Military Strike on Syria?- Page 4

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/30/13 at 2:14pm

"A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information."

Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Rice and Powell killed far more than 1,429 people without any repercussions from the Obama Administration. What gives?

[tazber]

Posted: 8/30/13 at 2:27pm

I guess I'm in the minority here but I think Obama has been a good president and I trust him.

No president will be liked by everyone, no president's many decisions will be supported by everyone.

In politics it seems to be a game of taking the good with the bad. At this stage, to me, Obama has more good check marks in my book that bad.

Having said that, I do not support his decision to strike Syria. But I'm not ready to condemn him or equate him with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/30/13 at 2:32pm

I condemned him back when he took action in Libya, despite not getting approval from Congress. So he's already in my doghouse and yes, I voted for him twice. Even as an independent I felt I had to go with the "lesser of two evils." The decision to strike would officially end any loyalty or support I thought I owed him.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/30/13 at 2:35pm

We'd be threateing war with China right now, there would be no IRS benefits for married gay couples, gays in the military would still be getting thrown out, there would have been a National Guard response to the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington (as opposed to conspicuous avoidance by the Republicans) if the Romneybot2000 was president. Not that he was ever going to be as Nate Silver always said, but still.

The drone strikes are unforgivable. This new war will be too.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/30/13 at 2:36pm

I'd say by issuing a de facto Presidential Pardon to Bush Cheney Rice Powell and Rumsfeld, Obama has already linked himself with them.

There's a special place in hell for hypocrites who attack other nations while covering up the work of their own nation's war criminals -- and Barack Obama is going to be spending some time roasting there.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/30/13 at 3:43pm

'As Tony Blair's actions has crowned him the single most despised man in the UK, I somehow doubt it.'

What? that's so far from true, yes his popularity fell after the war on terror and he was never gonna get reelected after that but Blair is doing some great stuff now, people dont despise him, in fact after Cameron came in to power here many wish we would have stuck with Blair as Cameron is bleeding this country dry.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/30/13 at 4:05pm

So, no major attack on Syria for now.

I'm bored.

[dented146]

Posted: 8/31/13 at 2:41am

The fact is that our enemies, ( which we played a hand in creating) Assad, Iran, Hezbollah, etc are looking at us and learning that they can go with weapons of mass destruction and not face any consequences.

Obama painted himself into a corner and has continued to believe that you can reason with these people. In the process, he has lost the respect of our enemies and our friends by never taking a stand except for drone strikes. Now sending a few bombs into Syria seems weaker than doing nothing; not to mention that the legality is a stretch.

He and Kerry are hypocrites regardless of the fact that the GOP got us into this mess. Recent polls show that Republicans and Democrats agree about equally on this issue. Unfortunately, this is about Obama much more than about doing the right thing.

[dented146]

Posted: 8/31/13 at 4:29pm

So now it's the next day. The government has put forward it's compelling case. Kerry has said that time is of the essence. Israel has set up its Iron Dome. And now the POTUS has just said he will wait for Congress to come back and get their approval. If we knew the attack was Aug.21, why wasn't Congress called in Aug 22?

Is time of the essence? Is doing anything of the essence? And what message are we sending now? Assad certainly has plenty of time to move things around including captives and civilians to likely targets. This whole thing is like a very sad joke.

[dented146]

Posted: 8/31/13 at 7:36pm

An update. This morning before the president went to play golf, he announced that our attack on Syria is not time sensitive. At least that part is settled.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/1/13 at 9:09am

"I fear we're on the brink of a tragic decision to strike Syria, because, in the dubious logic of the President, "a lot of people think something should be done," and American "credibility" is at stake. He and his secretary of state assure us that the strike will be "limited" and "surgical." Yes, the use of chemical weapons against Syrian citizens is abominable, and if Assad's regime is responsible he should be treated as an international criminal and pariah. But have we learned nothing? Time and again over the last half century American presidents have justified so-called surgical strikes because the nation's credibility is at stake, and because we have to take some action to show our strength and resolve -- only to learn years later that our credibility has suffered more from our foolish and brazen bellicosity, that the surgical strikes have only intensified hostilities and made us captive to forces beyond our control, and that our resolve eventually disappears in the face of mounting casualties of Americans and innocent civilians. We and others have paid an incalculable price.

On Labor Day weekend we should rather be testing the nation's resolve to provide good jobs at good wages to all Americans who need them, and measuring our credibility by the ideal of equal opportunity. And we should strike (and join striking workers) against big employers who won't provide their employees with minimally-decent wages. We need to commit ourselves to a living wage, and to providing more economic security to the millions of Americans now working harder but getting nowhere. Yes, Mr. President, a lot of people think something should be done -- about these mounting problems at our doorstep, within America. We can have more influence on the rest of the world by showing the rest of the world that we live by our ideals, than by using brute force to make points." Robert Reich

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/1/13 at 10:45am

He was always the one Reich I could get behind. And above, apparently he's diminutive.

[dented146]

Posted: 9/1/13 at 4:48pm

Borstalboy, I couldn't agree more. This country should lead by example and not by using force. We can not predict where an attack on Syria will lead.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/1/13 at 7:13pm

I think the UN Peacekeeping Team should be sent in. The US shouldn't go into this.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 2:22pm

If only drunk Uncle Boehner agreed with you.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 2:36pm

Boehner is just being Boehner. I'm actually shocked at all these Dems who are supporting a strike. They wouldn't support Bush for something far more serious, but they'll support Obama in time of financial sequester, when we don't know who the enemy really is and what the expected outcome should be.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 2:39pm

Really? I recall something over 90% support for W's masterplan for Baghdad.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 2:40pm

"They wouldn't support Bush for something far more serious"

Phony WMDs?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 2:50pm

Let's talk about what's current. Dems shouldn't be supporting strikes against Syria. We don't need to get involved and we don't have the money to pay for it.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 2:53pm

Umm...you're the one who brought up Bush.
But I agree...we shouldn't be striking Syria. And Dems shouldn't be supporting it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 3:19pm

I agree also. And me elected Dems are not supporting it (yet).

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 3:31pm

I don't think we should intervene militarily in Syria. And I don't think you should bring up GWB if you don't want anyone to discuss him.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 5:30pm

Mark this day on your calendar. I'm in agreement with several members on this board. I also do not think we should intervene in Syria at this time.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 6:09pm

Well, if Goth is for it, I'm definitely against it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 6:54pm

I never knew what they were for or against, really, except each other.