See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Another war. Will anyone be protesting this one?
No, because we are all too confused. There are too many wars going on at the present time for us to single out only one to protest.
I have wondered for some time how many wars have to be going on at the same time to earn the title of 'World War III'.
No one will protest it. No one, except soldiers and their families have to suffer. We got a big tax cut, so we didn't have to pay for the war. We don't have to send our sons to the draft. Most people don't even know we've been at war for the last 12 years.
Sen. Roberts is wrong. There is another option; the U.S. could recognize that despite the tragedy and horror, what's happening in Syria is beyond our control and that any direct military action on our part will ultimately make the situation worse.
That's what Putin said and he's a friend of President Assad.
Just seems off to me you can overthrow a government and gun down hundreds of citizens and get a slap on the wrist, but use chemical weapons on the same amount of people and we drop bombs. Not saying us getting involved is good or bad, but there is always repercussions.
Then it brings into question why Syria and not Rwanda?
I agree, it's a funny distinction.
Funny as in odd.
Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds
from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.
Nice quote from Oscar Ameringer, patkindle.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): Chairman of the Senate Cover-up Committee
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Pat Roberts’s (R-KS) duty is “to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States” and “to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” But on the most important intelligence issues facing Americans – such as the manipulation of Iraq intelligence, warrantless domestic spying, and torture – Roberts has transformed his committee into a “Senate Coverup Committee” for the Bush administration.
Warrantless Domestic Spying
Intelligence Leak Hypocrisy
What Editorial Boards Are Saying
Warrantless Domestic Spying
The "lies", as you call them, were from information shared by many in the intelligence community. Lots of different countries believed the intelligence information about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and WMDs. There is a school of thought that Saddam Hussein and the Russians removed the WMDs to Syria immediately prior to the invasion. Where did Assad get his WMDs? I've never heard anything about production facilities in Syria. Additionally, you are so quick to point your finger and scream "liar" when the president that you probably support has been the most duplicitous politician in quite some time. If you expect me to believe he is not behind the cover up on Benghazi, the IRS targeting of opposing political groups, the Fast and Furious cover up, and race baiting that panders to his base, then you have another think coming. If his lips are moving, Obama is lying.
actually I have. Used to look at Syrian chemical weapons sites courtesy of overhead imagery. This was in the 80s and 90s. Doubt if it has gone away. I was one of the intel types that thought Saddam still had chemical weapons in 2003 because I saw them after Desert Storm when we cleaned out storage bunkers. I believe he could have moved them to Syria. There were some residual weapons in Iraq, primarily artillery shells. The reason for going in to Iraq again was BS. All Presidents lie, it goes with the job.
Does Robert's ever meet with plain folk or just outfits like the chamber of con men?
Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010:
Blackstone Group Amgen Inc
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
He sure does like sending US ground troops off to die.............
"Roberts indicated that he doesn't believe the president has decided what the aim of any U.S. military action should be."
Huh? Does anyone besides me see anything wrong with that?
Any contemplated military action should have very clear cut goals. I was under the impression that was a basic.
That's why they haven't done anything yet, they're waiting until they have a clear plan.
Please see Executive order 11905, in place since 1976, as well as Executive Order 12333. It has been the official policy of the United States not to assassinate foreign leaders.
It's my opinion that President Obama believes that that policy is correct and shall go unchanged if and when we take action against Syria.
Roberts Believes In Virtually Unlimited Presidential Power. Tim Russert asked Roberts on Meet the Press, “Do you believe that the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to do anything he believes is necessary to protect the country?” “Yes,” Roberts replied, “but I wouldn’t say anything he believes.” “I think you go at it very, very carefully, and that’s been done by every president that I know of.” [Meet the Press, 2/12/06]
Roberts' comments on the presidents' policy in Syria is tantamount to a compliment. This is a lose/lose situation and not worth the cost of a single cruise missile at $1.4M a pop. The US will get enough blame when Israel deals with Syria (however it turns out) down the road. It's on the Turk's back porch as well and Allah alone knows what they'll do.
Then they better raise taxes to pay for it, and bring back the draft. We can't keep sending the same soldiers there over and over. And it would be irresponsible to put it on a credit card like Bush's wars.
Let's not forget that Syria's chemical weapons were received from Saddam Hussein....that's where the WMD's were trucked.
Please cite (faux news doesn't count).
not very open minded of you is it?
Who was it that won a Nobel Peace Prize?
The Disinformation King, our Commander in Chief?
Did Syria attack the USA?
Did Germany ?
No, Germany did not attack the USA, but preparations were underway to bomb New York City. A four engine jet powered bomber was being designed for that very purpose, but there were a couple problems - the jet engines had a life expectancy of only about 90 hours, and the four engines that were to be used to propel the bomber from Europe to New York City, drop the bombs, and then return to Europe were so fuel inefficient that such a bombing run was not possible, if a return trip back to Europe was part of the plan.
But, if you have read any history of World War II, you will know that Germany attacked many allies of the United States. It is a policy among advanced nations to come to the aid of their allies.
"No, Germany did not attack the USA,"
Yes, they did. They sunk some of our flagged ships. And declared war on us.
(Reuters) - Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.
About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.
More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.
Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans' resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.
The results - and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June - suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad's regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some foreign and U.S. officials - notably Republican Senator John McCain, whom Obama defeated for the presidency in 2008 - have called Obama too hesitant in deciding whether to act in Syria. But several Americans surveyed in this week's poll, including Charles Kohls, 68, a former U.S. military officer from Maryland, praised Obama's caution.
I am not religious but why, please tell me why, we should help people who tomorrow will try to kill us in the name of allah.
Not everyone in the Middle East are terrorists, you know. What a logical fallacy.
Bush didn't lie after all. Iraq shipped their WMD's across the border into Syria. An article from 2006: http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/
As much as people may want to put this on Obama (yes he is the commander in chief), a big part of this problem is this nation's interpretations of defending human rights. All nations expect us to do it and because we are economically strong, they want us to pay for it. We continue to work under the myth we are defending human rights when we go to war, but what is really happening other countries want to use the USA as the world police, have us pay for the bills, and have our citizens killed versus theirs.
As awful as it may sound, what is occurring in Syria may be good for this country in the long run. Syrians will think twice about having highly centralized power with a monarchy and be willing to fight at all costs in a war.
You will undoubtedly find shortcomings in my arguments, but I am tired of the USA being put in the position of damned if you do (go to war and making the inevitable mistakes) or damned if you don't (not doing anything). We are the world's major police source, and I think it is time for other countries to take charge rather than us always being the one to do so. We went to war in Serbia when European nations could have taken care of Serbia by themselves. As an American, I am tired our nation playing Lone Ranger to the world.
Well, I understand your frustration.
But, we're the ones with the huge military, and so we've got the power to intervene when others don't. Yes, they could possibly invest more in their military if they have the resources.
My problem is that our policy is so inconsistent and unreasonable. If we're going to intervene to protect human rights, that's fine, but we don't do it consistently. So, it winds up looking like political nonsense to me, rather than a concern about human rights.
"But, we're the ones with the huge military, and so we've got the power to intervene when others don't."
At the expense of our own people.
Do you think we should stand by and do nothing while innocent people, including women and children, are killed around the world?
That's sort of like the guy who's a martial arts expert standing by while somebody gets beaten by a gang, isn't it?
So you are willing to pay more in taxes and sign up? Now your not worried about the debt. And what has caused most of our debt? The poor? The elderly? No the wars!
I never complain about taxes - I just pay them.
Is there some reason you didn't answer the question?
There are many things we do with our military that I don't support, but helping protect innocent people isn't one of them - I'd rather that we do that then many of the other things we do, like propping up dictators, etc.
Changing how we use our military would probably mean that we can protect those people without adding a lot of extra cost, and there are plenty of other ways that the government wastes tax revenue that we could eliminate as well.
I'm not going to "sign up" for the military - I'm over 50, with a health condition that would interfere, and I've never been very well suited temperamentally for the military, being inclined to question things, and not just follow orders.
None of that means that I can't have an informed and educated opinion about what we do as a nation with that military.
Jafs, our government's intervention around the world is the primary driving force behind many of these uprisings. We have brokered deals with the shadiest of dictators, propping them up, one after another, in the name of American captialism. When those dictators stop playing by the rules of Uncle Sam, then we are forced to depose, and install someone new. This is our problem all throughout the Middle East, and South America; those dictators have cozied up to China and Russia, because they are the only two countries that will stand up to the Empire.
I agree with a lot of that, and oppose the kind of intervention you describe.
But, that doesn't mean that I think all intervention is bad - protecting innocents and the weak against the strong are examples of intervention I find morally acceptable/desirable.
I just think that using our bully government to go provide freedom and rights to other people is a bit hypocritical, when they're so busy stomping on them here.
"That's sort of like the guy who's a martial arts expert standing by while somebody gets beaten by a gang, isn't it?"
I would say it's more like the guy who is a martial arts expert putting on a cape and a leotard with a big S on the front and running around town trying to right wrongs and deliver justice by sticking his nose into ongoing events when he may or may not know exactly who he is dealing with or what the real situation is beyond the superficial. We are pretty sure there were chemical weapons used but I don't think it has been determined who exactly used them. It could have been Assad or the Jihadist. Do you really think that people who would stuff a truck full of explosives and detonate it in a crowded shopping area would have any problem with killing a few hundred villagers and pointing the finger at their enemy in order to get Superman's attention? We won't be stopping a gang from beating up somebody; we will be jumping into a fight between two gangs. One who wants to run drugs and prostitution and another that is into human smuggling and home invasions. In a fight between a ruthless dictator that would murder his own people and a group that wants to take over the world, turn back the clock a few thousand years and brutally enforce conformity, who do you want to back?
Well, except that we know a lot about what's going on around the world.
I agree that there's often a lot of ambiguity, and we should strive for clarity before acting. And, I'm not arguing we should "back" one side or the other when there isn't a clear "good guy", I'm arguing that we should act to prevent harm to innocents regardless of who's harming them.
How do you stop it without knowing who is causing the harm? How do you stop it without tipping the scale one way or the other? The missile has to be aimed at someone and their enemy will benefit.
Of course you need to know who's doing it first.
It may tip the scales to intervene to protect innocents, but my goal isn't to help one side or the other, just to stop the slaughter of innocent people. And, if it does help the enemy, maybe they'll think twice about doing that in the future, and/or other people in similar conflicts may refrain.
War is bad enough when only combatants are killed, but it's an order of magnitude worse when non-combatants and innocent people, including women and children, are, in my view.
Right - that's the problem in places like Egypt, etc. where there aren't any clear "good guys".
But, I don't like your use of "Arabs" as if they're all bad guys either. If we're going to intervene at all, I think we should protect the innocent, and I'm sure that there are innocent people getting killed in Arab countries.
Works there for me as well.
The nationality of innocents getting killed doesn't matter to me, their innocence is what matters.
I have some tendencies towards isolationism, but think we should use our powerful and advanced military to protect the innocent as well.
Well, maybe in some very abstract theory, but in practice, there are so many problems with the way the UN is structured that they don't do that very well.
So, they killed 1300 with chemical weapons, now we are going to kill 5000 with cruise missiles to make them not do it again. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It would be better to let Allah sort it out, not the US.
All of you posters that think we should send missiles into Syria should have your husbands, sons and grandsons join the military to help fight the ground war that will soon follow. Then when they don't come home or do come home without arms and legs you can reconsider your opinion. We are not the World peace keepers.
Last week, Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote that the Syrian civil war is not between two discrete sides, but rather “a deeply-rooted, long-term conflict among many factions,” none of which would advance American national interests in the region if they prevailed. Armed intervention, he concluded, can “change the military balance, but it cannot resolve the underlying” issues fueling the conflict, and “violent struggles for power will continue after Assad’s rule ends.”
Middle East scholar Juan Cole notes that “Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons, the exact position of which is (sic) unknown; indiscriminate bombing raids on Syrian military facilities could release those chemicals on civilian populations.” He adds that much of the regime’s military hardware is housed in major urban centers and couldn’t be targeted from the air without causing massive civilian casualties. “If you want to see a war go bad real quickly,” he writes, “just kill dozens of innocent civilians in their own home from the air.” Finally, he warns that “flooding Syria with medium or heavy weaponry could destabilize it and its neighbors, including Israel and Palestine.”
(Above paragraphs copy/pasted from Moyers & Company website.)
Food for thought.
Good thoughts by Joe Hyde. I feel what so many posters here forget, or do not understand, is that what drives U.S. military intervention, almost exclusively, is U.S. national security interests. You won't hear that in no uncertain terms from the president, but that's how we operate. When you understand that, you will begin to understand why we operate the way we do.
Sen. Roberts said relatively little about Syria during his remarks at the luncheon. Much of his talk was a rambling monologue on various issues, interspersed with random asides and folksy stories about Kansas and himself. Watching him was a little scary. Is he losing it?
when yu make a threat yu have to back it up. that is what is happening here. if we were serious about this we will take out the national command structure. we won't we will attack aviation assets and ADA sites.
oh thank goodness, I was worried that the military industrial complex was winding down; thank goodness we have another place where we can literally blow our money.
this was one of the dumber things we will have done if it happens. nothing good will come out of this. i hope i am wrong.
Just send a contract killer to Syria to take out Assad. Much better value than wasting our military dollars and effort.
Yeah, that would be a piece of cake. No way does Assad have any personal security guarding him. And once he's dead, the Syrian conflict would stop, just like that. It would be "morning in the Middle East" again, similar to how everything in Iraq became tranquil after Saddam Hussein was gone.
No, Sam, the American people aren't war weary, except those American people who have served in the military or are currently serving. Many Americans couldn't find Syria on a map and are more concerned about Miley Cyrus's presumed effects on children than on Syrian children killed by chemical weapons.
As to Liberty275's first comment: probably not. Obama, not Bush, is in charge and he gets a pass on all sorts of things that Bush has nearly been crucified for.
Arm the rebels and get rid of the dictator. There are inherent dangers in weapons being proliferated.
A couple of qeustions: how different from Sadaam Hussein gassing the Kurds is this? What distinguishes this from any of the other middle eastern countries? Will cruise missles fix anything? Unless they can destroy the chemichal weapons stash, no.
Senator Roberts is a very funny guy with a lot of political talent. It is unfortunate that he belongs to the wrong political party at this time in history. I like the man, but we need to use a different strategy on Syria.
War is usually a bad choice.
The United States cannot become a country that is easily drawn into war.
We are the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. We have to be the example of a country that finds alternatives to war. We have to change history. This is our responsibility. We can do this. We can choose alternatives to war.
so business as usual, except the part about containing it in the area.
Roberts figures this is the GOP ticket back to the White House. Yes encourage Obama to follow BUSHCO.
The USA military is not in favor of invading Syria. Has been making that case for weeks yet too many white collared politicians don't give a damn. This is how the USA went into Iraq..... against the advice of the military brass.
Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions
Where is the Secretary of Peace?
Where is the industry designed around peace and goodwill?
USA intelligence knew of and watched step by step the chemical attack... yet did nothing to interrupt? The question becomes how is it the USA government can launch an attack based on an attack that perhaps could have been subverted?
This is terrible and brutal what is going on in Syria.
But getting involved in another country's civil war by use of selective force or bombing will likely lead to more chaos and tragedy. I definitely think the UN should go in and gather facts about what happened...which they are now doing. Perhaps justice can be accomplished without further violence meant to serve as justice.
What would that look like exactly? Without force, how do you think one can affect the situation there?
If we have learned anything recently, injecting force into a civil war will only increase violence and deaths. In a civil war there is no battle lines. Good guys and bad guys are mixed together. Using force will be only the 1st step, and the US will be called on to do more.
About the only thing we can do is rely on the UN. If you think the UN is not strong enough, then we need to work on that collectively. The US can no longer be the world police force.
Islam, moslems, mohammedans; whatever they are called all I ask is that all boggers who support this worthless and another involvement in the moslem world just go live there for a year and see the truth!
"While unusually detailed, the assessment does not include photographs, recordings or other hard evidence to support its claims. Nor does it offer proof to back up the administration’s assertion that top-ranking Syrian officials — possibly including President Bashar al-Assad — were complicit in the attack."
Who would the USA attack with no hard evidence?
It seems to me politicians should keep tough talk to themselves rather than back themselves into a corner. Remember Iraq had no WMD's yet GW attacked in spite of NOT KNOWING.
11 years later the USA is mired and has expanded the war based on no hard evidence.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·