Opinions? Reasons?

[Snaggletiger]

I have long been an advocate of the U.S. of A. getting the hell out of all these foreign countries and basically staying out of everyone's business.  To be more specific, stop trying to police the world and make everyone be like us.  The most recent issue is whether we should get involved in the Syrian conflict after the reported use of chemical weapons to wipe out hundreds of people.  Looks like we're headed that way with 4 war ships already headed to the eastern Mediterranean. 

Now, I'll be the first to say that if hundreds were in fact gassed, it's a horrible thing and those responsible need that ass torched.  But are we the ones responsible for lighting them up?  If so, why?  This is right in the back yard if Israel, Iran, Egypt, etc.  If they aren't pissed about it going on in their own back yard, then why should we get involved?  Why doesn't Saudi Arabia or Egypt fly some of those F-16's and F-18's we've been giving them over there and shove a missile up Assad's ass? 

We can say the U.N. is taking action all we want in a lot of these conflicts, but the blame from the rest of the world is always placed squarely at the feet of the U.S. Can anyone provide good reasoning why we have such a huge presence around the world and why we feel the need to get involved so many times?  Oil???

   

[WiregrassTiger]

What is most concerning to me is the fact that I agree with everything you just said.

[Tiger Wench]

Oil is becomming a superfluous reason with all the new discoveries in the GOM and the new shale plays around the US.  If the greenie hippie liberals would just STFU, we could tell OPEC to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.

I'd say part of it is our agreement to protect Israel.

I'd also say that another part is the unwillingness to just totally surrender a huge portion of the world to psychotic religious zealots who espouse death to anyone not a Muslim man, especially when these zealots have WMD, including but not limited to nukes, and the US is Public Jhihadi Enemy #1.

As horrific as the chemical attack is, they are doing it within their own borders, to their own people.  If they took that shit to another country (Israel) in an attack, then hell yeah, let's go fuck some people up.  But it's up to the people of Syria now to get that psychopath out of office.  He needs to be Khadafied ASAP.  Give them aid and support in accomplishing that goal, but it's not for us to do.  We drive him out and we become liable for collateral damage, and that shit gets used against us as fodder for every suicide bomber wanna be that comes along.

I still don't get Putin's role in all of this.  Why in the hell is he backing Assad?  Is it because of the trading relationship or is it just to fuck with the US?  What's so sad is that Assad was Western educated - he's an opthomologist, fer pete's sake - and I really had high hopes that he may be less of an asshole than his father before him.  Wrong.

Al-Assad graduated from the medical school of the University of Damascus in 1988, and started to work as a physician in the army. Four years later, he attended postgraduate studies at the Western Eye Hospital, in London, specializing in ophthalmology. In 1994, after his elder brother Bassel, the heir apparent to their father, was killed in a car crash, Bashar was promptly recalled to Syria to take over Bassel's role. He entered the military academy, and took charge of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon in 1998. In December 2000, Assad married Asma Assad, née Akhras. Al-Assad was reconfirmed by the national electorate as President of Syria in 2000 and 2007, after the People's Council of Syria had voted to propose the incumbent each time.
 
Initially seen by the domestic and international community as a potential reformer, this expectation ceased when he ordered a mass crackdown and military sieges on pro-rebel protesters amid recent civil war, described by some commentators as related to the wider "Arab Spring" movement. The domestic Syrian opposition and much of the Western world, along with a number of pro-Western Arab states, have subsequently called for al-Assad's resignation from the presidency.

[dallaswareagle]

Strictly from a Ex-military view and my time studying the middle east:

Syria-Yea its a fucked up situation and if we do get involved we will most likely lob a few missile and throw a few bombs at some empty building to make the one tell everyone what he did in the name of humanity.

The rest of that shithole. It was explained to me very simply while in the 101st.

We either kill them over there or kill them over here.   

[GH2001]

Oil is becomming a superfluous reason with all the new discoveries in the GOM and the new shale plays around the US.  If the greenie hippie liberals would just STFU, we could tell OPEC to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.

I'd say part of it is our agreement to protect Israel.

I'd also say that another part is the unwillingness to just totally surrender a huge portion of the world to psychotic religious zealots who espouse death to anyone not a Muslim man, especially when these zealots have WMD, including but not limited to nukes, and the US is Public Jhihadi Enemy #1.

As horrific as the chemical attack is, they are doing it within their own borders, to their own people.  If they took that shit to another country (Israel) in an attack, then hell yeah, let's go fuck some people up.  But it's up to the people of Syria now to get that psychopath out of office.  He needs to be Khadafied ASAP.  Give them aid and support in accomplishing that goal, but it's not for us to do.  We drive him out and we become liable for collateral damage, and that shit gets used against us as fodder for every suicide bomber wanna be that comes along.

I still don't get Putin's role in all of this.  Why in the hell is he backing Assad?  Is it because of the trading relationship or is it just to fuck with the US?  What's so sad is that Assad was Western educated - he's an opthomologist, fer pete's sake - and I really had high hopes that he may be less of an asshole than his father before him.  Wrong.

Posts like this make me heart you all over again.

[AUChizad]

I wonder how many wars the runner-up for Obama's Nobel Peace Prize has started...

[Tiger Wench]

Posts like this make me heart you all over again.

Pshaw. Like you ever stopped in the first place.

[Tiger Wench]

I have also read multiple articles today about how Obama is trying to build an international coalition of the willing (a la GB I and II) but UNLIKE GWB, Obama has no intention whatsothefuckever of going to Congress. His press butt monkey today was dancing like people were flinging coins.

Seems like I remember GWB being EXCORIATED for not going to Congress right off the bat.  But not a peep about Obama going all Executive Order.

And just to put a teeny little conspiracy spin on it, the scuttlebutt back during the Iraq war was that because we diddled around, Saadam had time to hide all his WMD and chemical stuff.

In Syria. 

Go Google "WMD, SYRIA, IRAQ". Those aren't bottomfeeder level news sites making that same conjecture now.

Maybe that's Putin's angle. Russia gave them to Saadam and Saadam gave them to Assad who used the chem weapons with Russian markings.  Assad said no to the inspectors for a few days then changed his mind, once the evidence was destroyed and Putin is in the clear.

[AUChizad]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obama-and-biden-have-said-military-action-without-congressio

Obama And Biden Have Said Military Action Without Congressional Approval Is Unconstitutional

“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,” Obama in 2008. posted on August 27, 2013 at 6:20pm EDT
Andrew Kaczynski BuzzFeed Staff

President Obama and Vice President Biden once held radically different views on the use of military force without congressional authorization. During the 2008 presidential campaign, both made undeniably clear the president could not authorize a military strike without congressional except for a case of an “imminent threat.” Then-Senator Biden found the offense impeachable.

“I want to make it clear to you,” Biden said speaking at a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa in December 2007. “I’ve drafted, with the help of 17 years I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee or the ranking member. Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted and outline of what I think the constitutional limits have on the president in over the war clause. I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me, and it’s being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear and I made it clear to the president, if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without congressional approval — I will make it my business to impeach him.”

Biden reiterated the claim in his “on the issues” page on his former campaign website saying the nation could only be taken to military action with the approval of congress expect to stop an “imminent attack” on the United States.

    It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens. They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

    The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

    I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

    I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

Then-Senator Obama likewise agreed with the assessment from Biden saying the President of the United States could only authorize an attack in the instance of “imminent threat” to the nation, responding to a question to a 2008 Boston Globe questionnaire on executive authority.

    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.

    As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

    As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The White House is currently weighing a response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons.

Video of Biden’s Iowa remarks have been embedded below:

[AUChizad]

I have also read multiple articles today about how Obama is trying to build an international coalition of the willing (a la GB I and II) but UNLIKE GWB, Obama has no intention whatsothefuckever of going to Congress. His press butt monkey today was dancing like people were flinging coins.

Seems like I remember GWB being EXCORIATED for not going to Congress right off the bat.  But not a peep about Obama going all Executive Order.

And Bush did congressional approval. Albeit, in hindsight they misrepresented the evidence used to support their case for war. But regardless, they got the approval they sought.

[Townhallsavoy]

I feel like it's a common theme for Obama to think he doesn't need congressional approval for what he wants to do. 

[dallaswareagle]

I feel like it's a common theme for Obama to think he doesn't need congressional approval for what he wants to do.

He doesn't, just ask his masses.

[Snaggletiger]

During one of the many point/counterpoint debates on the subject last night, one "expert" hit the proverbial nail on the head.  At least as far as I'm concerned.  He said on one hand, you have Assad and his military/backers, who are not exactly our bestest besties, (He didn't say that, I did) committing atrocities and gassing hundreds.  On the other side, you have the Syrian peeps, the militants that according to more and more information, are getting Al-Kwayder backing. 

Our enemies are wiping out each other.  Let em' have at it.  Go at it for years and years for all I care.  Syria is no threat to us or anyone else as long as they're embroiled in a civil war.  And if this is left alone, it's not going to stop anytime soon.  This is the way it's been in the Middle East forever. 

[WiregrassTiger]

I gassed my whole family on the way home from eating Mexican last night. Was this an atrocity? I don't know but it left a skid mark.

[AUChizad]

During one of the many point/counterpoint debates on the subject last night, one "expert" hit the proverbial nail on the head.  At least as far as I'm concerned.  He said on one hand, you have Assad and his military/backers, who are not exactly our bestest besties, (He didn't say that, I did) committing atrocities and gassing hundreds.  On the other side, you have the Syrian peeps, the militants that according to more and more information, are getting Al-Kwayder backing. 

Our enemies are wiping out each other.  Let em' have at it.  Go at it for years and years for all I care.  Syria is no threat to us or anyone else as long as they're embroiled in a civil war.  And if this is left alone, it's not going to stop anytime soon.  This is the way it's been in the Middle East forever.

Agree. The FSA will turn on us in 20 years just like Afghanistan did.

Also, are we sure Syria is using WMDs on its own people? How are we more sure today in taking Asad on his word than we were to take Hussein on his? Remember, he was the one taunting us and saying he definitely had them. Also, we know he was gassing the Kurds.

[Ogre]

Our enemies are wiping out each other.  Let em' have at it.  Go at it for years and years for all I care.  Syria is no threat to us or anyone else as long as they're embroiled in a civil war.  And if this is left alone, it's not going to stop anytime soon.  This is the way it's been in the Middle East forever.

This is exactly right.  There is no "good guy" in this fight, at least from our perspective.  By siding against Assad, we are teaming up with the people who attacked us on 9/11. 

If Obama would have kept his trap shut about his "Red Line" a year ago we wouldn't have to do anything. Now if we don't act we look even weaker on the world stage.  If we do act we risk igniting WWIII and pissing off China, Russia and Iran. 

If we go into another war it will officially be the least popular war ever.  I read yesterday where 9% of Americans are for going to war with Syria.  At it's lowest point, Vietnam polled around 30% approval. 

[bottomfeeder]

I have long been an advocate of the U.S. of A. getting the hell out of all these foreign countries and basically staying out of everyone's business.  To be more specific, stop trying to police the world and make everyone be like us.  The most recent issue is whether we should get involved in the Syrian conflict after the reported use of chemical weapons to wipe out hundreds of people.  Looks like we're headed that way with 4 war ships already headed to the eastern Mediterranean. 

Now, I'll be the first to say that if hundreds were in fact gassed, it's a horrible thing and those responsible need that ass torched.  But are we the ones responsible for lighting them up?  If so, why?  This is right in the back yard if Israel, Iran, Egypt, etc.  If they aren't pissed about it going on in their own back yard, then why should we get involved?  Why doesn't Saudi Arabia or Egypt fly some of those F-16's and F-18's we've been giving them over there and shove a missile up Assad's ass? 

We can say the U.N. is taking action all we want in a lot of these conflicts, but the blame from the rest of the world is always placed squarely at the feet of the U.S. Can anyone provide good reasoning why we have such a huge presence around the world and why we feel the need to get involved so many times?  Oil???

   BTW, we gassed the Syrians.

http://ronpaulpa.com/index.php/8-reporters/193-ignored-ostracized-and-marginalized-by-the-main-stream-media-ron-paul

[Snaggletiger]

Uuummmm....what?

[bottomfeeder]

We were for UN inspections before we were against them. Mossad operation.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

[GH2001]

And Bush did congressional approval. Albeit, in hindsight they misrepresented the evidence used to support their case for war. But regardless, they got the approval they sought.

Good info.

I just can't believe Kerry out of all people is beating the war drum. The entire country is war fatigued. Enough. The dems have ran on the anti war platform the last 13 years against Bush twice and then McCain and Romney. And here they are starting a useless war in a region that is hopeless. Everytime we try to intervene im that area we make it worse. Look at Egypt. Get the hell out of there, secure our entire border and let them implode over there.