Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[If_I_Loved_you]

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

[Ajax]

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

If our country were truly under attack it would be so horrible and so compelling that it would override partisanship.  I agree that the Republicans have been obstructionists on many issues without offering their own proposals, but in this case it sounds like you (and President Obama) want to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) just because you can't get your way.  Your opinion of Congress notwithstanding, American servicemen and women deserve better.  This isn't just a Republican vs. Democrat peeing match, this is serious. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Diane you broke your promise? "You bet I promise with regard to this portion of discussion.  lol "

IILU, I promised I would not engage in the discussion/debate about the war in Syria as being inevitable and supposedly written about in the bible. Try and keep up with the context of statements made.  I fully intend to continue to discuss the issue of the conflict in Syria and the actions America takes in response.  What I do not intend to comment on or discuss is some ancient, supposed biblical prediction about Syria and war there being prophetic.  Others who find that of interest of course are free to discuss it as much as they see fit. 

[Cheshire Cat]

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

If our country were truly under attack it would be so horrible and so compelling that it would override partisanship.  I agree that the Republicans have been obstructionists on many issues without offering their own proposals, but in this case it sounds like you (and President Obama) want to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) just because you can't get your way.  Your opinion of Congress notwithstanding, American servicemen and women deserve better.  This isn't just a Republican vs. Democrat peeing match, this is serious. 

Exactly Ajax, well said.

[If_I_Loved_you]

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

If our country were truly under attack it would be so horrible and so compelling that it would override partisanship.  I agree that the Republicans have been obstructionists on many issues without offering their own proposals, but in this case it sounds like you (and President Obama) want to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) just because you can't get your way.  Your opinion of Congress notwithstanding, American servicemen and women deserve better.  This isn't just a Republican vs. Democrat peeing match, this is serious.

Ajax I'm getting my way? I'm just another person with Free Will same as you. If we do this to Syria or we don't do this my life moves forward. I can't change what happen yesterday and I can't see the future. I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike. Now if Iran strikes Israel this powder keg is history. So yes I do know that this is Very Serious!

[carpnter]

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

Fortunately it appears that a majority of the public does not agree with you. 
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite

I found this part rather encouraging:

In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by any country violates a "red line" that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don't know enough to have an opinion.

[Ajax]

Ajax I'm getting my way? I'm just another person with Free Will same as you. If we do this to Syria or we don't do this my life moves forward. I can't change what happen yesterday and I can't see the future. I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike. Now if Iran strikes Israel this powder keg is history. So yes I do know that this is Very Serious!

I was just pointing out that you and President Obama don't believe Congress should be consulted, and at least in your case it appears that your reasoning is based on the belief that Congress would say 'no'. 

See, it's that "have to trust Obama" part that bothers me.  I don't want to have to trust any one person.  Not a President, not a king and not a dictator.  Will you be ok with it if four years from now you "have to trust Palin"?  Or Bush?  Or pick the worst possible Republican president you can imagine.  I would have a little more trust in a deliberative body that was elected to represent me, than just one guy.  And remember, whatever powers you want to "trust" your President with - you have to be willing to trust a President from the other party with those very same powers.  Otherwise you'll be right next to me calling for that President to make a case before Congress. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

Fortunately it appears that a majority of the public does not agree with you. 
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite

I found this part rather encouraging:

In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by any country violates a "red line" that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don't know enough to have an opinion.

Fine by me carpnter I think for myself Right or Wrong.

[If_I_Loved_you]

Ajax I'm getting my way? I'm just another person with Free Will same as you. If we do this to Syria or we don't do this my life moves forward. I can't change what happen yesterday and I can't see the future. I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike. Now if Iran strikes Israel this powder keg is history. So yes I do know that this is Very Serious!

I was just pointing out that you and President Obama don't believe Congress should be consulted, and at least in your case it appears that your reasoning is based on the belief that Congress would say 'no'. 

See, it's that "have to trust Obama" part that bothers me.  I don't want to have to trust any one person.  Not a President, not a king and not a dictator.  Will you be ok with it if four years from now you "have to trust Palin"?  Or Bush?  Or pick the worst possible Republican president you can imagine.  I would have a little more trust in a deliberative body that was elected to represent me, than just one guy.  And remember, whatever powers you want to "trust" your President with - you have to be willing to trust a President from the other party with those very same powers.  Otherwise you'll be right next to me calling for that President to make a case before Congress.

I trust Obama that Syria needs to be taught a lesson. I didn't say I trust Obama 100% all of the time did I? I said "I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike."

[Cheshire Cat]

This is the latest from Obama, video included.  From my view it is "politi-speak' and is tantamount to the U.S. again attempting to police the world without waiting to see what the U.N decides.  In his statement the President says he has spoken with a variety of interests including congress, but did not say what their response was. He claims there will be no boots on the ground or a long term involvement.  Where have we heard this before?  He restates that this is about letting Syria and other countries know chemical weapons are not acceptable but then finishes with the statement that he understands doing this will not change what is happening in Syria. Again world policing by the U.S. alone.  If this is the view of many nations, then many nations need to respond.  Watch video for his exact words. I voted for Obama but the reality is that he like other Presidents before him is simply human and open to making choices about military intervention that end up putting us in the midst of lengthy wars. 

http://www.cnn.com/?sr=fbmain

[Cheshire Cat]

Ajax I'm getting my way? I'm just another person with Free Will same as you. If we do this to Syria or we don't do this my life moves forward. I can't change what happen yesterday and I can't see the future. I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike. Now if Iran strikes Israel this powder keg is history. So yes I do know that this is Very Serious!

+ 1,000,000

I was just pointing out that you and President Obama don't believe Congress should be consulted, and at least in your case it appears that your reasoning is based on the belief that Congress would say 'no'. 

See, it's that "have to trust Obama" part that bothers me.  I don't want to have to trust any one person.  Not a President, not a king and not a dictator.  Will you be ok with it if four years from now you "have to trust Palin"?  Or Bush?  Or pick the worst possible Republican president you can imagine.  I would have a little more trust in a deliberative body that was elected to represent me, than just one guy.  And remember, whatever powers you want to "trust" your President with - you have to be willing to trust a President from the other party with those very same powers.  Otherwise you'll be right next to me calling for that President to make a case before Congress. 

+ 1,000,000

[If_I_Loved_you]

This is the latest from Obama, video included.  From my view it is "politi-speak' and is tantamount to the U.S. again attempting to police the world without waiting to see what the U.N decides.  In his statement the President says he has spoken with a variety of interests including congress, but did not say what their response was. He claims there will be no boots on the ground or a long term involvement.  Where have we heard this before?  He restates that this is about letting Syria and other countries know chemical weapons are not acceptable but then finishes with the statement that he understands doing this will not change what is happening in Syria. Again world policing by the U.S. alone.  If this is the view of many nations, then many nations need to respond.  Watch video for his exact words. I voted for Obama but the reality is that he like other Presidents before him is simply human and open to making choices about military intervention that end up putting us in the midst of lengthy wars. 

http://www.cnn.com/?sr=fbmain

So you voted for Obama good for you so did I in 2008 and 2012. Well we have something in common after all Diane.

[Cheshire Cat]

This is the latest from Obama, video included.  From my view it is "politi-speak' and is tantamount to the U.S. again attempting to police the world without waiting to see what the U.N decides.  In his statement the President says he has spoken with a variety of interests including congress, but did not say what their response was. He claims there will be no boots on the ground or a long term involvement.  Where have we heard this before?  He restates that this is about letting Syria and other countries know chemical weapons are not acceptable but then finishes with the statement that he understands doing this will not change what is happening in Syria. Again world policing by the U.S. alone.  If this is the view of many nations, then many nations need to respond.  Watch video for his exact words. I voted for Obama but the reality is that he like other Presidents before him is simply human and open to making choices about military intervention that end up putting us in the midst of lengthy wars. 

http://www.cnn.com/?sr=fbmain

So you voted for Obama good for you so did I in 2008 and 2012. Well we have something in common after all Diane.

Considering recent discussion, that may be the only thing we have in common.   

[JayBird]

I was simply stating that one persons morals don't always match another's. And my religious reference was merely to the two pages of comments relating to religion. So I do find it interesting how one can judge another's comments based on their moral or religious indications, yet at the same time say it has no bearing on this discussion.

[Cheshire Cat]

Via the Associated Press

Kerry says U.N. investigators probing a chemical weapons attack are limited by a mandate to determine if an attack took place. He says they won't say who is responsible.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/national/2013-08-30/story/kerry-un-has-nothing-add-syria-intel#ixzz2dUiBoI6m