Should the US attack Syria?

[piasabird]

When you attack another country that is going to war.

Dont delude yourself. Our assets like aircraft carriers, missle destroyers, and support vessels could be attack and sunk. We are putting all the men on those vessels at risk. Only takes one missle to sink a ship.

 

[Craig234]

money in the UNESCO, UNHCR, UNICEF etc. and all the UN specialized agencies is well spent.

I agree.

Countries that want to do the right things aren't hamstrung at all, you're free to attack any time, UN resolution or not. It's not like it stopped you in iraq or during the cold war proxy wars.

I partially disagree with this.

The UN and most nations have signed the UN charter which prohibits the use of force except when approved by the UN or in self-defense from attack or imminent attack.

So, we really were in violation in the Iraq war - the Secretary-General called it an illegal war.

And there are real questions about the legality of a strike against Syria.

In Iraq, we streched the truth with those stories that were outrageously false about the damager of Saddam having crop dusters spread WMD, or nuke us, as 'imminent threat'.

Similarly the Obama administeation is stretching the truth that the risk of Syra giving WMD to people who might use them on us poses an 'imminent threat' to us of attack.

Problem is, there isn't a good enforcement mechanism against our violating the charter. What are they going to do, pass a resolution against us? We can veto it.

But we are 'hamstrung' to the point that we follow the UN charter we signed.

People saying "we have to go through the UN" just don't want the attack to happen and use it as a diplomatic shield.

Actually, people who support the UN and don't want the charter to be ignored, but do want the attack, also say that. I'm considering joining that camp.

 

[Craig234]

When you attack another country that is going to war.

Dont delude yourself. Our assets like aircraft carriers, missle destroyers, and support vessels could be attack and sunk. We are putting all the men on those vessels at risk. Only takes one missle to sink a ship.

It is an act of war. The danger to our military might not be that high - a retaliation could get them a massive response they don't want.

It's easy for us to say 'oh, it's just a missile strike, it's not war', but imagine if a country were 'just launching some missiles at places like the Pentagon'

 

[Agent11]

Kerry makes an off-hand remark, Russia jumps on the opportunity to resolve the crisis, state department attempts to walk back Kerry's statement.

I hope this works out, it would be our best option in my opinion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Kerry makes an off-hand remark, Russia jumps on the opportunity to resolve the crisis, state department attempts to walk back Kerry's statement.

I hope this works out, it would be our best option in my opinion.

There's a link in the other forum where the State Department is already working to kill this, calling Kerry's comment "rhetorical". Kerry and His Nibs wants this, Precious.

 

[2timer]

When you attack another country that is going to war.

Dont delude yourself. Our assets like aircraft carriers, missle destroyers, and support vessels could be attack and sunk. We are putting all the men on those vessels at risk. Only takes one missle to sink a ship.

I think you have the concept of "war with Syria/Afghanistan/Congo" confused with the concept of "war with China/Russia/Germany/France."

Two entirely different concepts for a country like the United States. Obviously, nobody would confuse a missile strike on Syria with a missile strike on China.

 

[woolfe9998]

There's a link in the other forum where the State Department is already working to kill this, calling Kerry's comment "rhetorical". Kerry and His Nibs wants this, Precious.

But the comment WAS rhetorical:

“Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting.” He immediately dismissed the possibility that Mr. Assad would or could comply, saying, “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done.”

 

[Craig234]

Seems like Kerry spoke poorly, to begin with "he could" and end with "it can't be done".

Also bad, it comes across like he's referring to peaceful options'as a pretense.

A bit like Clinton's purported peacefu; option in Bosnia, where the demands included being able to place NATO forces anywhere they wanted in the country.

A condition they knew was unacceptable, but it sounded good like 'he turned down a peaceful offer'.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

 

[Charles Kozierok]

money in the UNESCO, UNHCR, UNICEF etc. and all the UN specialized agencies is well spent.

Based on what? In order to ascertain that we'd need to see exactly what results they obtain compared to the resources they are given. There are lots of humanitarian organizations, and I'm sure given the same money they could do just as much good. If not more.

At any rate, that has nothing to do with the more formal role the UN plays.

Countries that want to do the right things aren't hamstrung at all, you're free to attack any time, UN resolution or not. It's not like it stopped you in iraq or during the cold war proxy wars.

Well, that's pretty much what I'm arguing: that they should ignore the UN and do what they feel is right. Unfortunately, they don't do that.

And you're mistaken about the hamstringing. The existence of the UN and its joke of a "security council" hangs over pretty much all international affairs. It leads to arguments such as the one I heard on the radio today: "We can't go into Syria based on a claim that we're enforcing international law without a UN mandate because then we are breaking international law".

The problem is allowing ourselves to be put into a position where we must choose between "breaking international law" or being manipulated by the likes of Russia and China.

People saying "we have to go through the UN" just don't want the attack to happen and use it as a diplomatic shield.

One of many reasons why it is less than useless.

 

[Engineer]

There's a link in the other forum where the State Department is already working to kill this, calling Kerry's comment "rhetorical". Kerry and His Nibs wants this, Precious.

Too late...Russia has talked Syria into accepting this deal.

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-says-accepted-russian-weapons-proposal-114743241.html

 

[Murloc]

The problem is allowing ourselves to be put into a position where we must choose between "breaking international law" or being manipulated by the likes of Russia and China.

yes, but at the same time you can manipulate everybody else on issues such as israel.
The US gained much more from this than the oppositors imho, because it's strong enough to go to war even without UN support without facing any consequences since there is nothing they can do about it except suck it up and recall ambassadors. Meanwhile russia or china can't do anything illegally without fearing a US reaction.

 

[smackababy]

Too late...Russia has talked Syria into accepting this deal.

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-says-accepted-russian-weapons-proposal-114743241.html

Accepting the deal and actually following through with it are two entirely different things. Syria must know that not meeting the requirements or not fully cooperating will surely end in some sort of military action.

 

[Craig234]

This is looking like a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis diplomatic action by Russia.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, with nuclear war at stake, a race to get the missiles operational, the US leaders mostly favoring an invasion or at least air strikes, the clock ticking, Kruschev sent a letter to President Kennedy. It opened the door to a peaceful solution. The next day, another letter arrived, much more hardline, with positions that were unacceptable to the US. The US interpreted as the first letter having been an unauthorized personal letter and the second written by the Politburo.

The Kennedy administration came up with a creative idea. They wrote a reply agreeing to the terms in the first letter and pretended the second didn't exist.

This created a peaceful option for the Soviets - and they took it.

This is seeming to be a sort of reverse. John Kerry (another JFK) seems to have inadvertantly opened the door to terms the administration did not intend, and the Russiand and Syrians raced to accept the idea, putting great pressure on the US to do the same instead of taking miltary action.

 

[smackababy]

I do think Kerry's terms were reasonable though. If they hand over all their chemical weapons, I don't believe we should do anything more than offer humanitarian aid to the refugees of Syria. If they jerk us around, we should bomb the hell out of them.

Our politicians love to talk a hard line, but very few walk it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Accepting the deal and actually following through with it are two entirely different things. Syria must know that not meeting the requirements or not fully cooperating will surely end in some sort of military action.

I am sure that Assad can look next door and realize that.

 

[Craig234]

President Obama spoke to the nation on Syria tonight.

It wasn't a terrible speech but I was disappointed in it in a number of areas.

It didn't seem to have that much clarity of the larger issue of this international norm on WMD - the way to prevent others from using them, what to do if Assad used them again, the issue of how the UN is the right place to resolve this but is gridlocked by the Russian veto.

He's still sticking with his message that he has the right to launch an attack without congressional approval, which contradicts his own statement as a Senator that the President has no such power - and contradicts the US constitution and the UN charter as well. He says basically he's just doing something nice by involving Congress.

When recounting the use of WMD - which includes WWI, Hitler and Saddam - he left out Saddam, conveniently, since the US was supporting Saddam at the time and helped conceal their use when the victim, Iran, came to the United Nation as they should to report their use.

It had moments of crudeness - a presidential address debating the idea of assassinating Assad, with the phrase about 'taking him out' - ignoring all the issues and history of the US with problematic assassination of foreign leaders and simply said we don't want to for the selfish reason that if you kill the dictator, you're too responsible for the nation.
What a bunch of garbled mush on the issue.

Sometimes Obama can come across as a real lightweight on the important national issues. This speech largely seemed one of those times.

That's certainly not to endorce anyone to the right of him on this - from the militant 'responsible' wing of Republicans to the nutty tea party elements. Thank goodness we have Obama instead of any of them - incuding McCain or Romney - in power. But he seems to be muddling his way on the issue, not really showing great leadership for a good larger plan.

To be fair, there are no easy answers he's not embracing. For example, there's no feasible 'fix' to the broken UN issue.

But this comes across not as thoughtful but boilerplate - thank you great and wonderful troops for your amazing service, America is such an exceptional nation.

Ed Schulz pointed out the contradiction in the speech betwen saying 'America is not the world's policeman' - a phrase he unfortunately repeated - while also arguing how the US is the world's security basis for 70 years and the only nation that canand should use force against wrongdoing. Very confused messages, like adding in sentences to appease different groups without caring about any conflict between the sentences.

Not his best moment.

 

[EagleKeeper]

He was supposed to lay out his case to the American people.

Instead Kerry's offhand flippant remark has blindsided him.

As stated above; he was backed now into a corner and again looks weak.

 

[Paul98]

He was supposed to lay out his case to the American people.

Instead Kerry's offhand flippant remark has blindsided him.

As stated above; he was backed now into a corner and again looks weak.

Would you have rather he looked strong and attacked Syria?

 

[Craig234]

Would you have rather he looked strong and attacked Syria?

Exactly. Whatever Obama's problem here, the right is looking like idiots when they try to attack him as they are on Fox for things like 'the US has suffered a massive defeat'.

Kerry's offhand remark blindsided him, but he's responded pretty well to it. He's 'giving peace a chance' here - very unusual and a nice precedent. But there are still risks.

The world has not yet figured out this whole civil war and proxy war thing yet. Assad, for reasons of global pwer tensions, is supported by Russia, using their arms to slaughter the Syrianis who don't like his dictatorship. What can the world do with a Russian UN veto? Little but say 'it's a civil war, sorry millions of Syrani refugees, sucks.'

Then you have the US potentionally - not so much under Obama - looking for whatever pretense to arm the other side.

It's a cataqstrophe we're not well equipped as the human race to deal with.

There are always the options like assassination - which quickly turn into their own abuse and cause their own problems.

Not from one country, on any side of the issue, in this years-long crisis have I heard one word about UN reform to help with this.

Bottom line seems to be big power backing is still what determines what happens, and that has little to do with 'right and wrong'.

I would like to see the world including the US do more to help the nations receiving the refugees.

What should the world do in the face of a large percentage of people feeling they're under a dictator and rebelling? Leave them to tyranny? Leav them to slaughter? Before supporting them, recognize that that precedent is then easily abused to support a phony 'rebellion' in a country simply for wrong and selfish reasons as well.

I'm glad this crisis is moving in the direction of not violating our constitution and the UN charter - it'd just be nice if Obama agree those were issues.

 

[Paul98]

Or another thought. Is the reason Syria may be considering disposing of it's chemical weapons because of the what seemed like an imminent attack from the USA?

 

[ralfy]

Possibly another false flag, with the military getting its armaments, multinational corporations set to profit, and sheeple unwittingly footing the war costs.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Would you have rather he looked strong and attacked Syria?

Did he lay out the case to the people - NO
That was supposed to be the primary reason for this conference.

Dear in the headlights look!

 

[chucky2]

I think you all should consider that Kerrys offhand remark wasn't a blindside, and that it was done purposefully in a deal brokered by RU. US gets a little egg on its face, but, gets out of having to attack Syria, Syria doesn't get lit up by the US, and RU gets to get world credit plus sell more hardware to Syria (and Iran).

Thanks Putin!

 

[EagleKeeper]

I think you all should consider that Kerrys offhand remark wasn't a blindside, and that it was done purposefully in a deal brokered by RU. US gets a little egg on its face, but, gets out of having to attack Syria, Syria doesn't get lit up by the US, and RU gets to get world credit plus sell more hardware to Syria (and Iran).

Thanks Putin!

Had Kerry not inserted his last sentence; I could go along with it that it was planned.

Slapping Putnin in the face with the sarcasm