Do you think your country should go to Syria?

[Lula]

[quote="Lula|1378049216|
No, I do not think we should be there. I think the Syrian government is trying to provoke the U.S. into striking to further enrage those in the Arab world who hate the West, and in particular the U.S. Military strikes or some sort of prolonged action would not necessarily end the atrocities in Syria, but may put our country's economic recovery and shrinking deficit (yes, our deficit is shrinking under Obama) at risk. It's a no-win situation that may simply inflame anti-American sentiment.

When did we pay off the 17 trillion?.. [/quote]

Budget deficit was under $1 trillion for the first time in five years, and is continuing to shrink. See the "Misunderstood Deficit" section of this Bloomberg article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...spending-cut-delay-amid-budget-deal-push.html

 

[AGBF]

My husband thinks Obama is trying to shift some power back to congress, and away from the paradigm of the unitary executive that has grown and dominated the last several administrations. I am not so sure on that. But I DO think he wants to put the screws to congress and make them go on record on this issue, which will be very interesting, because from what I've read, the majority of citizens do NOT wish any military action. Won't it be interesting to see if congresscritters respond to their supposed constituency, instead of the people who have bought them?

I tend to agree with you more than with your husband on Mr. Obama's strategy. However much he might revere the separation of powers when he is not the president, I think he loves having a strong (i.e. a monolithic) executive branch while he is the chief executive. I have no doubt at all that he was about to ignore the fact that Congress is the branch of government that is supposed to declare war or that the War Powers Act was supposed to strengthen that power. I think that all he wants now is to force his agenda through the Congress any way that he can so that the American people, who were showing alarming signs of rebellion, won't blame a war in Syria on him alone.

AGBF

 

[distracts]

I'm strictly noninterventionist.

Quite frankly, I don't think what other countries do, even if grossly morally objectionable, is any of our beeswax.

It's not about morals, it's about what is and is not the responsibility of our government. Our government's responsibility begins and ends at our borders. If you feel morally bad about it and would like to do something, I am sure there are NGOs that are doing things, so find and join one of them. But under no circumstances should we bomb people to make ourselves feel better.

 

[justginger]

I'm strictly noninterventionist.

Quite frankly, I don't think what other countries do, even if grossly morally objectionable, is any of our beeswax.

It's not about morals, it's about what is and is not the responsibility of our government. Our government's responsibility begins and ends at our borders. If you feel morally bad about it and would like to do something, I am sure there are NGOs that are doing things, so find and join one of them. But under no circumstances should we bomb people to make ourselves feel better.

Just out of curiosity, because this is so far removed from my own approach to morality in the global community (I'm the type that agrees with the sentiment that if you don't make a stand against a crime in some manner, not necessairly blatent warfare, you are guilty by association) - would you have allowed Hitler to continue his march across Europe, murdering by the millions, if it had been your call? Or is there in fact some sort of mental line in the sand for you, so that despite your isolationist wishes it eventually could get atrocious enough for you to consent to intervention?

 

[AGBF]

Our government's responsibility begins and ends at our borders. If you feel morally bad about it and would like to do something, I am sure there are NGOs that are doing things, so find and join one of them. But under no circumstances should we bomb people to make ourselves feel better.

would you have allowed Hitler to continue his march across Europe, murdering by the millions, if it had been your call? Or is there in fact some sort of mental line in the sand for you, so that despite your isolationist wishes it eventually could get atrocious enough for you to consent to intervention?

Does distracts live in a country that was invaded during World War II? Logic would argue that she could retain her philosophical position and still go to war against one or more of the Axis powers if she lived in a country that was invaded. That would include many countries...I shall not name them although the former history teacher in me is tempted to do so!

Deb

 

[ksinger]

I'm strictly noninterventionist.

Quite frankly, I don't think what other countries do, even if grossly morally objectionable, is any of our beeswax.

It's not about morals, it's about what is and is not the responsibility of our government. Our government's responsibility begins and ends at our borders. If you feel morally bad about it and would like to do something, I am sure there are NGOs that are doing things, so find and join one of them. But under no circumstances should we bomb people to make ourselves feel better.

Just out of curiosity, because this is so far removed from my own approach to morality in the global community (I'm the type that agrees with the sentiment that if you don't make a stand against a crime in some manner, not necessairly blatent warfare, you are guilty by association) - would you have allowed Hitler to continue his march across Europe, murdering by the millions, if it had been your call? Or is there in fact some sort of mental line in the sand for you, so that despite your isolationist wishes it eventually could get atrocious enough for you to consent to intervention?

I would not go that far at all. As justginger points out, there are times and places where regardless of distance, people of decency must unite to fight evil. My husband and I have been discussing this off and on all day, in between listening to "Theodore Rex" (bio of TR, who was most decidedly NOT an isolationist) on audio on our trip home from a weekend getaway, and while I still disagree that WE need to be the ones doing something, something does need to be done. I just think the rest of the world needs to get off their own moral asses and quit looking for us to solve every problem, and to fade all the heat. And there WILL be some political consequences for the US. Sadly, we've destroyed our own moral cred to a truly staggering degree - we squandered SO much in Iraq - that many people both at home and abroad don't really trust any US admin to get it right anymore.

In any case, chemical weapons have been banned for 100 years, and for very good reason. The powers that created them and then shamefully used them on each other understood on a very visceral level, WHY. (We also visited the WWI Museum today too. How's that for timing?) And it is a ban that has held. If nations allow opening of this Pandora's box, after 100 years of agreement that chemical weapons, like nukes, are one mode of killing too far, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves when they become the weapon of choice for every dictator du jour. Remember, even WE had the backing of many of the nations when they were misled - mostly by US - to believe that Iraq had WMDs and chemical weapons (and we know he really did have chemical weapons at least to some degree because he used them on the Kurds). While I disagree with the admin's assertion that this use of chemical weapons is a national security risk to us in the US, I see that it has a very good chance making the world more unstable and even more dangerous.

And finally, while I understand the sentiment, I really do, isolationism simply will not work. We gave up on it ages ago (as did pretty much every other nation in the world), and now that all the nations of the world are bound up in a truly global economy, there are hardly any real national borders left. What happens out there DOES affect us. There is no going back on that one I'm afraid.

 

[Ella]

Ladies and gentlemen, this thread has remained civil which we appreciate, but politics are against our policies. Please keep the current president's political affiliation and agenda OUT of the conversation if you wish this thread to remain.

 

[AGBF]

Ladies and gentlemen, this thread has remained civil which we appreciate, but politics are against our policies. Please keep the current president's political affiliation and agenda OUT of the conversation if you wish this thread to remain.

Thank you, Ella. I think that you have given us wide latitude with what we may discuss in this thread. I think that we can have a very interesting discussion without needing to cross the parameters laid out!

Deb/AGBF

 

[AprilBaby]

No, why don't the Arab nations step up and control their own? We give millions in military equipment to them every year, they are fully capable.

 

[AGBF]

No, why don't the Arab nations step up and control their own? We give millions in military equipment to them every year, they are fully capable.

AprilBaby's is yet another reason offered in this thread for the United States not to bomb Syria. I am trying to keep track of the reasons offered by posters for not doing so. So far the reasons offered can be classified into several groups. There are those who believe that the Syrian situation is dire, but that there are other entities besides the United States government who should take action (e.g. the United Nations or other Arab countries). Then there are those who think it is dire and may demand intervention by the United States if other entities abrogate responsibility for genocide, but believe that if the United States intervenes, that it should only do so with diplomacy, not military might. Finally, there are posters who think that the United States should concentrate on what is going on within its own borders and not intervene at all in Syria.

Have I missed any major arguments?

AGBF

 

[rainwood]

No, why don't the Arab nations step up and control their own? We give millions in military equipment to them every year, they are fully capable.

AprilBaby's is yet another reason offered in this thread for the United States not to bomb Syria. I am trying to keep track of the reasons offered by posters for not doing so. So far the reasons offered can be classified into several groups. There are those who believe that the Syrian situation is dire, but that there are other entities besides the United States government who should take action (e.g. the United Nations or other Arab countries). Then there are those who think it is dire and may demand intervention by the United States if other entities abrogate responsibility for genocide, but believe that if the United States intervenes, that it should only do so with diplomacy, not military might. Finally, there are posters who think that the United States should concentrate on what is going on within its own borders and not intervene at all in Syria.

Have I missed any major arguments?

AGBF

I think mine falls in a slightly different category. I'm against military intervention because, regardless of the moral argument, the U.S. has proven to be ineffective in this type of situation. I'm not against U.S. military intervention in all situations, but I am against the U.S. doing something that has frequently been proven not to work. As for diplomatic efforts, I expect that to be equally ineffective in this situation. Assad wants us to go away or fight, the other side wants us to fight. I don't see the diplomatic middle here.
`

 

[Lula]

No, why don't the Arab nations step up and control their own? We give millions in military equipment to them every year, they are fully capable.

AprilBaby's is yet another reason offered in this thread for the United States not to bomb Syria. I am trying to keep track of the reasons offered by posters for not doing so. So far the reasons offered can be classified into several groups. There are those who believe that the Syrian situation is dire, but that there are other entities besides the United States government who should take action (e.g. the United Nations or other Arab countries). Then there are those who think it is dire and may demand intervention by the United States if other entities abrogate responsibility for genocide, but believe that if the United States intervenes, that it should only do so with diplomacy, not military might. Finally, there are posters who think that the United States should concentrate on what is going on within its own borders and not intervene at all in Syria.

Have I missed any major arguments?

AGBF

I think mine falls in a slightly different category. I'm against military intervention because, regardless of the moral argument, the U.S. has proven to be ineffective in this type of situation. I'm not against U.S. military intervention in all situations, but I am against the U.S. doing something that has frequently been proven not to work. As for diplomatic efforts, I expect that to be equally ineffective in this situation. Assad wants us to go away or fight, the other side wants us to fight. I don't see the diplomatic middle here.
`

Yes, I'm in rainwood's camp. I also think that any intervention on the part of the U.S. may also inflame the Arab world in ways that will not benefit the U.S., or the rest of the Western world, for that matter.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The U.S. should stay out of this civil war and let our enemies fight among themselves.

 

[AGBF]

The U.S. should stay out of this civil war and let our enemies fight among themselves.

The Syrian civilians are not my enemies, DF.

Deb

 

[Dancing Fire]

The U.S. should stay out of this civil war and let our enemies fight among themselves.

The Syrian civilians are not my enemies, DF.

Deb

As of now we don't really know.. look what is happening in Egypt after Mubarak was out of power. what a mess!,and why are we still giving billions of $$$ to Egypt?..

 

[Tekate]

sadly no.

 

[ksinger]

Well, in case anyone would like to ponder the justifications and actual international legalities of what we are preparing to do, apart from what we feeeeeel about it (because Americans are all about how we feel about things having far more weight than those pesky facts and laws), I offer up this analysis from Foreign Affairs.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139886/david-kaye/the-legal-consequences-of-illegal-wars

 

[kenny]

Sure, using chemical weapons is bad.
Lots of other stuff is bad too but we cannot police the entire world and insist that governments behave as we do.

Besides America is guilty of horrendous crimes.
Rendition, torture, Guantanamo.
We just sat by when the Rwanda genocide left approximately 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu sympathizers dead. ... oh but unlike the middle east that region of the world does not hold massive oil reserve for America's SUVs.

So what exactly makes us the pious moral authority of the world?
This may drag on and turn into another Viet Nam.

I'm sorry the Syrian situation sucks so hard and so many innocent people are suffering, but I don't think we should get involved.

 

[JewelFreak]

By int'l agreement gas was outlawed long ago, but Syria was not part of that. Geneva Convention, wasn't it?

If we were to react, it should have been immediately, without warning, and contained but very damaging -- say, to Assad's air capabilities. Then gone away. No explanation, no apology. (And have some protection for Israel already in place in case of reprisal against them.) This administration does not have the stones for it.

By now, we have laid out our "battle" plans in headlines. All we can do, with all targets hidden, is to plop a bomb in the middle of nowhere & look sillier than we already look.

Any military expedition should advance American interests or not be undertaken. I don't see how this situation qualifies.

Such a gravely dangerous time in the world for us to have no perceivable foreign policy objectives beyond looking good politically & we're failing at that.

--- Laurie

 

[Verdy]

I have always been puzzled as to where the United States gets the idea that we are eligible to determine what is and isn't moral in the world. And more so, how it is any of our business to "fix" how other nations decide to run their governments. We have built a system that works for US, and however well that system runs, doesn't mean that it will work everywhere. It really pains me in the bottom of my heart to hear about men, women, and children dying due to these chemical attacks in Syria, but let's face it, it's THEIR war. Is it wrong? Absolutely. But who are we to judge? We dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and no one thought that was immoral at the time? Then there's also Guantanamo, the Japanese prison camps, and the Vietnam War (another war that wasn't ours to fight). I think we've done more than enough damage in the middle east to last a lifetime. We can't exactly just round up all the people that are attacking innocent civilians and punish them, if we do decide to attack, more civilians will die. Our soldiers JUST made it home and we're already thinking of sending them back into another horrendous roller coaster ride. And what excuse will we use to condone that? Justice? Freedom for the Syrian people? There is no rhyme or reason to get involved in Syria. They aren't threatening to attack us, or anyone else for that matter, so why should we stick our noses where they don't belong?

 

[Gypsy]

I agree with Verdy and Rainwood.

It's a civil war within their own borders. It is not a direct threat to us, or a direct threat to our allies. We have not been invited to interfere by an ally or by a recognized authority within the country. And we have bad track record when it comes to involvement in these types of issues.

I think it is deplorable. But I do not think we can do anything about it. We can offer humanitarian aide to refugees of the situation and grant them political asylum if they want to immigrate. We can work to strengthen the UN or other organizations that SHOULD be able to be international watch dogs so that in the future this kind of thing can be addressed by a proper authority, that member nations have agreed to allow to intervene. But beyond that... I think we need to focus on our HUGE domestic issues and recover from the last war we waged.

 

[packrat]

You know what, here's the deal. If the US is going to decide that we are the morality police, then we need to BE the morality police. There's too much...go ahead and get mad b/c of my visuals here b/c I know it's a comin--but there's too much girl fighting. It's like hair pulling and that stupid hands slapping thing. Only, this girl fighting is being done w/people's lives. If you're gonna throw down, you don't run in, slap someone upside the head, toss $20 at them to make amends, and then run away real fast. No, you go in and punch them in the throat and do some damage. And you don't apologize. And then you look around and say "Anyone else wanna have a go?".

If we're going to tell other countries how to run their countries (which I find hysterical by the way cuz I dunno if anyone's noticed but we've got a whooooooole lotta pot calling the kettle black going on here) then I would put forth the idea that we'd be a lot more formidable and a lot less laughable, if we stormed in there like we owned the place instead of knocking on the door and stuttering like Woody Allen, pushing up our glasses, wringing our hands. "Well I mean, I think what you're doing is *wrong* and I think you know, you should *stop*"

War is not pretty, or fair, or civil. But for whatever reason, that's what our country tries to make it. We don't want to huuuurt anyone, we don't want anyone to be upseeeeeet. If we took our country and the state of it today, our ideals, values, mentality etc, and took it back in time to when Hitler was in power---we would all be speaking German right now.

 

[NOYFB]

Well said, packrat

Agreed. I think we should stay the hell away from this nonsense and concentrate on fixing our own country's problems (of which there are many).

 

[Verdy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/armed-forces-tea-party-syria_n_3865480.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing6%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D368788

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[justginger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/armed-forces-tea-party-syria_n_3865480.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing6%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D368788

Thoughts, anyone?

I was mildly impressed that only one of those photos show the word 'Syrian' misspelled... Just joshing, of course.

I understand not wanting to fight another country's civil war, and can appreciate the sentiments conveyed by those military personnel. But I can also understand the one who showed his face, and basically told the rest of them to STFU. You don't get a say in the military, you know? You do what you're told, and that's that. Exercise your right to vote to ensure that the commands you're following are coming from someone you trust to lead. Otherwise, when your 4 years are up, leave.

Edit: upon reflection, I'm not sure this opinion is a good one. The military in the US is a HUGE source of employment for civilians. Perhaps there are many, many 'breadwinners' who cannot afford to leave a stable job, despite their ideological/cultural/moral objections to various military undertakings.

I shall remain opinionless. There is no good outcome in a situation like this.

 

[GliderPoss]

Considering my husband fought AGAINST Al-Qaeda I hardly want him to pop over there and suddenly support them with the Rebel forces....

I don't doubt Sarin gas was used, but just for once I'd like this NOT to be Australia's fight. *sigh*

Think Abbot got it right when he described this situation as "baddies vs baddies".

 

[AGBF]

Earlier in this thread ksinger cited a really good little article from, "Foreign Affairs" which I felt like excerpting because it made its point so well. Basically it stated that international law does not allow the United States to invade Syria under current conditions. Yes, that is an oversimplification, but go to the article for more clarity.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139886/david-kaye/the-legal-consequences-of-illegal-wars

On September 3 a letter was published in,"The New York Times". It was written by Benjamin B. Ferencz, who was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials following World War II.

He wrote:

"Using poison gas has been a war crime since the 1920s. The Nuremberg trials made plain that crimes are committed by individuals. Only the responsible leaders should be held to judicial account. (italics mine)

No one wants the United States to be the policeman of the world. Congress is not a suitable forum to determine facts and responsibility. The United Nations Security Council should refer the issue to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is competent to penalize crimes against humanity."

In short, if the United States invades Syria, it is contravening international law, not enforcing it, for the scenario in which a transgressor has used chemical weapons. The law states that the transgressor alone is punished, not his countrymen. It certainly does not allow for another power to invade.

Deb/AGBF

 

[SB621]

I have not read all the responses- right now I feel I can't stomach it. But at the same time I have to get this out before I start screaming at someone.

No we should stay out of it because right now while the majority of Americans forget that we are at war and have been the last 10 years it is a constant reminder in my daily life. I have been to too many funernals and watched great friends become widows. I live in constant fear that the base chaplin will be knocking on my door. And finally I hate the idea of my children growing up and the only thing they will ever have to remember their father is just a few photos. I know this is what we signed up for but after 8 years it does tend to wear a person down.

Yes I think we should do something about it. I believe in human rights and that any country who knows what is going on in Syria should assist. I don't believe in turning a blind eye to chemical warfare nor the blantant disregard for crimes aginst others.

 

[autumngems]

NOOOOOOOO
My husband is retired military. we both work for the military now and we are stretched WAY too thin. I deal with them everyday and more and more want out now, they are tired of it. It isn't our back yard so stay out of it!!!!!

 

[HollyS]

Lousy rotten stuff happens to innocent people all over the world, every day.

Should we step in, in every situation? Or would that spread us too thin to adequately defend ourselves in case of a real threat to our country?

I think it is abundantly clear that we cannot fix what is wrong throughout the Middle East. Their issues are centuries in the making. I doubt that we will have any truly lasting impact on Iraq and Afghanistan after over a decade of being involved. Did we help? Yes, but at what cost to us, and are we willing to pay the price, again and again and again?

I think we need to condemn their actions, and take a step back. Not declaring war does not mean we don't give a damn.