We don't need to go to total war there. There are already 'boots on
the ground' and have been for 2 1/2 years. All they need is the relief
from the technology advantage that the monster regime has, and we can provide
that by destroying the tools that both give Assad the advantage and also are
being used to wipe out thousands of lives at a whim. This is the regime that
tortures 13-year-old kids and sends the gruesome remains to the parents'
door. It isn't surprising that they'd gas entire suburbs just to make
a vague point. Air and Drone strikes are do-able. Make
a case to the rebels about presenting a good government alternative so that we
aren't merely replacing one monster with a Taliban-like monster that hurts
the people just as much, and then strike.
Wow.... stunning..... The same man who said we should have sent the
troops into Libya with out a plan to save the ambassador is now saying we should
go to full blown war in Syria. Shoot-em-up Chaffetz seems to be awfully free
wheeling with the lives of our military. I wonder what exactly he proposes we
do when US soldiers come face to face with Russian soldiers based there in
Syria? Are we willing to take on that fight too?On the other side
we have Lee who says 100,000 civilian deaths isn't enough to try to stem
the tied of killing, You have to ask what level of mass killings does it take?
Another 100,000? 200,000? The one thing in common and consistent
between these two - they oppose Obama - at any cost. I wish this arguments
sounded more like deep soul searching for answers, but it wreaks more of
grasping at straws to have a reason to oppose what ever it is the President is
asking for.Oh well... no oil here... let these people eat cake
A Hallmark card? What a bizarre thing to say. Other than going all out into war,
what response to the use of chemical weapons would Chaffetz propose? Instead of
constant opposition to the president, what constructive response does he have.
We need an adult in Congress instead of constant petulance and childish
Launching a few missiles into Syria without an end goal in mind is a bad
idea.Simply sending "a message" isn't good enough. The President needs to explain exactly what he expects to accomplish.
What is he going to do if Syria, or Syria's close ally, Iran, decides to
retaliate by launching missiles into Israel?Hitting the suspected
sites of chemical weapons stores would be a huge blunder. It takes intense heat,
much more than is generated by a missile, to destroy chemical weapons. The
likely result of such an attack would be to spread the chemicals, rather than
destroy them.The list of unintended consequences is huge.
"scenic view", did you have the same stance for Afghanistan and Iraq
(where we delivered Iraq into the hands of Iran)? And the reality is our
limited action in Libya actually ended up being the right thing. I oppose
troops in Syria, and a "message" that inflicts some pain is actually a
good thing. The Syrians need to sort out their civil war without our
intervention (it's a complicated situation), but they should do so without
the use of chemical weapons which have been banned by the international
I am not a fan of President Obama, but I am glad that he has taken a stand
against a regime that has crossed the 'Rubicon' in using poison gas to
kill Rebels and Civilians. An International Law has been broken by Assad and if
he were left unpunished - he would most certainly use chemical weapons when ever
it suited his purposes.
Syria is a civil war between two sides that both hate the US. There is no direct
threat to the US by either side but our interference will put Israel in danger.
Let Allah sort it out.
Some are saying that Chaffetz always opposes Obama on every issue. This would
be a good rule of thumb, since Obama has more or less proven that he's
wrong on every single issue. This "sending a message" stuff with
$1,500,000 cruise missiles lobbed randomly into the sand will just prove that we
don't have a remote clue as to what we're doing. It will undoubtedly
have many unintended consequences, and will "send the message" that our
responses are ineffectual and misguided at best. Right now, we have no proof
that Assad was the one using chemical weapons, and is a child killed with
chemical weapons more valuable than a child killed with conventional weapons?
The whole thing is a farce, and Obama is turning to two old enemies (congress
and the Constitution) to extricate himself from the embarrassment of the
"red line" stuff. This is a good litmus test to see who can reason and
who just reacts in Washington.
Are we sure Assad sent the poison shells? The CIA missed the Fall of the Berlin
Wall. If Assad wins we have Hezbollah in charge. If the rebels win we have Al
quaeda in charge. What's the difference? Any chance of democracy on
either side I would help, but which one?
EsquireYou failed to address scenic view's question, "What
is he [President Obama] going to do if Syria, or Syria's close ally, Iran,
decides to retaliate by launching missiles into Israel?Is blindly
lobbing a few missiles into Syria to "send a message" really going to
solve anything, or will it simply exacerbate an already chaotic situation. How
do you know that a "message" that inflicts some pain is actually a good
thing? What if the "message" simply provides a convenient excuse to drag
Israel and, consequently, the U.S. into the conflict?
"Is blindly lobbing a few missiles into Syria to "send a message"
really going to solve anything.."This from the same crowd who
applauds Israel when they do the exact same thing on a regular basis when they
have problems on their boarders. Israel has been sending "message"
attacks at Hezbollah for decades now. But now, when a "democrat"
proposes doing the exact same thing... it is a poorly thought out policy.As to the question of why are we upset about chemical weapons? Because
by international treaty, they have been banned. Unfortunately conventional war
has not been. Chemical weapons kill without descression, over a wide range
outside the theater of conflict.It blows me away that there are
those who feel going to war for oil fields is a just cause, and yet striking a
military who is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, and the
displacement of over 2,000,000... just doesn't interest us. How absolutely
upside down are our "traditional" family values.
Why have neither KSL nor the DesNews contacted Congressman Bishop? (This story
is almost identical to Richard Piatt's story yesterday in KSL with the
simple addition of the Hallmark quote from Chaffetz)At any rate,
I'm grateful to see most of our representatives doing the right thing.
Killing innocent civilians who live near Syrian infrastructure that we decide to
target "punitively" doesn't really make any sense. Especially when
we don't appear to have solid information on who actually used a chemical
weapon. Our foreign policy needs some serious study and I'm
grateful that Congress is actually trying to debate this one and spending the
requisite days in confidential briefings. That said, if we actually have
evidence against Assad we should (1) actually hold him responsible instead of
wantonly bombing more of his citizens and (2) reveal our proof so it can be held
up to responsible cross-examination.
UtahBlueDevilThe difference between Iraq and Syria is, tragic as the
human suffering happening in Syria is, the U.S. has no strategic interest in
Syria. Saddam Hussein did exactly the same thing to his people - chemical
weapons attacks, indiscriminate mass killings, etc. - yet where was the outcry
from the left to lift a finger to stop the carnage in Iraq?Israel
has a right to defend itself; they aren't just "sending a message"
when they fire missiles at Hezbollah. Frankly, Israel has shown remarkable
restraint in its attacks. Imagine what the U.S. response would be if missiles
were being fired from Toronto into Detroit by a bunch of radicals intent on
destroying the U.S. and Canada wasn't willing to lift a finger to stop
Two issues that have me concerned about the administration's request: 1) We
were lied to about Benghazi. How can we be sure he is telling us the truth about
Syria? The truth to Obama seems to be whatever is currently to his political
advantage. 2) Obama botched up the Benghazi mess so badly, do we want such an
incompetent man leading us into Syria? Perhaps if Obama had shown more
competence in the past, we could feel some confidence in what he wants to do.
But, I'm concerned that a former professional community organizer just
doesn't have the wisdom or ability or competence to bring the Syria thing
to a satisfactory conclusion.
@UtahBlueDevil"Oh well... no oil here... let these people eat
cake instead."Syria has one of the biggest conventional reserves
of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean."The same man who said
we should have sent the troops into Libya with out a plan to save the ambassador
is now saying we should go to full blown war in Syria."He never
said we should go to full blown war. It was a statement to a question, not a
decleration of war. Typical lefties putting a spin on a statement. No where in
the article does he say we should go to full blown war. And for Libya, a full
blown attack on our embassy. Yes, we should have done something. The left is
still hiding from this.And you still think that past wars were all
about the oil. Come on, please look at the entire picture. Not just the part
you want to see. You latest comments talk about traditional family values. Why
are you so against going into Iraq? It was a dictator controlling and killing
his people. Why is Syria OK and not the Iraqi war? Again, whole picture
I'm amazed at how many opposing Obama in these comments are following
Going into Syria or not has nothing to do with supporting the President. It has
to do with supporting a tyrant or terrorists.Unless Obama plans on
hitting both rebel and Syrian military targets, he is in a situation where he is
helping evil men.The other issue is the fact that we still
don't know who used the nerve gas.According to news reports
from Turkey there were rebels arrested in Turkey trying to smuggle sarin into
Syria. How do we know that the rebels did not unleash the nerve agent in order
to force the US into action after Obama's red line comment?So
those of you who want to go into Turkey, what is the plan? Do we help the
tyrant, the terrorists, or engage in nation building by taking out Assad and the
They need to consult with Fox news and Pravda.
Now, where are Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan when we really need them?Nothing
less than two masters of the universe, right?Would they have thrown a warm
blankie over the Middle East, convincing them those countries that God is not
ready for total apocalypse yet? Or, would we now be in another full on war
over there?Where or where are they?Don't we need to know how
they would handle this!!!!
Now that Utah has heard from Chaffetz saying that he doesn’t want to send
a Hallmark card to Syria, he can give his vocal chords a needed rest. The
proposed missile strikes and major repercussions that might follow is no
flippant matter for politicians to exploit to sound cute. It might be a good
idea for Chaffetz to stay home and sit this one out. Just let the grownups
decide this one.
So wait... we spent a week or two with conservatives railing against Obama and
liberals for intervening and now several of you (and Chaffetz) are upset
Obama's not aggressive enough? Goodness make up your minds...
Lets be honest people there really isn't a good answer here!! The thing
that bothers me most, is what happens next. Ok so we bomb Syria, we don't
have any real objectives other than "Sending a message". We don't
want to take Assad out, because the Rebels are no better, and in fact are linked
with Al Qaeda, But we don't want the attack to be so insignificant that
Assad is able to turn the tide of the Civil war since we have called for his
resignation from day one. If we actually had a plan, and goals to
achieve I might be able to back this up, as it stands it seems like we are just
setting up the disaster.
@atl134 -- They don't need to make up their minds. Basically their minds
are that whatever Obama proposes, they want the opposite. If Obama waits to get
information, then they think he should have attacked. If Obama wants to attack,
they are then sure that he shouldn't. It's a Pavlovian response.
bricha,"....If we actually had a plan, and goals to achieve I
might be able to back this up, as it stands it seems like we are just setting up
why the President has such a hard sell job with Congress. The case against Assad
may be solid but the case for military action lacks a clear strategy that should
entail more than making a statement or taking punitive action, neither of which
by itself is a good use of U.S. military power.Not to mitigate the
significance of the introduction of chemical weapons in the conflict, but I must
ask how the killing of 1,400 people is materially worse than the 100,000
previously killed by bombs and machine guns. Where was our humanitarian outrage
then? Why, all of sudden, is it so urgent that we act? And what do we do
afterwards as the carnage continues?
Thank you Congressmen. Anyone who is against military action against anyone who
isn't an imminent threat should be praised.
"Let Allah sort them out."Isn't that what Sarah Palin
said yesterday? Gee, what a shame we didn't elect Palin as our Presidunce.
"Why are you so against going into Iraq? It was a dictator controlling and
killing his people. Why is Syria OK and not the Iraqi war? "Talk
about reading into something that you want to see. Number one... not a lefty.
I actually was on the campaign committee for the now Republican governor of
North Carolina. Hypocritical blather is just that, regardless of what side it
comes from. It just so happens the Republicans are spewing it the most right
now. I find it equally offensive regardless of party affiliation.And you beg the exact questions that should be asked. Why was dictatorship
in Iraq worth thousands of American lives, billions of dollars - and Syria,
Cuba, North Korea not? It had absolutely nothing to do with removing a
dictator, because if so, we missed a whole lot of other countries.As
to your Syria Oil Reserves claim - Syria ranks 35th in world in oil reserves -
far behind most countries. It is not even a rounding error of what Iraq and
Iran hold. That state was a huge stretch.