The war in Syria

[Second Summer]

It seems to me there is so far a complete lack of evidence against the regime for the recent chemical weapons attack near Damascus. What is happening at the moment reminds me a lot of the events that lead to the invasion in Iraq, though I doubt this is going to lead to an actual invasion. But I fail to see what good a US or UK drive-by cruise missile shooting attack would do, as it's unlikely to bring the war to an end, in fact it would probably make it longer. They would have to put soldiers on the ground and have a proper invasion to end the war. Also, supporting "the opposition" doesn't seem like a good idea either, as the islamist contingent appears to be significant.

 

[Second Summer]

Wikipedia has a decent article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ghouta_attacks

Gwyn Winfield, editorial director at the magazine CBRNe World, which reports on chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosives use, analyzed the videos and wrote on the magazine's site: "Clearly respiratory distress, some nerve spasms and a half-hearted washdown (involving water and bare hands?), but it could equally be a riot control agent as a (chemical warfare agent)." Some analysts speculated that a stockpile of chemical agents may have been hit by shelling, whether controlled by the rebels or the government.[34] After an analysis a professor of microbiology, who watched the videos, concluded with a "best guess" that the videos were indicative of the aftermath of an attack with some incapacitating chemical agent, but probably not sarin gas or a similar weapon, as they would have left signs of visible blistering.[50]
On 24 August, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), working with Syrian doctors, stated that MSF could not "scientifically confirm the cause" of the medical symptoms observed but that "the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events ... strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent."[2]

 

[ledboots]

Whether there were chemical weapons used or not, attacking Syria would be pointless. POINTLESS.

 

[Second Summer]

They (US and UK) really need to work within the UN framework, the international war crimes tribunal etc. and not act as rogue vigilantes, as seems to be their plan now, if they want to bring the people responsible to justice.

 

[Second Summer]

The cruise missile option seems to be what is favoured by the US & UK governments. I fail to see how that is going to bring the responsible to justice.

Supposedly the US has "evidence" in the form of an intercepted phone call between Syrian government officials. (Apparently the evidence was gathered by Israel, an historical enemy of the Syrian government.) Of course, they are not releasing the actual recording of said phone call. But they are content it's all the evidence they need. We just have to trust them on this ... And now they are going to punish the responsible behind the chemical attacks by bombarding "targets" in Syria with cruise missiles.

This, in my humble opinion, makes little sense.

 

[rainforests1]

As I have previously said, it's the year after the election that you have to watch out for this kind of thing. I just wish they'd find another reason rather than recycling some of the same ones. I can't imagine Arabs liking us more as a result of this.

 

[rainforests1]

The United States aided the rebels recently. If we had not done that, the war likely would have been over. It may just be prolonging the war, and prolonging the suffering. Why does Obama not get criticized for this? If we're going to get involved, shouldn't we try to end the war?

 

[ledboots]

Obama Could Still Strike Syria Despite British Withdrawal And Cameron's Historic Defeat (VIDEO)

If he does this, it will be the last straw for me and this warmonger president. He was supposed to try to stop all the madness, but it's all gotten worse. BOOOOOOOO I have never regretted voting for a man more.

 

[Amy SF]

I'm ****** off, but I don't regret voting for him. I see him as the lesser of two evils. I would not have gone to my grave happy knowing that I voted for McCain or Romney. Besides, I live in California, which the Democratic nominee usually wins in the general election, so my vote for somebody else wouldn't matter anyway.

 

[Wolfie]

Besides, I live in California, which the Democratic nominee usually wins in the general election, so my vote for somebody else wouldn't matter anyway.

It's the same where I live and I am tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. We need a viable 3rd party and chance of winning or not, I vote Libertarian now. Only good thing Obama has done IMO is come out against breed bans.

 

[das_nut]

I'm ****** off, but I don't regret voting for him. I see him as the lesser of two evils.

Obama's very selective enforcement of laws has been bothering me. Sure, it's cool when he decides not to enforce laws such as DOMA, but that sets up a precedent for the next president to do the same, and what happens when the next president is some conservative wackjob who decides not to enforce laws protecting abortion clinics or equal rights?

 

[ledboots]

President Obama is speaking now about a strike but will seek congressional approval. It isn't in session now.

 

[Blobbenstein]

if the chemical attack wasn't by the Syrian government, but a means to get America to attack, then Obama will just be encouraging the use of chemical weapons if they are used in an underhand way.

 

[Amy SF]

If Obama does ask for congressional approval, they will likely turn him down, in part because the Republicans don't want to give him anything. Which means he might go ahead and do it without their approval. I would like to see a peaceful solution to this whole mess, but maybe that's just the 1960's hippie kumbaya Make Love Not War All We Are Saying is Give Peace a Chance aspect to my character.

 

[Blobbenstein]

won't the Republican voters be after a bit of warring, chest beating and bloodshed? Won't the Republican politicians want to give that to them even if it helps Obama?

 

[Spang]

President Obama will bomb the people of Syria upon approval from Congress.

US President Barack Obama said he has decided to take military action against Syria, but will seek authorisation from Congress before he does.

 

[Amy SF]

No. The Repubs are the Party of No. They will say no and tell Obama it's the will of the people (which in this case is at least partly true). http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...ent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite

BTW, shouldn't these Syria posts be moved to the War in Syria thread?

 

[SummerRain]

Mod post I've gone ahead and merged the discussion from the news thread into this one.

 

[ledboots]

I was the one who posted in the wrong thread to begin with, I apologize for forgetting about this thread and messing up the News one. My excuse is I was listening to Obama at the time.

I'm glad the President is waiting for congressional approval, and I hope he doesn't get it.

" Americans Doubt Syria Airstrikes Will Accomplish Goals, Polls Find

Ariel Edwards-LevyAug 30, 2013
WASHINGTON -- Most Americans are doubtful that airstrikes in Syria would do much to curb the turmoil there, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

Just 18 percent thought U.S. airstrikes against the Syrian government would stop the use of chemical weapons there, while 48 percent thought they would not, and 34 percent were unsure." http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3838808

 

[rainforests1]

I think this war will continue for a long time to come. Obama will continue to aid the rebels, doing enough to keep the war going but not enough to try to end it.

what happens when the next president is some conservative wackjob who decides not to enforce laws protecting abortion clinics or equal rights?

Most Republicans today are neo-cons rather than conservatives. We haven't had a true conservative as President in a very long time, and it's not likely to happen anytime soon.