So about Syria…

So it appears our government is moving towards some sort of armed intervention in the civil war in Syria, based on the premise that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against rebel forces. The Syrian government has claimed that jihadists fighting with the rebels carried out the chemical weapons attacks on August 21 to turn global sentiments against the Syrian government.

As the United States moves ever closer to some sort of military intervention in Syria, it appears we’ll do so without perhaps our staunchest ally in the world, as Britain’s Parliament voted against joining a coalition in Syria.

The idea of military intervention in Syria by the United States has not met with universal acceptance, so I thought this would prompt a great discussion here.

What do you think the United States’ role in Syria should be?

14 comments to So about Syria…

  • Sue

    You want to start a war folks? Go ahead, but let’s do it differently this time:
    *fund it: Tax citizens directly, with a line item on the income tax form and/or a federal sales tax, and tax any corporation that will benefit from it. That way, Dick Cheney AND his corporation buddies will have some ‘skin in the game’ as they always say when cutting welfare benefits. We’re going to go to war? We’re going to police the world? Let’s feel the pain of this great responsibility in our pocketbooks, every last one of us. Oh, and by funding this I do not mean finding the money by taking it away from hungry kids and old people. No cuts to social programs.
    *take care of our vets: If we’re going to send a bunch of our people over there in order to have a lot of them come back very damaged in many ways, let’s pre-fund 75 years of health and mental health care for all the damage we will be doing to our own people. After all, if we can require the USPS to fund employee retirements 50 years forward in an effort to kill the post office, we should be able to dip into taxpayers’ pockets to take care of the people who will still be suffering when people no longer remember this conflict.
    No one would agree to this shit if they knew they had to pay for it.

       5 likes

  • John Casper

    1. IMHO, the timing was all about Obama and the military/security industrial complex using the long holiday weekend to drench Americans in more propaganda about the global war on terror.

    In no way am I downplaying the threat that jihadists (whether they be Sunni (Taliban Al-queda, and Saudi Arabia) or Shia (Iran) pose to the west.

    We’re a world at war, but the lethal opponent is climate change. With that said, if something happens to the Saudi oil fields or the Straits of Hormuz are blocked, we are all f!@#$ed.

    2. By taking out Saddam’s army in Iraq, we removed the Sunni counterweight to Shia Iran. No one has done more than George W. Bush to make Iran a regional power. That’s why everyone told him NOT to invade. Without Saddam’s military, US forces are filling the vacuum. This is a civil war.

    Assad, the guy currently running Syria, is Shia. Iran’s backing him. People I trust say bombing Syria is an attempt to punch Iran.

    Sunni = Osama bin Laden’s relatives in Saudi Arabia’s royal family. U.S. foreign policy is always to support the Saudi royal family. Bush invading Iraq might have been the one significant departure. Four days ago we just sold Saudi Arabia some cluster bombs. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-to-sell-cluster-bombs-to-saudi-arabia-2013-8

    Adding complexity is that Shia work those Saudi oil fields, but they have no representation in the Saudi monarchy. The Taliban and Al-queda are Sunni. Why we’re fighting folks who get most of their funding from the Saudi monarchy is a very good question.

    3. Bombing Syria is helping the Taliban, Al-queda, and Saudi Arabia. People asking why Obama wants the U.S. Airforce to bomb in support of the Taliban have a point. “Pakistani Taliban says sent hundreds to fight alongside Syrian rebels” http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Pakistani-Taliban-says-hundreds-of-fighters-aiding-rebels-in-Syria-319768

    A fuller understanding of the Middle East requires integrating the Kurds. Another important variable is that Sunni and Shia can be Arabs or Persian.

       1 likes

    • John Casper

      Pretty sure the Boston Marathon bombers were under Sunni influence. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/28/boston-bombings-sunni-salafi-russia/2118901/

         0 likes

    • Mikey

      This almost isn’t about Syria per se, it is about enforcing an important historical ban on the use of chemical weapons. The fallout of our possible attack could go one way or the other, there is no good outcome. But if the rest of the world sees that no one will stand against the use of WMDs. Then that is a dangerous precedent to send. It is completely disappointing to see that our supposed allies are sitting this out and making us go it alone (except France). Nothing but lip service. I personally would like to see our fleets of ships packed with Syrian refugees bound for the US, but I know my countrymen are not welcoming. I would like to see a war tax as well with 90% taxation on the wealthy like in the past. I am proud of the fact that we have been sending significant aid for the refugees though.

         2 likes

  • John Casper

    At the same time Obama/Congress is considering helping Sunni jihadists in Syria, he killed four in Pakistan.

    “4 Killed in Suspected Drone Strike in Pakistan”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/asia/drone-strike-kills-suspected-militants-in-pakistan.html?_r=0

    The absence of debate from Congress is chilling.

    We used to have a little thing called the Powell Doctrine:

    Is a vital national security interest threatened?
    Do we have a clear attainable objective?
    Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
    Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
    Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
    Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
    Is the action supported by the American people?
    Do we have genuine broad international support?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

       0 likes

  • John Casper

    AFAIK, this story about the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow Assad is legit:
    “Catholic Priest Allegedly Beheaded in Syria by Al-Qaeda-Linked Rebels as Men and Children Take Pictures and Cheer”

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/30/catholic-priest-beheaded-in-syria-by-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-as-men-and-children-take-pictures-and-cheer/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons

       0 likes

  • Cat Kin

    Casper is right about the Sunni Saudi connection, but President Obama doesn’t play that game like Bush did. Saddam’s problem was that he and his Sunnis got too ambitious for the Saudis. Obama is right, the world cannot stand by and allow WMDs used after treaties were signed. With France behind us, I feel more confident than if England were with us that Obama is right. The French have used better judgement on citizen’s rights than any other country in the world.

    I believe this has been carefully thought out, in the traditional Obama way, with an International and exit strategy in mind. I’m staying with our President, despite all the heat and personal prejudice against him, he hasn’t made an irreversibly bad move yet.

       0 likes

  • AJ

    The U.S. should stay out. Hopefully the Democrats in both the House and Senate vote NO! Assad is the only stable force in Syria, by taking him out there will be a lot more unknowns about who has weapons and what for.

    My guess is that the leadership from both parties will support military action, while a combination of Tea Party Republicans and Liberal Democrats dissent military action.

       1 likes

  • nonquixote

    Agreeing fully with AJ, hands off and keep out.

    CW certainly was used, but, undivulged to US citizens, intelligence assessments, still short of boots on the ground, proof is a grand reason for continued US restraint.

    @CatKin 5:01 pm, LOL, but you forgot the sarcasm/snark tags.

    Would that be, “the traditional Obomba way,” of lying through his ass, or by ignoring US and international law during Tuesday’s with Barry, then following through on the kill list, or, “the world cannot stand by as…” while the US currently maintains the largest stockpile of chemical weapons, either by refusing to be a signatory to the world treaty banning CW use or refusing to dispose of them under that same treaty (it’s one of those, sorry, memory lapse, looking for the link).

    Authoritarian and fascist national leaders tend to draw some heat, but your opinion that it is personal prejudice against Obomba is good enough for you and makes it OK to go kill and maim more innocents in yours and in my name. Another bombing of the, “others,” will show them, eh CK? That’ll guarantee another generation of US policy admiration society members springing out of those particular victims of our abuse of military power. Brilliant! /s

       1 likes

  • Gareth

    It doesn’t matter what we think about an attack on Syria. John Kerry just stated that the US will attack regardless of how congress votes. This is our sham democracy in action.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/obama-strike-syria-congress-kerry

       1 likes

  • nonquixote

    PressTV Western powers backing Syrian Rebels thus Western support for war crimes, story from July 30.

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/30/316273/west-war-crimes-in-syria-exposed/

    From an independent source, US claims against Assad are fiction:

    http://nsnbc.me/2013/08/28/confirmed-us-claims-against-syria-there-is-no-evidence/

       1 likes

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Blogging Blue’s “14 in ’14″

Goal Thermometer