Syria

[Meenah]

What do you think? Should we launch a military attack? I feel sick just thinking about it. I honestly don't know what the right answer is, and my heart aches for those innocent murdered children.

[PrincessFiona]

Honestly? I don't think so. Not on our own. The UK has already voted 'no' on their involvement. This has to be up to the UN and there must be a coalition. Have the UN inspectors come back with their findings? We are in no military position to go in on our own. I hear the words 'narrow strikes' and imagine it evolving into much more.

This is not to condone the horrible abuse of people happening in Syria. It is sickening. One of our own members here is suffering quite a bit because of the tragic abuses happening in Syria.

If the US gets involved, it also can't be without a vote from the Congress. I'm with Joe Biden on that one ... the old Joe Biden who taught constitutional law and believed the president didn't have the power to unilaterally launch an attack.

Luanne I feel sick thinking about what is going on in Syria too. I just don't know how we can open up another area of 'war'. Our military is stretched thin and we simply don't have the money to fund more military action alone. The world really has to step up! I hope they do.

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of the US doing ... something ... farther down the line if all efforts to get the world involved have failed. I do, however, believe that we have to let this go through channels to see if the UN, first, will take action.

ETA: I keep editing my post as I think this through. Do you think there is a chance of a Syrian retaliation against America and this becoming a much bigger front of war?

This is such a huge issue. I'm really interested in what everyone has to say. I must have had too much coffee today. I've been hanging around waiting to read how others feel.

[houseelf]

Honestly? No. Not on our own. The UK has already voted 'no' on their involvement. This has to be up to the UN and there must be a coalition. Have the UN inspectors come back with their findings? We are in no military position to go in on our own.

This is not to condone the horrible abuse of people happening in Syria. It is sickening.

If the US gets involved, it also can't be without a vote from the Congress. I'm with Joe Biden on that one ... the old Joe Biden who taught constitutional law and believed the president didn't have the power to unilaterally launch an attack.

Luanne I feel sick thinking about what is going on in Syria too. I just don't know how we can open up another area of 'war'. Our military is stretched thin and we simply don't have the money to fund more military action alone. The world really has to step up!

+1

To be clear, I'm horrified by the report and I do believe we have a moral duty to issue some punitive action against these war criminals. Nonethelss, the US absolutely must rally more international support and this has to go through Congress. Our international "street creed" has been decimated due to everything from spying on our allies to acting unilaterally in the recent past. We have to do this the right way this time because our previous style of cowboy justice has cheapened our authority as a global leader. We have to think of both the immediate crisis and the long term ramifications.

[Meenah]

Kris, you were able to express my own thoughts when I could not. Selfishly, I'm having a difficult time thinking past my own family on this one. I do not want my SIL going into Syria. Afghanistan was bad enough.

[Cinderella]

Just looking at and weighing some of the facts. I'm still thinking about this and mostly in observation and assimilating all the pieces of information over the years. I'll tell you my best guesstimation of the game plan towards the end.

Did you know Bashar was an Ophthalmologist who practiced in London and was never supposed to be Dictator? His older brother Bassel who was groomed for the position died in a car crash.

Bashar succeeded his father, Hafez al-Assad, after his thirty year rule where he'd used the same chemical weapon attacks on his people during his time in power.

The Syrian civil war has raged on for the past 2.5 years. During that time 100,000+ Syrians have been killed and nearly 2 million Syrians have become refugees in neighboring countries.

Assad has used chemical weapons during this time on 15 known occasions. The largest event occurring on August 21 in the suburbs of Damascus where 1,429 people were killed, of which were 426 children.

Syria has a population of 23 million people who are very diverse ethnically and religiously. Around 90% of the majority are made up of Arab Sunni Muslims, while the ruling class are the 10% Alawites which is a branch of Shia Islam. The Alawites mainly live along the coast line. There are also Kurds living on the northern border. The Sunni Muslims fill the rest of the country.

Syria's military is one of the more modern and sophisticated. They have around 400,000 troops and modern weapons and technology.

Russia has interests in Syria. It has a naval installation there that is their largest foreign military base outside Russia. It wants to maintain it's military alliance with Syria. It opposes any international intervention that appears as Imperialist because it goes back to the Cold War mentality and is seen as a threat to Russia. Syria also does a lot of business with Russia buying military export such as helicopters, ect.

Iran has interests in Syria. Iran ships arms through Syria to militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. If Syria falls one of Iran's allies in the region will be cut of and isolate it from it's militant outreaches. One of the main reasons for the recent increase in tension between the US and Russia is the shipment of rockets through Syria to Iran. These rockets can reach Israel.

The military options for the US are all bad. Neither the Assad regime or the guys he's fighting are our allies in the Syrian civil war. Taking out Assad would create a power vacuum. Arming the rebels is giving weapons to jihadists such as the AQ affiliated group Al-Nusra Front that's fighting with the Free Syrian Army. Also the rebels have had a difficult time uniting their various groups under one umbrella. This is a reflection of the deep sectarianism in Syria that was happening long before the civil war started. It was already a hornet's nest. Also further arming them would amount to them fighting each other for control based on their beliefs. If you read what they believe and know what they stand for then you know there is no middle ground with these guys. They do not have democratic beliefs like we have in the West. The ones fighting now are Sunni radicals, mixed with AQ affiliated Islamic radicals, mixed with civilians turned foreign jihadists from neighboring countries, and Iranian backed Hezbollah militants. None of these guys are our allies and they would have no sympathy for you if the same thing was happening in the West. They were the ones cheering when 9/11 occurred.

The Syrian refugees want the US to strike Syria and do something about the situation.

The Arab League is against the US strike on Syria. So is Russia and China who plan to veto any resolution by the UN security council on it.

The UN security council has yet to convene on it and hold a vote.

The UK is bowing out of the strike on Syria since their Parliament voted it down.

The US Congress still has to vote to back it. The President can't strike Syria without Congress's authorization otherwise it's illegal because Syria poses no great threat to the US.

Kerry attempted to make a case that Syria's chemical weapons was a threat to the US based on international treaties but the truth is it's a stretch and has never been recognized as that's how you fight wars now.

The intelligence reports that the US received came from the Israelis. They're confident about it without having the UN investigation to back it up. It's probably all true and will be verified by the UN investigators because no one has that large of a stock pile of chemical weapons to do such an attack, and the system of delivery to do it, other than Assad. Assad took four days before he let UN inspectors into the chemical attack sites per their request for the investigation.

The US seemed hasty to strike at first but now seems somewhat reluctant after the UK withdrawal.

Iran has said it will strike America's allies in the region, Israel, if the US strikes Syria.

Israel has said they will fiercely defend themselves against anyone who attacks them. Israeli's are buying up gas masks and they're being distributed by the government encase of fallout from the US strike on Syria.

Probably Iran will not directly strike Israel either but rather do it indirectly through Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon.

I buy that the US and France want to strike Syria. However, I don't buy their reasons.

If they say it's for humanitarian reasons I can cite the 100,000+ Syrian people already dead, or Rwanda, or the Congo, or any number of violent bloody conflicts where the US has done zip, zero, nada, zilch.

If they say it's for the deterrent of chemical weapons and history will judge us all harshly for it in this critical moment I can cite when Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds and nobody did a damn thing then or can even recall it really.

If they says it's for the children well the dead already include children, and they make up over half the refugees.

If they say it's crossing Obama's red line well that line was already crossed a number of times and we did nothing but investigate and shake our heads.

Nope this is not about Syria or chemical weapons. That is just an excuse to get everybody to focus at something emotionally appealing and drawn in support.

The US has no business dealings or interests in Syria other than securing our ally in the region, Israel. Which Syria and Iran are a threat to Israel.

This is really about Israel and Iran. Last month 21 Embassies in the region closed. They said it was because of an AQ threat, but it was probably more like a trial run encase of the event of a major war breaking out. Israel probably told the US the time has come to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran has been saying forever that they want to wipe Israel off the map. Israel and the US have been saying forever that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and Israel has been saying it's past the red line to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

Syria using chemical weapons crosses Obama's red line thus providing the opportunity to act and strike Syria. Striking Syria provokes Iran to strike Israel which give Israel justification to wipe out Iran's nuclear facilities that they've been saying forever that they want to do.

It doesn't have a to be a big strike to provoke Iran. It just has to be a strike. If Obama gets the green light for a narrow limited strike that may be all they need, but there are larger implications then just striking some facilities and calling it a day.

I guess what we should really be asking ourselves is Iran obtaining and making nuclear weapons a threat to the United States and Israel and do we want to deter that. I believe they have intelligence that Iran is still going ahead with uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons even with the international sanctions ect. Too many Iranian nuclear scientists have gone missing or died. They don't want to take the risk they're wrong.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope Iran is bluffing about striking Israel. I hope Syria is bluffing about retaliation. I hope the US only does a limited strike if they decide to strike. I hope the US doesn't end up killing more civilians. The thing is though Israel could say the rockets from Lebanon really came from Iran and have enough excuse to strike Iran then. You know what they say, "All is fair in love and war."

[Thirteen]

My friend is from Damascus, and her family basically does not leave their home. Ever.

Is that life? Hardly, yet the tell her they are "fine."
I'm unsure of what the answer is, but no one should have to live that way. I cannot imagine what they are going through.

The killing of innocents is never justified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

I'm horrified by what's going on but I don't think we should go in without international support. Iran is threatening to bomb Israel if we do anything and now we've just started a massive regional war. With our current foreign policy, there is no way we can stand by and allow Iran to do that. Plus, I don't trust our Israeli allies on a "proportional response". One peep from Iran and they'll start launching everything they've got and now WW III is going on in the Middle East...maybe I'm wrong. I hope so but that's a huge fear of mine.

[Meenah]

One peep from Iran and they'll start launching everything they've got and now WW III is going on in the Middle East...maybe I'm wrong. I hope so but that's a huge fear of mine.

This scares me too. Have we not learned anything from our past?

[fluffhead]

T&S, how would you advise a sovereign nation to craft a "proportional response" when the leader of a close by neighbor has vowed its destruction and is on its way to the construction of a weapon which can wipe it off the map? Would a friendly slap on the wrist suffice? Do you honestly think that Israel will nuke Iran if Iran sends a couple missiles their way? Has Israel not shown its responsibility with the use of its arsenal in the past?
And I've been sitting for 24 hourse trying to think of a nonthreatening response to Cinderella's post which won't shut down the thread (as every other mideast thread has been when I butt in), but I can't be civil, so I'll just shut up.

Well, no I won't. It's very easy to make this Syria business all about the Jews. But seriously, everybody is talking about the murder of innocent children. What does this have to do with Israel? Did they put this nutcase in charge? Did they support the rebels? And do you think that it's improper for Israel to blame Hezbollah's action on other countries? Where are they getting funding?
I'm eagerly following the dialogue in the US regarding Syria. I am sad that there is no correct response, and frankly, I'm hoping that we do not go it alone - we can't afford another front. And I was happy that I wasn't hearing people blaming Israel for the situation. And then I came here, and I was so disappointed.

[MrsK]

T&S, how would you advise a sovereign nation to craft a "proportional response" when the leader of a close by neighbor has vowed its destruction and is on its way to the construction of a weapon which can wipe it off the map? Would a friendly slap on the wrist suffice? Do you honestly think that Israel will nuke Iran if Iran sends a couple missiles their way? Has Israel not shown its responsibility with the use of its arsenal in the past?
And I've been sitting for 24 hourse trying to think of a nonthreatening response to Cinderella's post which won't shut down the thread (as every other mideast thread has been when I butt in), but I can't be civil, so I'll just shut up.

Well, no I won't. It's very easy to make this Syria business all about the Jews. But seriously, everybody is talking about the murder of innocent children. What does this have to do with Israel? Did they put this nutcase in charge? Did they support the rebels? And do you think that it's improper for Israel to blame Hezbollah's action on other countries? Where are they getting funding?
I'm eagerly following the dialogue in the US regarding Syria. I am sad that there is no correct response, and frankly, I'm hoping that we do not go it alone - we can't afford another front. And I was happy that I wasn't hearing people blaming Israel for the situation. And then I came here, and I was so disappointed.

+1

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

I'm not saying its Israel's fault or that they wouldn't have any right to defend their country if attacked. I'm saying an entire region thrown into war is a bad, bad thing.

And in my opinion, there have been times when Israel responded to small attacks with much larger ones. But that's not what this thread is about so I won't go there.

All I'm saying is that we better be damn careful. Israel has been a good ally and partner in the region and our actions will impact them if we provoke Iran into attacking them because of our actions in Syria.

[fluffhead]

agreed (mostly) T&S - sorry if I came off too strong, it's a visceral reaction.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

And for the record, America is the queen (king? what is the gender of a country?) of disproportional responses in many cases. So I'm certainly understand that it's a bit of pot calling the kettle black in that regard...

[Rapunzel]

Syria: It's a big, horrible mess. And, no matter who wins the innocents in Syria lose. I really think our best solution here is humanitarian action: Help the innocent - help them get out if need-be while the people on either side of this civil war gas and kill each other.

[SoonerTexan]

I thought this was pretty good

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rassed-to-ask/