Mixed Feelings On Syria

[Jamie123]

The use of chemical weapons was banned in 1925. Nearly everyone has abided by this rule. Even the Nazis didn't use poison gas on the battlefield.

Now we have a country that is breaking that ban. Admittedly in its own internal civil war, but so what? Laws mean nothing unless the police are willing to enforce them.

The British parliament has made a very foolish mistake by not backing Cameron. I'm hoping the Americans will not do the same. I'm not saying that a military strike is necessarily the only option, but if nothing is done then it's a signal that international law means nothing.

[Churchmouse]

I'm always leary with the words "No boots on the ground". I've heard it before. I usually find those that are most in favor of sending our troops to war have never witnessed war.

[carlimac]

Question- What would Mitt Romney have done in this situation had he won the presidency? It was Obama that drew the line but would Romney have been compelled to follow up?

[mdfxdb]

What happens when we have an already inflated dollar become useless to other countries because USA currency becomes the non standard? They won't accept it. Its useless. Than we owe china a huge debt. Which we pay or suffer consequences. Its already almost useless. An inflated meaningless dollar, poeople will lose everything in the banks almost.

Why such a worry about if we owe money to China? So we owe them money...who cares. We are going to pay them in dollars and if they wont accept our worthless dollars then so what? What are they going to do about it? Collect?

There will be no government melt down, there will be no militia state. Things can't work that way if we want the fullness of times to come to pass.

[Windseeker]

The use of chemical weapons was banned in 1925. Nearly everyone has abided by this rule. Even the Nazis didn't use poison gas on the battlefield.

Now we have a country that is breaking that ban. Admittedly in its own internal civil war, but so what? Laws mean nothing unless the police are willing to enforce them.

The British parliament has made a very foolish mistake by not backing Cameron. I'm hoping the Americans will not do the same. I'm not saying that a military strike is necessarily the only option, but if nothing is done then it's a signal that international law means nothing.

At least Cameron sought backing by the British Parliament.

That's more than Obama has done and the latest poll states "80% of Americans say President Obama should seek congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria".

[Blackmarch]

I've got to disagree with things evolving into a world wide conflict. One of the worst things the US did in its history was to get involved in WWI. That act has set the stage for all the junk that is happening today.

WWI happened because too many countries had too many alliances with other countries so it was a domino affect that eventually involved a lot of countries. Before the US got involved things had gotten into a stalemate. Both sides were wasting precious manpower, resources, energy destroying each other. Had things played out a truce would been called and Germany would not have been utterly destroyed by the victors, and the rest of history would have been quite different.

What countries on earth have the military, financial, and manpower resources to wage a world war? Russia, China, US, and that's about it. Many countries, especially the poorer states obtain all their weaponry from the US- the US (or better put US companies) are some of the leading suppliers of weaponry to the entire world.

If the US stays out, it is darn near impossible for anything in Syria to expand beyond the Middle East.

As the U.S currently has allies in the area, and as more than 1 power has vested interests in that area, and considering the general human nature.. the impossibility of anything "going beyond Syria" if the US didn't get involved is a pipe dream.

Poorer states obtain their weapons from whoever will sell to them, and where they feel they can get the most bang for the buck.. both Russia and china give the US a run for the money in regards for arms exports. As for capability and quality that's debatable depending on the year. as for global impact the the U.S can claim the Nuclear Genie, but Russia probably has done far more with the AK Genie, the French have the honor of starting the submarine one (altho Germany has dibs of showing the world what subs are capable of), and we can thank China for gunpowder. (list a few weapons that have vastly impacted the world)

Um most powers that aren't US allies generally get gear from Russian, Chinese, Swedish, german, French, Pakistan, Iran (and some other minor players) sources depending where they are and the year and how much they are willing to spend. Well yes we probably have some of the highest cash exchanges; our stuff is expensive, really, really expensive as well as high quality/ top notch but there are limits on who we can "officially" export it to (that and that Russia bottomed out and has spent time recovering so it hasn't been as active on the export front as it used to, to say the least... but that is changing).

A Pyrrhic stalemate.... and no stalemates ever last. Had things played out otherwise whoever recovered first would have won or come out on top and have tried to finish the job. Problems generally get bigger before they get smaller, and doing nothing generally results in something worse

(not including all the dilemmas that revolve around keeping your agreements, assisting your allies, and protecting your investments).

Actually the domino effect started back in the Civil war, nor has it really stopped.

US sentiment was very much "not our problem" in WWI... If I recall right it took more than a few gun happy repubs to convince the folks that it was better to get involved.

Unless you totally remove yourself from the global community (especially in this day and age) problems anywhere in the world will affect you hence you'd technically already be "involved".

TO me its clear that noninvolvement is not the way to go, rather its the how to get involved and that's where I think the U.S has failed to various extents quite a few times.

[Mahone]

The British parliament has made a very foolish mistake by not backing Cameron. I'm hoping the Americans will not do the same. I'm not saying that a military strike is necessarily the only option, but if nothing is done then it's a signal that international law means nothing.

You think so? The UN weapons inspectors have not even left Syria yet, let alone passed on evidence or its verdict onto the British parliament, or the British people.

I'm not averse to military action, but I'm also not the kind of person that shoots first and asks questions later. If I was to put my backing into such a serious action, I'd want to be very, very sure their facts are correct.

The US has already publically said that nothing the UN inspectors find will tell the world anything new, they believe they already have the facts internally, yet they were also positive of Assads guilt merely hours after the event occurred - did they really manage to gather that much evidence in such a short period of time? I just hope John Kerry is never a judge of me when so much is at stake.

[yjacket]

As the U.S currently has allies in the area, and as more than 1 power has vested interests in that area, and considering the general human nature.. the impossibility of anything "going beyond Syria" if the US didn't get involved is a pipe dream.

Please lay out for me the scenario of a conflict in Syria growing into a world war without US involvement. I never said it wouldn't grow beyond Syria, that is possible. But how could it get beyond the Middle East without US involvement? None of the "allied" powers have the capability or desire to get involved without the US. France, GB, Germany? They would be willing to get involved in the Middle East without the US? Is Russia going to get involved? Russia has their interest but they unless the US was involved they wouldn't get involved in Syria. Russia and Georgia had a war in '08 but that could be more of a border dispute. Besides that war and the Chechnya rebels, the last major war Russia was in was in Afghanistan. China cares about Taiwan and exerting regional influence.

I just can't see it escalating if the US stays out. If the US stays out, one of the parties either rebels or Asaad wins, either one doesn't really affect the global geopolitical issues.

Poorer states obtain their weapons from whoever will sell to them, and where they feel they can get the most bang for the buck.. both Russia and china give the US a run for the money in regards for arms exports.

Please see here: List of countries by arms exports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The US exports more arms than Russia and China combined! Now Russia is a major exporter, but: "For example, according to a 2012 US Congressional Research Service report,[5] USA arms exports in 2011 totaled 66 billion dollars to Russia's 4,8 billion (1275% more), yet SIPRI figures show USA only exporting 30% more arms than Russia." So there is discrepancy. Only Russia come even close to the level of arms exports of the US.

Um most powers that aren't US allies generally get gear from Russian, Chinese, Swedish, german, French, Pakistan, Iran (and some other minor players) sources depending where they are and the year and how much they are willing to spend.

CFR. No the US isn't going to export arms to Iran, Venezuala or any other number of countries that are "enemies". But there aren't a whole lot of countries who are "enemies". Maybe 15 at the most . . . I'd have to look. They don't have to be an ally to get gear, just not an enemy. We supplied Saddam with weaponry in the 80s . . .

Well yes we probably have some of the highest cash exchanges; our stuff is expensive, really, really expensive as well as high quality/ top notch but there are limits on who we can "officially" export it to (that and that Russia bottomed out and has spent time recovering so it hasn't been as active on the export front as it used to, to say the least... but that is changing).

You don't think "foreign aid" goes just to buy food do you? We don't sell the world the top notch stuff, but we will sell the lower quality stuff. Take for example, Iraq

Iraq to buy 18 more Lockheed F-16 fighters - U.S. - Stripes

We sold Iraq 18 F-16s this past spring, on top of the 18 we sold them in 2011. Now F-16s aren't top of the line, but an order of 18 are 830 million dollars. So if Iraq, a war-torn country can spend 1.6 billion on 36 F-16s, a lot of countries can do it. Especially when their budget is around 116 billion. So they spent a little more than 1% of their budget on 36 F-16s. So in 20 years will there be any chance that those F-16s we sold Iraq get used to kill US soldiers in a future Middle East war?

Yes the equipment is expensive, but it ends up being pocket change to many countries. Once the equipment is developed the actual costs are minuscule. The real costs comes in the NRE (Non-recurring engineering) or RD efforts to actually design, test, evaluate, etc. Once that is hammered out, 1.6 billion to buy 36 F-16s ends up being pocket change.

A Pyrrhic stalemate.... and no stalemates ever last. Had things played out otherwise whoever recovered first would have won or come out on top and have tried to finish the job. Problems generally get bigger before they get smaller, and doing nothing generally results in something worse

If you are referring to WWI, actually no, up until that point Total War and unconditional surrender were not too common. Hitler could not have come to power if the US had stayed out of WWI; it would have been impossible. The Treaty of Versaille eviscerated Germany. The allies won and proceeded to rape Germany. That left a terrible taste in the mouth of Germans.

Actually the domino effect started back in the Civil war, nor has it really stopped.

Agree.

US sentiment was very much "not our problem" in WWI... If I recall right it took more than a few gun happy repubs to convince the folks that it was better to get involved.

Unless you totally remove yourself from the global community (especially in this day and age) problems anywhere in the world will affect you hence you'd technically already be "involved".

Very true, except that being neutral is not removing one from the global community. Switzerland has done a very good job of it and they aren't removed from the global community. If I interpret you correctly, one most get involved in other countries business if one wants to wield power. I agree, I just happen to think power corrupts and as long as a country has the necessary means to protect itself from invasion that is all the power that is needed.

Ultimately, the big problem with involvement is that it is never consistent. Too many places in the world need "involvement" and one is continuously on a war footing. War is the most dangerous enemy to liberty. One ends up fighting the "friends" 20 years later, the "enemies" change, and one ends up creating more monsters and enemies.

I side with the founders and men like John Quincy Adams, we should not go looking for monsters to destroy:

Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on Foreign Policy (July 4, 1821)—Miller Center

AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

Edited August 30, 2013 by yjacket

[carlimac]

Here's an interesting take on the situation:

CURL: Obama's 2014 calculation: Let's have a war - Washington Times

[carlimac]

Another good (long) article explaining in layman's terms what's going on in Syria. Worth a read.

9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask

[Still_Small_Voice]

I oppose action in Syria because the current Syrian government is evil. The rebels fighting against the Syrian government are evil as well. If we get involved nothing good will come of it. Whoever wins will continue to oppress the Syrian people.

[Quin]

Who exactly are we defending by dumping some ordinance on Syria?

It's a mess and it's time the U.S. starts learning from it's mistakes and stays out of this one.

And yet... Same framework... Serbs were gassing Albanian Kosovars.

A kosovar got the US Ambassador to ride out with him & filmed it all before it was tidied up.

America stepped in.

Kosovo is now a new nation.

And one of the only few where if theres a riot shouting "I'm an American!" Will get strangers sheltering you instead of stringing you up and lighting you on fire.

Kosovo which held a national Day of Mourning following the Virginia Tech shootings, and whose people follow American politics closer than most Americans (including skyscraper high murals of our presidents) ...

For saving them from Genocide.

Would that happen in Syria?

No clue.

But in addition from learning from our mistakes, learning from our victories should also play a part.

Strong presence in the face of Genocide, has pretty strong precedent, as well.

It's just never sound byte simple.

Kosovo & Israel for Vietnam & Iraq.

Far reaching consequences no matter the decision made.

I for one am glad not to bear the weight of those decisions, and ask our Heavenly Father to Help guide those poor souls who do.

Q

[Traveler]

Are we being told the truth about who is doing what in Syria? I personally think before we go down this path of acts of war we should get some straight answers about what happen in Benghazi and who made what decisions and gave what orders. Until the truth of Benghazi is brought to light and the truth of what is and is not valid intelligence - I assume that the administration that altered the truth of Benghazi is continuing with the same modus operandi.

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

Are we being told the truth about who is doing what in Syria? I personally think before we go down this path of acts of war we should get some straight answers about what happen in Benghazi and who made what decisions and gave what orders. Until the truth of Benghazi is brought to light and the truth of what is and is not valid intelligence - I assume that the administration that altered the truth of Benghazi is continuing with the same modus operandi.

The Traveler

Also, what about the truth and accountability of the Internal Revenue Service harassments aimed at political opponents of the Obama Administration? The Executive branch is full of a corrupt stench that needs to be cleaned out very badly. I question anything Obama says as he is known to not tell the truth.

[NeuroTypical]

I have a half-decent guess at what's happening.

Pres Obama (not wanting to get involved in Syria): "We won't stand for the use of chemical weapons!"

Assad: "Sweet - we can continue getting away with murder, and the US won't interfere!"

[a year passes, and two phones ring]

Pres. Obama: "Yes? What? They did what? Oh crap. Now we've got to do something."

Assad: "Yes? What? We did what? Who did it? Are you sure? Oh crap. Now the Americans have to do something."

Many things are possible. Assad may have decided to test America. Some rogue general may have done it. The opposition may have done it. Heck, let's get all x-filesy and assume some third party did it for shadowy nefarious reasons of global shadowy nefariousnessitude.

At the end of the day, pres Obama will need to do something. He can't get the UN to do anything. His coalition of blame-sharers is falling apart. Doing nothing means every two bit dictator from here to there just got the green light to gas their opponents.

We'll know what he's decided, because we'll either see it on CNN, or the Republicans will have lined up to yell about how the exact opposite thing should happen.

[yjacket]

Doing nothing means every two bit dictator from here to there just got the green light to gas their opponents.

.

And a green light to gas and kill at most 1400 people is so much more horrible than every two-bit dictator killing 100,000 people by "conventional" means, as Assad has done?

Or do you mean as opposed to the US green lighting Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the 80s against Iran? I guess that gave the green light to every dictator right? (nope only the dictator's the US "likes").

If the US doesn't like you and you kill 100k people you're good to go. But kill 1400 people with chemicals and look out, we'll bomb the snot out of you!! If the US does like you you're green-lighted to use chemicals!!

What a wonderful world we live in, isn't it grand!!

[NeuroTypical]

And a green light to gas and kill at most 1400 people is so much more horrible than every two-bit dictator killing 100,000 people by "conventional" means, as Assad has done?

Geopolitics doesn't run on a scale of horrible and nice. For that matter, it doesn't even run on a scale of ok and not ok.

Or do you mean as opposed to the US green lighting Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the 80s against Iran? I guess that gave the green light to every dictator right? (nope only the dictator's the US "likes").

I wasn't paying attention in the 1980's, and can't really answer to what the US was thinking at the time. It does seem if you look for consistency in a nation's policy across three decades, you'll spend a lot of time being sarcastically unhappy about percieved hypocracy.

To directly address your point, as things stand today, yes, a lot of two bit dictators 'get' to murder their own people without fear of US involvement, if they use simple bullets instead of WMD. Yes indeed, it's offensive to morals. And you don't really need to look back to the '80's. Egypt has recently killed more folks recently than Syria has.

Maybe it could help you, if you realized the difference between understanding/explaining something, and defending/agreeing? I'm not doing the latter.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[yjacket]

Geopolitics doesn't run on a scale of horrible and nice. For that matter, it doesn't even run on a scale of ok and not ok.

Just so I'm clear, in your eyes it's not okay to kill 100k people and it's not okay to use a chemical agent to do so?

But the US needs to get involved because someone uses chemical weapons to make sure the world "knows" the use of chemical weapons is not okay? If that's the case why shouldn't the US get involved so the world "knows" killing 100k is not okay?

Please explain to me what is the practical difference between the two, besides the fact someone told you that chemical weapons are "evil" and they are labeled as scary, horrible, death-defying "weapons of mass destruction!!!".

Chemical weapons do horrible things, but no less or more horrible things than conventional weapons, mines, booby traps, etc. And please explain to me at what point, what level of scale does the killing of people have to reach in order for the US to get involved, 100k, 1million, 10 million? Or should the US stay completely out (therefore letting the world "know" it's okay) for a dictator, like say Mao to kill 10s of millions as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons?

I wasn't paying attention in the 1980's, and can't really answer to what the US was thinking at the time. It does seem if you look for consistency in a nation's policy across three decades, you'll spend a lot of time being sarcastically unhappy about percieved hypocracy.

You weren't paying attention, but the rest of the world leaders were! Dictators stay around a long time, 20+ years. Our presidents come and go, at best the US will have consistency in foreign policy for 8 years. So ensuring the dictator don't use chemical weapons is good for at the most until 2016. Then a new president and a new foreign policy. Hence why the world views the US sarcastically, we mess around in another country, prop up one dictator, 10-20 years later our foreign policy changes and we prop up a different dictator, same country b/c we don't like the old guy. And it's not "perceived hypocrisy", it is actual hypocrisy!! The inability to recognize this is called hubris.

More to the point Syria, it wouldn't surprise me if bombing them leads to more uses of chemical weapons, not less - the law of unintended consequences. One of those universal laws that our leaders can't seem to grasp.

As you admitted yourself, we are not quite sure who actually used chemical weapons. So in the future, if some rebel force is fighting (or even a government force is fighting) all they need to do to get the US on their side is to invoke a false flag event. In fact, since we don't seem to be going over to Syria to actually kick out the dictator who committed these acts, a dictator could gas his people, kill the rebels, take a few missiles from the US and call it a day. The level of so-called deterrent is absolutely pitiful. As much as I really dislike some of the war-hawks, they do have a point . . . if you are going to do something about it, might as well really do it-otherwise you are just wasting time.

This is just a mess that the US doesn't need to get involved in . . .

I also don't like Jon Stewart too much-he is pretty vulgar- but he had a real good skit on what Syria is about. Can't cross the "red line" b/c the US is the bully in the playground and the US will force you to do what it says.

[NeuroTypical]

Just so I'm clear, in your eyes it's not okay to kill 100k people and it's not okay to use a chemical agent to do so?

Correct, and correct.

But the US needs to get involved because someone uses chemical weapons to make sure the world "knows" the use of chemical weapons is not okay?

No. I'm not saying it needs to, I'm saying it will. I'm predicting the future - I'm not advocating a position.

Please explain to me what is the practical difference between the two, besides the fact someone told you that chemical weapons are "evil" and they are labeled as scary, horrible, death-defying "weapons of mass destruction!!!".

Dude, I know you like to argue, but I gotta say, if you're trying to persuade anyone, your methods are deeply, deeply flawed. People hear your mocking dismissive sarcasm and want to believe the exact opposite of whatever you're saying, just as a way of taking a stand against mean people.

Never just ask a question, when you can ask a question and insult someone at the same time, eh yjacket? You should also ask about my optimistic view of fiat currency based on something besides my head-in-the-sand ostrichness. And also my unconcerned apathy about various governmental conspiracies based on things other than my status as deluded sheeple dupe.

But I'll try, again, to set aside your insults and strawmen, and answer your question.

The geopoliticical world runs (and has always run) on a set of rules. And even though many are rules that no sane or good person would want in a game, they are rules nonetheless. One of the rules, is that in order to work your will, you need leverage. ("You" can be a nation, a faction in a nation, or an actual human individual in a faction.) This rule goes along with it's twin - if someone else wants to work their will against you, they need leverage too.

Leverage comes from many different sources. "Public opinion", "general consensus", "the will of the people" - all are sources of leverage. All the good people in the world know life is valueable, and taking it is a tragedy, regardless of the method used. But use of WMD is more than taking life, it's using leverage. It's playing a geopolitical card. It's sending a message to other nations. Why? Not because death means more or less depending on how it's taken. But because it just is. The powers that be, for whatever reason, have either willed it to be so, or find themselves forced to accept it. "We draw the line at the use of biological or chemical weapons" - a statement made by the international community, and individual nations including ours, for a while. Yep - that means plenty of death is dealt out without triggering a response from other nations. Yep - it leads to hypocracy and wrongheadedness. But charges of hypocracy and wrongheadedness, no matter how accurate or obvious, are rarely useful as leverage.

Please keep in mind - I'm not defending all this, I'm not advocating for it, I'm not duped by some biased-wing media source into accepting it as truth - I'm just explaining how it works from my perspective. If you want to know my bias, it's what I find in the scriptures and the temple about how satan uses his power to lead away the minds and hearts of man. The game has been played with these rules since we got kicked out of the garden of Eden, and it'll be played this way until the Lord comes in His glory and makes us knock it off. You play the cards you were dealt, and you don't get to walk away from the table.

It doesn't matter if Assad used the weapons or not. The general consensus is that he did, so unless leaders use their leverage in response, others will use their inaction as leverage against them.

Hence why the world views the US sarcastically, we mess around in another country, prop up one dictator, 10-20 years later our foreign policy changes and we prop up a different dictator, same country b/c we don't like the old guy.

The world will hate whoever is on top, for whatever they do. It's not like alliances or coalitions or friends or enemies last any longer with anyone else.

More to the point Syria, it wouldn't surprise me if bombing them leads to more uses of chemical weapons, not less - the law of unintended consequences. One of those universal laws that our leaders can't seem to grasp.

It would surprise me. Bullets are cheaper and more abundant. WMD costs a lot and is a higher-risk play. But I agree completely about unintended consequenses. Our leaders grasp it just fine - it's why Pres. Obama said "oh crap" in my little skit. He's not happy being forced into this position, because all his available choices come with undesirable consequenses.

As much as I really dislike some of the war-hawks, they do have a point . . . if you are going to do something about it, might as well really do it-otherwise you are just wasting time.

If it's any consolation, my wife agrees with you. We argued this point for 15 minutes last night.

This is just a mess that the US doesn't need to get involved in . . .

Making the case that the only remaining superpower should mind it's own business is a valid argument. But if you're going to bring up the law of unintended consequences, you'd be well advised to apply it here too. Edited September 6, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[mnn727]

The international jury is still out on who actually carried out the attack.

We do not have to be the worlds policemen. So we're going to kill how many people by bombing them?

Dead is dead, whether its by chemical attack or bleeding out from shrapnel from a cruise missile attack, both are horrible ways to die.

NO to bombing Syria or any other country that is not attacking us on our own soil!

[yjacket]

No. I'm not saying it needs to, I'm saying it will. I'm predicting the future - I'm not advocating a position.

This is quite different than this:

At the end of the day, pres Obama will need to do something. He can't get the UN to do anything. His coalition of blame-sharers is falling apart. Doing nothing means every two bit dictator from here to there just got the green light to gas their opponents.

The 2nd quote is more of what Obama and imperialists think they need to do or the position that they sell in order to get a war, carry out brinkmanship, or as you put it enact geopolitics.

I am with you in understanding their reasons, I just happen to disagree vehemently with them. It is not my intent to insult or degrade you, but I will use different tactics to point out the fallacies in a position; sometimes I use logic/reasoning, other times I use sarcasm, dry wit, etc. Unfortunately the internet is not a good carrier of tone . . .

I imagine that the US government will prob. lob missiles into Syria, but it looks like the House may step up and say no.

Please keep in mind - I'm not defending all this, I'm not advocating for it, I'm not duped by some biased-wing media source into accepting it as truth - I'm just explaining how it works from my perspective. If you want to know my bias, it's what I find in the scriptures and the temple about how satan uses his power to lead away the minds and hearts of man. The game has been played with these rules since we got kicked out of the garden of Eden, and it'll be played this way until the Lord comes in His glory and makes us knock it off. You play the cards you were dealt, and you don't get to walk away from the table.

I understand how this stuff works, I've been involved at the local level in politics and I'm pretty impressed at how Machiavellian things get locally and these guys at the local level aren't that smart. I see how it rolls at the higher levels.

This is how the game is played because that's currently the way people think it has to be played. For a very long time in this country the game wasn't played like that. The civil war started it, the Spanish-American War increased it some more and WWI/WWII sealed it. It is a self-perpetuating cycle of morally decrepit flawed thinking.

Too many people believe a policy of non-intervention is isolation. North Korea is isolationist. Argentina is non-interventionist, in fact the majority of the countries on the planet are non-interventionist. Simply put they mind their own dang business. Sometimes they get into rifts with their neighbors but that's about it.

Satan uses his power, but it's not like the Lord comes and poof everything is hunky dory. The Lord can not force individuals or nations to be good. Nations/individuals that are evil end up destroying themselves. People and nations will have to learn how to live more righteous lives.

It doesn't matter if Assad used the weapons or not. The general consensus is that he did, so unless leaders use their leverage in response, others will use their inaction as leverage against them.

We were doing so good!!

It's one of those things that I haven't figured out in life yet: how can I claim to be a disciple of Christ and yet have the desire to bomb others? I'm supposed to turn the other cheek, give my cloak and my tunic to someone who personally robs or hurts me. I'm then to advocate that my government bomb another country when it is unclear who the perpetrators are and in the process kill individuals who had nothing to do with the attack just so some "red line" is defended to not lose face?

No, for me I see the Gospel as something that individuals and nations should practice, regardless of the practicality. I will advocate for individuals to be elected as leaders who would practice the Gospel not only in their personal lives but in their professional and in the geopolitical realm. I cannot live with the cognitive dissonance that I must have in order to try and preach and practice the Gospel on a personal level, yet advocate for death and destruction on the other.

I understand the desire to prevent death and destruction, but bombing and killing innocents (as will surely happen) means the cure is worse than the disease. Our whole basis of life is setup that way, innocent until proven guilty-simply meaning as a culture we accept that many guilty people will not be punished but that is it better to let them go than to punish the innocent.

No one says that because a rapist goes free that will mean more rapes. Ultimately, the people of Syria are responsible for their government. If Assad used chem on his own people, it is their responsibility to revolt against their government and install someone who will not do so. Assad is accountable to the people of Syria and God not to the US.

I apologize for any offense.

[pam]

So the latest rumor (I don't know how reliable the source I was reading is) is that Obama (US) has lost France as an ally and that Russia and China are staging warships off of Syria to wage war with the US if military action is taken.

[Swiper]

So the latest rumor (I don't know how reliable the source I was reading is) is that Obama (US) has lost France as an ally and that Russia and China are staging warships off of Syria to wage war with the US if military action is taken.

There is no way Russia and China will engage themselves military in this conflict. They might rattle some sabers for the sake of public opinion, but they will not engage.

[carlimac]

There is no way Russia and China will engage themselves military in this conflict. They might rattle some sabers for the sake of public opinion, but they will not engage.

Why do you think that?

[Swiper]

Why do you think that?

I will not claim to be a expert in foreign diplomacy, but I do believe that it's not in their best interest to get involved with their military. They will gain more by loudly voicing their displeasure, sit back, and just observe the events unfolding.