Elk County Forum

I would like to have the honest opinion of the people who know about these things.  What is the situation in Syria and what, if anything, should the U.S. do about it?  I would especially like to hear from our veterans who have been there, done that.

Wilma,
I am not a veteran but I feel we should stay out of Syria? They did not come over here and do anything to us. They did it to their own people which is terribly wrong no matter how you look at it. I think the UN should get involved and say something.

Quote from: Wilma on September 03, 2013, 02:10:27 PM
I would like to have the honest opinion of the people who know about these things.  What is the situation in Syria and what, if anything, should the U.S. do about it?  I would especially like to hear from our veterans who have been there, done that.

Wilma,
I am a vet and have an honest opinion but you asked something like this here while back and I gave my honest opinion and you came back with your below quote and jabbed me in the eye, So I think I will keep my opinion to myself.  :angel:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Warph, for your unopionated answer to my quest

I did that?  Well, you know how it is with us old folks.  We have trouble keeping you younguns straight.

If you will give me your honest opinion, I promise not to thank you for it.

Sarah Palin had a pretty good idea - Let Allah sort it out.

And Laurence Vance has it down too:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-military-action-against-syria-shouldnt-even-be-considered/

     The biggest red flag to me is that Obuma wants to do it. It smells of other motives than a response to them using Sarin gas.

     There have to be some bigger players than Obuma wanting to start this for their own financial gain.

     Obuma would do it just to make even more people hate our presence and want our military out of their part of the world.

Wilma...

Read "This & That" about what is going on on Syria.

Here's something I know you'll appreciate:

Heritage Foundation's The Foundry offers five critical questions that Congress should pose to President Obama before voting on his "disturbingly ad hoc and reactive" desire to jump into Syria, boots on the ground notwithstanding:



[Bumbling IDIOTS]"House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) both endorsed military action in Syria yesterday, but it's unclear whether President Obama has sufficient support in Congress for a resolution authorizing such action.

House and Senate hearings this week give Members of Congress an opportunity to question the Obama Administration on Syria and its strategy—and question they should. Here are just five reasons Congress should press the Administration for answers."

1. A "narrow and limited" operation seems at odds with the Obama Administration's objectives.

The President stated over the weekend that a U.S. military operation in Syria would be "narrow and limited" and would not involve troops on the ground. Yet the Administration's draft resolution states that the purpose of the military action is to "prevent or deter the use or proliferation" of weapons of mass destruction or to "protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons." This is a very broad objective.

The Administration has been careful to say that strikes would "degrade" Syria's chemical weapons capacity. But limited military strikes are very unlikely to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stocks or delivery capacity. This is doubly true since the Syrian government has now had more than a week to move and protect those weapons. Even assuming that the U.S. can definitively track the weapons, it is complicated to ensure that they are not transferred to another hostile party. Congress needs to challenge the Administration to establish objectives achievable by limited strikes or explain how the strikes will achieve the purposes stated in the resolution.


2. The Syrian rebels have been linked to Islamist extremists.

In addition to the military strikes, the Administration reportedly intends to do "more for the Syrian rebels," including providing arms. But there is evidence that the Syrian rebels are fighting beside Islamist extremists, some of whom have ties to al-Qaeda. Congress needs to demand a credible plan on how the Administration will prevent U.S. assistance to the Syrian rebels from supporting Islamist extremists.


3. Enforcement of Obama's "red line" has been inconsistent... very inconsistent

The Administration assesses "with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs." Yet these earlier attacks did not elicit a military response from the U.S. This belies the Administration's arguments that chemical weapons attacks necessitate a U.S. military response. Arbitrary enforcement of a "red line" is not a convincing argument.

4. The Administration has not clearly articulated a U.S. national security interest threatened by the August 21 attack.

The President stated that the August 21 chemical weapons attack "presents a serious danger to our national security." Yet he failed to articulate a direct threat to the U.S. or its allies. Obama said we need to send a signal to dissuade Syria and other nations from stockpiling or using weapons of mass destruction. But retaliation to one chemical weapons attack—and not others—does not send a clear signal. American vacillation in the face of Iran's nuclear ambitions sends a far more direct signal than a belated, "narrow and limited" military action in Syria.


5. The U.S. has not been able to gain broad support from allies.

The New York Times reported that offers of "military assets" have come from France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. But only France has committed to be an active participant in a military operation. Congress should seek an explanation from the Administration as to why, if the August 21 attack poses a regional threat, our Arab partners are not more committed.

The Obama Administration's Syria policy has been disturbingly ad hoc and reactive. The Administration has not clearly explained why it must act at this time when earlier incidents did not require action, how its proposed actions will achieve its stated objectives, and what its plans are if the military strikes do not succeed in achieving those objectives. Answers to these and other questions are vital if Congress is to take its responsibilities seriously.

I just don't understand why it is the responsibility of the United States to jump in and correct the social ills in a foreign country.  Why were we in Iraq?  What happened in Afganistan that made us feel that we were needed to save that country?  Has it been saved?  Is Iraq really better off now than it would have been without foreign intervention?  I asked for opinions about the situation in Syria hoping someone could help me understand what we are doing messing around with foreign governments.

My opinion is:  Bring our troops home, along with our money.

      Iraq= oil

     Afghanistan= drugs and money / regional domination

     Syria....  Israel would love to see it gone.

While I tend to stay away from the Politics thread, I agree with Wilma.  Let those idiots kill each other off however which way they want to do it.  I see no reason to get involved with this unless there is an attack on Israel with which we have signed an obligation to help.  Yes, I mourn for the innocents who are killed or suffering from these uprisings, but it is not our job to get involved.  I believe that with our current military operations winding down, the defense contractors in this country are looking for a new place to drop their bombs and fire off their missiles.  My questions are:

Why?
Are we being threatened?
Do we need another war or maybe start a major global conflict?
What's in it for the well-being of the American people?
How can a religion that supposedly practices peace in all things keep beating up on each other?
What can we do with the millions of dollars spent on this action to help ourselves?

In my letter to my congressman, I will emphatically state that I believe we should stay out of it and would ask that he/she vote that way.   

I say, stay out of it and let them sort it out by themselves. 

Larry (what am I doing in politics)j

Well said Larry, my sentiments exactly.  Both my US Senator and my Congressman are against it, and have lots of questions. The countries in the Middle East will never stop fighting, there have been Religious wars since the beginning of time and there will be religious wars until the end of time.

I will tell you the real reason we are in Syria. If Obama get his way the American people will forget about. Fast and Furious, IRS, NCS
and the 4 dead American's in Benghazi. The Syria problem will sweep all the other ones under the rug and we will forget about them.

Jane, I won't forget about them or any of his other blunders and liberal idiot actions. If we bomb, attack, take action against Syria, I think the Middle East American haters will attack Israel big time. The only reason Obuma sought  Congressional approval was to cover his rear when it goes bad. The only think good that would come out of it for me personally would be $150.00 crude oil.

Well that $150.00 a barrel would not hurt us either. The public does not want us to bomb and do not know why those idiots in congress do not listen.

I got a glimpse of an interview with Sen. Blunderstein, one of our California senators.  She said that the majority of her constituents are against any action in Syria.  However, "those people don't know what I know and what I have heard."  unquote.  She is support of Obama's plan to bomb Syria.  I couldn't believe she said that.  What an idiot!  This is a country that is "of the people," etc.  If she has some information, as well as any other politicians, please share so we the people can make a decision on what we should do, if anything.  Have the politicians in this country gotten so cynical that they actually believe Americans are too dumb to understand what is going on or too low brained to know what to do about it?  

Yesterday, in a rare mood, I did send a letter to my Congressional Representative stating that I feel getting involved in Syria is wrong.
Then today, after seeing what good ol' Dianne had to say, I fired off a letter to her also.  I informed  her that I was one of those "dummies" who doesn't know what she knows.  I also told her I was one of those veterans that she declared was mentally ill.  That is another one of her statements back when she was talking about gun control.  Veterans shouldn't be allowed guns because "they are all mentally ill."

She is a Democrat so I have never voted for her.  

Larryj

Lobbyists count for more clout than citizens or the Constitution.

Try this:
http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/index.php/topic,15589.0.html

And this:
http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/09/04/exclusive-house-staffer-tells-me-what-aipac-is-doing/

 

Quote from: redcliffsw on September 08, 2013, 07:11:25 PM
Lobbyists count for more clout than citizens or the Constitution.

Try this:
http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/index.php/topic,15589.0.html

And this:
http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/09/04/exclusive-house-staffer-tells-me-what-aipac-is-doing/

Red... Lobbyists have been at work from the earliest days of the Congress.  Going back to 1792, William Hull was hired by the Virginia veterans of the Continental army to lobby for additional compensation for their war services.  Hull wrote to other veterans' groups, recommending that they have their "agent or agents" cooperate with him during the next session to pass a compensation bill. In 1795, a Philadelphia newspaper described the way lobbyists waited outside Congress Hall to give a hint or advise said Congress member.  As early as the closing years of the eighteenth century, there were widespread suspicions that large, well-financed interests were receiving special attention from the government.  Today, there are over 34,000 lobbyist in DC. and parts unknown and at least 30% are corrupt.  Hell, probably over half of Congress lobbyed before election and after retirement.  The last thing the Gov. wants is to get rid of these special interest groups.  Money talks, Red... big time!

Via ThinkProgress:

As members of Congress consider President Obama's request to authorize military force in Syria, following evidence that President Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons killed over 1,400 people, a ThinkProgress analysis of the public statements of 416 Representatives found that 238 lawmakers have either decisively ruled out supporting the measure or say they are unlikely to back it. Just 42 of the 416 members of the House of Representatives said they will definitely or likely vote in favor or the resolution.

A vote in the House is not expected until next week at the earliest. 136 members have publicly said they are undecided and the positions of 17 members are unknown. All told, 317 members either have not decided, or indicated they are willing to consider changing their position.

Republicans were far more likely to oppose military action in Syria, while Democrats were more likely to support it. The numbers are a contrast to 2002, when Democrats in the House provided "the bulk of the opposition" to President George W. Bush's Iraq war resolution — though a majority of Democrats (61 percent) still backed war. Only six House Republicans voted against the Iraq war in 2002.



Update:

(Just a tad delusional)

Via Washington Examiner:
Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes on Monday predicted that the White House would win enough congressional votes to strike Syria.

In an interview on CNN, Rhodes downplayed polls showing a majority of Americans oppose a military attack and weak support in Congress.

"We think at the end of the day the votes will be there in the Senate and the House," said Rhodes told "New Day" host Chris Cuomo.

Rhodes conceded that it would be a difficult vote for many members of Congress.

"We understand it's a tough vote for members of Congress but we frankly think it's important for everybody to come forward and to be counted through that vote because these are tough decisions that we have to make as a country," he said. "We're not going to win every vote but we believe that at the end of the day we have the strongest case to make that frankly inaction sends a message."