Republicans would rather Syria and Russia be stronger.

[Jarod]

Let me start by saying, I am okay with a limited strike on Syria for having used chemical weapons.

But here is the deal, Republicans, who have in the past supported a full blown invasion with ground troops are fighting the limited air strike on Syria that the President has proposed because it is clear they would prefer to defeat the President than promote America and the worlds best interests. They would allow Syria and Russia get the best of us in order to try to make the president appear weak.

Pitiful and disgusting!

[Anti-Party]

The Right was pushing for war with Syria since '07. They get paid big money from Defense Contractors which makes their decision to go to war a little easier. In 2012 for the first time ever Obama, a Left winger, was paid more than a Republican by Defense Contractors (when combining the Defense Contractors together). I worried what would happen and then I saw him sing the war happy tune the Right has been for so long.

Follow the money.

[Jarod]

The Right was pushing for war with Syria since '07. They get paid big money from Defense Contractors which makes their decision to go to war a little easier. In 2012 for the first time ever Obama, a Left winger, was paid more than a Republican by Defense Contractors (when combining the Defense Contractors together). I worried what would happen and then I saw him sing the war happy tune the Right has been for so long.

Follow the money.

Then why did the Right derail the proposal for air strikes? It was not "real war"? Like McCain said, it was not broad enough?

[Auster]

I would support the war, and Obama's call if I thought for a minute he (or even America) had the gumption, ability, or dedication to do the job properly. I'd even go pay a visit to my recruiter (again)

Who thought it was a good idea to leave these countries halfway through our objective list? And what's this 'no boots on the ground' nonsense? What is that going to accomplish?

[Jarod]

The President did not propose a "war". He proposed some air strikes on limited targets that were used for Chemical warfair. Nobody was going to need to "visit" a recruiter.

[Auster]

The President did not propose a "war". He proposed some air strikes on limited targets that were used for Chemical warfair. Nobody was going to need to "visit" a recruiter.

Exactly.

[Auster]

I do not support us tossing a few bombs, laughing and snickering, and then getting bored and leaving.

[Annie]

The President did not propose a "war". He proposed some air strikes on limited targets that were used for Chemical warfair. Nobody was going to need to "visit" a recruiter.

I don't know if you served in the military or not, but from what I've read most of the vets, from Iraq and Afghanistan serving in Congress, do not feel that this 'unbelievably small attack' is a good thing. Several (D) vets have spoken of it forcefully.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpoli...gress/2785323/

Iraq vet in Congress: Syria strike 'serious mistake'
Catalina Camia, USA TODAY 2:17 p.m. EDT September 9, 2013

If ever there were a sign President Obama faces an uphill battle with Congress over Syria, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's statement Monday is a big, unmistakable warning.

Gabbard, a freshman Democrat from Hawaii and a military veteran, said she will vote "no" on the resolution authorizing Obama to use military force against Bashar Assad's regime's use of chemical weapons in Syria. That's three blows to Obama at once, coming from an Iraq veteran, a lawmaker from his own party and one who happens to be from the president's native state.

"I am sickened and outraged by the carnage and loss of lives caused by the use of chemical weapons in Syria," Gabbard said in a statement. "It is with gravity that I have carefully considered all the facts, arguments and evidence and soberly weighed concerns regarding our national security and moral responsibility. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that a U.S. military strike against Syria would be a serious mistake."

...

Gabbard flew back to Washington last week to take part in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Syria. In her statement, Gabbard expressed concern that a military strike on Syria could "escalate into a regional conflict" and fail to "eliminate Syria's chemical weapons or prevent them from being used again."

Gabbard did a tour of duty in Iraq and one in Kuwait as a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard. She joins Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who lost both her legs and use of an arm while serving in Iraq, among the military veterans who oppose airstrikes in Syria.

GOP Reps. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, also Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans, have publicly supported Obama's call to use military force.

[Jarod]

I don't know if you served in the military or not, but from what I've read most of the vets, from Iraq and Afghanistan serving in Congress, do not feel that this 'unbelievably small attack' is a good thing. Several (D) vets have spoken of it forcefully.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpoli...gress/2785323/

I am not a vet, but I disagree with any who want the United States to get into a ground war over Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people.

[Annie]

I am not a vet, but I disagree with any who want the United States to get into a ground war over Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people.

Obama is on the record saying Syria poses no threat to the US. We have no interests to act. IF we feel that the weapons are so vital to be confiscated, then we need to do just that. That cannot be accomplished with strategic bombing. Thus, if deemed that important, then you would support sending in troops. If you want to spare lives, then don't drop bombs.

I agree that there isn't a reason to send troops in. We agree. We disagree regarding bombing. I just see that as a way to kill more civilians and why?

[Jarod]

Obama is on the record saying Syria poses no threat to the US. We have no interests to act. IF we feel that the weapons are so vital to be confiscated, then we need to do just that. That cannot be accomplished with strategic bombing. Thus, if deemed that important, then you would support sending in troops. If you want to spare lives, then don't drop bombs.

I agree that there isn't a reason to send troops in. We agree. We disagree regarding bombing. I just see that as a way to kill more civilians and why?

1. Cite?
2. Bombing will not confiscate the weapons it will only degrade Syria's ability to use them and illustrate to the world that use of chemical weapons will be a net loss for any government. Those are worthy goals. The Russian solution, if real is better than bombing.

[monty1]

Here's where the political right starts to claim that Obama wasn't going to pursue it far enough and with enough vigor to make it worthwhile. It's likely the method they will start to use to push for the war themselves even though it still leaves them with egg on their faces.

quite entertaining if it wasn't for the fact that innocent people will again be dying under US bombs.

[Jarod]

Here's where the political right starts to claim that Obama wasn't going to pursue it far enough and with enough vigor to make it worthwhile. It's likely the method they will start to use to push for the war themselves even though it still leaves them with egg on their faces.

quite entertaining if it wasn't for the fact that innocent people will again be dying under US bombs.

Sadly I suspect there next president will send ground troops into Syria.

[Annie]

1. Cite?
2. Bombing will not confiscate the weapons it will only degrade Syria's ability to use them and illustrate to the world that use of chemical weapons will be a net loss for any government. Those are worthy goals. The Russian solution, if real is better than bombing.

Posted this hours ago: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/world/...ria-civil-war/

...Al-Assad warned Monday that his country would lash out in potentially unpredictable ways after a U.S. military strike, telling CBS, "You should expect everything." He sidestepped the question of whether he would use chemical weapons against Western forces, but invoked the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington to warn that military action has unforeseen consequences.

"It is difficult for anyone to tell you what is going to happen," he said. "It's an area where everything is on the brink of explosion."

But on CNN's "The Situation Room," Obama snapped back that Syria is no threat to the United States.

"Mr. Assad doesn't have a lot of capability," Obama said. "He has capability relative to children. He has capability relative to an opposition that is still getting itself organized and are not professional, trained fighters. He doesn't have a credible means to threaten the United States."

...

2. CW can be stored pretty readily and moved easily. Not safely, but easily. Bombing planes and roads won't do much about the weapons or the ability of any of those bad agents to launch them. It is trying to hit hand held launchers from the skies.

[monty1]

Posted this hours ago: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/world/...ria-civil-war/



2. CW can be stored pretty readily and moved easily. Not safely, but easily. Bombing planes and roads won't do much about the weapons or the ability of any of those bad agents to launch them. It is trying to hit hand held launchers from the skies.

Why, isn't Assad evil for saying that he would do everything in his power to fight back!!!

Proof positive that he used the chemical weapons on the Cambodians!