Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[If_I_Loved_you]

Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking. 

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood. 

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Here is an educational piece about Syria, what is happening and why America can't change it.  See #6.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/  (click link for full story)

The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren't exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What's happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.

6. Why hasn't the United States fixed this yet?
Because it can't. There are no viable options. Sorry.
The military options are all bad. Shipping arms to rebels, even if it helps them topple Assad, would ultimately empower jihadists and worsen rebel in-fighting, probably leading to lots of chaos and possibly a second civil war (the United States made this mistake during Afghanistan's 1980s civil war, which helped the Taliban take power in the 1990s). Taking out Assad somehow would probably do the same, opening up a dangerous power vacuum. Launching air strikes or a "no fly zone" could suck us in, possibly for years, and probably wouldn't make much difference on the ground. An Iraq-style ground invasion would, in the very best outcome, accelerate the the killing, cost a lot of U.S. lives, wildly exacerbate anti-Americanism in a boon to jihadists and nationalist dictators alike, and would require the United States to impose order for years across a country full of people trying to kill each other. Nope.
The one political option, which the Obama administration has been pushing for, would be for the Assad regime and the rebels to strike a peace deal. But there's no indication that either side is interested in that, or that there's even a viable unified rebel movement with which to negotiate.
It's possible that there was a brief window for a Libya-style military intervention early on in the conflict. But we'll never really know.

[JayBird]

Here is an educational piece about Syria, what is happening and why America can't change it.  See #6.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/  (click link for full story)

The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren't exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What's happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.

From that same article, anyone who thinks we are thinking of going over there to change anything is completely wrong and they themselves are ignorant to the facts of the situation. The only reason for American action and the only reason even mentioned by Obama or his administration:

It's true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it's not supposed to. The strikes wouldn't be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.

[Cheshire Cat]

Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking. 

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood. 

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go. 

IILU, I am not trying to change your thinking at all.  I know you are where you want or need to be and that is fine with me.  However, when you chose to comment about the conflict in Syria and in view of your want to constantly frame your discussions in the love of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity" I was sincerely wondering how you "square" the idea of attacking, bombing and killing in the light of the teachings of Christ you so often quote.  Apparently you can't and I have my answer. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Here is an educational piece about Syria, what is happening and why America can't change it.  See #6.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/  (click link for full story)

The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren't exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What's happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.

From that same article, anyone who thinks we are thinking of going over there to change anything is completely wrong and they themselves are ignorant to the facts of the situation. The only reason for American action and the only reason even mentioned by Obama or his administration:

It's true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it's not supposed to. The strikes wouldn't be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.

Exactly.  What IILU and I am guessing other readers may not get is that I am trying to overlay the hopes with the realities when it comes to U.S. involvement (it won't change things) and then overlay that with the morality of our involvement and the insistence that this is not a place to spill the blood of American Troops or to add to the death of innocent civilians. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking. 

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood. 

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go. 

IILU, I am not trying to change your thinking at all.  I know you are where you want or need to be and that is fine with me.  However, when you chose to comment about the conflict in Syria and in view of your want to constantly frame your discussions in the love of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity" I was sincerely wondering how you "square" the idea of attacking, bombing and killing in the light of the teachings of Christ you so often quote.  Apparently you can't and I have my answer.

Well then Diane when I have any problems in life I should ask for your opinion only. And I still believe you love to Judge people since I can't give you the answer you so want. I read that Washington Post piece and it still doesn't change my mind on sending Syria a couple of reminders that if they want to take it up a notch. Some people in the World have the balls to say NO!

[Cheshire Cat]

For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[If_I_Loved_you]

For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

I gave him my blessing.

[Cheshire Cat]

Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking. 

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood. 

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go. 

IILU, I am not trying to change your thinking at all.  I know you are where you want or need to be and that is fine with me.  However, when you chose to comment about the conflict in Syria and in view of your want to constantly frame your discussions in the love of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity" I was sincerely wondering how you "square" the idea of attacking, bombing and killing in the light of the teachings of Christ you so often quote.  Apparently you can't and I have my answer.

Well then Diane when I have any problems in life I should ask for your opinion only. And I still believe you love to Judge people since I can't give you the answer you so want. I read that Washington Post piece and it still doesn't change my mind on sending Syria a couple of reminders that if they want to take it up a notch. Some people in the World has the balls to say NO!

Okay IILU continue to ponder those with balls.  lol  I am done with my exchange with you at this time. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking. 

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood. 

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go. 

IILU, I am not trying to change your thinking at all.  I know you are where you want or need to be and that is fine with me.  However, when you chose to comment about the conflict in Syria and in view of your want to constantly frame your discussions in the love of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity" I was sincerely wondering how you "square" the idea of attacking, bombing and killing in the light of the teachings of Christ you so often quote.  Apparently you can't and I have my answer.

Well then Diane when I have any problems in life I should ask for your opinion only. And I still believe you love to Judge people since I can't give you the answer you so want. I read that Washington Post piece and it still doesn't change my mind on sending Syria a couple of reminders that if they want to take it up a notch. Some people in the World has the balls to say NO!

Okay IILU continue to ponder those with balls.  lol  I am done with my exchange with you at this time. 

Thanks 

[JayBird]

The moral act is such a tricky sticky maze to get caught in especially when what is right for one may be completely wrong for another. My only reference point would be that those whom were attacked in Kuwait were and still are today very thankful of our involvement. The flip side is that we had return years later to finish the job and that cost us more than that of those we were initially defending. I am not as up to snuff on my bible passages as my old catechism teachers strived for, but doesn't it say this is suppose to happen?

[If_I_Loved_you]

The moral act is such a tricky sticky maze to get caught in especially when what is right for one may be completely wrong for another. My only reference point would be that those whom were attacked in Kuwait were and still are today very thankful of our involvement. The flip side is that we had return years later to finish the job and that cost us more than that of those we were initially defending. I am not as up to snuff on my bible passages as my old catechism teachers strived for, but doesn't it say this is suppose to happen?

"suppose to happen" Yes

[Cheshire Cat]

The moral act is such a tricky sticky maze to get caught in especially when what is right for one may be completely wrong for another. My only reference point would be that those whom were attacked in Kuwait were and still are today very thankful of our involvement. The flip side is that we had return years later to finish the job and that cost us more than that of those we were initially defending. I am not as up to snuff on my bible passages as my old catechism teachers strived for, but doesn't it say this is suppose to happen?

I don't see the bible as a guide book for this sort of thing i.e. whether or not to take deadly action in a conflict we cannot change in modern Syria. That is another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the reality of the current conflict in Syria nor does it address the fact that our involvement will change nothing irrespective of what happened in Kuwait. 

[Cheshire Cat]

The moral act is such a tricky sticky maze to get caught in especially when what is right for one may be completely wrong for another. My only reference point would be that those whom were attacked in Kuwait were and still are today very thankful of our involvement. The flip side is that we had return years later to finish the job and that cost us more than that of those we were initially defending. I am not as up to snuff on my bible passages as my old catechism teachers strived for, but doesn't it say this is suppose to happen?

"suppose to happen" Yes

OMG, that is all.   

[Cheshire Cat]

Well there you go JayBird, you have drawn a response from IILU.  Carry on if you guys like.  This will be one area of discussion I will not comment on for a variety of reasons.  I will leave it to you guys to hash out.  Give me some time to make some popcorn though please.  This will be interesting to view.