Syria Conflict

Syria Conflict:

UPDATE:

Presidential Press Conference at 2:30pm according to CNN on live TV

Comprehensive coverage online from USA Today

Recent News:

  • Kerry lays out evidence against Syria
  • Syria's cyber retaliation signals new era of warfare
  • White House releases report detailing Syria chemical attack
  • Military strike on Syria: Should Congress get a vote?

Opinion page: Syria strike would be limited action: USA Today editors

Opinion response: The atrocities in Syria don't pose an imminent threat to U.S.:
Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Comments

Read Secretary of State Kerry's full speech

you can read the full text at NBC News

In all of these things that I have listed, in all of these things that we know, all of that, the American intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence this is common sense, this is evidence, these are facts.

So the primary question is really no longer, what do we know. The question is what are we -- we collectively -- what are we in the world going to do about it.

As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way. History is full of leaders who have warned against inaction, indifference and especially against silence when it mattered most.

Our choices then in history had great consequences, and our choice today has great consequences.

Martha Brock

This is a most serious issue

Unfortunately, the President cannot count on Congress to deal with this in good faith.

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Are we, the USA, insane?

Why are we even considering "action" in Syria? Moral superiority over the users of chemical weapons(who ever they might be, which we do not know)? Ridiculous. It was the US who used the atomic bomb, agent orange, napalm, white phosphorus, and depleted uranium against civilian populations, most of that in my lifetime. We have no moral superiority here.

More to the point, what is the goal here? How do we achieve that with military intervention? What other possible outcomes could that strategy cause?

If the goal is to protect civilians, bombs are not an effective method. If the goal is to intimidate the Al Assad, bombs are not an effective method.

A large portion of the opposition is made up of Al Quida operatives. Are we now offering to support them? No? Then what are we offering to do here?

The situation in Syria is a toxic cocktail of dozens of loyalties and ethnic and religious groups. It is currently controlled by a tiny minority sect due to decades of unifying agreements and alignments which are splintering and shattering daily. It is not a situation bombs can destroy and then rebuild. It is not a situation we, thousands of miles away, can understand and interfere with effectively.

We are not currently threatened by this crisis, we do not need to interfere, and we do not have any obligation or moral authority to do so, either.

If we do get involved in any way, large bore or strategic strike, the result could be the invasion of Israel, and the defensive retaliation of that army, on the ground. Turkey is also right there, with a strong army and a history of conflict with Israel. There is Jordan and Palestine and their millions of civilians.

Then there is Iran. Never forget Iran. They support Al Assad. Are we really wanting to take on Iran? Really?

Obama: "I will ask Congress for a vote of authorization to act"

Paraphrased:

We must acknowledge the cost of doing nothing... What message will we send, if hundreds of children can be killed by [Syrian government] without accountability?

Will we stand up to others who refuse to abide by international accords?

WE will insist use of chemical weapons will not only be investigated, but confronted.

We are not contemplating putting US troops in the middle of a civil war. We must respect the dignity of the Syrian people.

To all members of Congress, consider that some things are more important than partisan difference. Now is the time to show that America keeps its commitments.

I was not elected to avoid difficult decision...Our values demand we not turn away from acting.. I am ready to act.

Obama said implications go beyond chemical weapons, and he is now seeking authorization from Congress. This means no missiles fired at Syria until Congress returns from recess on Sept. 9th.

President Obama left without responding to any questions from the media.

Martha Brock

Bombs are just not the solution.

Bombs will be more effective at killing children than they will be at any other thing. That is just what bombs do. They will not bother Assad, he has a bunker. Assad does not care what we think, or what we do with bombs.

He might care what Iran thinks, he might care what Russia's Putin thinks. I truly believe we have probably tried to use those channels to effect change in Syria, but trying harder is a better option than using bombs.

I understand that the horror of gas is being used to gin up the support for this attack, but we should remember that this country used chemical weapons in Vietnam and both Iraq wars and in Afghanistan without apology.

I have to believe the horror of gas is a cynical appeal to permit this bombing. The same people who will profit from this attack, and the inevitable resultant conflagration in the middle east are the same people who manufacture that gas, and have had no problem with supplying our military with white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and the delivery systems to deploy them, both used recently in both of our wars, still ongoing.

The road to Tehran begins in Damascus. I strongly suspect that has more to do with this than a sudden concern with a few deaths in a civil war that has killed more than a hundred thousand, and displaced a million people, in the last 2 years. We cannot afford this war. The people who profit from war do not care about that, or the few civilians killed in a suburb of Damascus. They need this war to make money. That is what they want, and they are close to getting it.

Make no mistake, a 'limited bomb attack' of 100 cruise missiles will provoke a greater war in the middle east. This conflict in Syria is tragic, but we have no obligation to become involved, and becoming involved will be infinitely more tragic, for everyone.

Obamism or is it Orwellism As Usual In Warmongering

Evil becomes Good and Good becomes Evil, No doubt the recent defeat by the PM of England getting his clock clean by his Parliament over going to war with the USA in Syria is a lesson for the Anti-Snowden Empire movement to drop back into it's deep dark Hole and hid from the growing wareness that Freedom is still alive with Truth with the Masses..

Assad must go. If a strike by the US helps push him into the

dustbin of history then so be it. He is responsible for the deaths of 100k of his own people. If he gets away with using chemical weapons he will be emboldened and likely to use them again. The next ruthless dictator to come along (named Kim?) will be less hesitant to use CW. The opposition will take a serious moral hit and the USA will be rightly condemned as caring about oil more than people ala Iraq. Strategically, should Assad survive then the Shia coalition of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will continue to have a destabilizing influence on the region and the world. The current Sunni led government in Iraq is already shaky and ripe for further unrest which could come from both sides - Iran and Syria. If Iraq goes Shiite, or goes into full civil war then the Sunni Saudis would be very nervous and the price of oil would certainly increase. If Assad falls then Hezbollah is weaken; Lebanon becomes more secure; Israel is more secure, and Iraq has a better chance at maintaining its fragile stability. Iran would then be isolated and its influence greatly diminished.
The comparison here should be to Libya and the Balkans. In both instances a ruthless dictator was brought to justice without the loss of a single American life. Democratic presidents do have a history of fighting smarter than republican presidents.
Put another way this is akin to 1938. We can be like Chamberlain or hope that some new version of Churchill will come along to lend a backbone to those who would defend those in need.

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Um, England was under attack.

When England went to 'defend those in need' they got Dunkirk. After the utter defeat of France, and the bombing of England began, Churchill was not Prime Minister. He was not in that position until 1940, several years into the Battle of Britain. But lest you say I quibble, I do not. Your parallel does not hold water. We are not 20 miles from Syria, they have no offensive power to reach us, and they are certainly not Germany of 1938.

Who is directly attached to Syria is Israel. If we initiate a 3 day, 100 cruise missile launch as has been proposed, Israel will be attacked, and it will retaliate, and we are bound by treaty to join them in that.

Look at the map, see what else is there? Turkey also adjoins Syria, has a standing army which every male over 18 serves in active duty, and remains in as a reservist. They are well armed, and already have 1,000,000 Syrians within their borders, as refugees, and they will get involved. They are not historically allied with Israel or Syria, usually back us up, so what they do is anybody's guess, but they will do something, and it will be effective. The Turks ran an empire in that region for 1000 years, and are not shy.

Hezbollah is mainstream Shi'ite, directly funded and loyal to Iran. They have been thrown out of Lebanon for the moment. That border is a chain of mountains and open country and if they feel threatened they can walk back in. Iran would enter this war on their side. Again, Israel is right there, on the southern border, and would then face a 2 front war, Lebanon and Syria, and Iran.

The price of oil has gone up 20% in the last month. If you want more nervous oil markets than that, launch a few cruise missiles into this situation and just watch. Plutocrats the world over will be popping champaign corks at the prospect of supplying this war. And guess whose taxes and national debt will be paying for it?

Yours.

One third of the 'rebels' whose morals or morale you worry about are al quida. Is that who you champion? Do you think they would hesitate to use their newly acquired chemical arsenal? Also, there is no oil in Syria, if that is what you meant. There most certainly is, in Libya and the Balkans.

nice try at a history lesson, but hostilities did not begin in

Europe until 1939. A quibble can only be a quibble if it's correct. By mentioning 1938 and Chamberlin, I was referring to the Munich conference. Turkey is a consideration, but odds are anything the Turks do would be positive.
Much of your post seemed to indicate that you didn't get mine. Most of the oil in the Balkans is in Albania ( not involved in Balkan conflict), and oil reserves are comparatively insignificant. You say Syria with their CW is no threat yet you worry about AQ. And no I am not worried about their morale. The FSA and the Syrians in general will feel abandoned if we do nothing - yet another people left to swing in the breeze by the USA.

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Bold Progressives' Syria statement

PCCC's Syria statement -- reported in
USA Today, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed:

"It's great news that President Obama is seeking congressional approval for military action, an important precedent for all future presidents. After years of societal and international norms being thrown out the door -- and things like torture, violations of civil liberties, and war becoming normalized -- today's announcement is an important down payment on proper norms and regular order being restored."

Take our survey:
What should happen next on Syria?

Martha Brock

They want money, not opinions, apparently.

I took the survey, but it would not accept it without a card number. I have no money. So it appears they will not accept my voice, either.

I mention this because I contribute my time, talent and labor to progressive causes. It burns me up I cannot take part in the celebrations (fundraisers) with my fellow Dems because I have to beg a ticket from a sponsor, or stay home.

Now it seems my opinion is not wanted either. Screw the PCCC. I don't need to have to delete their spam anyway.

This little fit is not directed at you, Ms. Brock, I have utmost respect for you, and realize you probably did not even notice.

E. J., are you registered?

I took the survey, and they did ask for money after that (It's a PAC). But I did not donate this time. It took my survey anyway. Sorry you had a problem.

Martha Brock

No, they did not ask for registration.

I filled out my name and email though, and the spam has already started. They asked again for my survey, did not have a place to register, and I unsubscribed.

Perhaps since you are a member, and have already donated, the situation is different. From me, it was donate, or be erased. They sure kept my email, though. I cannot donate, end of story.