Syria

[daleduke17]

Why is Obama even trying to go into Syria? It is NOT a US issue, the US does not need to go in.

My opinion:

Obama is really overstepping his bounds here. Yes, it is horrible that the Syrians are gassing their own people. However, there is no reason for the USA to go in and play peacekeeper. Let the Syrians figure it out or find some other country dumb enough to go in there. This has the makings of a 2013 Bay of Pigs Invasion: Go in, make an ass out of the country, muck up the USA's image even more than it already is.

Does Obama really want to risk pissing off what countries are still on our side, as well as a good number of American citizens? Or is Obama really wanting to be the worst President of all-time?

[Kheldarson]

I think it's more trying to not repeat Libya. Where we could've gone in and should've but didn't and now it's a bigger mess.

[Aethian]

I think it's more trying to not repeat Libya. Where we could've gone in and should've but didn't and now it's a bigger mess.

I agree with this, if we had been able to go in early enough half the problems they have now wouldn't have started.

I'm wondering what would Egypt be like right now if we had stepped in before things were on fire and got words exchanged at the table.

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah... Keeping insulated and letting things run their course worked so very well with Germany, too... >_>

[edit to add]

Oh, yes, and let's not forget that in the world as it stands now, there is no keeping out of it, what with the pro-goverment Syrian Electronic Army hacking whatever English-language media sites it can get into.

Article at Ars Technica

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

The problem is that this is a "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" situation.

If we go in, we're war mongers.
If we don't go in, it's another Rwanda.
If we go in with diplomats, they're likely to be shot like the UN people were.

My personal opinion is to conflicted at best. Part of me wants to go in guns blazing to make an example of these assholes for going into chemical warfare on its own @#$%ing people...

The other part says "It's two Islamic factions duking it out. Getting in the middle is like sticking our love spuds into the mouth of a moray eel and hoping it doesn't chomp down." and so we should let them sort it out.

[Daskinor]

This whole situation is a mess. Syria is at the point internally where people in-charge are basically willing to make all out crazy decisions because the situation just keeps deteriorating. The Rebels are to decentralized to be able to form a constructive government if they win, and the current government will never be able to purge them all.

Weapon cashes are stored next to residential areas, making collateral damage from air strikes almost certain. A United Nations resolution is unlikely because Russia will veto it.

Here in America we are still war weary from Afghanistan and Iraq. Where we see Libya as a win the Republican party gave the President allot of Grief over it. Mainly for not going to congress for a resolution. Something he did not have to do because the War Powers Act gives him the ability to carry out UN resolutions without congressional approval.

So this time around the administration is basically saying "We like to do something about it, but we will let congress decide". With the sequestration and upcoming debt ceiling talks Republicans in congress don't have a clear picture of what they will do.

[Greenday]

Why is Obama even trying to go into Syria? It is NOT a US issue, the US does not need to go in.

He doesn't want to. He publicly stated so. But the reason he pushes for it is probably because so many Americans want us to help the Syrians because nutjobs who use chemical weapons on their own people need to be eliminated from the Earth. The only problem is no one wants to do the dirty work.

[Duelist925]

He doesn't want to. He publicly stated so. But the reason he pushes for it is probably because so many Americans want us to help the Syrians because nutjobs who use chemical weapons on their own people need to be eliminated from the Earth. The only problem is no one wants to do the dirty work.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Factor in that the only reason chemical weapons aren't used is because of the Geneva Convention (They were banned because, while they midling to ok at killing soldiers, they are fucking GOOD at killing civiliians), and the threat that anyone who DOES use chemical weapons will get all kinds of shit kicked out of them.

If we DON"T go in, we weaken that fear thats keeping chemical weapons in check.

[bara]

Its one of those situation where the Powell Doctrine should be applied.

[Rageaholic]

I just hope this doesn't turn into another Iraq War where thousands of people are killed for nothing.

[Nekojin]

I'm of the opinion that this is the sort of situation that assassination is truly suited for. Take out the leader and a few top members in the chain of command who are responsible for using chemical weapons, and others will start getting really nervous about the consequences of doing that again.

Yes, it would probably destabilize the nation, but it's not as though it's stable now, and I don't think it'd be any worse than if we did a boots-on-the-ground invasion.

[Panacea]

He doesn't want to. He publicly stated so. But the reason he pushes for it is probably because so many Americans want us to help the Syrians because nutjobs who use chemical weapons on their own people need to be eliminated from the Earth. The only problem is no one wants to do the dirty work.

Obama backed himself into a corner with the red line BS. If he shows weakness, then North Korea and Iran may feel they have freedom to push harder to gain nuclear weapons and heavans knows what else.

So when the GOP started demanding he get Congressional approval before acting, he didn't cave by doing so. Instead he brilliantly outmaneuvered them. Either way, whatever decision is made will fall on them if it goes bad, and on Obama if it goes well.

Genius.

In any case, I expect a few missiles. That's it. No boots on the ground; that takes more buildup.

[Greenday]

I just hope this doesn't turn into another Iraq War where thousands of people are killed for nothing.

A lot of people believe that the chemical weapons that were supposed to be in Iraq were sent to Syria. It connects a lot of dots.

[daleduke17]

Its one of those situation where the Powell Doctrine should be applied.

Looking at the Powell Doctrine on your provided link:

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

1 - No.
2 - Maybe
3 - No.
4 - No.
5 - No.
6 - No.
7 - No.
8 - No.

Sounds like a no go. How would any of you answer the questions?

[mikoyan29]

A lot of people believe that the chemical weapons that were supposed to be in Iraq were sent to Syria. It connects a lot of dots.

Why would one dictator give weapons like that to another dictator that may be a potential rival at some point? Besides...chemical weapons have a shelf life...