Mr. Boynton, when you can offer specific recommendations about what you think
the U.S. _should_ be doing in Syria then maybe you'll have a basis for
criticism.Who are the "good guys" in Syria? Bashar
al-Assad, or the Islamist rebels? Who are the good-guys here? Since when are
we the world's policeman?Assad is an evil man. That's not
the issue before us. Who runs Syria if Assad is removed from power? What is
Syria's importance to U.S. interests? Why are we the world's
policeman?What of Syria's allies in Russia and Iran? What of Syria's remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons?If
the U.S. does take action, when can we stop? What constitutes
"victory?" Think about what the U.S. has spent, in lives and money, on
Iraq and Afghanistan, and then tell me why military action in Syria is even
remotely a smart idea.That's why a robust and open debate about
Syria is needed in Congress.
The Iraq war was a mistake, lets avoid another.
Thanks Charles Boynton!I cringed when I read his column, and wondered just
what stories (?) he's teaching our youth at BYU.
Except for one thing, Davis was right.The invasion and occupation of
Iraq was not done in haste. It was the result of deliberate connivery by the
Bush administration, starting even before it was inaugurated into office.
George and Dick didn't want to hear about AlQaeda, and blew off briefings
about it. George and Dick wanted to attack Iraq, and were looking for any
excuse to do so. 9/11 gave them their excuse, even though Iraq had nothing to
do with the attack. Iraq did not have WMDs in 2003, when the
invasion/occupation occurred. I've read the UN resolutions,
They did NOT give approval for any type of attack. The Security Council
"remained seized" (diplo-speak for retaining jurisdiction) of the issue
in every one of the Resolutions they passed. The UNSC did not authorize the
invasion; therefore US invasion of Iraq violated the UN Resolutions it had
drafted.The Congressional "approval" was granted to George
only to give him a strong bargaining position and was based on his promise that
invasion was to be a last-chance alternative, not the
"first-chance-I-get-to-invade" use George and Dick made of it.Davis was right.
Another delusional -- All things Bush = Good.All things Obama
= Bad.comment/letter.Face it - Bush messed up, We
all know it, The whole world knows it, we've had 12 years to
assess it, Hindsight is 20/20,so please stop defending it.BTW - I'm against this sabre rattling every bit as I was against the last
one.No matter WHO's in charge.That's called -
ITNTEGRITY.Try showing some...
Following the passage of Resolution 1441, on 18 November 2002, weapons
inspectors of the U.N. returned to Iraq for the first time since being withdrawn
by the United Nations. Whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction or
not was being investigated by Hans Blix, head of the Commission, and Mohamed
ElBaradei, head of the IAEA. Inspectors remained in the country until they
withdrew after being notified of the imminent invasion by the United States,
Britain, and two other countries.UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix, on
2/14/2003 presented a report to the Security Council. Blix gave an update of the
situation in Iraq, and he stated that the Iraqis were now more proactive in
their cooperation. He also rebutted some of the arguments proposed by Powell.
Blix questioned the interpretations of the satellite images put forward by
Powell, and stated that alternate interpretations of the satellite images were
credible. He also stated that the Iraqis have in fact never received early
warning of the inspectors visiting any sites (an allegation made by Powell
during his presentation). ElBaradei also said that he did not believe the Iraqis
have a nuclear weapons program, unlike what Powell had claimed.
@ One vote. If its ok to strike Syria to "punish" a murdering dictator
who apparently gassed his own people, why was doing the same thing (and
succeeding) a mistake in Iraq? Why do you hold GWB to such high standards but
will accept anything from Obama?
@Mountainman. Bush was wrong to invade Iraq and Obama would be wrong to invade
or attack Syria. Also what is your definition of succeeding in Iraq?
The last time I checked I still can't and would not want to book a vacation
"In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I watched
helplessly as the Bush administration led America into a strategic blunder of
historic proportions. It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of
our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a
neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any,
military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian
decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a
stand were subsequently forced out of the service…I saw the cynical use of
war for political gains by elected officials and acquiescent military leaders. I
learned how the pressure of a round-the-clock news cycle could drive
crucial decisions. I witnessed those resulting political decisions override
military requirements and judgments and, in turn, create conditions that caused
unnecessary harm to our soldiers on the ground…""Over
the fourteen months of my command in Iraq, I witnessed a blatant disregard for
the lives of our young soldiers in uniform. It is an issue that constantly eats
away at me. (LT Gen. Ricardo Sanchez 2008)
Gen. Anthony Zinni:"In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.""I think there
was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully
understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction
in lack of planning," says Zinni. Zinni says Iraq was the wrong
war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the
U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, Zinni carried the message to
Congress: "This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I
don't feel it needs to be done now." But he wasn't the
only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. General/
NSA Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Gen. Schwarzkopf, NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
Army Chief Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.
To Boynton, there is ample evidence that not only did we invade Iraq for the
benefit of private organizations, the groundwork was laid for an invasion of
Syria, Iran, and others at the same time. Our military is a tool for Exxon, BP,
and Royal Dutch Shell. You have to look at the big picture if you want to
understand US strategy in the Middle East. The objective is to extract the
natural resources than it is to save any common souls. Why have we seen so much
media Islamopobia? Do you really think the puppeteers care about your safety?
Your vitriol is a welcome distraction from reality for these people. I say
it's time you start blaming the source rather than the messengers,
especially when all the messengers bring the same message.
I would add to Truthseeker's comment that a UN inspection team is also
currently on the ground in Syria. Let's wait for their report before
@MountanmanHayden, ID@ One vote. If its ok to strike Syria to
"punish" a murdering dictator who apparently gassed his own people, why
was doing the same thing (and succeeding) a mistake in Iraq? Why do you hold GWB
to such high standards but will accept anything from Obama?9:56 a.m. Sept.
1, 2013=========== If it's human rights you are so
up in arms about supporting GWBush's invasions Mountanman, Where were
you during the genocide happening oil-less Rwanda?
How did Syria get Chemical weapons?Wouldn't it be sad if the
WMDs Assad used were the ones the Russians helped Saddam move into Syria before
we invaded. Its cover up time for the Russians, the Syrians and the
Democrats.Of course there were no WMDs left after the Russians made
sure there was no trace left in Iraq. So why are the Russians helping the
Syrians out now. So that the weapons don't end up coming at them from Al
Qaida getting there hands on them and sending them north.
@ One vote; To actually stop a murdering dictator from gassing his own people
(with mysterious, disappearing WMDs) for moral, humanitarian reasons is one
thing but shooting off some Tomahawk missiles and doing nothing that will
actually STOP the murdering dictator is quite another. Bill Clinton fired some
missiles into some empty tents in Afghanistan and thought, "that will teach
em." Which is exactly what will happen if Obama gets his way!
re:TheHammerSyria opposed Iraq in Operation Desert Storm. How likely would
Saddam trust them?"The roots of Syria's chemical weapons
program lie decades in the past. Over the years, US intelligence experts have
gone back and forth as to exactly when the effort began, but it is likely Syria
began the effort decades ago, and possibly as early as the 1970s.Damascus probably developed its chemical weapons program in response to a
perceived threat from Israel concludes a 2012 Congressional Research Service
(CRS) analysis of the subject, citing US intelligence reports.Some
analysts believe that Egypt provided Syria with chemical weapons on the eve of
the October 1973 Yom Kippur war. There are reports that Israeli troops captured
stockpiles of gas munitions during the conflict but Syria apparently decided not
to use them in spite of its eventual defeat.Declassified US
documents hold that the USSR provided Damascus with training, delivery systems,
and chemical agents themselves, according to CRS nonproliferation
experts."(CSMonitor)"Intelligence and congressional
officials say they have not seen any information never a piece, said one
indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were
transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere."(NBC)
@mountainman. Why did you say the following in another story about Syria?
"Obama wants to help Al Qaeda linked groups? The same jihadist that we have
been fighting in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan? I say no more American blood
and treasure wasted on trying to keep Muslims from killing other Muslims."
But in the above post you blame Obama for using tomahawk missiles
which would limit American casualties and basically say the only way to help the
people of syria is to get more involved by capturing their dictator. Which would
mean troops on the ground.So basically Obama is wrong no matter
@ Shaun. With all due respect, lobbing a few missiles into Syria won't do
any good, none, zip, nada. It won't stop Al Qaeda and it won't stop
Syria's murdering dictator from murdering his own people. Its all symbolic
with no substance (I'll teach 'em). All it will do is probably kill
lots of innocent people, that's why Obama is wrong about this. Troops on
the ground is not an option either. When do we stop trying to keep Muslims from
killing other Muslims? And what do we get in thanks?
Thanks for the history lesson but Chemical weapons degrade after a certain time.
The weapons he used were newer and Lets not forget that the Intel analysts saw
military equipment moving supplies and other items out of Iraq and into Syria
aided by Russians right before the invasion.It would be a nightmare
for all of the journo's and Liberals and democrats who jumped for joy when
we were unable to find the stockpiles to suddenly find the stockpiles show up in
Syria based on James Clappers theory. We looked in all the areas we knew were
of recent movement and we were unable to find it but Clappers theory does have
merit. Saddam had motivation to use whatever means necessary to defend himself
especially as he was loosing power from without and from within. Saddam's
situation bore the three key factors for having illicit weapons and that is
opportunity (he had the chemists necessary to do it), Motivation (losing power),
and rational (its for defense). What was surprising to many people is that we
never found them. To this day many Intel analysts were as surprised as Bush
that we never found them.
"This administration has no policy, has no idea of what to do and how to
positively effect the Syrian situation (100,000 dead 1.5 million refugees) and
has stood by as a cowardly influence to the tragedy in Syria. "OK.... just how many young americans should die to solve the Syrian problem?
Evidently to some, the answer is easy, enter a protracted civil war with no exit
plan in site. Do we set up the new government? How long are we willing to
commit to providing security to Syria... because that is what we will have to
do. And the Russian bases.... what would we do about them? Are we sure we can
contain the conflict from having US and Russian forces coming against each
other... which would explode the scope of this conflict.It is so
easy to be a critic when you don't have the responsibility for sending
American lives to war and to die on foreign lands. And if this is truly a
quest to protect human rights.... where next? It Iraq was a just war, if going
to war in Syria is just, where next? North Korea, Cuba? Saudi Arabia Where
My question to the audience is did the coalitioin of the willing or some times
called "The coalition of the billing" get anything out of their
participation from the United States?My personal thought is that yes
we were waltzed into attacking Iraq by people and countries that wish to use the
US military as a "rent an army" to accomplish their ends.
In my opinion we were hurried into preemptively attacking Iraq with comments
like "The only warning we will have would be a mushroom cloud". My question to the readers is did Saddam have an active nuclear program
at the time of the invasion?An interesting thought the same people
who want our military to attack Syria seem to be the same people who wanted our
military to attack Iraq and the same people who wanted us to attack Iran.What is the common thread here?