Syria = WMD = War

If there was a last straw with this president, this may be it. Now we are headed headlong into a war only 9% of Americans support where no matter who we side with, we strengthen our fundmentalist Islam enemies.



The reason for this intervention? Syria has used chemical weapons on civilians, and now we are morally compelled to defend them. The problem I have is that Syria used these same weapons clear back in February, at we were not then morally compelled to any action. What's even more distasteful is the fact that the use of chemical weapons on civilians in the Darfur region is widespread and widely verified....by a regime that employs the President's purported brother. Yet we have not been compelled to action in the Sudan where 62% of Americans would approve of intervention and where the good guy-bad guy dichotomy is nowhere near as muddled as in Syria where John McCain tells us we know who the good guys are as he cheeses for a photo op with a group of terrorists who've been kidnapping Lebanese Shiite pilgrims.



This is from the same President who chastised Congress for failure to pass background check measures in the wake of Newtown because "90%" of Americans wanted them.



But here we are--wagging the dog again.

Doing ANYTHING in Syria is a mistake. There is no side to support. It's best to let them do what they're going to do and avoid getting pulled in any further.

From what I read from two experts--granted it came from facebook--the chemical attacks likely did not come from military grade chemical weapons. No second order effects from those treating those attacked, which means it was low grade. Also, no reports of wide-spread vomiting, etc. associated with a military attack. Furthermore, it doesn't make a lot of sense to attack civilians in the neighborhood next to the UN inpsectors you just invited into the country.



Pardon me, but something about this has a piscatory odor (smells fishy). I'm thinking it is a false flag set up by rebels to get the powers that be involved...but terrorists wouldn't attack civilians, right?

Amazing how these attacks have the French crying that action must be tacken, but Saadam's use of chemical weapons on his people was no big deal. I guess oil money can silence a lot of outrage.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Do we know which end the snake's head is on?



If the un steps in, which nations sons and daughters will be the first to offer their lives. If France and others are complaining about this, will they send theirs first? Will there be an equal % of kids from each un nation? Will we say, "Hey France, we'll back you"? I'll believe it when I see it.

The only thing that will come of attacking Syria will be more terrorist attacks on the US.



But we've known that since the 1950s. Carry on.

jvquarterback wrote:
The only thing that will come of attacking Syria will be more terrorist attacks on the US.



But we've known that since the 1950s. Carry on.

Not to mention a ramp up in government spending and a boost to a lagging economy.



But we've known that since the 1940s.

A wise and judicious Commander in Chief would stay out of Syria. It's a complex and deep pit of bottomless quicksand. It's bad people fighting bad people, fighting bad people, fighting more bad people, etc, etc.



So, given a choice, which bad group do we support? Do we support Al Qaeda? Wisdom would advise against that move. Yet that is what Obama's military strike would do - take the side of and aid Al Qaeda. How did we align ourselves with Al Qaeda? Regardless - that is a "no go!"



Not to mention, the Founding Father's did not give war powers to the president, to unilaterally decide to go to war - unless attack is imminent.



As James Madison noted, “In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. . . . Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.”



Sometimes it's better to resist those "feel good" urges and not climb into the pig pen, regardless of your good intentions.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/28/wasnt-senator-obama-the-guy-who-believed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remember back when Senator Obama opposed the the President going to war without talking to Congress? Good times.

Once upon a time there was a United States Senator who was very critical of the then-incumbent president for unilaterally waging war without asking for authorization from Congress. That president's actions pretty clearly violated the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, not to mention the War Powers Resolution. As this senator told the Boston Globe, "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." That senator was named Barack Obama, and he is now president of the United States

I think I'm in the distinct minority, but here goes. If the information continues to clarify and firm up as it appears to be doing so that Syria utilized WMD on civilians, killing hundreds of them, then the nature of its civil,war has changed dramatically and in a way that threatens even further the stability of the Middle East. I do not profess to be an expert or even someone very smart on this stuff, but to do nothing will be to embolden a madman further, one who is a puppy of the Iranians and Hezbollah. Think what they'd do with access to such weapons. Syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world. I am not advocating sending troops in, but if we can degrade and punish the Assad evils enough that they will not think they have carte Blanche to keep using these weapons, I'd support that. There are no good options, but in my humble view I think passively watching while a mad man destroys his opposition with such weapons will only lead to worse things. We saw what happened with Hitler and we can ask Chamberlain how that turned out. The fact that we have looked the other way in Darfur or last February in Syria, or Rwanda etc. does not mean we should not act here or now. Peace out.

Unfortunately, it's just not as simple as destroying some chemical weapons and delivery mechanisms (helicopters, rocket launchers, etc). and then "peace, out."



Attacking Syria could have extremely dire consequences, like them retaliating against Israel. Russia & China deciding to do something. Iran getting involved.



It's an awful situation with NO good options.

How come we are talking about wmds now but when Bush authorized the attack on Iraq the demos didn't whine, they howled about no wmds. Spiff, your quote from obama could not be more appropriate. He is set to do the very same thing he accused Bush of.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Unfortunately, it's just not as simple as destroying some chemical weapons and delivery mechanisms (helicopters, rocket launchers, etc). and then "peace, out."



Attacking Syria could have extremely dire consequences, like them retaliating against Israel. Russia & China deciding to do something. Iran getting involved.



It's an awful situation with NO good options.

I apologize. I did not mean by saying Peace Out that what I was saying, if done, would make things work out. I meant I was not trying to be in your all faces. I agree that there are no good options. As for the spector that an attack causes Syria to launch against Isreal, it is a real possibility. Doing NOTHING may also increase the risk of such an attack in the future. Does doing nothing embolden Iran and its nuclear weapons program? Iran is already involved with weapons, advise, and monetary support as is Hezbollah and I am sure what we do or not do will affect their future plans.

Just pull any foreign aid they get.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Unfortunately, it's just not as simple as destroying some chemical weapons and delivery mechanisms (helicopters, rocket launchers, etc). and then "peace, out."



Attacking Syria could have extremely dire consequences, like them retaliating against Israel. Russia & China deciding to do something. Iran getting involved.



It's an awful situation with NO good options.

Bingo! Ding, ding, ding! Absolutely - and the payback will continue for years - decades against us, Israel, Britain, etc. Any country who is involved in this "weak sister" shot across the bow strike against Syria, or is simply an ally of the USA, will get hit.

After thinking about this for some time, talking to a vet from World War II, reading several books on the subject, including the book about Hugh Nibley's experience in World War II, I am starting to come to the realization that we have not had a good reason to go to war since World War II. I am in no way denigrating the military service of those who answered the call to serve in the military, including my father, four of my five brothers, and myself.



If you go back and look at it in hind sight, the only theatre where the US probably needed to be involved was against Japan, and only then because we were provoked with the Pearl Harbor attack. Though we did help greatly in the European theatre, it was at great cost in terms of treasure and lives of the American people. When you look at how the war ended, the Soviets would have eventually finished the job. The Soviets fighting on one front, and the British fighting on the other would have been enough to end the war. Admittedly, the British and Soviets would have taken more casualties, but it was their war to fight, and the outcome was fixed the moment Hitler stupidly decided to attack the sleeping bear.



Look at Vietnam. After 10 years of fighting and 65,000+ casualties, the US left South Vietnam, which was then taken over by North Vietnam. Within 5 years of 1975, Regan normalized relations with Vietnam where today they are even considered our friends and trading partners.



In short, it just seems to me that peace is the better answer, unless we are actually attacked because after a war which costs a country lives and treasure, nothing much changes anyway. It seems God prepared a promised land isolated from the rest of the world so that those people on the promised land who remained righteous would be protected from those global issues. For whatever reason, we as a people are not content to live isolated from those issues and seem hell bent on bringing those problems to the promised land (as a more important sidenote, we also seem bent on losing protection because we are losing our morality as a people). How might things be different if we brought our resources home and used them to eradicate the drug trade in North and South America, and to be used for good purposes--such as creating our own energy independence and exporting technology and food to the rest of the world. In other words, we should be nation building the right way--the way we built our nation. That does not come by military force from the outside, but by the people deciding they have had enough and reorganizing their country.

I left out that we were attacked by terrorists supported by a Government in Afghanistan. I think the appropriate response there would have been to eradicate the Government via the Air Force, with no boots on the ground. Then leave the people to reorganize how they saw fit. Essentially, that is what is going to happen anyway as soon as the US pulls out. German and Japan were different from Afghanistan because they each had a history of a civil society. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan.

BoiseBYU wrote:

I agree that there are no good options. ....... Does doing nothing embolden Iran and its nuclear weapons program? Iran is already involved with weapons, advise, and monetary support as is Hezbollah and I am sure what we do or not do will affect their future plans.

We agree - this is not a "black and white" issue. To attack or not attack is very murky and grey.



As to the issue of doing and emboldening Iran - essentially - that is precisely what Obama has done for 5 years with Iran and it's nuclear program. When Obama took office in his first term, Iran had about 9,000 centrifuges. Now, 5 years later, they have 18,000 nuclear centrifuges spinning away.

Well England is out. I guess the parliament said no to the Syrian war. At 9% (could be less now) approval it's not looking good for this obama gamble.



In WWII the hurricanes, spitfires and their pilots barely turned the blitzkrieg back. The world still owes them a great debt. That would not have stopped the bombing and England would have been devastated. They would have had a hard time bringing Germany to her knees. Without our daylight bombers with the p 51's protection, jets and missiles could have come on sooner and would have threatened us and the rest of the world. I agree that Russia would not have been taken by Germany but Germany probably would have controlled Europe for who knows how long. In addition Russia would have had the missiles aimed at them. I'm not trying to argue with Cougarfan, just taking a look at that situation. I would like a discussion on this but no more on this thread. This Syrian situation is, at this point, different than WWII.

nuk13 wrote:
Well England is out. I guess the parliament said no to the Syrian war. At 9% (could be less now) approval it's not looking good for this obama gamble.



In WWII the hurricanes, spitfires and their pilots barely turned the blitzkrieg back. The world still owes them a great debt. That would not have stopped the bombing and England would have been devastated. They would have had a hard time bringing Germany to her knees. Without our daylight bombers with the p 51's protection, jets and missiles could have come on sooner and would have threatened us and the rest of the world. I agree that Russia would not have been taken by Germany but Germany probably would have controlled Europe for who knows how long. In addition Russia would have had the missiles aimed at them. I'm not trying to argue with Cougarfan, just taking a look at that situation. I would like a discussion on this but no more on this thread. This Syrian situation is, at this point, different than WWII.

You know I was thinking more about the ground offensive. You are absolutely right about the air offensive over Europe. I think with our Air Power, the Brits on the ground, and the Soviets to the East, Germany would have been done for. I concede the point on our necessity in Europe, in so far as the US Air power was a necessity. I am not so sure about the ground offensive.



You are right. This is far different than a mad man trying to conquer the world. And until that situation rears its head again, I think we would be best served to stay out of it.