Syria Is An Attack Justified?

[Klingsor]

Destroyed is certainly overly harsh (sadly, imo), but do you truly think intervention is becoming increasingly unlikely?

All we've heard, from the President's cabinet no less, is that the failure to act with force would only serve to embolden others thinking of committing similar atrocities. That we can't afford not to act.

Now all of a sudden we can? I'm confused.

To be fair, this assumes the report that Russia included that this deal is contingent upon the US foregoing military force.

"Destroyed" was underguy's word.

I don't have a crystal ball. But Obama taking military action against Syria at this point would fly against popular feeling, congressional opposition, and international offers of a peaceful alternative.

It could happen. But I'm not seeing it.

 

[B_underguy1]

Bomb Syria, you mean (rather than Iran)? You really think Israel would launch an attack on Syria just as the international community may be reaching a (relatively) peaceful settlement?

Absolutely. That is when Israel at its most dangerous. The threat of peace is when they do their worst.

They will create a pretext of some sort first.

 

[Eric_8]

"Destroyed" was underguy's word.

I don't have a crystal ball. But Obama taking military action against Syria at this point would fly against popular feeling, congressional opposition, and international offers of a peaceful alternative.

It could happen. But I'm not seeing it.

I agree. Aside from really cutting against popular opinion, I don't see Obama moving forward with an attack.

I think I didn't state my argument clearly enough though. Let's try again.

Obama has ben stating that we need to attack Syria, and has been laying out his rationale for such an attack, to little avail thus far. Prior to this afternoon, it seemed he was going to be devoting his primetime speech tonight toward just that end: attacking Syria.

From my POV, nothing has occurred that, holding Obama accountable to his own words, would remove a military strike from Obama's agenda.

I never thought that Obama should attack Syria in the manner he proposed, but I don't see any developments that would serve to alter his viewpoints.

 

[B_underguy1]

Destroyed is certainly overly harsh (sadly, imo), but do you truly think intervention is becoming increasingly unlikely?

All we've heard, from the President's cabinet no less, is that the failure to act with force would only serve to embolden others thinking of committing similar atrocities. That we can't afford not to act.

Now all of a sudden we can? I'm confused.

To be fair, this assumes the report that Russia included that this deal is contingent upon the US foregoing military force.

Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen. Destroyed as functioning states and societies.

It isn't accidental. It is by design.

 

[Klingsor]

I agree. Aside from really cutting against popular opinion, I don't see Obama moving forward with an attack.

I think I didn't state my argument clearly enough though. Let's try again.

Obama has ben stating that we need to attack Syria, and has been laying out his rationale for such an attack, to little avail thus far. Prior to this afternoon, it seemed he was going to be devoting his primetime speech tonight toward just that end: attacking Syria.

From my POV, nothing has occurred that, holding Obama accountable to his own words, would remove a military strike from Obama's agenda.

I never thought that Obama should attack Syria in the manner he proposed, but I don't see any developments that would serve to alter his viewpoints.

I don't know what is or isn't still on Obama's agenda, or whether he's altered his viewpoints.

But if you believe an attack is unlikely now, we're in agreement on the most important point.

 

[Eric_8]

I think Charlie Kraut said it best: gave a pretty solid speech. Made the best case possible. Will still do little to nil to "move the needle."

 

[Bardox]

The entire speech was just an amalgam of everything they have been saying for over a week now. Nothing new. He made a moral case, but no justification that could be accepted by any international standard. Just because he says or believes he has the authority to launch a strike does not mean he does. It doesn't matter is the US congress says he can launch a strike either. The US government doesn't have the authority to attack another country, limited or otherwise, just because they say they do. Only in the case of self defense can the US act on it's own. Otherwise they must have UN approval or it is a war crime. The president himself said Syria is no threat to the US and UN has been screaming NO.

The second the US attacks Syria, assuming it does, it won't matter how morally outraged the W.H. is when pictures and videos of the dead bodies of civilians start showing up on international news sources saying "See what Americans do. What will happen when they disapprove of something in your country?" They haven't even shown any evidence Assad was responsible for the attack. There has been no assurances that a strike of any kind would be beneficial in anyway. Nor would it guarantee Sarin would not be used again.

What happened to those 1,400 people in that chemical attack was an atrocity, but no more so than the 100,000+ others that have already died in this civil war. The pictures and vids of the 400 some odd children killed by Sarin are less disturbing than those untold number of children ripped apart by bullets, rockets, and bombs.

The majority of Americans don't want the US to get involved in this war. The United Nations doesn't want the US to get involved in this war. I saw nothing tonight that would justify an attack on Syria. I was expecting so much more from this address.

 

[554279]

In Iraq at least an absolute fortune of oil revenue was appropriated to pay for the 'liberation' and sundry expenses.

A fortune in oil is only good if a country is willing, stable and secure enough to pump from it.

When you just go in for shits and giggles because you can, without a clear strategy, you're not get anything.

 

[B_underguy1]

A fortune in oil is only good if a country is willing, stable and secure enough to pump from it.

When you just go in for shits and giggles because you can, without a clear strategy, you're not get anything.

Nope. The oil is a fortune in the ground. If you destroy the country on top of it, they can't use it for their own benefit.

It's all about control. Not extraction.

 

[554279]

Nope. The oil is a fortune in the ground. If you destroy the country on top of it, they can't use it for their own benefit.

It's all about control. Not extraction.

Yes I think I said that.

"A fortune in oil is only good if a country is willing, stable and secure enough to pump from it."

 

[B_underguy1]

Yes I think I said that.

"A fortune in oil is only good if a country is willing, stable and secure enough to pump from it."

That's almost the opposite of what I said.

Keeping it in the ground is control. And its worth far more there.

 

[554279]

That's almost the opposite of what I said.

Keeping it in the ground is control. And its worth far more there.

I was referring to this reference which you made - (You) "If you destroy the country on top of it, they can't use it for their own benefit."

If you destroy the country no one benefits. Not even the evil empire which you allude to in your usual anti-American bashing way.

 

[cruztbone]

Bardox, Obama made THE case for confronting Syria:
1. chemical weapons are an atrocity which is completely preventable, with world cooperation and a threat of US force.
2. if we dont live by our treaty agreements, there is no reason for us to be in the UN OR work with other law-abiding nations.
3. Ceren gas is NOT just another form of warfare. the video of what happened on August 21 outside of Damascus made that quite clear.


his speech was precise and defining. no mystery, no bluster, no bull.
and John Kerry is on his way to Switzerland to work with the foreign minister of Russia.
and those who watched the speech, according to CNN, solidly agree with President Obama.
YOU may not be comforted by the fact that Obama is in charge, but many of us are. and last night's speech to the nation demonstrated exactly that.

 

[rbkwp]

no change in stance evident, speak all the same
still got that bitterness and determination to strike, despite
whole different agenda this man has, still dont trust that a forgiving nature is there ..
you can imagine a hardfaced Putin with same stance, did not expect it from Obama
Israel the most cunning of the lot as usual, keeping quiet, work behind the scenes, then act ..
dont forget it also gives his admin more time to work on there support .. greasing up the UK
same ole breakdown and escalation .. and i can remain as skeptical as them ..

 

[Eric_8]

Bardox, Obama made THE case for confronting Syria:
1. chemical weapons are an atrocity which is completely preventable, with world cooperation and a threat of US force.
2. if we dont live by our treaty agreements, there is no reason for us to be in the UN OR work with other law-abiding nations.
3. Ceren gas is NOT just another form of warfare. the video of what happened on August 21 outside of Damascus made that quite clear.


his speech was precise and defining. no mystery, no bluster, no bull.
and John Kerry is on his way to Switzerland to work with the foreign minister of Russia.
and those who watched the speech, according to CNN, solidly agree with President Obama.
YOU may not be comforted by the fact that Obama is in charge, but many of us are. and last night's speech to the nation demonstrated exactly that.

It's not another form of warfare? How do you figure Cruz? What I saw in those videos were people dying. What I saw in the videos of rebels massacring Christians and eating hearts was also people dying. It may well be more painful, but the endgame is the same: to enforce one's will/power upon a group that disagrees with you.

The best case for military intervention is still saving face based on those red line comments...nada mas.

 

[Klingsor]

The best case for military intervention is still saving face based on those red line comments...nada mas.

I think the "red line comments, saving face" explanation for Obama's behavior have rung increasingly hollow. How exactly has he saved face by turning the public and congress so overwhelmingly against him?

He's either the most guileless politician in history--an accusation even his harshest critics aren't about to make--or he's pursuing this course for reasons that have little to do with his standing in the polls.

 

[Eric_8]

I think the "red line comments, saving face" explanation for Obama's behavior have rung increasingly hollow. How exactly has he saved face by turning the public and congress so overwhelmingly against him?

He's either the most guileless politician in history--an accusation even his harshest critics aren't about to make--or he's pursuing this course for reasons that have little to do with his standing in the polls.

Face saving need not always come in the realm of public perception. A man as utterly incapable of accepting blame in any capacity as our President surely must have an extraordinary ego, for better or worse. Hell, he wouldn't even cop to making the red line comment.

Since public perception really means nil at the moment for the President, don't be shocked if it's ego driving this ship.

 

[silvian]

As italian i say NO, as human i will repeat NO. i'm hoping that you won't drink this lie again, did iraq war teach you something?
and rember EVERY war cast a lot who will pay for this new war knowiubg that the america economy is always so weak? RIGHT THE AMERICANS, please say NO
i hope it will be in US a 5 stars movement as we hace got in italy

 

[B_underguy1]

I was referring to this reference which you made - (You) "If you destroy the country on top of it, they can't use it for their own benefit."

If you destroy the country no one benefits. Not even the evil empire which you allude to in your usual anti-American bashing way.

On the contrary. The powers that be see greater benefit in leaving it in the ground for now.

Anyone who sees things in adolescent terms like America bashing isn't likely to understand the complexities of energy geopolitics and petro$ games.

 

[B_underguy1]

Bardox, Obama made THE case for confronting Syria:
1. chemical weapons are an atrocity which is completely preventable, with world cooperation and a threat of US force.
2. if we dont live by our treaty agreements, there is no reason for us to be in the UN OR work with other law-abiding nations.
3. Ceren gas is NOT just another form of warfare. the video of what happened on August 21 outside of Damascus made that quite clear.


his speech was precise and defining. no mystery, no bluster, no bull.
and John Kerry is on his way to Switzerland to work with the foreign minister of Russia.
and those who watched the speech, according to CNN, solidly agree with President Obama.
YOU may not be comforted by the fact that Obama is in charge, but many of us are. and last night's speech to the nation demonstrated exactly that.

The US does not live by its treaty agreements. It is the biggest manufacturer and stockpiler by far of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

It has used chemical weapons on numerous occasions as recently is its genocidal war on Iraq.

To attack Syria would be a war of aggression, which is the supreme international crime as per the Nuremberg Principles and the UN charter.

Even if the Syrian government had used chemical weapons, which is extremely unlikely on the available evidence, it actually isn't in breach of international law in my understanding.

So, there is no trigger that voids Obama's responsibility under the law.