Obama's call to attack Syria

[Callace]

President Obama's push for an attack on Syria is a huge turning point for his relatively anti-war stance (relative though it is). I am personally frustrated with this, because he championed the need for a unified, global coalition in making decisions of war during his election campaign. Even with Putin playing devil's advocate, there is nothing close to a consensus, but rather the opposite.

He is now lobbying alongside the likes of Neoconservatives like John Boehner and John McCain in the hopes of ratifying punitive strikes against Syria. These congresspeople normally wouldn't join with Obama unless it was to kill his signature legislation. How can representatives that are so starkly divided agree on something that is so unpopular?

Are these people genuinely interested in halting the proliferation of Sarin attacks? Or are all the representatives in the U.S. (including Obama) truly Neocons at heart, a subtler version of the last administration bent on different motives?

[TheGravemind]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...a-strikes?lite

If the most influential party leaders (from both parties, minority and majority in both houses) are agreeing on backing President Obama's plan to engage the Assad regime in Syria, then it's almost guaranteed that it will pass. I must say that it's interesting to see all the leaders from the various sides of the political aisle in both houses agree upon something for once.

Another interesting thing that has taken place is the change of strategy. The Obama administration, as well as Senator McCain, are giving implicit signs that they have changed the overall strategy from merely imposing punitive measures upon Assad for the use of chemical weapons to the actual termination of his tyrannical reign over Syria. This means that we will probably be reading about a real life case of "Sic Semper Tyrannis" within a few weeks following the engagement.

It seems like it's a done deal. We're intervening in Syria. Thoughts?

[PetersenIII]

Fuck me. Can't we keep our nose in our OWN back-yard? Ugh.

[Callace]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...a-strikes?lite

If the most influential party leaders (from both parties, minority and majority in both houses) are agreeing on backing President Obama's plan to engage the Assad regime in Syria, then it's almost guaranteed that it will pass. I must say that it's interesting to see all the leaders from the various sides of the political aisle in both houses agree upon something for once.

Another interesting thing that has taken place is the change of strategy. The Obama administration, as well as Senator McCain, are giving implicit signs that they have changed the overall strategy from merely imposing punitive measures upon Assad for the use of chemical weapons to the actual termination of his tyrannical reign over Syria. This means that we will probably be reading about a real life case of "Sic Semper Tyrannis" within a few weeks following the engagement.

It seems like it's a done deal. We're intervening in Syria. Thoughts?

Oh wow, I literally wrote a post on the exact same subject like seconds ago.

OT: non-intervention seems unlikely.

[zorkuus]

War it is then.

[Binko]

These people are narcissistic and psychopathic by nature. The leaders of most nations are far more likely to be in favor of war than the general populace. At the same time they are making a political calculation that, in America, being a warmonger is still good for more votes and campaign contributions than being perceived as weak and peaceable.

[loganroth51]

Sometimes I wonder if our government even listens to what the people want.

Who am I kidding? lol

[Rukentuts]

War it is then.

Equivalent to Libya. Not exactly atrocious.

[Callace]

At the same time they are making a political calculation that, in America, being a warmonger is still good for more votes and campaign contributions than being perceived as weak and peaceable.

Really, our only hope is that particular trait falls off the map via Social Darwinism.

It might be a while...

[TheGravemind]

Wonderful...

I am not pleased by the fact that we will most likely end up intervening in Syria, it is not something I feel we should be doing.

Meh, I can deal with it, liberating a country while improving the living conditions of 2 million people, including 1 million kids, on the precipice of death isn't that bad.

[Callace]

Equivalent to Libya.

We don't know that. ALSO, there is a much stronger likelihood that Iran could get involved with this scenario. Russia is opposed. China is opposed. Not exactly a walk in the park, geopolitically.

[TheGravemind]

Sometimes I wonder if our government even listens to what the people want.

Who am I kidding? lol

None of the wars we fought in the 20th century would have been fought if going to war was up to the general public. The average citizen is nowhere near well enough informed to make a decision within a given time-frame pertaining to whether or not we should go to war. Most people just have a visceral reaction to any mention of war, and then they go on to compare the proposed actions, in this case, in Syria to the Iraq War despite this being far more similar to something like the Kosovo Aerial Campaign that we fought in 1998.

[Callace]

Meh, I can deal with it, liberating a country while improving the living conditions of 2 million people, including 1 million kids, on the precipice of death isn't that bad.

But what percentage of those will die in the process if this escalates? The civilian casualty count (or lack thereof) in Iraq was tremendous.

[Rukentuts]

We don't know that.

"No boots" is a pretty clear sign of that.

And we only need Russia and China if it's UN-backed.

[TheGravemind]

We don't know that. ALSO, there is a much stronger likelihood that Iran could get involved with this scenario. Russia is opposed. China is opposed. Not exactly a walk in the park, geopolitically.

Russia will most probably not be involved militarily. Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly said that Russia has no interest in any military involvement in any event in Syria, especially if we intervene. China couldn't be involved militarily even if it wanted to, and the most Iran will probably end up doing is encouraging Hezbollah to attack Israel.

[Bridgetjones]

Obama turned into a war hawk the second he got into office, and I resent the betrayal. Being Israel's puppet is not a "US interest."

Intervention does not work, democracy does not work, and peace cannot exist in the Islamist world. That's actually not a comment about religion, it's a comment about theocratic government. Syria's the most perfect example of this with Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lybia, and Afghanistan being other shining examples.

I'm pretty certain that Congress will agree that strikes need to happen because it's a matter of punishing treaty violations.

[TheGravemind]

But what percentage of those will die in the process if this escalates? The civilian casualty count (or lack thereof) in Iraq was tremendous.

This shouldn't be compared to the Iraq War since we're not going to be carpet bombing the country and we're not sending in our QERF shock troops on the ground. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has testified that he believes that "collateral damage will be minimal." It's very possible that we could potentially see 0 civilian deaths in all of this given how accurate our S2L warfare capabilities have gotten.

[loganroth51]

None of the wars we fought in the 20th century would have been fought if going to war was up to the general public. The average citizen is nowhere near well enough informed to make a decision within a given time-frame pertaining to whether or not we should go to war. Most people just have a visceral reaction to any mention of war, and then they go on to compare the proposed actions, in this case, in Syria to the Iraq War despite this being far more similar to something like the Kosovo Aerial Campaign that we fought in 1998.

Then it might be helpful for them to show the average citizen the evidence they claim to have that Assad used the chemical weapons.

[TheGravemind]

Obama turned into a war hawk the second he got into office, and I resent the betrayal. Being Israel's puppet is not a "US interest."

Intervention does not work, democracy does not work, and peace cannot exist in the Islamist world. That's actually not a comment about religion, it's a comment about theocratic government. Syria's the most perfect example of this with Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lybia, and Afghanistan being other shining examples.

I'm pretty certain that Congress will agree that strikes need to happen because it's a matter of punishing treaty violations.

Obama hasn't really turned into a war hawk. He has nearly completely wound down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while containing the conflict in Libya to a very short 6 month campaign. As for Syria, I don't think it's fair to call what he did a "betrayal." Do you expect the man to never use the most powerful military on earth, even if the times call for it? The Presidency can easily change a young idealistic man who would love to stick to his principles if not for the pragmatic reality of the world.

[Bridgetjones]

Meh, I can deal with it, liberating a country while improving the living conditions of 2 million people, including 1 million kids, on the precipice of death isn't that bad.

Because our interventions there have EVER worked out that way?