Syria - hype or war?

[cprems]

No one has ever claimed Obama of being stupid or unintelligent. Getting this passed off to Congress is ingenious! He knew he didn't have the authority and going it alone would be a case for impeachment.

Congress will refuse to participate in Syria - Obama saves face and tells the world, "sorry, I cannot go against Congress or the will of the American People". Unfortunately, he's gone against our will for almost 6 years...

He has no idea what he is doing when it comes to foreign affairs or foreign policy. As TAM pointed out, he's a mouse with the command and control of the most powerful army in the world.

He reminds me of that other dictator from N. Korea...

[mayor]

There is ONE positive outcome if the chump in chief orders our military into a war that nobody from either party wants: the next president will not be a democrat. And not having another democrat in office is imperative to stopping the country's slide into irrelevance. No, it's not worth aiding and abetting the start of another war to achieve it, but it is the one light at the end of a very long and dark tunnel that would come out of this.

Obama ran hard on being the one to restore the nation's image to the rest of the world. His very first day in office, he offended a long-time ally, Great Britain. He has courted those who hate us and chastised those who look to us. He has on microphone and camera promised future concessions to a foreign leader who does not respect us. Furthermore, he is deliberately obtuse when it comes to acknowledging how global politics works in the real world. About a quarter of the world's nations have liked us, and the rest have hated us for varying reasons. Those reasons run the gamut from virulent politically philosophical differences, cultural differences, religious differences, economic differences, and yes, even something as venal as military genital envy. It's been that way for at least the last 113 years. It takes a blind megalomaniac on the order of Obama to believe that he can change it.

Vladimir Putin is a pig. A self-aggrandizing pig with no regard for human rights and the absolute cynicism of a practiced dictator. In those things, he and Obama are exactly alike. But there is ONE thing that Putin NEVER does, but which Obama ALWAYS does, and it is that Putin never puts the interests of other nations ahead of his own nation's interests. I don't love either man, but I can tell you which of the two I respect more, and it ain't Obama. And neither does most of the rest of the world now. One of the things that Putin is but not Obama, is being a realist. Compare their backgrounds.........

1. On the hand, a hardened KGB colonel with his fingers deep into both the domestic and foreign pies during his career, and a LONG experience of confronting the U.S., so he is not only not afraid of us, but his experience with Obama teaches him not to respect us much either. How can you possibly respect the leader of a foreign nation who promises you concessions after he is reelected? Isn't the job of that leader to represent his nation's interests, not your own nation's interests? So now Putin knows that he controls Obama.
2. On the other hand, a charlatan national political neophyte whose primary qualification is a drug addled community organizer who "knows about the world because I once lived abroad and have muslims in my family." A man who consorts with KNOWN domestic terrorists and is as unrepentant about it as are the terrorists themselves; who deliberately hides his birth certificate because—legal issues aside—he knows it will be problematic if the public finds out; who deliberately hides his academic records because he knows it will be problematic if the public finds out (possibly from a citizenship perspective too); who sat at the feet of a virulently racist pastor for 20 years and claims not to have seen the racism (because he fundamentally agreed with it, and therefore it's not racism); who served a few terms in the Illinois legislature, and just 2 years of one senatorial term, and THAT resumé is supposed to make him qualified to direct America's foreign affairs.

It's not even a close comparison. Obama is the mouse to Putin's Siberian tiger. The problem is that this mouse has been given ultimate command authority over the greatest military might the world has ever known, and he is likely to use it inappropriately to back up his poor foreign-affairs decision-making. Under Bush and other previous presidents, we at least had the respect of that part of the world which did not like us. Not any longer. What's worse is that we have lost a large measure of respect from that part of the world which did like us. Globally, we are less safe because of it. Globally, our interests no longer carry water with anybody.

We have Obama to thank for all of those things, and he is dragging us down with him. I have a deep and abiding lack of respect or any felicitous feelings for the man. He is almost single-handedly finishing off what's left of America. Yes, the other democrats are aiding and abetting him in it, and those that are unrepentant at this point are just as treasonous as he is........ but without his vaunted "leadership," they would not be nearly so effective at it.

Here is what the world sees when they look at the U.S.: a massively powerful nation that cannot make up its mind. THAT makes us dangerous in their eyes because they cannot predict which way we are likely to jump. They cannot count on either our alliance or our enmity. THAT is directly attributable to Obama's presidency, and that is why his presidency is one foreign policy disaster after another.

wow. you should submit this to a larger site. this is spot on and more people should read it.

May I post a link to this on another website?

[baldeagle]

So we go into Syria and we bomb their military installations. What does that accomplish? Nothing. It's time for America to tell Congress and the President to bring our boys home. No more foreign conflicts unless our interests are directly affected, as they were in Benghazi (where we didn't go in!) It's time for America's foreign policy to support democratic governments and shun undemocratic ones. Get your act together and treat your citizens with respect and lawful behavior, and we will consider giving you aid for worthy causes. Other than that, pay your own bills.

[nightmare69]

I would be more afraid of Russia's response if we go in. They are not a country to mess with.

[gthaustex]

Perhaps there are some aspirin factories that Obama can hit with limited air strikes?

[Superman]

I may be the lone dissenter here, but but I'm in the camp that we have to do something. I completely disagree with Obama on pretty much every single thing he has ever done, but I think he is heading in the right direction this time (although I think he will "limp wrist" it and not go far enough and probably make things worse).

I think we should use aggressive military action to severely punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons, but I think we should not "put boots on the ground." We should also not have the intention of regime change as I think Al Qaeda and/or other Jihadists would seize power. I agree with this open letter's approach "to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants."

I think we should be very cautious about arming rebels. If we can find rebels who will fight Assad AND the Al Qaeda jihadists, then I'm for helping them...but I fear our arms falling into the hands of the radicals.

I absolutely think it is in the U.S. national interest to punish any group (government or not) that uses weapons of mass destruction to purposely kill innocent civilians...and to send a very strong warning to everyone considering using WMD in the future. If we do nothing, we are sending the message to everyone that it's open season and we should expect radicals to use WMD more often, against more targets and to kill more people.

There are also rumors that it was actually the rebels who used the chemical weapons to drag us into fighting their fight. I think we need to make absolutely sure that we are punishing the guilty party. Reference here.

This is one of those fights that we "have to fight." I'm not talking about the civil war, but the use of chemical weapons. With all that said, I am very concerned about this administration's ability to craft or execute such a policy.

[philip964]

Wow I'm at James Coney Island they have CCN on.

Barbara Boxer as a hawk. John Kerry as a hawk.

It's kind of some alternate universe.

What is also interesting most of the anti war anti Bush Facebook friends are staying anti war.

They are not following Obama down this road. Most say things like don't bomb Syria bomb Monsanto.

We just need to get Hilliary to commit to this war like she did with Iraq.

Some thoughts:

Sunni - conservative Muslims. Think Osama.

Shia - much more secular, moderate.

Somehow I think because of Iran - Shia and Saudi Arabia - Sunni we have gotten on the wrong side.

Assad is Shia, the rebels are Sunni like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

There is an outfit called Wahabi, they are the most intolerant, they are Sunni.

I would hate to see our guys dieing for our future killers.

My two cents. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

[VMI77]

So we go into Syria and we bomb their military installations. What does that accomplish? Nothing. It's time for America to tell Congress and the President to bring our boys home. No more foreign conflicts unless our interests are directly affected, as they were in Benghazi (where we didn't go in!) It's time for America's foreign policy to support democratic governments and shun undemocratic ones. Get your act together and treat your citizens with respect and lawful behavior, and we will consider giving you aid for worthy causes. Other than that, pay your own bills.

I don't see how it wouldn't be Treason. Al Qaeda is the officially professed enemy of the US. The rebels include Al Qaeda in alliance against the Syrian government. Attacking their enemy, the Syrian government, is therefore giving material support to our enemy.

[Jeff B.]

I think we should use aggressive military action to severely punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons.

Who are we to severely punish anybody? What gives us the right to go kick over someone else's sandcastle? Not poking at you, just askin'...

I think that's a real good question. What does give us the right to "punish" another nation?

The UN? "International" standards?

We should think very hard about that, because one day we might be the ones in violation of some "standard" or "norm" and be on the receiving end of some punishment.

Besides, I don't think that they are really sure who set the stuff off... and let's not pretend that we've got white hats and black hats over there.

Jeff B.

[nightmare]

All sides in the Syrian civil war hate us. How can U.S. National Security Interest be helped by anything other than non intervention and neutrality? Also, it would be very disrespectful of their religion to deny so many opportunities for Paradise.

While we're on the subject, can anyone explain why the Democrats were against US troops in the Middle East until BHO was CinC and BHO flip flopped on bringing them home? Also, where did all the protesters go after BHO decided to continue the Shrub Wars? Did Holder ship them to some DHS camp to shut them up?

[RAM4171]

Arabs will always fight arabs and anyone else that's not their specific form of muslim.
I belive one of the reasons that so much of the world hates us now is because after WWII we decided to appoint ourselves the "world police". Then we started giving "foriegn aid" and became the world welfare department, and they still hate us.
As stated previously, let theem fight it out and focus on our own troubles at home. If they kill each other off so be it.
However, ANY country that compromises our interests here at home, burn 'em down.

[K.Mooneyham]

I think we should use aggressive military action to severely punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons.

Who are we to severely punish anybody? What gives us the right to go kick over someone else's sandcastle? Not poking at you, just askin'...

I think that's a real good question. What does give us the right to "punish" another nation?

The UN? "International" standards?

We should think very hard about that, because one day we might be the ones in violation of some "standard" or "norm" and be on the receiving end of some punishment.

Besides, I don't think that they are really sure who set the stuff off... and let's not pretend that we've got white hats and black hats over there.

Jeff B.

In regards to the highlighted part of the quote, I agree 100%. IMPO, its a matter of a dictator versus terrorists; I'm not a fan of dictators but I hate Al Qaeda even more. SOME people may have forgotten 9/11, the Twin Towers, Flight 93, and all the lives lost in the war against Al Qaeda, but I have not. I despise this administration and the RINOs who seem bent on bowing to BHO and giving him whatever he wants. Russia may not be our pal, but we've had at least a quiet "relationship" for a while now. Why mess that up? This whole thing is stupid, and the stupid comes right from the top.

[mamabearCali]

This is a fools errand. Write your congressmen and senator and let them know. I'd say more, but others have already said it better.

[Oldgringo]

TAM for POTUS!