The President will not bomb Syria...

[kentuck]

If Congress votes NO on the resolution.

He has said that he did not do it for "politics". He believes Congress should be involved in decisions of war.

Of course, there is a lot of "politics" involved on both sides, contrary to what each of them might say.

In my opinion, the President, by going thru Congress, has shot a warning over the bow of Assad and his allies. He has laid the foundation for a future strike. Because it is premature to strike him at this time.

Mostly, this entire debate has been political theater. It has sent a stern message to the Syrian government and its allies and also, it has forced the Republicans to take a stand. Republicans, such as Rand Paul and his supporters, have taken the position that the President wanted in the first place. That is, that America must wean itself from the war mentality and Congress needs to take a more active role in questions about going to war. They are helping the President change our government and our military, without fully realizing what they are doing, in my opinion.

If I am wrong and the President is actually serious about striking Assad, then I think he has blown the best opportunity of his Presidency to actually change our government for the better.

[Squinch]

1. Reccing because I hope you're right, and because I agree with you about what it means

if you are wrong.

[merbex]

8. No need to repeat what you said perfectly n/t

[Aerows]

48. Agreed. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. So we wait until he gasses 10,000?

is that your plan?

[kentuck]

4. Do you really think that bombing him would keep him from gassing his people?

If that is his intent?

I think that bombing him at this time would only increase the likelihood of him using poison gas again. The more desperate he becomes, the more likely it is that he will use whatever is at his disposal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. Not bombing him.....the weapons silly rabbit....tricks are for kids..

'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.

So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat - it is like a super-incendiary bomb - that destroys the chemical or biological agent in situ.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

also see:

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[morningfog]

14. Yes. I support that plan.

Sufficient awareness has been raised. Let's work through the UN weapons inspectors to locate and dismantle the weapons. Let's focus on the humanitarian needs and diplomacy to end the civil war.

If after all of that, with all of the close scrutiny, Assad is found to gas 10,000, the world can act with force. Under that scenario, I doubt even Russia would block the UN vote.

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. so we wait...and let 10,000 die or more die first...then we incinerate those weapons...

great plan you got there...

[morningfog]

21. What makes you think 10,000 will be killed by chemical weapons?

You do know that over 100,000 have been killed by plain old killing weapons, right? Were you itching for war then, or only after your chain was yanked?

You also conveniently, and not unexpectedly, skipped over all of the efforts to improve the situation that didn't involve bombs.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. Do you think tyrants will not use them if we are looking the other way?

We have pulled out of Iraq and are pulling out of Afghanistan...I support both those moves...

but 100,000 were not killed in one fell swoop....but chemical weapons COULD do exactly that...

So where are you on Nuclear weapons...if a dictator decides to low level nuke and "only 1400 die" for example...

You okay with that too?

[morningfog]

24. You are still ignoring the most important part of my post,

because it doesn't involve killing people, I suppose.

No one is looking the other way. The world is focused on Syria. The UN is working on their investigation.

I don't do your bullshit hypothetical. 10,000 gassed or low-level nukes. So save it.

When an already volatile country is entrenched is a violent civil war, we should not join the cause with our military. It is a fool's errand.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. NO one has suggested we join their cause..

we are going to "secure" those chemical weapons if it takes destrying them and we have the capability to do that...

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/ns...if it means destroying them...

[morningfog]

27. LOL. Yeah, you run with that. It would take 75,000 troops on the ground to secure and/or destroy the

weapons.

By bombing one side of a civil war, we would be joining the cause.

[Dragonfli]

28. VR has secret knowledge that Obama is actually planning to destroy all of Assad's Sarin

using 24th century technology that will destroy all the chemical agents (dispersing none) and that use special direction of explosive force technology that will refuse to allow the mega-heat incendiary explosions to kill humans.

Unfortunately Vannilla's message is being obscured by CT's,
A fact VR has very vocally complained of.


Go ahead, ask the poster if the President proposed punitive strikes to send "a message" or has actually said he will target the chemicals and destroy them, the answer will amuse you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. Oh no it does not...

read and be edified:

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[morningfog]

34. You are in la la land.

Totally out of touch with reality.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. oh "I" am...

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

in case you don't even bother to read...see what that link ^^^ says...Air fore developed bombs capable of destroying syrias chemical weapons....go read it to see how. Remember we have been working on this technology for over 10 yrs now...

[morningfog]

41. If you are basing your support of bombings on this, you should re-evaluate your position

based on the weapons that will actually be used.

Even if the weapons you cite to are ready for use and are used, it would still require boots on the ground to secure all the weapons and civilians will still die.

How will you feel when you see that the US uses actual bombs instead of your dream bombs? How will you feel when we kill a thousand or so?

[Dragonfli]

29. The missiles will surely make the lives of Syrian civilians much better -

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. If we drop this kind it will

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[morningfog]

42. Repeatedly posting a link to a dream bomb does not help your case.

Obama's stated objective is not to secure or neutralize the chemical weapons, anyway. It is to punish Assad and deter him from using more.

You are arguing from a different reality.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. Not to to be gassed in their beds would be a step in the right direction

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.

So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat - it is like a super-incendiary bomb - that destroys the chemical or biological agent in situ.

[Dragonfli]

43. How long have you been off your meds? Seriously, I am concerned. /nt

[Mojorabbit]

15. Anyone who is sociopathic enough to gas people in the first place

is not going to be impressed with a limited strike. He would probably do it again just to show he does not give a shit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. we can "limit" those strikes to destroying his chemical weapons...

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[Mojorabbit]

30. There will always be someone out there to sell them or the chemicals to make them to him.

A vacuum will always be filled. It makes no logical sense to do this.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. not true...

78% of all the worlds chemical weapons have already been destroyed...only 5 countries have not signed that agreement...Syria is one...

[Mojorabbit]

40. The UK just recently sent chemicals to them. It can be made.

I can go online now and look up recipes for all manner of things easily made with common chemicals.

[Dragonfli]

32. I forgot, the President lied about punitive strikes to "send a message" and you know his secret plan

to blow up all the chemicals instead, using secret 24th century super heat incendiary bomb technology that won't harm civilians.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. sending the message that we condemn the use of chemical weapons against your critics..

[NuclearDem]

44. Not the only message being sent.

Message to the Russians: we're completely comfortable bombing of your allies, specifically one playing host to one of your military bases.

Message to Iran: We're about to have you totally surrounded.

Message to Iraq: Hey, you know those rivers that are so important to you? We're about to play fast and loose with your neighbor that has chemical weapons and happens to also be the intermediary country for those rivers. Hope we don't accidentally spread any into the water!

Message to Turkey: How about a two-for-one deal on destabilized neighbors? I'm sure you'll appreciate having another haven for the PKK right next door, right?

Message to Lebanon: Hey, hope you don't mind, but Hezbollah's going to get even nastier.

Message to Jordan: Could you hold onto these refugees for a bit? I know it's an economic strain and probably not great for your internal security, but hey, that's war!

Message to Israel: FINISH HIM.

[HardTimes99]

47. Message to Mankind: Fuck You! - nt

[Dems to Win]

49. Wish I could Rec this. Would be a great OP

[HardTimes99]

46. Assumes facts not in evidence. Shame! - nt

[David__77]

51. Actually, I think OP says that is Obama's position.

And, indeed, you are saying that if Obama does not bomb, that this is Obama's position as well.

[leftstreet]

3. Then why is he launching a media blitz?

He's supposedly doing a gazillion interviews prior to Tuesday's speech, drumming up support and hoping to influence Congress

[kentuck]

5. Politics.

He is leaving no stone unturned to show that he wants to bomb Assad but he is being prevented by the Congress at this time. In truth, that is what he wants and that is what he expects, in my opinion.

I may be wrong but I am hoping the President is playing chess this time...

[Igel]

13. So he's wasting a lot of people's time and resources for politics?

Hardly politic.

[leftstreet]

26. Wait, what?

He's going on tv to convince Americans he must bomb

Then Congress votes no

Then he totters off to his Battered Presidents Support group so he can share

[kentuck]

54. That's your description.

Not mine.

I don't think it is in this President's nature to rush into war? Just my opinion.

[DCBob]

53. I think he believes it is his responsibility to persuade congress and others..

that punishing Assad is the right thing to do... and I agree with the OP that he wont go it alone.

[Buddaman]

6. My thoughts also....Good post, Thanks

[kentuck]

7. Thanks Buddaman!

I think the President knows it would be premature to strike Syria at this time. He will not only seek Congressional approval but also international approval before he would embark on such a dangerous military mission, in my opinion. He is simply laying the framework for the future.

[merbex]

9. And if you are correct - and I hope you are! I think that you will see Kerry resign

Or he should - because he will not stop beating the drum for war, he firmly believes the President does not need Congress to act and he needs to go.

He has given the President bad advise and has shown he does not have the temperament to be Sec. of State

[kentuck]

10. You may be right?

In my opinion, you make a valid point.

[KoKo]

11. I agree.. If Obama always wanted to wait for the UN inspection Team to file report and

then go to Congress for a vote...then Kerry should resign. Because he went out Rogue and acted like a crazy man-- even using lies to push his point to try to get Obama to strike Syria over a week ago. If Obama hadn't pushed back last Saturday and said he'd wait for the vote...the bombers would have been on their way and could have already had a week of strikes so far. Certainly the SOS shouldn't be promoting air strikes to invade a sovereign country on his own. It used to be SOS was the agency for Diplomatic Solutions for dealing with other nations.

The other problem could be that Obama and Kerry are playing "Good Cop/Bad Cop" to go ahead and do what they want to and strike Syria. But, some entity put a stop to itbecause they had both gone too far.

I guess we shall see in the coming days...

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. You cannot be serious...Kerry will not be resigning...don't make me laugh so hard

my sides hurt already

[graywarrior]

12. I don't think he will, either.

[Ellipsis]

18. On the money, good post.

[Jefferson23]

23. I hope he doesn't do anything regarding strikes, not now, not later. n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

35. Obama should not consider bombing Syria even if the Congress says yes.

.
.
.

This should not even be a discussion fer chrissakes!

There's more than enough local firepower around Syria to handle the situation.

USA/MIC is doing the big dick-waving thing cuz they have all these weapons,

AND THEY WANT TO USE THEM!

anywhere . . . . .

(sigh)

CC

[HardTimes99]

45. I do hope you are right. - nt

[bigtree]

50. rec for last sentence

'If I am wrong and the President is actually serious about striking Assad, then I think he has blown the best opportunity of his Presidency to actually change our government for the better.'

Although, he hasn't done us any favors asserting he has the authority to act without Congress' approval.

[DCBob]

52. I think you are right.

President Obama is not a warmonger and his only goal here, in my opinion, is to deter Assad and others from using weapons like poison gas. Even if congress votes no, I think it still sends the message that if anyone does it again the outcome might be much different.

[Squinch]

55. Kentuck, it looks like you might be being proven right.

[kentuck]

56. I don't know...

I'm thinking they may have bigger fish to fry, since they seem to have turned down the Russian offer to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons? I'm thinking they may be looking at Iran? I hope not. I will be terribly disappointed in Barack Obama if that is the case.

[Squinch]

57. I might be wrong, but I think it's still on the table, because the House vote on the

airstrikes has just been postponed as a result of the Russian offer.

Stuff happening, here. Who knows what the hell it is, though.