To Go To War: Intervention in the Syrian Civil War

No we should stay out and Syria is not the only country that has used chemical weapons, so have we. We used them in Vietnam it was called agent orange and to be exposed to it you only had to be there on the ground for one day, I currently have 2 of the 14 illnesses that are listed for veterans of that war.

(*)(*)(*)(*) happens,

No we don't need to go to Syria, we don't need to be in yet another war in the middle east, it is their civil war let them work it out and we should stay the hell out.


River

 

Our interventions always result in bloodbaths after we get tired of intervening. A couple years down the road and it would be the same in Syria. Stick to intervening in tiny island nations.

 

The poll is currently very close to the national opinion where only 21% of Americans believe we should get involved.

Of course this is "Same-Same Iraq" although the administration tries to paint it differently. The real fact is that we often cite the deaths of innocent people as the a reason to intervene, as we did in Iraq after the WMD's intelligence proved false, and then through our military interventionism dramatically contribute to a massive increase in the number of innocent victims. In Iraq, for example, Saddam was convicted of complicity in the murder of about 146 people (as I recall) and it was alleged that his regime was also responsible for several thousand Kurds dying several years earlier.

The invasion of Iraq resulted in anywhere between 150,000 to perhaps more than one million innocent Iraqis dying from the chaos that ensued. Yes, we can say those were "collateral" deaths of innocent Iraqis but the question is whether the relatives of these dead Iraqis really give a damn about our rationalization of the deaths of their loved ones.

According to the news apparently a few hundred Syrians might have died from a chemical weapon gas attack while we know if we take military action we're sure to kill thousands of innocent Syrians "accidently" by those attacks.

If Americans were called upon to "Kill Innocent Syrians" I doubt that even 1% would support it but that is exactly what the Obama Administration is really proposing.

 

which is usually the reason given for why we need to intervene. But who's to say that by getting involved we could stop that from happening or that we wouldn't help cause exactly what we are trying to prevent? That's usually the way it goes.

Intervention in Libya helped to create the problem in Syria. Rebels expected us to help them fight their government so they continued the fight. Al Qaeda and similar expected us to arrive so they are there fighting and setting up shop. Endless countries could go down like that if we don't get out of the military intervention business.

 

Well it looks that the UK has luckily enough commonsense and rational legislators to oppose their entry into this harebrained scheme. And Canada has also formally stated that they will NOT support an American intervention into Syria. Looks like it will be a unilateral American strike.

Also, is it just me but "shot across the bow" means a warning shot, not actually killing people or hitting the allegorical ship of Syria. It's like saying this won't hurt and you're the dentist.

But in all seriousness, a tired American public and military aren't looking forward to another day of a Middle Eastern war. Many soldiers have spent years in Afghanistan and Iraq and are tired of it. They want to come back to America. Their morale is just not there anymore. While the Administration says it will be a "non land-based" intervention only, if that fails will they admit defeat and back down or step up their game and launch a few Marine or Army divisions? I think that latter option is more plausible because NO president wants to suffer a defeat. After Vietnam, confidence in a Democratic President's ability to wage a war greatly diminished. Given the uncertainty in the Middle East, a major war (Syria-Israel) or complete collapse of Egypt or even cartel action in Latin America would cause people to look to a strong leader militarily and that is something the Democrats just aren't known for.

 

No absolutely no!, because there is no clear plan for total victory or political will for total victory. The USA recently ordered the closure of several US embassies in Muslim countries because of threat from Islamist elements threats that the USA has not been able to counter, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya US intervention have only resulted in those countries becoming more unstable. Too many warmongers including some journalist kept insisting that doing nothing is not an option well for their information we have been doing something and that include pressuring Russia and China to convince Assad to give peace a chance, we have been trying to convince the rebels (who ever they are) to seat down and talk with the Syrian government instead the US have been supplying weapons to the rebels thus escalating the conflict. The USA have been using the deaths of children from the poison gas attack as an excuse stop and think isn't it too much of a coincidence that months after Obama announce the only reason the USA will militarily intervene is when chemical weapons are use by the Assad regime??? Or was Obama sending a secrete coded message to CIA, Arab, and Muslim agents that they must devise a plan to use chemical weapons with Syrian government signature on it? I think that was the case....where is Snowden when we need him he'll know who was responsible for the chemical weapon attack.

If Obama proceed unilaterally this will be his achilles-heel and he will be remember as the President who wage another unjust war all the right moves that he has made and accomplish including the killing of Bin ladin will be over shadow with his decision to drag the USA into another unjust war.

 

Again no, the first time the West intervene was in 1100 AD when Pope Urban called for the 1st crusade, when Napoleon conquered Egypt, then Britain we tried to tame that part of the world and unless we are ready to do what was done to Hitler-Germany and Imperial Japan any US intervention will only benefit the Islamist.

 

This very same scenario is unfolding in Libya even as we speak. Oil output has fallen by 80% because warlords are using their control of oil as a political bargaining chip. As a result, the political coherence of the Libyan state is disintegrating. The government is falling apart because it's incapable of containing or controlling the warlords.

 

It is very interesting to me from a political history standpoint that the American public has basically done a U-turn when it comes to military interventionism. In 2002-2003 only 20% of us were pointing out that there wasn't any evidence of a threat to the United States by Iraq and that we should not take military action against Iraq. Today those numbers are reversed where 80% of Americans are pointing out the fact that Syria doesn't represent any threat to the United States and we shouldn't take any military action against Syria.

Are Americans really learning from history or will we revert to our warmongering ways if we experience a few years of non-interventionism? Perhaps we haven't actually learned the lesson but instead are just suffering from our current war fatigue from 12 years of constant war.

 

Yes, if intervening in Syria is in the strategic interests of the United States and our allies in the region (namely Israel and Turkey).

 

If Assad is overthrown, an Islamist government will replace him. How does that help Turkey which is combating radical Islam or Israel which is Jewish state? I am fairly sure that if the West supported Assad in exchange for a few concessions like a written constitution that secures basic rights and frequent inspections by UN human rights corps. he would take it. Or, if he can resist for a few more months, he can go on as the harsh ruler he is because Russian-Iranian support will allow him to. Russia, Iran, PRK, and Venezuela are all open in their hostility to the US's past actions. Add in a few countries like Bolivia who's president was humiliated just a few weeks ago by order of the American Government and you have a large coalition against the US's intervention while even Israel opposes American intervention in Syria because it would destablize the region even more.

 

No, Syria did not attack us on 9/11.

That was an answer to the topic question, and the reason is we don’t have one of these UN resolutions, or an attack on our soil because of the actions of Syria related to it:

This is a quote of the UN resolution 687, which was recalled by UN resolution 1441, and the point is we do not have one of these with regard to Syria or an attack against us to use with regard to Article 51 of the UN Charter:

“H32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

This is a quote of the first fatwa of war, with regard to Iraq as the reason for the attack of 9/11:

August, 1996: "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void.
The treaty of Hudaybiyyah was cancelled by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) once Quraysh had assisted Bani Bakr against Khusa'ah, the allies of the prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him). The prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) fought Quraysh and concurred Makka. He (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) considered the treaty with Bani Qainuqa' void because one of their Jews publicly hurt one Muslim woman, one single woman, at the market." (Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.)

This is a quote of the 9/11 commission report, showing evidence of cooperation and knowledge of Al Quacka by Iraq, page 65-66 as cited in the previous post, and it is not a quote of a website but a quote from the commission report:

March 1997: "Though Bin Ladin had promised Taliban leaders that he would be circumspect, he broke this promise almost immediately, giving an inflammatory interview to CNN in March 1997. The Taliban leader Mullah Omar promptly 'invited' Bin Ladin to move to Kandahar, ostensibly in the interests of Bin Ladin's own security but more likely to situate him where he might be easier to control.73
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74" (The 9/11 commission report, page 65-66)

This is a quote of Saddam’s national day speech, parts were verified by NPR, no other copy of the speech has ever been posted; this is where Iraq authorized the attacks of 9/11 against the Zionists conspiracies, which is not to be confused with the “Zionist Entity,” see other South Movement link to this defense team who never refuted my charge:

July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

This is a quote of Noam Chomsky, with appropriate citation:

“In the case of Iraq, for the last 10 years the U.S. and Britain have been devastating the civilian society. Madeleine Albright's famous statement about how maybe half a million children have died, and it's a high price but we're willing to pay it, that doesn't sound too good among people who think that maybe it matters if half a million children are killed by the U.S. and Britain. And meanwhile [the sanctions are] strengthening Saddam Hussein.” (On the Attacks on New York and Washington, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian, International Socialist Review, Issue 20, November-December, 2001)

This is a quote of CNN and a link to Desert Fox which in relevant to the next quote with regard to Iraq:

February 17, 1998: “While speaking at the Pentagon on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton warned of the ‘reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’ These ‘predators of the twenty-first century,’ he said ‘will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.’“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

This is a quote of the second fatwa with regard to Iraq, in response to operation Desert Fox, which in the timeline hasn’t happened yet, see the link:

“Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: ‘But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)’; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.”
One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

This is a quote of the new antiwar website, notice “South Movement” who was involved in posting both the national day speech where the attacks of 9/11 were authorized and the next third letter to US afterwards:

September 2001: "Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General...David Muller, South Movement, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia" http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/call1004.php

These are quotes of Saddam’s third letter to us with their associated citation, the link to his website went down during the shock and awe attack, and they are direct quotes from that website before shock and awe, as I have a copy of the original, so I cite appropriately with no link because there is no original web page link; this is where Saddam supports Al Quacka and links his attitude and analysis to his ally Osama who were well known with regard to the enemy as posted in the authorization for the attacks of 9/11; please note, we were not attacking Iraq in October 2001, but were attacking his ally:

“As we said before to those who launched aggressions on us, including the US, in and before Um-Almarik (the mother of the battles), the world, like Iraq and its Arab nation, needs steadfastness to face the aggression, make it miss its targets. It must not allow the US to be victorious. The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings. It is only normal to say that punishment is a necessity in our world, because what is a necessity in the other world must also be necessary in our world on Earth. But, the punishment in the other world is faire and just, and the prophets and messengers of God (peace be upon them all) conducted punishment and called for it in justice, and not on the basis of suspicions and whims.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

“Once again, we say that, injustice and the pressure that results from it on people lead to explosions. As explosions are not always organized, it is to be expected that they may harm those who make them and others. The events of September 11, should be seen on this basis, and on the basis of imbalanced reactions, on the part of governments accused of being democratic, if the Americans are sure that these were carried out by people from abroad.
To concentrate not on what is important, but rather on what is the most important, we say again that after having seen that the flames of any fire can expand to cover all the world, it first and foremost, needs justice based on fairness. The best and most sublime expression of this is in what we have learned from what God the Al Mighty ordered to be, or not to be.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

This is a question by me with regard to that response to the attacks against Iraq on October 29, 2001, that is his ally:

Who are the magical “they” that Saddam said, “should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings?”

(Bold emphasis has been added throughout this post for clarity)

Is that good enough for you moderation?

That is a question by me.

 

Are the rebels in Syria connected with Al Qaeda? If so, I don't think America should support them.

 

There is a fundamental problem in that "al Qaeda" isn't an organization but instead is representative of a religious/political belief that in it's fight against injustice and tyranny by government endorses and engages in acts of terrorism. Of course those same religious/political beliefs would also impose injustice and tyrannical government given the opportunity. It's sort of the "We don't like you're tyranny but instead want to impose our own form of tyranny" syndrome.

But yes, those associated with al Qaeda beliefs are in Syria today just like they're involved in every conflict in every Muslim country in the Middle East that I'm aware of. This presents a pragmatic problem for the US to become involved because no matter which side we're on it only empowers al Qaeda that benefits from the conflict regardless of who comes out on top.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...yrian-war-as-u-s-seeks-clarity-on-rebels.html

The perfect example is Iraq where al Qaeda didn't exist at all prior to 2003 (except for one small group in the Kurdish region) but is now there in force because of the US War Against Iraq.

 

Some of the rebels are citizens of Syria who are revolting against the government. They are not 100% Al Qaeda.

Do you think America should get involved in Syria's conflict? I don't. If America gets involved, the situation will escalate. While it's true that the Syrian government is committing war crimes, sometimes trying to stop a dictator just creates more problems than it solves, and it causes more suffering than it prevents. That's exactly what happened with the war in Iraq.

 

It's odd that the use of a chemical weapon and that it was used by Assad has been repeated in the media and here in this forum when in fact there are still no facts to support that an actual chemical weapon has been used, much less by whom. I think we are being puppetized/brainwashed by someone with an agenda. It's too bad that the American media and politicians can't be bothered with basic facts anymore.

 

Whether Assad use chemical weapons or not does not matter if the USA wants to get involved militarily then do it properly declare war on Syria! Other countries are fully capable of intervening militarily in Syria, Saudi Arabia have lots of US F-16 fighters Saudi has lots of cash they are already involved in Syria with supplying weapons to the rebels the USA and the West are also already involved none militarily let Saudi Arabia handle it or if Turkey they want to.

 

NO!

We got enough problems at home right now, and the Syrian situation has a real chance to get hella worse

 

whoa, impressive political move.

I could almost say how I know how that's going to turn out, I could almost be relieved, but you never know.

 

Just like it was in 2003, USA can strike only with Security Council approval. That won't happen. Therefore, it would be against the law.

Then again USA always break the law.

Obama flat out lied when he claimed this was a security threat to the United States.

That said, I am absolutely delighted about Obama consulting the congress, and it shocked me. He actually made the right decision! : ()

Even if you got congressional approval though, it would still be illegal to attack. It would actually be worse grounds than in 2003 because there's no ceasefire agreement this time. Whereas people justify the legality of the 03 invasion saying Saddam violated the ceasefire, you can't say that here.

If they don't pose an imminent danger to your country you can't attack without approval from the SC.

Too bad about Russia blocking. Now USA government knows how the rest of the world feels when they abuse their seat on the SC to veto every resolution to stop Israeli conquest of land.

 

That's not what he said, though. He said "US interests". That's something entirely different.

This is the globalists talking, right? US "interests". Like, our bases in Jordan. That kind of thing. We "own" those, right? They're our "interests". This is the globalists talking - the people who feel that we need to be the policeman of the world, so we can protect their economic "interests" as well.

One must understand, that this is a group of people. A group of wealthy people. A small group of wealthy people. A small group of wealthy and powerful people, whose power greatly exceeds their numbers, because of their wealth. These are the "globalists".

Well, not exactly. The SC does not preclude or supersede treaty obligations between nations. So for instance, we have a mutual defense relationship with Israel, therefore Israel's interests are our interests. Like it or not, that is exactly what our Constitution says. Treaties have the force of law. They are law.

 

It's NOT been proven that there even really WERE chemical attacks yet and I don't think it will be. Obama is not one to let a foreign warmonger propagandize him into a war he does not want himself.

 

Even that's a lie. There is a major threat to US interests there. no doubt, and that's all the Islamic terrorists we unleashed. AQ is there. Obama is unconcerned.

Instead, Obama is trying to make everyone afraid of Assad, who poses no threat whatsoever, has never attacked any US interests and is currently too involved in a civil war. If there were any dangerous possibilities, shooting missiles would only exacerbate them.

It's the same as the Bush and Blaire lies in 2002/3, especially egregious, because they are actually claiming danger and threat which isn't there.

Here is one such example:

"It also presents a serious danger to our national security..."

No there is no danger, Pure LIE.

"When you start talking about chemical weapons, in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time their control of chemical weapons may erode, where they're allied to known terrorist organizations, that in the past have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility in which chemical weapons, that can have devastating effects, could be directed at us and we want to make sure that that does not happen,"

Here's another thing he said before. More threats and paranoia. This is exactly what Bush/Blaire did They fancied up a fictional story to try to scare us with.

And he's also lying when pretending that he wants to stop that danger. How's shooting missiles at Assad going to stop that danger?

We KNOW that's not your reason. We KNOW you follow your own "Assad must go" since long before this attack took place. If your previous pattern of behavior is any indication, it looks like you're helping more extremists to take over land.

There is a threat to the national security. And it's B.O. himself, and the terrorists like AQ who he gives weapons and cash to and helps to take over territory.

No wonder why he wants to have this debate. So he can use it to brainwash everybody with his fancy CIA psy-ops.

Sorry Obama. It's Like W. said, "Ya can't get fooled again!"

"In a world of many dangers this menace must be confronted."

Obama would be right if only he were talking about himself.

Do you know I usually don't work with trying to label or characterize people. It just confuses me further. There are very bad scumbags that are trying to take over the globe, either economically or one day by force or both, and there are the biggest thieves the world has ever seen trying to steal as much wealth as they can from the whole globe.

Yes the UN Charter. That's the treaty I'm referring to that we must abide. And it says you can only attack if they are a threat to you or if the SC (Security Council) agrees to it. Thanks to the Russians being more level-headed and realizing you don't make things better by causing more destruction (as we've ourselves proven), the approval will not be forthcoming.

Hence Obama dishonestly playing the "danger" card.

 

President Obama's words speak otherwise.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/world/meast/syria-civil-war

The use of "military force" is war!!

We can also see that President Obama's position is pure BS. If we, the United States, wanted to "to deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade the potential for future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction" in the Middle East then the US should have been backing the Middle East WMD Free Zone proposed by Egypt as early as 1990. We could have also backed the UNGA proposal for a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East that was first proposed in December of 1974. The only real opposition to these proposals to eliminate all WMD's, including nuclear weapons, in the Middle East has been Israel. Every nation in the Middle East has supported these proposals except Israel and the US has refused to use it's power both diplomatically and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to force these proposals through and use economic sanctions to enforce these proposals.

There would be no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in the Middle East if the US had backed these proposals that go back decades. Every US administration going back to 1974 is responsible for the problem of WMD's in the Middle East today because we've refused to put our weight as a super-power to use in eliminating them.

 

Article 51 does not authorize the use of military force based upon a "threat" of an attack but instead it only authorizes it if an attack actually occurs and even then the military response is limited to "defensive" actions by the nation and not "offensive" military actions. Additionally that authorization for the use of "defensive military action" only exists until the UN Security Council has time to act.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Article 2 Section 4 also prohibits the threat or use of force against any nation by a member of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

As noted this is a "Treaty" that the US is a party to and under the US Constitution it actually supersedes the statutory laws passed by Congress. Congress can withdraw the United States from the United Nations but unless that is done we are obligated to comply with the provisions of the UN Charter and Congress cannot override those treaty obligations so long as we're a member.
.