I don't need a lecture about other people's son's going to war. I'm not advocating going to war.
The way people are talking about Syria being in a bubble, and if chemical weapons are used there to kill people in a civil war it is no concern or involvement of the US & allies.

My daughter flies home on Monday, and we've talked about the situation. My point was that proximity to chaos changes one's outlook. Israelis live with this every day. From a TV screen or a website we personally have no proximity.

No one has talked boots on the ground, Obama and Kerry specifically said just the opposite. I don't believe either have said a word about any specific action, yet everyone is acting like we've already unleased Shock & Awe v.2 and we're rolling tanks into Baghdad Damascus.

Did Kerry say diplomacy & negotiations first? or did I just imagine that?


I said earlier (with a typo)


Just this last Monday weren't all the news reports saying the US would bombing Syria on Thursday (yesterday)?

Over on Democratic Underground there are threads like "Syrian chemical attack killed 1,429 so we will kill 200,000 in response." This is like FoxNation or FreeRepublic … everyone hates Obama for the war in Syria we seem to have already started.

Well we look pretty stupid... we complain of Syria using chemical weapons, but didn't say shiite about Iraq under Hussein using them back in 1988... but that was a GOP President & future President !

But I heard some commentary and my position hasn't changed BUT IF we HAD to do something (i.e he continues to use chemical weapons), would this work ? IF BOs purpose is to prevent future use of chemical weapons (he said it was today), would this be a deterrent? Fact: Syria gets >$350 million / month from its oil exports and refinery products (2010 data). Syria uses this $ to buy many (much) of its military stockpiles including chemical weapons from Russia.

One fear is IF we strike, will Assad be compelled to retaliate and repeat the offense to thumb his nose at us (likely if it were military targets only) ? Could we hit him a little and hold the rest over his head to prevent further attacks? Could we hit any chemical weapons depots/ manufacturing places and even missile batteries used to deliver those weapons (if we could be certain where they were - if not, DON'T), AND as a deterrent, take out 1/4 to 1/3 of his oil refineries & depots? Warn him- if he uses chemicals again, we'll take another 1/4 - 1/3 of his refineries and oil facilities, etc... That hits Syria in the pocket book, takes away $ spent for military goods, and sends a clear message.

This would #1 show we're serious, #2 we keep our word (no blinking), AND #3 establishes a deterrent that we could enforce. At first, the financial pain would be significant, but not too great; however with the threat of it getting much worse every time he used them.

I full well realize he could be illogical and use them again in spite of anything we do, but he'll lose something for it. If he repeats again, he loses more income. Now at the end 3-4 strikes, he has no refineries depots to lose, BUT he's $350 million / month more in debt to operate his military and regime. This is compounded on the other sanctions hurting their economy.

What do you think ? NOT saying I'd recommend it BUT if I was 'hell bent' on doing something- this sounds more logical and more limited plus has a chance to be a deterrent (against chemical weapons use only). I think hitting military targets does not.

What I'm really hoping for is BO goes to Congress and they say NO, and he respects that message. (kind of "I've been over ruled !') . . . BUT I'm not holding my breath !!

I don't think Obama should attack Syria. At the same time, I am just completely sick of the way in which every daµned thing becomes so intensely politicized that you can't think clearly about policy issues--period. Case in point: the republicans who, if Obama were Bush, would be demanding immediate action, are now demanding that Obama abrogate the War Powers Act (a horrible law--don't misunderstand me!) and act only with congressional permission; and the democrats who, if Obama were Bush, would be demanding congressional permission, are now demanding that Obama act without congressional ok.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Stuff like this should not be a political volleyball game. So although I recognize what the republicans are doing, for once I agree with them. Presidents can fight wars, but only with congressional approval. That's the Constitution, and that should be the practice. But that hasn't been the case since the end of WW II, and that horrible War Powers Act is a way of giving the appearance of legality to something that is completely illegal.

So no attack on Syria--and let Congress say so!

The ironic thing for me is people seem quite divided on whether we should go in or not - and it cuts across ideological lines. I have plenty of lib-Dem friends who are divided on this, and plenty of con-GOP friends who are divided.

Gary's foreign policy advice on Syria:

1. Arrange one-on-one diplomatic meeting with Putin prior to the G20 Summit next week. Get Putin on the right side of history. Use the economic summit to leverage Putin's decision. Let Putin be a hero …. who gives a f*ck but Putin.

2. Use G20 Summit to show solidarity against Assad.

3. Engage UN Peacekeepers to monitor Assad's stockpiles and violations. Containment and verification, because he's not going to give them up.

4. Keep US and Allied forces in position to protect the UN Peacekeepers & inspections.

5. Let Syria decide the outcome of their leadership without threat of Assad's chemical weapons and Putin's influence. Once Assad is out, contained WMD stockpile does not fall into control of someone worse than Assad. <repeat this step as often as needed>

6. Let House GOP hold meaningless vote to condemn Obama for his actions.

A good plan. 6 will surely happen (ir)regardless.

This situation will never get better with Syria.

So Obama is a smart cookie. Two decisions, he says. First, military intervention is necessary. Second, Congress needs to vote to approve it.

I disagree with the first point. I agree entirely with the second one.

On the verge of another war, but we have to wait for congress to return from recess on Sept.9. One might think this was important enough to return early.

Close the playground. Everybody out of the pool. Get back to work. Recess is over.

Yes, a good move on Barry's part. It will be interesting now the ball is in Congress' court to see if they do come back early or decide the "crisis" isn't really important enough ...

Meanwhile, Obama wins politically -- no matter how Congress votes he has cover to either stay out if Congress votes no, or to go ahead if they vote yes. The only way he loses is if they vote no and he goes in anyway (which would be really tough to justify given Cameron's response to the "no" vote in Parliament) ...

This could be a really positive step in the right direction after the Executive's generally playing fast-and-loose with war powers post-WWII ...