A Case for Not Bombing Syria

[bigrun]

'Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please'.
Machiavelli

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

'Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please'.
Machiavelli

i posted that very quote on slate...along with this one:

there are three things necessary to wage war
money, money and yet more money

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...roval/Rn0Vk7Fm

I would have signed, but in light of registration required, I don't think so.

BTW what's the difference between registering to sign a WH petition and showing an ID to vote? You can fake identity on the internet?

[Danzig]

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...920dcb7e30b258

Aug. 29, 2013 6:54 AM ET

AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'

By KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZOBy KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press



WASHINGTON (AP) — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.


ok, i know 'benghazi' has become the go-to phrase when people want to criticize...but i can't help but wonder why there were so many contortions to avoid calling that occurrence what it was , terrorism...then there's egypt, it's a coup, but the admin won't call it one, and we all know why.
so, now we have a case that isn't a 'slam dunk', and obama 'declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible'.

i hate inconsistency. this makes no sense. and the more that comes out about the supposed chemical attack, the more unhappy i become. now it's a hundred people? yesterday it was 1000.


i think everyone here knows i'm a history fanatic....
ww1 went on for several years before we entered. several times in the preceding years we had reason to enter, but held off. and for good reason.

same with ww2, had gone on in europe since 1939 and germany invading poland.

but now, we've become so impatient, so anxious to throw our weight around. and to what end?

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._on_syria.html

i cringed when he first mentioned a red line.

what happened to not showing your cards? bah, he's more bush-ie every day.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._on_syria.html

i cringed when he first mentioned a red line.

what happened to not showing your cards? bah, he's more bush-ie every day.

Obama's predecessor said that phrase—along with his "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents—were among his greatest mistakes as president. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner," said Bush. " ‘Wanted, dead or alive’—that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted." The Die Hard–style talk made Bush sound like a cowboy who shot first and asked questions never.

Yes. let's not repeat his style..

And now the Brits want out..


http://news.msn.com/world/ghosts-of-...y-syria-strike

Always chringed when they referred to the 'Coalition' in Iraq..Yeah,
90% U.S.
5% Brits
5% all others..

[Danzig]

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

who said all that, above?? barack obama in 2008.