Plea to President Obama to Not Engage In Syria...

Let me just get this out front and say that as President.........you suck. Didn't vote for you and you are doing a craptacular job and Dumbo wants his ears back.

With that out of the way I am imploring you that you do not involve yourself in Syria. The chemical weapons attack is suspect at best and is a false flag operation by AQ and friends at worst. Neither Assad nor the rebels are worthy of our support and there is no vital national security interest that I am aware of in Syria. Let it go and let them just hammer each other until they both are bloodied and battered.

While I don't know anyone personally that definitel will be called back to go over there, as they are all home and settle in as of now, there is the prospect of them being called back if need be because I believe you can be recalled up to 8 years after active duty is over.

I supported Iraq and the first few years of Afghanistan. I cannot in good conscious support a Syrian invasion just as I couldn't support an Iranian invasion although for different reasons. Do not listen to any people calling for war. We have no horse in this race. Let it go.

If you do not give in and refuse to invade, I will defend you on this issue as I do with your education policies. Take it for whatever it's worth.

 

Israel wants to protect it's northern borders.

 

That's what the IDF is for...

 

Israel is perfectyl happy getting the US to fight it's battles for them.

See "Israel and Judea".

 

Indeed, Obama makes a fool of himself and liberals blame the Jews, who knew?

 

Obama made public statements about how he would not tolerate Assad's use of chemical weapons. Now that Assad has, Obama is trapped. All he was doing was flapping his lips, as he does domestically. At home, the left leaning press covers for him, inventing excuses and evasions so that he's never held accountable for what he says. He just blurts out whatever will make him sound good and please his audience. Everyone leaves happy, and then Obama can forget about his promises. Here in New Jersey, there are several victims of Superstorm Sandy that Obama hugged at photo ops, giving them promises of personal help. He forgot those people as soon as the photo op ended.

But foreign affairs are different. Foreign governments and the foreign press aren't in Obama's pocket. They won't invent excuses and evasions for him. They expect the President of the United States to be as good as his word. If he isn't, especially in a high profile matter that's been the talk of the planet, it diminishes Obama and diminishes the United States.

So Obama's problem, as I imagine he sees it, is how little he can do in Syria without looking like the phony he is. He's not inclined to do anything military, because he is the nominal representative of the anti-war left, which is why he wants to minimize what we do, but he can't afford to look weak and unreliable. So people will die and be maimed - both Americans and Syrians - for the sake of Obama's reputation. I wonder how I would feel if I were in the armed services. Obama is delaying now because he's looking for an out: other countries to share the responsibility and the cost, or any development that would let him claim a US military response was unnecessary. Unless Obama finds an out, there's no doubt that we will strike.

Reallybigjohnson was right to point out that the US has good reason to deplore both sides in Syria. Do we like the murderous dictator or the murderous Islamic fascists/jihadis? What strategic interest are we protecting? Killing people with chemicals is bad. So is killing them with guns and bombs. Chemicals kill indiscriminately, but so do bombs and missiles. What ordinance will we use against Assad? I'd guess bombs and missiles will be involved. How many civilians will be "acceptable collateral damage"? How many people will we kill to make the point that killing is bad?

I don't worry that Obama will start a war. The costs are too high, both political and financial. Most people don't want a war, and the government is already bankrupt (Obama borrows about 40% of what he spends) but for the printing press. So a war would be nothing but unacceptable cost for him. What he wants is the minimum military action to claim that he's tough.

Obama does not have the legal right to start a war or even launch an attack. There is a law that lets the President respond immediately to any situation threatening the national security. But no such threat emanates from Syria. Without a declaration of war from Congress, Obama has no authority to act. Joe Biden thought Bush should be impeached for something similar. See here. Obama had similar opinions in 2008. See here. Who has the nerve to call Obama on this? Seemingly, no Republicans.

Last, what about Iran? Hasn't Obama used exactly the same rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program? What is anyone in the world to make of Obama's position re Iran nukes?

 

Reaccessed
​

Obama needs to invoke those words, "I have reaccessed".
Having listened to Kerry lay it out on 8/30/13 and the need for America to demonstrate global leadership -
WHY ?
Global leadership destroys great nations !

Stop basically unilateral, Global Leadership.
The rest of the world does not care beyond giving "lip service" like Erdogan of Turkey.

Any action should not be finance with one dime of American Tax Payer funding.
Let the Oil Emirates, Saudis, etc. purchase our cruise missiles and expertise to apply them. Etc.
And that would feed the Military Industrial Government complex without costing tax payers.

I do hope that America has the Congressional leadership to say "NO"
to unilateral, American tax payer supported strikes on Syria in any manner.

Although Kerry's speech was "Churchillesque" in structure and clarity and need to meet the red line commitment

The way out is to declare a
Reassessment
And stay out of Syrian Affairs.
No American Tax Payer funding to any multi national effort including America.
Let "them" pay for it for once ! & !
And NO American ground troops, advisers on the ground and future 100% war disability veterans. No! No!
​

Moi

 

Presidents are allowed to change their mind, and a lot has changed since he made that comment.

Nevertheless, Obama has already lost his credibility in the world.

Anyway, that's a rather silly dichotomy. Either start a war, or break just one more, out of countless promises he's already broken. Gitmo's still open. He promised to be transparent with spying etc.

So he gets a little shame. He deserves it. BFD. This is no rock in a hard place it's a rock and a pillow. Kinda like saying I have no choice but to burn the house down because I found a rat in the basement and the rat must go.

What else is he going to get? War. You attack people it's an act of war. You get war. What happens when they return fire? Either Iran or Syria or anyone else? The USA won't just run away will they? They'll engage. Things will escalate, we'll get a war. Don't believe his lies when he says he wants anything less. Obama is the king when it comes to disguising motives.

Of course he wants a war. He had consolidated forces all around Syria since long before the chem attack. And it's been constant "Assad must go". I can't imagine he'll have the restraint to stop after the warning shot. This is the guy who's demolished thousands of people with many women and children in multiple countries, with no chemical weapons involved.

 

This just isn't fair, American's will risk their son's and daughters when a Republican wants to go to war, but not when a Democrat wants to for the same reasons, if not better ones.

 

Wether or not Obama wants a protracted war is irrelevant and I believe somewhere down deep he knows it.
If as he claims Assad is criminal enough to use chemical weapons what will his reaction be to invasion?
obamma may get to deal the first hand of the game but there's no guarantee the game will end there. Actually little doubt it will end there.
Obammas mouth did indeed get this country in a heap of trouble. He'll throw Kerry under the bus but its us citizens that will pay.

 

But it shouldn't end there, won't military bases in Syria make a better strategic plan for the invasion of Iran?

Iran is going to get nuclear weapons, the only way to stop them is with war, and we already have bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, so military bases in Syria would help as well.

And there isn't really anything wrong with having more military bases in the Middle east in general, as it's a hot bed for controversy, and vital for oil. Not to mention military intervention builds our economy, as more jobs are created to build the war machine.

 

War isn't on the table, unless something changes radically. Obama is first a politician, and most Americans don't want war. The political costs are too great for him - all that blood and all that money. Sure, attacking Syria is an act of war, but Assad won't repeat Saddam's mistake, or the Taliban's. He knows he couldn't survive an alliance between his domestic enemies and the US. He'll weather our attack, make piteous noises at the UN, publicize pictures of the damage we've done, and pose as the victim. That's the one way for him to beat us. US politics requires that all our wars look virtuous. We're helpless if that's called into question.

 

Do I hear you saying we should go to war because it isn't fair if only Republican Presidents get to start them!?

Don't worry. Democrat Presidents began WW1, WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the incursions in Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Libya. Republicans have the incursions in Grenada and Panama, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans are rushing to make up for lost time, but I think it's still Advantage Democrats.

 

It would be years before we could have secure bases in Syria. The decisive time for Iran will be long before that.

 

Interesting that I'm the only one here who takes Obama at his word that he wants only a brief engagement with Syria to punish Assad.

Politics is calculus, and the equations go against a US ground war in Syria. For Obama, the costs far exceed the possible gains. I'm not crediting Obama with ethical objections (perish the thought), but his self-interest is against it.

 

The issue is bigger than Obama or the next President. It's our national policy to overthrow the regimes who have been running those countries and replace them with our version of Mr. Wonderful. Recall what Rice and Bush outlined a few years ago.

In a way we are suffering from a national mental illness. We think that we have the right to tell other sovereign countries what they can and can't do. If it was just up to Obama he would probably walk away but he can't do that because it will go against our national policy. So although the average Joe and Jane are against our involvement there will be blood very soon.

 

Did you vote for Obama?

 

As I have disagreed with Bobov many times in the past on this one we agree,

yes the left is not happy about yet another war, however if we take the president at his word with a limited attack and NO boots on the ground then well what does congress think because I am still not convinced.

On the one hand chemical weapons are outlawed by the UN, if they were used then the UN should do this not us.

On the other hand, in the pissing contest of countries in that part of the world, if we don't go attack then what is our creditability in that part of the world?

This is not an easy answer however my other friend and someone I never agree with Moi, said it right, NO Tax dollars for this, we have a military budget if that takes care of it fine, if not don't do it.

There are far better things to spend money on by this country like roads and schools and senior meals, yes I am a social liberal.

Bottom line, the president must make the case for this and the congressional leaders must approve not necessarily the entire congress.

As for having the authority yes he has the authority on his word alone as all presidents in recent history have had of the many wars this country have been in over the last 250 years only 5 have been declared by congress.

River

 

Good luck, at this point it's preaching to the choir. The Syrian Civil War is a cluster(*)(*)(*)(*) of problems that has huge implications for the middle east region and the world super powers, why do you think Russia is defending a demonic tyrant like Al-Assad? Because it is in Russia's national interests that he stays in power, while the West has gotten itself in a catch-22; if they don't react to the War, they will be labelled as deserters to the Syrian people and will bolster broad support for the Islamic Terrorists that are currently operating in the country, therefore prolonging the war on Terror. But if the rebels do win with support from the West, there's the risk of an hardcore Islamist running the country that may end up being a even worse dictator then Al-Assad; either way, there's no chance in hell the USA is going to win on this.

 

I wish I shared your confidence.

 

I wouldn't recommend that.

 

It's not national policy. It's corporate policy.

 

Yes I know, but I give each and every one of them a pass until they prove otherwise, when it comes to foreign affairs they have information that we will never have until much later and after the fact if at all, at some point you must trust the commander and chief to do the right thing and hope that it is, yes both parties doesn't matter if I voted for them or not, yes I question them but they are the ones that must make that decision - for that we must trust that their decision is the right one.

Sometimes its years before we know if it was right or wrong and sometimes its even longer before we know the truth.

Case in point, in the 50's the CIA put a guy in power of his country and ousted the popular opposition only to have them come back later and take hostages, IRAN in 1979, and look at it today. Was the decision wrong in the 50's ? it did not seem so at the time.

So if we bomb Syria and take out the storage/factories that make this poison gas will it stop them from doing it again? What will be the reaction of the other countries that make up the Arab world? If we don't do it, same questions as above? What will it look like in 50 years?

I don't have the answers and thank god I don't need to make the decision, that's why we have a president, does not matter who or what party, that is why they grow old in office.


River

 

He did prove otherwise. Obama has been lying nonstop continuously the whole time he was a politician. He has said many lies about foreign policy. For example, he insisted on multiple occasions that drone strikes were only to attack known AQ actively plotting. We then learned later that he just blows up whoever. His definition for who is an eligible target is any man. That's it. If you are a man, he thinks he can kill you. He straight-up flat out lied. And thousands of innocent lives were lost. Therefore, nobody should trust him, unless he can provide verifiable proof.

The fact that all this stuff is classified is just more reason not to trust him.

We just got done fudging the "intelligence" in Iraq, and that was even more detailed information than in this case. But was still nonsense.

That's the problem. We have no idea what the intel actually is, or isn't, or what it says. Although it did say the CW attack from Assad was unconfirmed.

They play it like a wild card or a blank check.. They can say anything they want, and as long as they precede it with the words "we have intelligence that..."

"We have intelligence that a leprechaun army mounted on unicorns will invade us from outer space" and people would buy this hook line and sinker.

So we are forced to take Obama's word for it. But we can't because he's a habitual liar. Therefore, I don't care what Obama says, unless he reveals actual, verifiable evidence.

 

Well it's been policy since 1943. http://www.nisk.k12.ny.us/fdr/1943/43_gifs/large/43030603.GIF