Chad a number of years ago Chad called on their old colonial masters the French for help. France sent the Foreign Legion. They spread out the men of one of two divisions across the entire frontier of Chad. This came to about one man every 100 meters. They set up camp in front of the Libyan army and said that they would resist if the Libyan army came within shooting range. Sounds scary? The other side of the coin was if the Libyan army killed, injured, or captured one single Legion soldier the other half of the Legion would invade Libya and do everything necessary to make sure that the Libyans would never invade another country. Khaddafi stoped his forces short of the Legion line.

Using the same tactic, Obama resigns and US forces set up camps just inside Syria to take in refugees. If any Syria military unit attacks or any US soldier is injured by a Syrian military then we attack Syria with everything. Why does Obama have to resign? Because we need someone with credibility in the Oval Office or, lacking that, an unknown factor.

Okay I miss spoke about the constitution, but it doesn't make what I said any less valid. Maybe I don't get so upset over children in Syria, when we have children in this country starving, don't believe me visit the fucking Appalachian mountains, don't see any of you getting up in arms about that. I am usually a hawk when it comes to this shit, but this is their civil war, we need to stay the fuck out of it. Besides, watching the coverage yesterday I did not see anything close to definitive proof that these weapons were even used. do you trust the government, I don't, I remember Benghazi, I remember WMD's, different administrations but the same result, telling what ever lie is necessary to get the results they want. The easiest way to get the support of the average American is to throw kids into the mix, throw kids into the mix and americans would let you do what ever you want. Bottom line, this is their civil war, if other countries want to kill each other let them, we have our own problems that need to be addressed before we try to solve other peoples.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by pheonix63

Boston was just the most recent attack here, and there will be others if we do or don't strike. In fact the reason behind Boston was because we didn't get involved to help, and the reason for the USS Cole and other attacks like it were because we did get involved. So if we are worried about pissing someone off it is going to happen either way. I like 6 out of 10 Americans that ABC news polled feel like it is not our fight, or problem. So we are the big kid on the block, big fucking deal, even the big kid has to listen to its parents or they will kick its ass. The thing that gets me the most is when they talk about the nations around Syria and how they are doing nothing but the citizens of Syria are flooding into them because they are too chicken shit to fight for their own certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, never mind the counties who could easily help by doing the strikes themselves.

Why would any other country get involved, if they wait long enough good ole America will stick its nose into and do the work for them and then spend billions to fix up the place after we leave.

[lakecat]

Damn, 25 posts and it's still on topic and no one has been called a Nazi. Impressive, who says we can't play nice. My 2 cents, if you don't degrade his ability to wage war you're doing more harm than good. Take out his Air Force and helicopters to level the playing field. But be aware of the inevitable unintended consequences because the enemy has a vote in this as well.

[Kshunter]

This should be our Middle East policy, as we would say it to the leaders of the Middle East:

We will stay the fuck out of all of your shit, period. We will not intervene, pick leaders, etc. Israel can take care of themselves. Fuck with them at your own peril - they've whipped all your asses before...and this time we won't ask them to stop or to be nice. Sell us oil at normal market rates, you do NOT want to fuck with us. But most importantly, keep all your bullshit on your own side of the world. Consider that "Rule Number One."

Violate Rule Number One, and we will drop nukes and depopulate the entire area so we no longer have to worry about you.

[BigMikeinKC]

Hate him or love him, it was a shrewd political move to kick it to Congress. He drew a red line and this is a way to get out of it or not take the heat alone.

I'm with the no need to get involved right now. France has a hard on for it, let them do it.

[bdd748]

Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

Hate him or love him, it was a shrewd political move to kick it to Congress. He drew a red line and this is a way to get out of it or not take the heat alone.

I'm with the no need to get involved right now. France has a hard on for it, let them do it.

Here, here!!! I second that motion!!