What?? Rubio making a vote for political reasons. The last I saw almost every Republican is against Obama while most Dems are for Obama going into Syria. This happened back in Iraq war where the Dems, afraid they would lose elections and re-elections if they voted against Bush. That went well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...vote-on-syria/
While I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict,” Rubio said. “And I still don’t. I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work. The only thing that will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in the future is for the Syrian people to remove him from power.”
http://politics.heraldtribune.com/20...ings-on-syria/Though Rubio wants the U.S. to take action in Syria, he was critical of the Obama administration for not getting involved sooner. For nearly 2 years, Rubio has been advocating for greater efforts to support moderate rebel groups against Assad.
It's not about the morality of acting or not acting. It's about whether or not this attack would work to achieve our stated goal of deterring future chemical weapons use.
The short answer: It would not work. Here's why.
The President has said he does not want to remove Assad from power and he does not want to tip the balance of the war between Assad and the rebels. Yet the strikes are designed to weaken Assad by attacking vulnerable, necessary military components...which would weaken his military and tip the war in favor of the rebels.
At the same time it weakens him militarily, an attack strengths him politically. This means, from the perspective of the regular Arab living in the region, that Assad would get attacked by the US and emerge alive, in charge, and having (in their minds) "defeated" us. This will not weaken Assad; this will embolden him. It will draw more troops to his cause. It will weaken the resistance movement. He will have received a slap on the wrist. That's hardly a deterrent.
And, god forbid, one missile goes astray and hits a school or mosque (or Assad stages a scene to look like one), the entire region will be up in arms against us.
So to recap: we'd be going in with no clear definition of goals or victory; our actions wouldn't change much on the ground; the changes would favor the person we're attacking; and we might open ourselves up to retaliation attacks from other groups (i.e. terrorists) inflamed by a bomb led astray. And this is before you consider the ramifications of ramping up war with Iran's closest Arab ally and pissing off the Russians, who have bases in Syria.
Basing military decisions on the emotions involved (in this case, the horror of women and children attacked...by god knows who, because it can't be proven) is a sure-fire way to make a wrong decision. It might seem like the most humanitarian thing to do is drop some bombs and teach them a lesson. Unfortunately, that's not how the world works; and in this case, it works in exactly the opposite way.
If you want to deter future attacks, you bring up war crime charges on Assad in the ICC and let them sort it out. That or you don't half-way this and you go in with a full assault and overthrow Assad. Half an attack that sort-of kind-of might hurt a little? That's the worst possible choice out a series of bad choices.
I called my Congressman (well, his office) to tell him that I, as a voting constituent, do NOT want the US to be involved in Syria in any way.
Why?
1. We have no clear objective.
2. We already have a National Debt issue.
3. The last time we got into a proxy-war with Russia, in the Middle East, we ended up arming Osama Bin Laden. We all know how well that ended for the US.
4. Neither side is "good." One side may have used chemical weapons on his own people AFTER killing over 100k of them with "conventional" weapons. The other side is made up/funded by, in part, known terrorist organizations...including Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda.
5. There is no multi-national coalition or support.
6. We have enough problems at home to deal with.
7. The Administration is offering "mixed" messages by saying there won't be boots on the ground...and following that up with a statement saying "nothing" is off the table.
As for McCain, well, he's a warmonger. You're talking about a guy who wants to bomb anyone that looks at us funny. If he had his way we'd be bombing/invading almost every other nation in the world.
Last edited by Twotonsteak; 2013-09-06 at 08:34 PM.
I don't buy that. He just wants legitimate military engagements where they would create a better future for the entire world. I have no idea how that classifies him as a "warmonger" at all.As for McCain, well, he's a warmonger. You're talking about a guy who wants to bomb anyone that looks at us funny. If he had his way we'd be bombing/invading almost every other nation in the world.
The christians in syria will be slaughtered if the rebels win.
Well the world is not a very nice place, but then again not a particularly nasty one, at least in the west anyway. The main problem in Syria is that the opposition is as bad, or even worse than Assad. Therefore, the best choice is to destroy their chemical weapons and then supply the rebels sufficiently to prevent their defeat, but not enough to allow them to win.
When London was being strafed by the Luftwaffe day and night, it was still unpopular amongst the American public and even Congress to go to war. Does that mean that it wasn't the right thing to do? Of course not.
- - - Updated - - -
You destroy the people who deploy them versus innocent civilians. ez