Montana Dudes and Syria

[katqanna]

Pro America is letting the Muslims kill each other off and we sit back and let them do it. I have no problems with them sorting out their own issues. Especially when it saves us from having to go over there but we still get the same results, dead extremist muslims.

The understanding (or rather lack thereof) of world view politics, religion and culture, expressed on this forum floors me at times. Syria is not comprised of nothing but Muslim's (number of different sects). You make it sound like the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, much in the way that people spoke, and some still do, of Native Americans, just because they were different. Syria is comprised of Christians as well, which make up about 10% of the religious population and used to be much higher. The largest population of Christians is in Aleppo. The first recorded use of the term "Christian" is from Antioch, Syria - though it was a derogatory term comparing Paul's small deviant sect with the followers of Apollo, the original Christ/Chrestus, which simply meant the anointed. So Chrestians (the followers of Apollo in Greek) became Christians in Latin, then on to English.

There are also Jews in Syria (though most have immigrated to the US), Yazidis, Bedouin (not all Muslim) which have an ancient faith that derived from the Phoenicians. Please, broaden your mind and see the world from a human perspective.

 

[Marshian]

Despite the prior posts numerous historical facts, the point remains that we ar not the world police, Assad actually is relatively good towards Christians compared with the alternatives, and the sects you mention have and will fight in perpetuity.

 

[jryoung]

Still not sure how I feel, but this, I can definitely get behind.

 

[Dave N]

+1!!!

 

[montanadogs]

Please, broaden your mind and see the world from a human perspective.

Rat Fink is "generalizing" if you would. Most people know what he means, and I would bet you do to.

After this past couple of wars, it seems like people of getting tired of not seeing why we are there. Most of the civilian population and a lot of the military don't understand why we are there. Only a few of us (and by us, I mean a few of us Americans, so katqanna understands)are privy to the reasons why. I don't think that we need to do anything. We are not the worlds police. And frankly, we have enough over here to worry about. Heck, our border patrol is in a war. They get shot at every day or close to it. And, what's that? Nothing in the news etc. Obama is just trying to get those in power in the mIddle east who support Obama's cause which is to destroy this country one way or another.

 

[katqanna]

Rat Fink is "generalizing" if you would. Most people know what he means, and I would bet you do to.
Only a few of us (and by us, I mean a few of us Americans, so katqanna understands)are privy to the reasons why. I don't think that we need to do anything. We are not the worlds police.

I just wanted to get some information out there so that this did not turn into another bigoted thread like that last anti-Muslim one did. Dont misunderstand, I am not advocating Islam or any other religion for that matter. As a woman, I have serious issues with all the patriarchal Abrahamic faiths. As a researcher of these cultures and their holy books and religious laws, I have serious issues as a human being. With that said, I agree politically, we have no business being the worlds police and I do not advocate the US going into yet another country. And as an archeological researcher, I sure as hell dont want a major US offensive taking place over there. Some of the best archeological work is being done on the oldest cultures. But knowing the history there, these territories have been at war for nearly 6000 years. If the US is so bloody concerned with attacking a country for possibly using incendiary bombs on a civilian population, then why didnt we invade Israel for using white phosphorus mortar shells on a civilian Palestinian population which was proven and admitted to?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Lots of the men and women in congress had the exact same intel the Bush administration had and they decided to vote for the AUMF.

If it was a slam dunk to punish Assad for crossing a red line, well the President already has the power to punish Assad through the War Powers Act. The challenge is that this president got his rhetoric ahead of his timeline and now is looking for an accomplice to share the blame with.

Right or wrong it has nothing to do with whether you dislike or like President Obama, it has to do with how he has bungled the whole thing and stated a position that he now has to defend.

Watch the vote in the House, if Pelosi can't deliver a majority of the minority then the President is going to have a historic political defeat. Boehner will deliver enough votes to cross the finish line only if Pelosi forces her caucus to hold hands and jump off the cliff together. It is a political nightmare for her and she is being put in an impossible position.

If the red line is so important, then President Obama should have used the old adage: It is easier to ask for forgiveness then for permission.

Can anyone explain what exactly our policy on Syria or the middle east is under Obama? He seems to make it up as he goes.

Nemont

I view the president's motives a little differently, but I absolutely agree with your last two sentences.

By turning the question of whether or not to pursue military strikes in Syria, Obama has reversed a major Neo-Con platform item: Broad executive power to initiate miliatary action. Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al have been beating him up for "weakening the Presidency." Polityically, a denial by Congress doesn't do much to the President except give the President a bigger stick to smack them with. He already has the authority to launch a strike, but he took the constitutionally proper method of seeking their vote. Goo for him for that. Even if Congress has abdicated their authority to the President in war, they shouldn't get a free pass on making some hard decisions.

Ultimately, it is the right thing to do to put this to Congress. We are asking our best & brightest to once again lay their lives down. They deserve to know why and what for. Hopefully congress doesn't bungle this up like they do everything else.

 

[Nemont]

Ultimately, it is the right thing to do to put this to Congress. We are asking our best & brightest to once again lay their lives down. They deserve to know why and what for. Hopefully congress doesn't bungle this up like they do everything else.

Little bit of Hyperbole there in that the strike would be with standoff weapons like cruise missiles, most likely we won't put aircraft over Syria because of their robust anti aircraft defenses.

Congress didn't abdicate any responsibility to the powers of the President because they are not declaring war. Clinton argued and prevailed that by simply approving funds for the military that congress had approved the use of the military by the President.

President Obama wasn't going to congress until Cameron mishandled the vote in Great Britain and left the President without allies, (unless you consider the French an ally). Reading public opinion and the screw up by Cameron the President then decided he should consult congress.

I don't give him any points for motives or views or even aims because his first instinct was to use the power of the office but then getting his wings clipped by the British parliament he needed an accomplice. Somebody to share the blame with.

By waiting he is allowing Assad to hide anything worth hitting inside of schools, hospitals and neighborhoods, he is telegraphing that we don't intend to end his regime but just move some dirt to save face and in the end we really don't care about the 100,000 killed with bullets, bombs and artillery shells but killing 1,000 people with gas is bad. That is not a moral or even rational reason to spend $200 million worth of ordinance and another $200 million in bunker fuel for the ships.

If we had a true national interest the President has all the power he needs at his finger tips to bomb Syria, he didn't go to congress to follow the Constitution but he went to congress because he was left without an accomplice and in the end Syria doesn't hold any threat to our national security.

Red lines and "Assad must go" are all things he said, to paint himself into a corner, nobody put those words in his mouth. The lame duck will really start to wobble if he can't get his vote through congress.

Nemont

 

[pointingdogsrule]

He already has the authority to launch a strike.

"He" inferring the President.

Ben : I am not as politically knowledgeable as yourself, so I ask this question: What part of the constitution of the United States of America gives the right of the President (R or D) to "launch a strike" and on what grounds? The "War Powers Act of 1941" seems to have little to do with this possible incursion. The "War Powers Resolution of 1973", states: the President can send U.S. forces into war only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in the case of a "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Congress has not yet authorized and none of the last three criteria seem to have been met... am I wrong?

By the way to the list of "Rumsfeld & Cheney" you can add President Clinton and his intervention into Kosovo.

My view point of this affair. Stay out. Both sides murder and have little respect for life. The army... poison gas, the opposition... execution and torture of Syrian soldiers. It's a lose- lose situation.

good luck to all
the dog