Originally Posted by l2ridehd (Post 736961)

Lets try to understand the problem. Obama drew a line in the sand and said chemical weapons would result in harsh consequences. Probably a mistake, but he said it and that is now behind us. Ashad used chemical weapons to kill his own people, including women and children. Do we want to accept that? I agree this is a no win conflict, but should we act or not? Obama now wants a get out of jail card. He saw what happened in the UK Parliament. So the British PM is off the hook. Maybe he wants the same out.

Now the problem. Syria is watching to see if we act. If we don't, they will continue until they murder thousands. Iran is watching and seeing if our "red line in the sand" is real so they can do what they want with regard to nuclear weapons. Israel is watching to see if we act so they know what to do about Iran. If we do anything it is a losers game. If we do nothing, how do you think Israel will act to take out Iran's nuclear capability? Think they will react the same way if we don't act against Syria? I believe they will think our "we got your back" policy is worthless and decide they need to eliminate the Iran threat now. Don't think North Korea is not watching either. Syria is not the real problem. It's all the other countries who are taking our measure and making decisions that have a much more significant impact on the future.

It's amateur hour in Washington and Obama has painted himself into a corner where what ever he does is wrong. He is hoping by putting Congress in the middle there will be someone else to blame for the failed outcome. And any decision is actually a failure. So this is a true lose lose.

We should never have gotten to where we are, but unfortunately we are there. There is no good answer.

Originally Posted by zcaveman (Post 736993)

I don't need to see the videos. I read the newspaper. I know what is going on over there.

Does this mean that you also want to back into Iraq to fix the problem with all of the women and children they are killing there?

We have the Syrian government on one side and the rebels supported by Al Qaeda on the other side. We should not support either side.

These people live to kill each other. A few bombs by us are not going to change that. It might give Iran and North Korea a reason to "help" Syria retaliate.

Z

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee (Post 737095)

When I see any sign that these middle eastern countries are prepared to reject Al Qaeda themselves without help from the rest of the world, then I would agree with us helping. Until that time I say NO to getting involved in any more of these tribal wars.

Show me that you want to move out of the dark ages and into the 21st century and live like civilized human beings, allow the woman that want to - to not live in purdah, allow their female children to be educated (if they so wish) and treat their women with dignity instead of beasts of burden, then I would agree to us helping them in any way we can.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the only way to have peace in the middle east is for these people to live under a dictator. Every country where we have taken out the dictator has fallen into chaos.

I have never felt this way before, but the loss of life and limb from the Iraq debacle has changed my opinion on many things.

Originally Posted by kittygilchrist (Post 737081)

Syrian defector: Assad using chemical weapons - Israel News, Ynetnews
This article is from Feb. 2012 regarding Syrian defector who says chemical warfare was done under supervision by Russia and Iran.

Originally Posted by l2ridehd (Post 736961)

Lets try to understand the problem. Obama drew a line in the sand and said chemical weapons would result in harsh consequences. Probably a mistake, but he said it and that is now behind us. Ashad used chemical weapons to kill his own people, including women and children. Do we want to accept that? I agree this is a no win conflict, but should we act or not? Obama now wants a get out of jail card. He saw what happened in the UK Parliament. So the British PM is off the hook. Maybe he wants the same out.

Now the problem. Syria is watching to see if we act. If we don't, they will continue until they murder thousands. Iran is watching and seeing if our "red line in the sand" is real so they can do what they want with regard to nuclear weapons. Israel is watching to see if we act so they know what to do about Iran. If we do anything it is a losers game. If we do nothing, how do you think Israel will act to take out Iran's nuclear capability? Think they will react the same way if we don't act against Syria? I believe they will think our "we got your back" policy is worthless and decide they need to eliminate the Iran threat now. Don't think North Korea is not watching either. Syria is not the real problem. It's all the other countries who are taking our measure and making decisions that have a much more significant impact on the future.

It's amateur hour in Washington and Obama has painted himself into a corner where what ever he does is wrong. He is hoping by putting Congress in the middle there will be someone else to blame for the failed outcome. And any decision is actually a failure. So this is a true lose lose.

We should never have gotten to where we are, but unfortunately we are there. There is no good answer.

Originally Posted by Monkei (Post 737080)

Obama is between a rock and a hard place on this one. If he does not act and Syria gasses again his head is on the chopping block. If he does act and Syria retaliates by gassing again his head in the block. It's a tuff place for this president who has endured so much at home to be placed in. He is in a tuff spot on this one. You could not pay me enough to have his job.

What I do find funny, however, is the country who took all the crap during the last administration, France, is with us this time. I guess the congress can rename the American fries back to their real name, French Fries. Oh how I long for the days when the congress could actually agree on something like changing the name of starchy potato sticks.

Originally Posted by Tracy1581 (Post 737233)

If he is in between a rock and a hard place it's because he made the statement a year ago about crossing the RED LINE and then NOT following through on it. You cannot pretend your going to do something and then do NOTHING. Mixed signals to our allies and enemies is a huge mistake. As is taking 9-10 days to get Congress together while you leave for a tee time. I don't find funny the fact that none of our allies will stand by us. They are just as confused as everyone else. We are in desperate need of a leader in foreign affairs. This whole situation is critical and NOT calling Congress for an emergency meeting is another mistake that may be very costly.

Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 737242)

Both houses of congress have the ability to call themselves into an emergency session. Some rumblings that the senate may do just that, but nothing from Speaker Boehner.

There is only one way to change leaders in foreign affairs, but that train has left the station.

Originally Posted by Tracy1581 (Post 736849)

I'm not so sure we should be waiting 9 days to have this debate. Congress should be ordered immediately to discuss this situation. It should have taken place immediately many days ago. This will give 9 days to Syria to hide weapons, etc... Anything can happen in 9 days and by delaying something so urgent, how does the world perceive our leadership now?

I think the President has boxed himself in a corner on this one.