Anonymous



No. We know that Assad is a bad guy. We know that some rebels are killing Christians and that they, also are bad guys. So, how do we support the right rebels?

Who would have thought we would have been considering fighting for Al-Qaeda? Wonder how they are going to spin this...or will they just ignore this small bit of info?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I oppose intervention.

It is not clear to me how bombing Syria will improve the conditions of the Syrian people. More than likely, we will kill a significant number of civilians and I would not be surprised if we end up killing more civilians than were allegedly killed in the gas attack. At the end of the day, we will leave the country worse off than it is now.

Those most likely to benefit from our involvement are groups linked to al-Qaida. Such groups are currently imposing Sharia law in formerly secular Syrian cities. Why anyone believes assisting such groups is in the US interest in beyond me.

The US obviously is not concerned about Syrians being killed. There are far better ways of preventing that than bombing them. Rather, Obama laid down a red line and that line was crossed (at least in the US interpretation of events which I for one take with a grain of salt). So, what is at risk here is Obama's and by extension, the US's prestige. So, I ask, how many Syrians must die for Obama's prestige? Frankly, I don't think it is worth a single individual. John Kerry famously asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" There is a certain tragic irony in seeing him offer justifications for the killing of many more for another mistake.

Mr. Steele, this is probaby the first and only time I will agree with a political post of yours. Well said.

jsteele wrote:I oppose intervention.

It is not clear to me how bombing Syria will improve the conditions of the Syrian people. More than likely, we will kill a significant number of civilians and I would not be surprised if we end up killing more civilians than were allegedly killed in the gas attack. At the end of the day, we will leave the country worse off than it is now.

Those most likely to benefit from our involvement are groups linked to al-Qaida. Such groups are currently imposing Sharia law in formerly secular Syrian cities. Why anyone believes assisting such groups is in the US interest in beyond me.

The US obviously is not concerned about Syrians being killed. There are far better ways of preventing that than bombing them. Rather, Obama laid down a red line and that line was crossed (at least in the US interpretation of events which I for one take with a grain of salt). So, what is at risk here is Obama's and by extension, the US's prestige. So, I ask, how many Syrians must die for Obama's prestige? Frankly, I don't think it is worth a single individual. John Kerry famously asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" There is a certain tragic irony in seeing him offer justifications for the killing of many more for another mistake.

jsteele wrote:I oppose intervention.

It is not clear to me how bombing Syria will improve the conditions of the Syrian people. More than likely, we will kill a significant number of civilians and I would not be surprised if we end up killing more civilians than were allegedly killed in the gas attack. At the end of the day, we will leave the country worse off than it is now.

Those most likely to benefit from our involvement are groups linked to al-Qaida. Such groups are currently imposing Sharia law in formerly secular Syrian cities. Why anyone believes assisting such groups is in the US interest in beyond me.

The US obviously is not concerned about Syrians being killed. There are far better ways of preventing that than bombing them. Rather, Obama laid down a red line and that line was crossed (at least in the US interpretation of events which I for one take with a grain of salt). So, what is at risk here is Obama's and by extension, the US's prestige. So, I ask, how many Syrians must die for Obama's prestige? Frankly, I don't think it is worth a single individual. John Kerry famously asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" There is a certain tragic irony in seeing him offer justifications for the killing of many more for another mistake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it.


That may be--but do our plans include punishment or a slap on the wrist for effect? And, is it in our interests to let the rebels--and possibly al Queda take over Syria. I don't know what is right.


Not sure that there is much worse than a Russian-sponsored government on the border of Israel which supports Hezbollah and actually got construction started on a nuclear plant. That pretty much covers all of the bases: jihad, nukes, and global balance of power.

Maybe for you, but for me it would be worst if the border was with the USA. It would be great to have Irsael step up and take on a lead role in fighting. It would still be our money, but not our troops being killed. It would let us get our troops back home.

Anonymous wrote:
The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it.


That may be--but do our plans include punishment or a slap on the wrist for effect? And, is it in our interests to let the rebels--and possibly al Queda take over Syria. I don't know what is right.


Not sure that there is much worse than a Russian-sponsored government on the border of Israel which supports Hezbollah and actually got construction started on a nuclear plant. That pretty much covers all of the bases: jihad, nukes, and global balance of power.

Anonymous wrote:

The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it.

That may be--but do our plans include punishment or a slap on the wrist for effect? And, is it in our interests to let the rebels--and possibly al Queda take over Syria. I don't know what is right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have gone back and forth, and I think the answer is that we have to respond, not for the sake of Syria, but because chemical weapons deterrence depends upon it.

The only way that we keep chemical weapons out of the equation of war is to punish everyone who uses it. We were wrong to ignore it in Iraq in the 80's and if we let it go again, everyone facing civil war is going to use it when desperate.

Deterrence has to be backed up to have power, even if it brings no one peace.

Who made the US the world police? Let the UN take a vote and deal with it. That's their job.

Anonymous wrote:My answer is yes, though I hope we're not going at this alone.

Why? Because if we don't address the abuses of the Assad regime, particularly the use of chemical weapons, it undermines our already very delicate credibility in the region. It the civil war in Syria will continue to exacerbate the instability in the region.