Syria became a perfect political football for President Obama

[Little Earl]

Newt Gingrich has it right.  He said, "The most powerful nation in the world does not need a three- or four-week debate about a limited, symbolic, tactical use of power.  "What we do need are three debates about very large strategic challenges," he added, referring to Iran's nuclear program, the spread of radical Islamism, and the vulnerabilities in the U.S. military being created by "budgetary drawdowns."


 

[volntitan]

You lost me at "Newt Gingrich".  The man is a buffoon 

[IsntLifeFunny]

It's kind of sad to me that this thread has devolved into nothing more than partisan bickering (even though the OP was obviously extremely bias). If this was Bush, then half the comments would support him. Since it's Obama, half of the comments support him and the other half deride him. Almost none of the posts are about the fact we are about to enter a war with a country that has never posed a threat to the United States of America. Almost none of the posts are discussing the fact that we are about to support the same group that attacked us on 911.

 

This thread is a microcosm of America in many ways. We have a few people discussing the actual situation, and the rest is partisan bullshit. No one wants to acknowledge the fact that if we destabilize Assad to the point of being overthrown that we will, in the most literal sense, be handing stockpiles of chemical weapons to fundamentalist hellbent on chaos. No one is discussing the fact that our closest ally (Israel, at least  in terms of aid) shares a close border to Syria; and if we hand over access to people that openly admit they want the destruction of Israel then they have been handed the means to do so if they please. No one is discussing the fact that no evidence has been shown to support the notion that the Assad Regime was responsible for this atrocity. Why?

 

Why is everything so damn partisan? Why can't we discuss the fact that a 'limited strike' it tantamount to war and is pointless? We might as well go full blown if we are to go at all. Why is no one discussing the fact that Al-Nusra and Al-Queda fill the ranks of the so called 'rebels'? McCain had the audacity to say that the rebels are 'moderates'...which is nonsensical, since even rebels with a just cause are extremists in one way or another (American Revolution).

 

We are headed into uncharted territory on this one, and yet most people are not having a discussion without being extremely partisan (honestly I wouldn't care what party is in power when it comes to this exact situation). If we go to war, then it does nothing but prove this government is no longer responding to the U.S. Populace. We literally run the risk of our government becoming illegitimate over this situation (nearly every poll shows a massive majority are against this war, and even the military and pentagon are making their displeasure known). The country is heavily against this war; hopefully the people have made themselves clear.

 

 ETA: I'm not trying to degrade the intelligent conversation that has taken place in this thread. It is just frustrating that logical debate is constantly overshadowed by partisan bickering. Even I can see the justification for striking Syria, even though I don't agree with it, which is the point of debating in the first place (understanding and refuting an opponent's argument is not the same as refuting without understanding). The same is happening throughout the media and Congress: Intelligent debate is constantly stifled by partisanship.

[OILERMAN]

4 If we go to war, then it does nothing but prove this government is no longer responding to the U.S. Populace.

 

That happened a long time ago.....

[ALTitan]

 What is interesting here is that ALL US opinion polls show that 3/4 of the country is against intervention into Syria.

Considering that Congressmen are currently at their districts and meeting people, it would be interesting if 3/4 of the people have the power to influence their local representatives. 

[ALTitan]

 So, outside of Starkiller and a few other warmongering liberals, who else is in support of attacking Syria? We probably should have a poll.

[Guest]

 What is interesting here is that ALL US opinion polls show that 3/4 of the country is against intervention into Syria.

Goes to show how differently a President can act in his second term vs. the first I guess. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes it;s a bad thing. I wish he was using his second term to push the progressive agenda down people's throats but it seems like we have the opposite going on. 

[Starkiller]

It's kind of sad to me that this thread has devolved into nothing more than partisan bickering (even though the OP was obviously extremely bias). If this was Bush, then half the comments would support him. Since it's Obama, half of the comments support him and the other half deride him. Almost none of the posts are about the fact we are about to enter a war with a country that has never posed a threat to the United States of America. Almost none of the posts are discussing the fact that we are about to support the same group that attacked us on 911.

 

This thread is a microcosm of America in many ways. We have a few people discussing the actual situation, and the rest is partisan bullshit. No one wants to acknowledge the fact that if we destabilize Assad to the point of being overthrown that we will, in the most literal sense, be handing stockpiles of chemical weapons to fundamentalist hellbent on chaos. No one is discussing the fact that our closest ally (Israel, at least  in terms of aid) shares a close border to Syria; and if we hand over access to people that openly admit they want the destruction of Israel then they have been handed the means to do so if they please. No one is discussing the fact that no evidence has been shown to support the notion that the Assad Regime was responsible for this atrocity. Why?

 

Why is everything so damn partisan? Why can't we discuss the fact that a 'limited strike' it tantamount to war and is pointless? We might as well go full blown if we are to go at all. Why is no one discussing the fact that Al-Nusra and Al-Queda fill the ranks of the so called 'rebels'? McCain had the audacity to say that the rebels are 'moderates'...which is nonsensical, since even rebels with a just cause are extremists in one way or another (American Revolution).

 

We are headed into uncharted territory on this one, and yet most people are not having a discussion without being extremely partisan (honestly I wouldn't care what party is in power when it comes to this exact situation). If we go to war, then it does nothing but prove this government is no longer responding to the U.S. Populace. We literally run the risk of our government becoming illegitimate over this situation (nearly every poll shows a massive majority are against this war, and even the military and pentagon are making their displeasure known). The country is heavily against this war; hopefully the people have made themselves clear.

 

 ETA: I'm not trying to degrade the intelligent conversation that has taken place in this thread. It is just frustrating that logical debate is constantly overshadowed by partisan bickering. Even I can see the justification for striking Syria, even though I don't agree with it, which is the point of debating in the first place (understanding and refuting an opponent's argument is not the same as refuting without understanding). The same is happening throughout the media and Congress: Intelligent debate is constantly stifled by partisanship.

 

Partisanship is a given. Almost every topic here turns into a partisan divide...

 

As for Syria, the problem is that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. We are presented with a list of nothing but bad options (including doing nothing) and forced to pick. Basically, we do nothing and allow a dictator to continue to use chemical weapons on his own people, or we support his opposition and thus also aid Islamic militants, or we directly attack Syrian military targets in response to use of WMDs and probably violate international law.

 

There is no good option.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Partisanship is a given. Almost every topic here turns into a partisan divide...

 

As for Syria, the problem is that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. We are presented with a list of nothing but bad options (including doing nothing) and forced to pick. Basically, we do nothing and allow a dictator to continue to use chemical weapons on his own people, or we support his opposition and thus also aid Islamic militants, or we directly attack Syrian military targets in response to use of WMDs and probably violate international law.

 

There is no good option.

Once again, proof of the accusations has not been shown. It is not a given that Assad committed these atrocities. If he did, then I agree with you: There isn't a good option left for us to take.

[Starkiller]

Once again, proof of the accusations has not been shown. It is not a given that Assad committed these atrocities. If he did, then I agree with you: There isn't a good option left for us to take.

Proof hasn't been shown to the public. That doesn't mean that there isn't proof. We do know that the White House has claimed to have classified info that they wouldn't release in public yet. Specifically phone calls made by the Syrian government.

Also, for what it's worth, we know conclusively that there have been a number of other chemical weapons attacks in Syria over the last year or so. It may simply be that they never had enough proof to tie it to Assad before this one.

[reo]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/world/syria-us-evidence-chemical-weapons-attack/index.html

[IsntLifeFunny]

Proof hasn't been shown to the public. That doesn't mean that there isn't proof. We do know that the White House has claimed to have classified info that they wouldn't release in public yet. Specifically phone calls made by the Syrian government.

Also, for what it's worth, we know conclusively that there have been a number of other chemical weapons attacks in Syria over the last year or so. It may simply be that they never had enough proof to tie it to Assad before this one.

Agreed. But if we go to war again on bullshit evidence and a 'trust me government knows best', then I'm going to flip my lid.

[IsntLifeFunny]

But the prospect of more details on the evidence seems dim as Kerry said the amount already declassified "could possibly put at risk some sources and methods," and that releasing more could "tempt fate."

This is the type of shit I'm talking about...

[reo]

This is the type of shit I'm talking about...

 

Do you really expect them to release every single bit of classified info to the public? Really?

[reo]

U.S.: Syria prepared

"In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack," the U.S. report says.

"Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of 'Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons."

'Intercepted communications'

"We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21," the U.S. report says. "We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence."

Intelligence shows Syrian chemical weapons personnel were told to cease operations in the afternoon of August 21, and that the regime then "intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred," the report says.