Syria?

There's a good explanation of the run down in the Washington Post today on the most popular list...."Nine Questions about Syria You're Too Embarrassed to Ask" or something like that. I found it interesting.

I think it comes down to fact finding of IF chemical weapons were used near Damascus and IF so, are we comfortable allowing that to happen?
Did we sit by and watch Hitler?

Syria - basically those who oppose President Assad are aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. We, the US, have been arming the opposition for years, even though we're supposed to be fighting Al Qaeda as part of the war on terror. Why do we do this? Because Syria is supported by Iran, and Iran and the US obviously don't get along.

The opposition has claimed that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on citizens, but the claims have yet to be proven. Some reports indicate that it was the opposition, themselves, who released the chemical weapons, whether on purpose or accidentally, it isn't known.

So now here we are, being asked by the Obama administration, to support the idea of fighting along side the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda against Bashar Assad's government. Our only allies that support US intervention in Syria are Saudi Arabia and Israel, since, of course, Israel is an enemy to both Iran and Syria. [Correction: France's government is currently debating whether to aid the US's efforts.]

This all sounds very familiar to what happened 10 years ago when highly respected US officials were presenting evidence of Saddam's WMDs in Iraq. Turns out the intelligence was flawed/wrong.

President Obama is required by the Constitution to go to Congress for an authorization for war, if war is to be declared. But presidents have a long history of authorizing military strikes without a formal declaration of war.

That's a very short and un-referenced run-down of it. I can add more later, but I've got a lot to do today.

Read Queenofthecastle's remarks.

What I find most distressing is both sides of the Syrian conflict are our enemies. If we help either side they WILL STILL BE OUR ENEMIES. If we arm either side in an effort to defeat the other side the weapons we give them will be turned on us after the conflict is over. If we do nothing, the people being murdered by either side will be just fewer people to carry on terrorists attacks against us. Fewer drivers of car bombs, fewer pilots to fly aircraft into the Pentagon or the World Trade Center. Fewer people to strap on bombs and board school busses in Israel. To me, its like if the SS in Germany during WWII started bombing the Gestapo and the Gestapo started gassing the SS. Do we really want to stop either side from killing the other because as soon as we do they will turn their murderous intentions toward the Christian world?

Do I think some innocent people will be killed. Yes. But I think more innocent people will be killed if we step in and get between them. And I think one American soldier killed or captured by either side over there is worth more than all the terrorists killed by both sides combined.

Good luck to you and yours.

You've gotten a good rundown here from other parents. We need to stay the heck out of it. Not our fight. But we won't...Obama (anti-war?) and Boehner (beyond wishy washy SOH) are both going for it...so brace yourself...more of our service men and women will be forced to fight.

Only this time we have NO stick in this fight and we will be fighting WITH those who terrorized our nation in 2001.

My take, in a nut shell:
Someone either the government or the rebels used chemical weapons on the people, we think chemical weapons are considered 'Weapons of mass destruction' and shouldn't be tolerated. But no body else in the world wants to stand with us. President wants to go in & show them we dont approve & he asked for congress' support & congress said yes.

Buying that I know we have 5-7 ships in the waters near them. Israel launched 'test' missiles this morning/yesterday? (time difference!?) that were only test missiles that landed in the water & are saying it's a joint project w/them & us.

Not only does no one want to stand with us but Russia stands w/Syria.

That's all I got.

~We have such a Looong history if backing bad guys to get rid if other bad guys that whole part if the world us a giant cluster -f**k, IMO, & almost impossible for us people to keep straight or even have a real clue as to what us happening. Don't believe we have ever been told all the details if every back door dealings we've had w/what band of rebels & when?! Even if we were privy to all the info, still not sure we'd see the big picture?

But I'm synical.

A budget busting quagmire that will cost us money, resources, and American lives.
The countries that are on that continent and are directly affected by it need to deal with it.
It's no sign of weakness for us to sit this one out.
It's always something over in that part of the world - some special sort of insanity that keeps people killing each other for one excuse or another.
They need to build a big wall around the combatants and let them duke it out without outside interference and then the rest of the world can put the winners on trial for war crimes.

No our fight but Obama will make sure it becomes ours. 100,000 people have been killed over the past two years. All,of a sudden he wants to do something. We are so screwed beccause if he does not so anything, he looks like a jackass. If he does go in, the freakin Middle East will explode. Poor Israel will suffer so.

I think the Obama administration is asking the same question.

You will get many opinions on this issue. It is not black and white for sure. I would look up info from many different news sources (including over seas ones) to try to get the best picture of the issue.

I don't think anyone is sure who used chemical weapons, but Syria is having a civil war (and has been for some time now) and we need to stay the heck out of it. If we attack them it will be the start of world war three and the US has nothing to gain from supporting either side (which are both our enemies). They did not make direct threats against the US so it would be unconstitutional for us to even consider going.

Syria is in the midst of a civil war. We need to let them figure it out and stay out of it.

I was asking the same thing a few days ago, and then came across this article, which sums it up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08...

So, bottom line, both sides are our enemies, going in there is not going to change that, nor will it stop Assad, but not going in there means that we stand by doing nothing while a nation attacks children with chemical weapons... it's a lose/lose either way, pretty much. All of this at a time when 1 in 7 Americans is going hungry, and we keep cutting funding for that because we've got to "live within our means" or whatever the logic is. Right about now, I'm wondering where all of Syria's neighbors are, and why they can't intervene. Does it ALWAYS have to be Americans footing the bill and sending our soldiers to die in other people's pointless wars, when they don't appreciate our help anyway?

I wonder how many can even find it on a map.

I had to read this on CNN cause I also was completely in the dark!
It's basically 20 Questions & Answers about Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/world/meast/syria-up-to-spe...

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/2...