This author is totally amazed at so many intelligent people who are demonstrating an ignorance of history, mixed with pacifism, who seem to have no moral or ethical problem with the use of chemical weapons. They seem not to understand that if the world, led by the United States, does not react in some way to demonstrate that such immoral and illegal behavior will not be tolerated, then we will see Iran and North Korea and terrorist organizations and others who wish the civilized world ill, utilize chemical and biological weapons with impunity.
Having proved that use of force CAN be done in a surgical way and lead to good results in Bosnia and Kosovo under Bill Clinton, we do not need to have another Iraq, but if nothing is done, then another September 11 is much more likely, and how will Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, and other intelligent liberals feel, or explain themselves, after such a disaster?
Lack of action is much more likely to lead to disaster than to assert basic moral and ethical principles, that we will not allow another Nazi Holocaust, whether against one’s own population, or a foreign population.
The world will be much more unsafe if nothing is done, than if the civilized world makes clear that there will be no tolerance of mass murder by corrupt dictators as we stand by and wring our hands!
President Obama has asked for input by Congress, but as Commander In Chief, he has the responsibility and good sense to take action, even if Congress votes no, and if the American people act in revulsion against him, so be it!
History will judge Barack Obama correct on this issue, even if it takes years of retribution against him, as sadly, the American people DO NOT always have the knowledge or good sense to know what is good for them and their future. This is the ultimate tragedy of what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld have wrought, and in the long run, they will be condemned in history, not Barack Obama!
I’ve been talking about this with my friends, family, and other acquaintances. They understand that inaction has its consequences but they are sick of war.
Same way with a lot of people I’ve talked to. They see it as a no-win situation.
I am sick of war too, and that it could be a no win situation, but such is life, sadly! 🙁
WWI was touted as the war to end all wars. Seems to me its done the opposite.
That is certainly true, Rustbelt Democrat, but being afraid to go to war, as with Europe and the US in the late 1930s, we ended up in war anyway, in a war that was even worse, World War II, all over the globe!
The President will be addressing the nation Tuesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/06/politics/us-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
A concern I have is who is going to fund this.
Obama MUST make the case for intervention, but my feeling is that even if Congress does not go along, the President has the constitutional authority to do what he feels he needs to do as Commander in Chief.
Funding is always a problem, and there will be a battle over that, as you can be sure the Republicans will want to cut domestic programs, which should NOT be cut!
Good question Leia. The latest jobs report – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/august-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_3879325.html – is probably one of the reasons why a majority of Americans are against another costly military adventure in the Middle East. Millions of unemployed and underemployed people want Washington to focus on good jobs with fair wages, infrastructure, education, health care and other domestic issues holding this country back.
A proposal I saw on a blog as an alternative to military strikes is: placing stringent sanctions on anyone doing business with the regime, ICC prosecution of Assad, and stepping up humanitarian aid.
You are correct, Jane Doe, but that does not mean that the Republican House will do anything for the issues you list. That is the tragedy of it, as the GOP wants to promote austerity, the absolutely wrong thing to do!
Let us not leave out the much heralded Jimmy Cater whose bumbling in Iran made many of today’s middle east problems possible.
Oh, and let’s leave out Reagan and Lebanon, Reagan giving chemical weapons to Saddam, and Bush II going into Iraq and ignoring Iran, making it a greater threat therefore. The truth hurts, doesn’t it, Dave, and particularly when you are talking without knowledge or facts, and believing in myths!
And Dave, since you are such a genius, what would you have done about the Shah of Iran, who every President catered to, and Carter admitted him to the country for treatment? Do you have the magic solution of what should have been done, heh, Dave?
One of those rebel groups posted this on their Facebook page: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20348901-not-one-of-bad-guys-but-syrian-rebel-group-proclaims-anti-american-bent?lite
Interesting about the media and Syria: http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/09/rep-keith-ellison-asks-us-to-listen-to.html
Like that mentioned, the media is not offering a balance and this does not help people make a sound judgment.
Here’s that letter that Keith Ellison tweeted about: http://www.unitedfreesyria.org/letter2antiwarmovement/
This article also criticizes the media about Syria: http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/06/hearings-syria-offer-questions-answers-questions.html
@Leia
Definitely agree about the media. Nearly every elected person they put in front of the camera is opposed. This is happening especially on MSNBC, where you have Rachel Maddow agreeing with Putin; Ed Schultz, Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews calling it a “war†every other second.
Like that article that Rustbelt posted said, the hearings are exposing some of the questions as unreasonable.
I have come to the conclusion that the media turning Syria into a political story is why I’ve become so conflicted about it.
http://prospect.org/article/syria-turns-political-story
Thank you, ladies, for what sources you have revealed, and I must say I am really disillusioned with MSNBC and liberals who have no compassion for the victims in Syria, no sense of ethics and morality, and allowing what Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld did to distort the situation in Syria.
I just hope that Obama shows “cajones”, and takes action despite what Congress and the media say or do. A President needs to do what is right, and to hell with what the reaction is–Churchill in Great Britain did that a lot, and our greatest Presidents took action and dealt with the criticism after–such as Lincoln, FDR, and Truman—numbers one, three and five on the C Span list of Presidents, as judged by historians and political scientists!
Hello Professor,
No Nothing Davy has just demonstrated the results of what is so lacking in Faith Based Religion education. No critical thinking nor could he generate any follow up original thought to comment or rebuttal to your inquiries.
Nothing more than a programmed mindless robot infused with programmed hate. The exact opposite of Jesus’s teachings.
Thanks for your support, Engineer. I have noticed that Davy is only good at calling me names, and ignores what I point out, about hypocrisy!
Look at these polling numbers about public-opinion support for the Iraq War.
Please be mindful of the timeline.
This is from a “CBS News” report from February 2009.
@ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500160_162-930772.html
I think it says a lot about the “mood” of the country. It may also say something about how much we, collectively as the U.S. citizenry, actually knows about whether this war or that war (or this attack or that attack) on other countries are actually worth our direct involvement.
Thanks very much, D, and this shows lack of trust brought about by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld lies and deceit on Iraq. It would be a tragedy if that prevented us from doing what needs to be done elsewhere!