Targeted, Precision Drone Strikes & The Responsibility to Protect Act.

I am actually kind of surprised that you are for this Stiln. 

I mean, I know you lean Democrat, but this is just about every bad excuse for war that I have ever heard. 

 

So now Obama is saying he didn't draw a red line, the world did. Oh boy. Obama: "First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line."

I suppose we all just heard him wrong when he said those red line comments in August 2012. Or where you speaking on behalf of the entire world Mr. President? He goes on to then say his credibility isn't on the line but the international community and Congress' credibility is!

What a POS this liar is. He won't even own up to something he said. Now we are looking at going to war (or whatever cute little wording they want to use for invading another country) to defend the credibility of the office of President for a comment the President won't even take responsibility for.

Obama should have played football instead of basketball. He'd make a great DB, I've never seen someone backpedal as quickly as this guy.

Vladimir Putin came out today and said that he would support a limited strike if there was proof that it was not the Syrian Rebels committing a false flag attack. 

Sounds like Obama needs to share his intelligence, and revisit the UN option. 

https://english.al-akhbar.com/node/14231

 

 

The false flag narrative is not going away, it is on Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, Al-Jazeera, RT., drudge  et. all alternative news sites, like Natural news, Infowars, before it is news, Black listed news.com, etc etc etc.  

There is apparently evidence that the first chemical strike (that was ignored by the international community), was at the hand of the rebels. 

I have questions of the validity of idea that it was sarin gas, The videos that are released show people rinsing out their eyes, and having a lot of mucous/ saliva,  etc, something that is more common with lower grade gasses. 

If it was sarin, anyone exposed would be violently seizing and breaking their own bones in violent convulsions. 

Either way,  how bout some proof.

This is not a war, this is a short term military conflict.

And like I've said numerous times, drones are absolutely the ultimate humanitarian weapon for concise targets like this.

Our drone program is essentially wasted pork if we cannot use them for conflicts like this...

Why even have standing military or funnel revenue into the military industrial complex if never use this absolutely brilliant technology.

I've said this over and over and over and over again..

When comparing drones to other forms of aerial warfare they induce far less collateral damage.  Especially when comparing them to the Japanese fire-bombing campaigns, German carpet bombing, etc....

Rand Paul is an israel hawk..

But I have always said that if israel was invaded, I would support military assistance because they are an ally similarly to GB, FR, etc.....

But in the now, how can anyone in this thread tell me that backing off and letting Assad do whatever it is he likes is good idea. How can any of you sit back and say, yet lets let the French by themselves take care of this conflict or some nations of the Arab League resolve this issue.

The US is if not the only country with predator drones that provide such an advantage on the battlefield that I cannot fathom why anyone here thinks not using them is good idea..

But it also goes back to our responsibility to protect:

1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility

3. If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

And I believe that the non-combatants in Syria deserve help from the US because no one else is stepping up..

Maybe nobody else is stepping up because it is their civil war

The united states is not the international community. 

The international community has decided not to get involved. 

 

I would fully support sending money to countries willing to help the 2 million + refugees, I would fully support aiding in the extraction of more refugees and getting them to safety. That is not what we are talking about. 

We are talking now about committing an act of war against a sovereign nation that is in a civil war with a group that has elements of Al Qaeda.  We are talking about handing the country over to folks who enjoy eating the hearts out of their vanquished enemy, splash acid in the faces of women who can read, and enjoy wholesale genocide of other religions and cultures. 

You can't tell me that you believe the "free Syrian army" is a legitimate democratic force for peace.  They make the Muslim Brotherhood look good. 

according to newt gingrich, "military intervention" is not even mentioned in this alleged document

Exactly the reason I support the US taking action here and why our Government should deploy targeted drone strikes designed to act discriminantly, precisely, and proportionately.

I truly believe it is our duty to protect the defenseless citizens that have endured these horrible acts of chemical weapons, and in order to do so drones offer the best option to deal with this conflict.

I think GB is grossly wrong on this and I'm not sure why they don't support action, maybe it is because GB's intelligence agencies (which are the best in the world, far better than the US) either made a mistake in Iraq supporting our intervention and not wanting to make the same mistake because they are afraid of a long term involvement, or the simply don't want to use the resources.

I think its the latter.

Honestly I supported the Iraq War from the beginning, and Bush's efforts to protect innocent Kurds, and other Muslims in Iraq and I actually believe that there was something there, even though we supposedly found nothing.....

People can whine all they want, but before we entered in Iraq in 2003, GB was soooooo sure that Saddam had WMDs and other chemical or nuclear weapons that it's hard to believe there was absolutely nothing in Iraq.  And I don't believe this is a conspiracy. I spoke to Captain in the Army about a few months ago and even he told me that just because our military and intelligence agencies did not find anything in Iraq does not mean that there was nothing there...

Yeah I don't believe supporting the rebels and toppling Assads regime is the ultimate move to carry out but deploying targeted drones are the best option in creating the most effective impact.

I think it is something that could get extremely complicated but, I do believe and have faith in our policy makers on this one, especially Hagel, Kerry and martin dempsey are right on this issue. I honestly support what classified info they have in order to deploy the appropriate force which does not seem like they will be using drones but more of a straight up bombing campaign. Which I don't agree with but, who knows they could very well be deceiving the public and instructing the CIA to operated drones, i dont know..

Congress unwilling to support strike on Syria. Finally, someone not going along with the self-appointed Messiah of the U.S. I guess the golfer that's been the most divisive president in history is having difficulty getting his way. Maybe he'll try the "Nuclear" option like the healthcare debacle. I bet all the lefties are thrilled that he's not being allowed to attack a country that's no threat to the U.S.

I don't know enough to put all the blame on the President but death of 4 Americans is anything but petty.

Stiln, if congress approves a limited military strike, I am not going to like it, but I guess I will have to deal with it. If they do not approve it and he goes anyway.  I would say that it is time for impeachment. 

It would actually be good for the country to hammer out some of these war powers that have become so vague since the Korean war.  

If the strike is not approved which is unlikely as most congressman think, I think Obama will back off but he will orchestrate a more covert ops strike with the CIA from langley.. but who knows. I don't think theres any chance its not approved.

From Congress?

I am not seeing much support.

Here is another question.  We know that the Chemical weapons sites have probably mobilized and brought the weapons under ground (if it was Syrian weapons used). 

Say we weigh in on this civil war.

Say we take out Assad, or lead to an environment where he is eliminated. 

How can we ensure that the Al Qaeda rebels will not just gain access to all of those chemical weapons, just like they gained access to Ghaddafi's arsenal? Unless we put boots on the ground?

Are we not only going to aid and support Al Qaeda in taking over a country, but also going to essentially hand over an arsenal of WMD? That sounds extremely short sighted. 

 

There are countless problems with remiving the regime (see Egypt). There are countless problems with keeping the regime in place (there is no doubt they used chemical weapons).

Should we get involved (like we did in Iraq, Egypt, albeit indirectly) or stand back knowing people will die (Kosovo) are tough questions. I don't envy Obama's position.

 

But what is just pathetic are the lefties advocating for action now, when Bush was condemned for the same and the righties arguing for restraint whilst screaming for Obama to take some form of action.

Politics should not drive our decision. Morality should. Too bad partisanship is more important than morality for most.

I haven't seen proof about the weapons use.  Not saying that they haven't released their super secret intel, I just haven't seen it, and I have seen multiple news sources overseas that say it was the Rebels.

I do not think it is a straight morality issue.

Our options are only bad and worse.

Does it help the people of Syria if we drone Assad?  I do not think it does, they just get a radical Jihadi government. 

Does it help the people of Syria if we bomb the chemical weapons sites?  Nope, they not only have probably moved the weapons, but you cant bomb chemical storage facilities, and be certain that the weapons will not either immediately breach or cook off and shoot into neighboring towns. 

The idea that we can just strike without boots on the ground is not only silly and foolhardy, it is downright dangerous. 

We found that out in Libya when the rebels captured stinger missiles, and vast weapons caches (that they are using in Syria) (possibly where their chemical weapons came from, Possibly why our ambassador died)(( all speculation)), 

You do not topple a regime and allow elements of Al Qaeda to pick over it's bones. 

Also, 

Russia, Iran, China. 

They might not exercise overt military power, or use traditional warfare. I think it is clear they will use "soft power" and asymmetrical warfare. 

Also,  if we have to be in the UN, this should be their responsibility,  we should weigh in and be lobbying the UN to act on this. 

I think that if we cant rely on the UN to weigh in on this, we should immediately withdrawal, and make that the case, and the fight that we engage in.  It will have much better long term benefits. 

To take djbrows comments a step further, as I said before I supported Bush W's involvement in Iraq but disagreed with his ignorant and limited approach in terms of reaching out to military commanders outside of his inner circle for advice, strategic planning etc...

When you look at the lefties in particular which gets angry is the fact that most of them support wildly sending aid to africa, israel, latin america, etc.. but then when it comes to either bombing a country or deploying soliders they get bent out shape, I dont support giving aid to nations that have gdp per capita much higher than countries in africa and latin america like we do with with israel ,egypt and jordan...

Nonetheless we have to do something rick, and droning the stockpiles, but not necessarily toppling Assad if he understand the impact of the technology we have to put to use that would obliterate his nation (hopefully would never come to that but since 1,000 estimated have already perished) how can we stand by and let that Assad do far worse..  Using surgical strikes with out a regime change seems hard to believe on paper, but I'm not gonna say I know how to strategically plan these kinds of strikes but I'll tell you what, I have faith in these leaders, Obama, Hagel, Kerry, etc.. over Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz......

Of course far more questions, that revolve around, can this limited use of force achieve a narrow set of goals, the problem with assad having some regional allies even though absolutely do too in Israel, France, and some Arab League nations.  So I don't believe standing idly by is the right thing

You think Obama knows how to bomb anything? 

Maybe a first debate,  not a chemical stockpile.

 

You don't just drop bombs on volatile chemical areas.  It is just about as dumb as saying that they are going to bomb a nuclear reactor, to help the people around it.  Bombing will not take the primers out of the mortars, nor the distribution mechanisms out of commission. 

I am no genius, but my guess is that they are probably surrounded by some nice "collateral damage".

A surgical strike is a bit of a joke, surgical strikes take collateral damage just as easily as tomahawk missiles do. You are getting hung up on marketing. 

I am not saying to stand Idly by.  I am saying to take the argument to the UN, and confront Russia, IRan, and China.  Everyone agrees that Assad is an fool, I just don't understand why it is easier to bomb him then it is to bring that case to the UN? 

 

Could it be that the UN is bullshit? 

probably, but why not even attempt to make it work? 

The point is,

If we weigh in with force.

Assad gets taken out.

We own whatever happens to that country.  Not the Un, not NATO.  The United States of America. 

We will end up being there,  mark my words.

I hate to say it, but a strike is about the dumbest course of action. IF we do authorize military action, God forbid, we should unleash the entire might of the United States Military on their monkey behind, and get ready for a long occupation. 

I only say that because we need boots on the ground to secure chemical stockpiles. 

We need boots on the ground to protect civilians, (bombs cant do that). 

But, ultimately, involving ourselves is a bad idea.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/08/bombing-chemical-weapons-sites-could-endanger-civilians-cause-environmental-catastrophe-experts-warn.html

https://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/30/bombing-chemical-weapons-stockpiles-could-cause-deadly-nerve-agent-release-experts-say/

Lets just stay the f*** home......