Serious question...

Why hurry ?

President will be in Russia this coming week, and he is the most important person in the debate ? Doesn't he have to explain what he intends to do, and hopefully it is not just phoned in.

This is not new...this is a few years old. Not sure why anyone would hurry except to make some obscure political points.

Actually the g20 is Thursday and Friday and then add travel..so why call everyone back

The President, the centerpiece of all of this, is in Russia this coming week.

Not surprised the senate will come back and vote without him...they passed many things without reading them.

I would be critical of the House IF the President was available..he needs to make his case and explain what he intends to do

If I recall correctly, our current president was against (even voted against) going into Iraq even with a much larger coalition of other countries. I believe he is a muslim and does not want to be involved with any attacks on any muslim country. In this case, America has no skin in the game, our good name has already been smeared over the last couple of years - jumping in to improve that image is useless. According to the news, an American poll puts 50% want us to "do something". 44% do not want us to intervene. I don't put much stock in polls - so much depends on the way a question is asked over the phone. I am firmly against any military intervention.

We're being lied to...again...just like all the other times. When will people learn?

There's money to be made in war. Debt limits get thrown out the window during war.

I'm just tired of seeing the U.S. as the "world's policemen."
We put our troops at risk for countries that hate us to begin
with and never appreciate our efforts.

We need to stay out of other countries problems!
We never seem to have an understanding of the problems
To begin with.

I am empathetic with populations/countries that do not
have our democracy and freedom.

That being said DEMOCRACY does NOT WORK with people
who do not believe in the sanctity of life.

We need to stay out of Syria!

Generally speaking I have been against all this action, inaction, whatever and can make a case, but what makes this more confusing is that I can also make a case for using military.

Syria and Iran are allies. Iran has also these same weapons....disregarding what Syria has done will embolden Iran. Why we did not step up earlier is a good question. Remember the President has drawn a few red lines with Iran also.

Also, keep in mind, it is frustrating being the cops, but with power comes responsibility. We have lost much respect the past few years in the middle east and while we should not be involved in other countries internal problems, can anyone say that this "problem" stays internal ? So many countries are backed and allies of Al Queda and have a known goal of bringing the worst of weapon to our shores. Do we embolden them and just allow them to continue.

As I said, I honestly can make a case on either side.

I do not in any way feel that action is required because we are "good guys" and to send a message to the world, etc. This has been going on for years.....well over 100,000 people have died....men, women and children. A lot of war crimes have been committed in that time and all we did was give it very small lip service.

What will swing how I feel is hearing, and I have yet to hear it, is EXACTLY what the President plans to do. I am still not clear on that. I do not know what it means to "hold the regime responsible"....does that mean topple the regime ? If so, that is more than a few missel strikes. That I still do not understand.

I am on board with both Senate and Congress debating and voting, but oppose any kind of political games which are beginning. The President MUST be part of this debate....MUST.

BBC News - Syria crisis: David Cameron supports Obama's stance

I believe that the Obama Adminstration should consider the consequences of a strike on Syria very carefully before taking any military action and should try to get as much consensus as possible in these actions. Cannot see how and why the Syrian regime could hide chemical weapons as there are probably quite a number of satellites and other intelligence gathering agents targeting Syria from many countries which have an interest in that region-- Russia, China, the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, etc.

Syria and chemical weapons is not new. They have had them for many many years and we know exactly where they are. Same with N Korea an others.

Getting consensus is good...the stumbling, bumbling up to here was not so good.

As long as they do not allow this to become totally political.

israelnationnews.com click arutz sheva
Arab League Ministers to Call for Syria Strike

Report: Ministers will issue a call for destruction of Assad's defenses, to open way for Free Syria Army.



By Arutz Sheva
First Publish: 9/1/2013, 4:08 PM (middle eastern time)


Arab League meeting in Cairo

The foreign ministers of the Arab League, who are convening in Cairo, are expected to adopt a resolution in support of “any military attack” against the Syrian regime, according to Maariv.


Specifically, the foreign ministers will call for a military action to destroy the Assad regime's defense arrays, in order to open the way to the conquest of Syria by the Free Syria Army.


The Arab League has been discussing the crisis in Syria at a closed-door meeting in Cairo since Sunday morning. Ambassador-level talks were followed by the foreign ministers' meeting that was scheduled to start in the afternoon.


The meeting had been scheduled for Tuesday, but was advanced to Sunday "in light of rapid developments in the Syria situation and based on the request of several Arab states", Ahmed Ben Helli, Arab League deputy chief, said on Saturday.


Al Jazeera reported that Ahmed Aljarba, the head of the Syrian National Council (SNC), the opposition umbrella group backed by the West and Arab states, would be giving a speech at the foreign ministers' meeting


During the ambassadors' session, permanent representatives condemned the August 21 chemical weapons massacre at Ghota al Sharkiya, calling it a "horrible crime carried out with internationally prohibited chemical weapons", and placed the "entire responsibility" on President Bashar al-Assad's government.


The Arab League suspended Syria's membership in 2011 after Assad's government failed to abide by an Arab peace plan that aimed to end the conflict in Syria. In March, the 22-member organization offered Syria's seat to the SNC and decided to let its member nations arm the rebels battling Assad's government.


John Kerry, the US secretary of state, mentioned the Arab League among a list of allies "ready to respond" to the alleged chemical-weapons attack.


However, Arab League members such as Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Tunisia, which have faced recent internal conflicts of their own, were opposed to foreign intervention.

http://http://www.aljazeera.com/news...581262102.html
Report that Saudi Arabia backs US strike.

I'm sorry Kitty but I don't believe we will be supported if we partake in this folly. Let the Saudis strike first and we can follow them for a change.

Part of destroying the Assad regime is what you get in return. Be wary of how we can get played by Al Queda.....do not look at the rebels as a bunch of good guys here.

This is a very tough situation. I totally understand both sides of what I hope will be a non political debate without the games

'Every possible scenario': Israel readies anti-missile defenses for probable Syrian strike ? RT News

Poll reports 2/3 of Israelis support US strike.

Hi Diane, the point is not for the Saudis to militarily come in...I think they have no interest in destabilizing relations further between Arab nations.
The point was to say that the Arab League opposes chemical warfare to counter black and white thinking about Muslims.
Some folks are saying things like:
Muslims/Arabs just want to kill each other and...
Obama is a Muslim so he wouldn't kill a Muslim (except Bin Laden?)--

Not all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists. Our blindly thinking of them all as enemies just wears me out.

exactly
 

And at what point did it become Israel's call as to whether or not we strike another country? How many of the pro war folks on here have actually been in or fought a war? It is easy to say, "Let's hit them" but remember this, those body bags that will be coming home will be our younger generation. This is an expense I for one am not willing to bear, under these conditions. Frankly I don't care what the Saudis or the Israelis support, I'm for supporting OUR needs, not theirs.

You folks are getting carried away.

I need to hear EXACTLY what the President has in mind..specifics. Last I heard there would be NO...ZERO troops on the ground.

As far as Israel, keep in mind....they are surrounded by these guys. They will always want to bring them down and limit what they can do. They KNOW that if we strike, they will get hit in retaliation, but still favor a hit.

AND allow me, as much as you do not want to hear it, every decision we make in the middle east considered Israel. Not their polls, but their security. EVERY decision made in the middle east.

Kitty, your news source is blatantly clouding the real picture. For starters calling the rebels the "Free Syria Army" is a farce. The are funded, provided arms, support and led by Al Queda. That is who will run Syria if they win.

As for the Arab league support, yes they will be completely behind it. Why? because having Al Queda run Syria is much better for them then having Assad run Syria. However I bet they will vote for support in principal and not commit one peso or person to the effort.

Why does Israel support a US strike? They want to know we will follow through with our commitments in any Middle East conflict. They also want those chemical weapons destroyed before they fall into the hands of Al Queda. And to let Iran know we will follow through on our "do not allow nuclear arms" commitment to Israel.

Our leadership in Washington has bungled this beyond belief. It is an utter and complete failure of our foreign policy.

On all of this I can agree with you, especially on the questionable sources that the fact of the make up of those we will help with a strike.

Well said...

"IF" we don't show support of Israel (and this goes for "any" country)....I say "God help us!!" Along with this there will always be "wars and rumors of wars"........ From the standpoint of the reasoning of men and men alone, there are NO answers.

I don't see this as "limited" and think it will quickly escalate. Every conflict we've ever been in starts the same way. This will only serve to embolden and consolidate the factionalized Arabs into one with a common enemy, us. We need to learn from history. Frankly I would rather see Arabs killing one another than psychotic "Jihad" against us. The only winners will the the giant military corporations that control our government, such as Halliburton, raeython (sp), etc., and the list goes on. Even Europe has not jumped on the bandwagon, perhaps they have learned a lesson we obviously have not.

Hey there. I've quoted a ton of resources...I'm not endorsing their every word, but the sources are giving me updates while CNN blathers on...

What are the sources you refer to about Syrian rebels being Al Queda?
Kitty

uss liberty
 

Not to change the subject, but it seems to be drifting to Israel's rights of protection by the US, I'd suggest all google the USS Liberty incident where the Israelis attacked a us ship and killed 34 sailors 1 marine 1 civilian in international waters. That is the truth of war and how things escalate quickly and get totally out of hand.

Beginning with Vietnam America's resolve has progressively lessen. So the last thing we needed is a president who is doing on the job training concerning our foreign policy. The president believed he could avoid the issue by drawing reference to a red line, one he never imagined would occur.
So then he prolonged it further by demanding proof which eventually came but he still maintained was definitely verifiable. IMHO who else would gain by using chemical weapons but Assad. He and Kerry both began saber rattling and then got cold feet again and decided to wait until Congress reconvened. meanwhile his Admin leaked more information to the enemy than snowden.

By the way prior to the invasion of Iraq a story appeared in the WSJ wherein they describe where Iraqi Republican Guard relieved Syrian guards at the order then departed. Did Iraq move its WMD to Syria before the invasion?
does anyone believe with so much information out there that Syria won't e well prepared and well protected

Our allies doubt our resolve and know now that they cannot rely on us.
We do have an interest in the outcome of Syria. But before we move we better be sure what we intend to do and make it effective and we better have the resolve to see it through.

First, I have read and heard of the same stories on WMD's from Iraq to Syria..a number of times.

I also concur with we better have a plan..not what we have been hearing, which is nebulous at best. This is why no hurry getting back to Washington to vote, although some with narrow vision will even make that an issue. This needs discussions and answers. The last weeks have been an embarrasment...this discussion needs to be done correctly and free of the bickering which is starting already.

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rp, Thanks for the post..6 day war. No wonder I didn't remember that.
1967.

Syria - Al Jazeera English

too much info for a synopsis...Arab League considerations.

Google Al Qaeda in Syria. This is just one of the hits. This has been all over the news. We support the rebels all we are doing is giving arms to Al Qaeda. There are no good guys over there.

Syria and al-Qaeda: the enemy of our enemy could turn out to be our most dangerous enemy of all – Telegraph Blogs

that is a blog..imo it carries equal weight as any person on totv.

"“So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with.”



Read more: Kucinich: Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force' - The Hill's Global Affairs
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Bucco: it seems that the Executive Branch, Congress, The Pentagon, FBI/CIA have all become indecisive, forgot the admonition that "loose lips sink ships" have little resolve and otherwise are losing credibility both domestically and with the world at large. This is very dangerous because it gives the appearance of weakness. The perception of weakness in the world like in the wild, the criminal world sporting events, etc means certain literally and figuratively means certain death.

It is of paramount importance that we change that perception quickly because if we don't it will lead to our eventual demise Ask the ancient Romans

You are probably one of the few that does not believe that Al Qaeda is not on the sides of the rebels. Please google Al Qaeda and Syria and read some of the hits. Also read the newspapers.

I do not want to influence you either way. Make up your own mind after reading some of the articles.

Neither side is on our side.

Z

I think conversation for me is mute until I hear more from the WH. Not that I am on their mailing list, but they can't nor should share all EXCEPT with the senate or congress, and that needs to be really wide open.

What is the end game...regime change...destroy capabilities of the regime to defend itself ?

If either of those...DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE WHO YOU ARE HANDING THIS OVER TO ? There is actually a report on NPR that suggests the chemical attack is the work of the rebels. Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons? : The Two-Way : NPR

As far as the president being a Muslim, I think that that kind of talk is ridiculous and divisive. I'm not a big fan of this president and his policies or some of the decisions he made but I'd prefer to stick with substance rather than rhetoric.
Sitting in the senate it's pretty easy to vote against the president. It's especially easy when it's the popular vote among your constituents and the vote is going overwhelmingly in the opposite direction.
It's not as easy for the president to play games like that. I think that the president had a shock when he went into the oval office for the first time and was briefed on things that only the administration knows. Suddenly there are a lot more things to think about then what decision will get you the most votes.

It was the same thing with Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator and Candidate Obama criticized President Bush and his policies on these two fronts. When he got into office, he followed the Bush schedule to the letter.

He keeps saying that he wants to close GITMO but he hasn't yet. Could it be that once he got into office he learned a few things about that whole situation and why we haven't closed that facility? That was a priority and yet, it is still open.

It's pretty easy for us as well as the house and senate to sit in judgement of what the president is doing, but what do we really know? We don't have doesn't of experts in these areas advising us on what to do. We don't fully understand the repercussion of acting or not acting. Senator Obama didn't either.

that is a blog. a blog has as much credibility as something said on facebook or twitter or totv.

This seems to be your standard answer. Are you afraid to look at the facts? Please google Syria Al Qaeda and read some of the hits.

Z

only if you keep posting blogs will I answer that way...I'm not interested in fishing for info to support your point.

:agree:

Both of these editorials which you consider as being blogs, are editorials written by reputable reporters who are well versed in their subject, and their editorials are then printed in reputable media outlets. The fact that the general public is allowed to express their opinions does not make it a blog.

The following is a definition of a blog: "It is a "web-log" where you have a page online. You share your thoughts and ideas. You can have a theme..... shopping or travel. Or you can just talk about your daily life. You can buy a domain for $10 and pay a host $10 a month to set up a website. Or you can go to one of 10 places for blogs (blogger, tumblr, wordpress, etc) and they will help you set it up."

These editorials which you are writing off as blogs, are excellent editorials written by reputable knowledgeable people. If you search the net you will find other excellent articles written by people who have made the middle east their life study and probably know it better than than any of us.

I am not sure what you mean. I pretty much allow some credence if NPR does, and while you can dismiss me and the BLOG, your obviously totally and completely not understanding posts and more interested in going after the posters integrity.

I said when I posted that link.....

"There is actually a report on NPR that suggests the chemical attack is the work of the rebels"

This statement was made was made in the context of insuring you know who you are supporting. You must not understand context at all. I never said the statement was accurate in anyway, and offered it as one scenario that is floated.

Sorry that you were blind to that. I will go slower and be clearer next time as your goal is not to discuss.

I get in trouble on here, but some are not interested in discussion but making some point that I do not get.