Syria?

[Wilma]

I would like to have the honest opinion of the people who know about these things.  What is the situation in Syria and what, if anything, should the U.S. do about it?  I would especially like to hear from our veterans who have been there, done that.

[Jane]

Wilma,
I am not a veteran but I feel we should stay out of Syria? They did not come over here and do anything to us. They did it to their own people which is terribly wrong no matter how you look at it. I think the UN should get involved and say something.

[jarhead]

I would like to have the honest opinion of the people who know about these things.  What is the situation in Syria and what, if anything, should the U.S. do about it?  I would especially like to hear from our veterans who have been there, done that.

Wilma,
I am a vet and have an honest opinion but you asked something like this here while back and I gave my honest opinion and you came back with your below quote and jabbed me in the eye, So I think I will keep my opinion to myself.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Warph, for your unopionated answer to my quest

[Wilma]

I did that?  Well, you know how it is with us old folks.  We have trouble keeping you younguns straight.

If you will give me your honest opinion, I promise not to thank you for it.

[redcliffsw]

Sarah Palin had a pretty good idea - Let Allah sort it out.

And Laurence Vance has it down too:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-military-action-against-syria-shouldnt-even-be-considered/

[Bullwinkle]

     The biggest red flag to me is that Obuma wants to do it. It smells of other motives than a response to them using Sarin gas.

     There have to be some bigger players than Obuma wanting to start this for their own financial gain.

     Obuma would do it just to make even more people hate our presence and want our military out of their part of the world.

[Warph]

Wilma...

Read "This & That" about what is going on on Syria.

Here's something I know you'll appreciate:

[Warph]

Heritage Foundation's The Foundry offers five critical questions that Congress should pose to President Obama before voting on his "disturbingly ad hoc and reactive" desire to jump into Syria, boots on the ground notwithstanding:

(It would behoove Congress to think long and hard, lest they make a decision that will have lasting implications on their careers... and our lives)

Obama:"John needs a good enema"

[Bumbling IDIOTS]"House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) both endorsed military action in Syria yesterday, but it's unclear whether President Obama has sufficient support in Congress for a resolution authorizing such action.

House and Senate hearings this week give Members of Congress an opportunity to question the Obama Administration on Syria and its strategy—and question they should. Here are just five reasons Congress should press the Administration for answers."

1. A "narrow and limited" operation seems at odds with the Obama Administration's objectives.

The President stated over the weekend that a U.S. military operation in Syria would be "narrow and limited" and would not involve troops on the ground. Yet the Administration's draft resolution states that the purpose of the military action is to "prevent or deter the use or proliferation" of weapons of mass destruction or to "protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons." This is a very broad objective.

The Administration has been careful to say that strikes would "degrade" Syria's chemical weapons capacity. But limited military strikes are very unlikely to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stocks or delivery capacity. This is doubly true since the Syrian government has now had more than a week to move and protect those weapons. Even assuming that the U.S. can definitively track the weapons, it is complicated to ensure that they are not transferred to another hostile party. Congress needs to challenge the Administration to establish objectives achievable by limited strikes or explain how the strikes will achieve the purposes stated in the resolution.


2. The Syrian rebels have been linked to Islamist extremists.

In addition to the military strikes, the Administration reportedly intends to do "more for the Syrian rebels," including providing arms. But there is evidence that the Syrian rebels are fighting beside Islamist extremists, some of whom have ties to al-Qaeda. Congress needs to demand a credible plan on how the Administration will prevent U.S. assistance to the Syrian rebels from supporting Islamist extremists.


3. Enforcement of Obama's "red line" has been inconsistent... very inconsistent

The Administration assesses "with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs." Yet these earlier attacks did not elicit a military response from the U.S. This belies the Administration's arguments that chemical weapons attacks necessitate a U.S. military response. Arbitrary enforcement of a "red line" is not a convincing argument.

4. The Administration has not clearly articulated a U.S. national security interest threatened by the August 21 attack.

The President stated that the August 21 chemical weapons attack "presents a serious danger to our national security." Yet he failed to articulate a direct threat to the U.S. or its allies. Obama said we need to send a signal to dissuade Syria and other nations from stockpiling or using weapons of mass destruction. But retaliation to one chemical weapons attack—and not others—does not send a clear signal. American vacillation in the face of Iran's nuclear ambitions sends a far more direct signal than a belated, "narrow and limited" military action in Syria.


5. The U.S. has not been able to gain broad support from allies.

The New York Times reported that offers of "military assets" have come from France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. But only France has committed to be an active participant in a military operation. Congress should seek an explanation from the Administration as to why, if the August 21 attack poses a regional threat, our Arab partners are not more committed.

The Obama Administration's Syria policy has been disturbingly ad hoc and reactive. The Administration has not clearly explained why it must act at this time when earlier incidents did not require action, how its proposed actions will achieve its stated objectives, and what its plans are if the military strikes do not succeed in achieving those objectives. Answers to these and other questions are vital if Congress is to take its responsibilities seriously.

[Wilma]

I just don't understand why it is the responsibility of the United States to jump in and correct the social ills in a foreign country.  Why were we in Iraq?  What happened in Afganistan that made us feel that we were needed to save that country?  Has it been saved?  Is Iraq really better off now than it would have been without foreign intervention?  I asked for opinions about the situation in Syria hoping someone could help me understand what we are doing messing around with foreign governments.

My opinion is:  Bring our troops home, along with our money.

[Bullwinkle]

      Iraq= oil

     Afghanistan= drugs and money / regional domination

     Syria....  Israel would love to see it gone.