Military Strike on Syria?- Page 6

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 9/5/13 at 3:01pm

Saddam had a history of using chemical weapons on civilians. But that is not the reason Bush and company gave for leading us into war.

[suestorm]

Posted: 9/5/13 at 3:04pm

sometimes a picture says it all. Putin is all macho/ego/douche.... Obama well, wears a bike helmet and mom jeans...

Updated On: 9/5/13 at 03:04 PM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 9/5/13 at 3:06pm

please read Ann Coulter's article comparing what Bush did to what Obama is doing.

F*ck no. She is despicable piece of Sh*t that is a disgusting excuse for a human being. Why would I read her article, and why would you even think about ASKING people to read that article? She's 1) biased 2) an idiot 3) obnoxious and 4) an idiot.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 9/5/13 at 3:29pm

Goth, I may go back to singing showtunes, but if you think I'm happy about watching Obama on this particular issue or have been happy watch him do absolutely everything he's done, you're very sadly mistaken.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 9/5/13 at 4:48pm

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/5/13 at 5:18pm

sorry, erik, i was going off rand's initial statement.

still, the house looks grim at this point. thinkprogress' current whip count has 43 yes/lean yes and 212 no/lean no.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 9/5/13 at 5:23pm

Yup. Looks like it has no chance in the house. I wonder if Obama will strike anyway.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 8:21am

Sad to say, this continues to be a lose-lose for Obama. He has no good option.

As much as we hate military juntas, the Egypt model may be the only possibility: Today the Egyptian military government is taking steps to strip the Muslim Brotherhood of its legal status, in a effort to crush them. This is the only hope in Egypt of removing the possibility of an oppressive Islamist government that would ethnically and religiously cleanse the country of all minorities and non-believers.

The Egyptian choice: An oppressive military government or an even more oppressive and repressive religious government.

If Obama could help remove Assad and help install a military government that would work with the more moderate rebel forces while destroying the Brotherhood and the more radical of the rebel groups, there might be a hope for Obama helping to bring peace and stability to Egypt and Syria.

An ugly short-term solution to bring about a beautiful future.

I will remain optimistic in the face of hopelessness, just as I hold out the possibility that one day Israeli and Palestinian children will walk to school together in peace.

Updated On: 9/6/13 at 08:21 AM

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 11:33am

^ Ditto.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 12:58pm

Erik, from what I have read it seems that Obama will go ahead and strike if he has the support of the Senate (which he might have).

[suestorm]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 1:12pm

PRESIDENTS POLICY ON SYRIA....

Updated On: 9/6/13 at 01:12 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 2:00pm

If he gets the Senate approval, he could go ahead and use the House vote as reason to put down the Republican votes as "obstructionist."

But he'd still have to deal with the Democratic anti-war votes and the anti-war public opinion.

And he'd still have to actually accomplish something with his short strike, deal with reprisals from Iran and Hezbollah, and get out before getting embroiled.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 2:14pm

Piece of cake.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 2:20pm

Yeah.. piece of cake if you don't consider all of the innocent collateral damage as a result of the unnecessary strikes!

When are they expecting the official vote to take place?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 2:25pm

(I was, of course, being facetious.)

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 2:29pm

I know, Reg. And in the most shocking news of the day, Israel backs a limited strike: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/israel-backs-limited-strike-against-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

(I, too, am being facetious)

[suestorm]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 2:43pm

no one can ever accuse Israel of not having Cajones

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 4:04pm

If he strikes without congressional approval he should be impeached.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/6/13 at 5:24pm

He boxed himself into a corner. Any strategic advantage he had is now gone. Just airstrikes will do nothing. He should just keep his promise to arm the rebels (as Iran and Russia have armed Assad) and let them defend themselves and what happens happens.

[passing strange]

Posted: 9/7/13 at 8:57pm

If he strikes, I hope they impeach. If everyone who was anti intervention in foreign wars, as well as favorable to progressive social values simply voted for a third party. We wouldn't have this nonsensical two party dictatorship we are forced to live with.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/7/13 at 9:05pm

It never ever works when the US arms "the rebels."

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 9/7/13 at 9:07pm

Do you really think there are that many Libertarians?

As crazy as it might seem to you, some people actually do comfortably identify as Democrat and Republican. Or somewhere within. Or somewhere without. Without being Libertarian. And without being brainwashed.

The air of smugness so many Libertarians have -- and that includes every single one of my Libertarian friends -- is extraordinarily off-putting. I can and do respect a lot of Libertarian views, but this attitude that they've found some kind of political "truth" makes it very difficult to respect them as people.

[passing strange]

Posted: 9/7/13 at 9:08pm

It never works when we butt into things that have nothing to do with us.

[passing strange]

Posted: 9/7/13 at 10:12pm

I think there are more libertarians now, than before this mess happened. The people are sick and tired of these two parties talking us into wars that have nothing to do with keeping this country safe!

[PTOPhan]

Posted: 9/7/13 at 11:46pm

I'd like to add a voice in favor of using force against Syria. I agree that President Obama has not handled this adeptly, because I don't think Congress will approve using force. Then, he's in an even worse position.

I favored going into Afghanistan and STRONGLY opposed going into Iraq the second time. I did, however, approve of Desert Shield/Desert Storm. I favored going into Bosnia and wished that we had done something in Rwanda.

I think that the reason I part ways with most other liberals on the question of Syria is that I believe that "Never Again" must mean something. My parents escaped the Holocaust, and I lost relatives because the world did nothing. I don't see how we could have gone into Syria before, with the opposition potentially being as anti-Western as Assad. The last time we tried arming the "enemy of my enemy," thinking he must be a friend, we helped bin Laden. Now, however, we MUST make a move. I favor taking that bast**d out because we will save lives in the long run by doing so.

My worry if we do launch more than a few limited strikes is what will happen to Israel. I'll never forget Desert Storm -- Saddam Hussein swallows Kuwait, we go after Iraq, with the help of other Arab countries, and Iraq goes after Israel. We Jews have always told acerbic jokes about how middle Eastern dictators agree on only one thing: Whatever bad thing happens, it must be Israel's fault.