They are questions asked many times since the Syria violence began: When will it stop? What can the U.S. and international community do? What options are left?
Stephen Hadley, former White House national security adviser for George W. Bush and now a senior adviser for the U.S. Institute of Peace, weighs in.
CNN: If you were sitting in the White House today and you were seeing the pictures of violence, you would be outraged. Is the legal question enough to stop intervention (the fact that there's no resolution from the U.N. Security Council nor any invitation from the Arab League)? At what point does the president of the United States, a prime minister of the U.K. or a president of France have to say, "I don't care, I have to stop this?"
HADLEY: He has to be willing to do that. We went into Bosnia, as you know, without a U.N. Security Council resolution.
It would be helpful to have the Arab League, to have neighborhood countries on board with us, because it will make effective whatever we decide to do. But the president of the United States has to make a decision of what is in U.S. interest. You know if you go to the U.N., you are going to get a Russia/Chinese veto. That isn't an option.
I think the question is, what is in the interests of the United States? What do we need to do in that region? And I think the answer is becoming clear.
Related: What can the world do?
CNN: Is this massacre enough to be a turning point? There are some who say, well, the Russians signed on to the Kofi Annan mission. Now that it is clearly failing, maybe they will feel some moral imperative to take it to a next step. Do you have any reason to believe the Russians will do anything significant?
HADLEY: I don't think so. And I think it's not just the massacre, as terrible as the loss of life has been. It's also what's happening in that country as long as President Bashar al-Assad stays there.
Many people say, if we intervene, it is going to cause sectarian violence to spread in the region. It's getting to the point if we don't intervene in some way, there is going to be sectarian violence. It is descending into sectarian violence.
And that sectarian violence runs the risk of pitting Sunni against Shia in Lebanon, in Jordan, in Iraq, maybe even in Turkey itself. So it's getting to the point that if we don't do something more decisive, it will plunge the region into instability and sectarian violence. And that would be a tragedy.
CNN: What would it take? Intelligence sources say there are 24, 26 potential sites inside Syria where they have weapons of mass destruction. People at the Pentagon, if you talked to allied government, they would say at a minimum 75,000 boots on the ground were needed to secure those sites, to have reasonable safety. Is that right?
HADLEY: Boots on the ground is not the only option. ... What we need to do is we need to pull the pillars that remain supporting the al-Assad regime — the military, the minority groups like the Alawites and the Christians, and business community — and we need to pull them away from the regime.
What's going to do that? We need a Syrian National Council and an opposition movement that is assumed by the international community, that has a cross-sectarian message. I believe we need to begin arming those groups within Syria that will support that cross-sectarian message.
And, finally, I think the United States is at the point where we need to prepare for some kind of intervention. That doesn't necessarily mean boots on the ground. People have talked about no-fly zones, no-drive zones, areas where the opposition could congregate and train. I think we have to prepare that.
I'm reluctant to say it: I think we have to prepare for it. One, we might need it and, two, the act of preparation, figuring out what operationally we can do, getting support in the region, may actually help tip the military, the business community and the minorities to decide, "We're going to go down with al-Assad [so] we better be part of a new Syria."
- This interview originally appeared on "JKUSA"
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Why intervene? They chose Islame. Islame is lame and the problem.
How did you punish yourself for crying and whining over trivial stuff when you were a child?
Three things:
(1) This conflict is about political oppression, not religion.
(2) For the most part, the people who live there probably didn't "choose" Islam any more than you chose the religion that you grew up in. It's their culture, so even if you object to some aspects of it (and there are plenty of aspects of RADICAL Islam that we can reasonably object to), you can't treat it as some conscious choice that they made and can just abandon as a group because some other culture doesn't like it.
(3) "Islame"? Really? Do we really have to descend to the level of schoolyard insults... that aren't even very good or funny by schoolyard standards? Let's try and raise the level of public discussion, not lower it even further.
You tell'em CJ.
If its political, why are they descibing the facets by religious definition? This region as well as several other middle east locations have been fighting for decades. I am 47, and can still remember childhood memories of the news reports. I served aboard the U.S.S. John F Kennedy during the 80's when almost 300 marines lost there lives as well as pilots from our ship. Common sense isn't political nor religious... and i see no sense for these acts of violence.
You are correct, for the most part. People don't usually choose their faith; it's what their family worshiped when they were kids. Culture tends to set it firmly, too. In Islam, the culture is powerful in doing this. In the Islamic world, most people grow up knowing nothing about anything else. Islam permeates every small part of their cultures. By the time they're adults, the Islamic view of things is set in stone.
There IS one problem with your post – and many others, too. You assume Islam is "just another religion," and what works for one works for all. It doesn't, when dealing with Islam. It is as absolutist as religions get. You not only don't choose it, you'd better appear good and pious, or else. Nothing in our standards fits when applied to Islam and Muslims. We expect them to respond the way most normally prudent people would, and get confused when they don't. Islam is utterly alien to anything we comprehend as normal. I wish it were otherwise.
You mention, as many people do, RADICAL Islam. Islam needs no radicals; it already IS that way. You can't BE a Muslim without subscribing to every inch of it. The violent ones are not merely exceptions, like abortion-killing Catholics or even Tim MacVeigh. They are not all violent at the moment, but MUST do violent jihad at least once. So the quiescent ones are simply waiting. They aren't less "radical" than the ones jihading. I wish that, too, were otherwise.
Islam has a prime directive, and every Muslim must work all his/her life to achieve it. Islam leaves very little of a person's time to do other things; even earning a living is a second priority. To them, life is given to them to serve Allah, conquer the world, and gain paradise; nothing else matters. And they DO force conversions – the "no compulsion in religion" text in the Quran died the day Muhammad forced his own first conversion. They've been at it ever since. Hate is taught to Muslim children from the cradle.
When I began studying Islam in 1994, I was appalled by what I learned, but had to accept the reality of it. I've since learned that Muslims depend on most of us NOT studying Islam, but rather, going to THEM with our questions, so they can tell us comforting lies. ALL Muslims lie about their faith to us infidels – it's a VIRTUE in Islam.
Islam is ugly and scary, but we need to deal with it pragmatically, without violence and hate. Hate accomplishes nothing except to corrode the hater – haven't we seen this from our own haters? War on Islam is what they WANT, to "justify" even more violence on their part. There are over a billion of them, and they're scattered all over the globe. War simply won't work. But it WOULD weaken us even more, militarily and economically – Muslims include THAT as part of their plans for conquest. Thwarting their goals is the only thing that has a chance. But to do so, we'd better get started soon, because their plan to take over the world CAN work, and no amount of military, no amount of wealth, can stop them. I can see them beginning to mobilize. Most people could, if their minds were willing to accept the reality of a mobilization. Instead, they only see a superficial set of events, viewing them in isolation, without connecting the dots to a possible plan of global conquest. But the dots are there, to be seen and connected, if the mindset isn't a closed trapdoor. I worry, because I don't think there is much time left. There are bound to be many Muslims who hate Islam, but can't get rid of it without being killed. We can't know how many there are, or where they might be, so we can't rely on them for much help. Islam is like Hotel California; you can check in but not out.
When they tell us they "yearn for democracy, liberty and rights," they are lying. Islam is the "inside-out" of democracy. To Muslims, it is obscene and blasphemous. So WHY do so many come to the free world in droves? Are they masochists? No. They are there to wait. When the call goes out to jihad, they'll do it from within, like those doctors in Glasgow – only multiplied by several million orders of magnitude. Meanwhile, yes, they can seem very amiable.
BTW, there is only ONE version of Shari'a. Media who tell you otherwise are either uninformed or lying. And most lying by media is – you guessed it – for the oil. Is oil worth our survival? It surely will come to that, in due time.
I am a liberal, and most liberals are oh, so tolerant of Islam. Which would be appropriate EXCEPT when dealing with Islam. Most liberals are unable to mix their basic instincts with something this alien and horrendous – but good liberals are supposed to revere education and do their homework on issues. Most are too afraid that study will confirm their worst fears about Islam. But if they don't, they will continue finding that their best efforts fail. Good liberals will FACE realities, even the ugliest of them. The conservatives are more linear. They thrive on the principles of hate and war. Which is both stupid and will accelerate our own demise. This is no place for partisanship, no place for bigotry, and no place for tolerating people whose god tells them we all deserve to be slaughtered. The only effective approach is to accept the reality and thwart their goals. Pretending they're good people on the whole, without considering what Islam DOES to their mindsets and world views, is a deadly mistake. Many of them probably ARE good people inside, but Islam rubs off civilized views and replaces them with venom, and a lust for jihad. It's doubtful we can save them from this, but we CAN save ourselves from being conquered. Set partisanship aside; it only helps Muslims confuse us. This is a human issue, that affects all people. The more divided we are about Islam, the better Muslims like it. We shouldn't maltreat any Muslims; some of them were converted with lies and are, themselves, victims. Thwarting them without violence is what Muslims would have trouble coping with. Let's use that, then.
When I began studying Islam, it was hopefully to find reassurance that it really WAS peaceful and tolerant, but what I learned set my hair on end. Islam is about conquest. Manliness plays a vital role in that, too. Muslims are rather overly focused on their manliness, you may have noticed. It is the basis of the oppression of women in Islam – Muslims want – need – to feel they are masters, in total control of everything. This focus on manhood makes planning for the conquest of the world a dominant motive in the mind of every Muslim, and helps to make them obsessive about it. Thus, when someone insults Islam, it is insulting the manliness of every living Muslim. How do men behave when their manliness has been besmirched? Thus, they can go on rampages over cartoons.
Islam is the worst threat humanity has ever faced. That isn't said lightly, but with studied knowledge of Islam. The time to get pragmatic about Islam is now. It means business, and wants US unprepared and vulnerable – ignorant of the realities of Islam. Should we be lazy and not study it, playing into their hands? It's what we've been doing.
The best defense we have is our public – a knowledgeable one that knows – and accepts – those harsh realities, and is ready to thwart their goals of conquest. So the best thing any of us can do is to study Islam from its OWN texts, and never, ever rely on any Muslim to tell us the truth. From listening to Muslims, we are in a state of confusion – how can the religion of peace and tolerance have countless "believers" committing horrific acts of violence all over the world? We are confused by this, but if we studied Islam directly, without consulting Muslims, the confusion would all go away. But the reality seems to be too much for many people to encompass in their minds. Unless we want them to conquer us, we MUST face, encompass and deal objectively with thwarting Islam's goals of conquest. If we don't, Islam will surely WIN.
Can you please spend some time doing this homework?
Before sticking our fingers into other countries' affairs let's clean up at home first. We can't control gang violence in LA, much less secure street violence in DC or Detroit nor control the Texas – Mexico border. Why police the world trying to pretend we have it all figured out while our own problems stick out like a sore thumb?
Agreed, it wouldn't be appreciated and America hating muslims deserve nothing from us.
I understand what H.B. is saying I have listened to the Kuran, read many versions of the origin of Islam and fear that it is a total indoctrination to total submission. There seems to be no room for anything else. This is truly Satan's most triumphant strategy. He will have us hate each other and feed on that forever.
islame, you are totally right. islam is the proximate cause of it all. facts and statistical proof is overwhelming. the hardest part to swallow is that our own govt lies repeatedly that islam is a religion of peace. it never was, is not, and never can be or will be. and the best way to find that out is to leave them alone to themselves.
And next you are going to tell us Christianity is a "peaceful" religion right? Laugh
Dergin, you clown, putting Islam in the same context as Christianity is like saying a candle is as hot as the surface of the sun.
Our government's view about Islam is heavily influenced by international political realities, and if it seems too tolerant, please remember that most of YOU feel the same way, that Islam IS peaceful and tolerant, and the violent ones are radicals.
But even if our government DID its homework on Islam, that doesn't mean that our policies about it will be visibly changed. It would be deemed best to let the Islamic world think our government is still as ignorant as the people are.
We don't have to make decisions on policy regarding Muslims, so it's all too easy to judge. When the onus is on YOU to make those decisions, you're faced with a tangled web of interconnected needs, fallacies, domestic demands for oil, international imperatives and bigotry. What the public may view as simple decisions are NOT the ones that are always acceptable to our leadership, nor should they be. The public's simple decisions tend to be shallow and linear, which could result in disasters. The issues involved in dealing with Islam are extremely complex. Moreover, there are different sects of Islam, and each is absolutist about it, so all the "other sects" are both wrong and blasphemous – they must be killed.
Which is, in a way, fortunate for us. If not for their own internal genocidal bloodwars, they'd all be free to concentrate on conquering US.
Islam tends to rub off compassion, which is why they could even THINK of using women and children as shields during a battle. How they can WANT there to be casualties among these innocents is beyond anything our western cultures can encompass. By OUR standards, women and children must be protected. But that's OUR standards, not theirs. To them, the dead women and children become martyrs and go straight to paradise; that should be enough for them. So if they kill some babies in order to push their agendas, well, they, too, will be martyrs, so it's okay, even if it is regrettable.
The one thing I have learned is not to trust what Muslims tell us. Only believe it when non-Muslim information tends to confirm it – and with hard evidence, not just words and erroneous assumptions. And not always even then, because political correctness often muddies those waters, too.
@Chum Joely said that the problem in Syria is political, and not religious. Wrong. It is both. But the religious aspect dictates how the political part – the desire to have the power to oppress others – will be played. Syria's conflict is intensely sectarian. Syria's conflict is as much about whose version of Islam should rule as it is about who the next oppressive dictator ought to be. They don't want democracy; Islam respects the strongman dictator. But the Arab Spring has been deposing such regimes that were unwise enough to allow their countries to retain secular governments. Those leaders, like Mubarak and Khadafi, weren't PIOUS ENOUGH. The Arab Spring wants Islamic States, and has been creating them, bing, bing, bing, one after another. And we still think of them as people who want peace and democracy?
We're afraid to acknowledge the truth, thus proving that terrorism WORKS, even on people far away from the chaos. We're so afraid of Islam that we've gone into collective – and obsessive – denial. That's suicidal, anti-survival.
I knew what they were all about from the moment that I realized that the "Arab Spring" was actually a "Muslim Spring." That made their motives very predictable. They didn't want democracy; they wanted new Islamic States – and they got them. The question really is: how can anybody, by now, imagine the Arab Spring is seeking benign goals? Yet they do. Incredible.
Each of us can play a significant role in thwarting Islam's goal of global conquest by studying Islam from its own texts and never consulting a Muslim about anything. Why haven't we done it already? Because of our obsessive denial, based on fear. We hope somebody will come along and just "fix it" for us. But only WE can start that ball rolling by educating ourselves and accepting the horrors of Islam. Then we'd choose leaders who are equally pragmatic – and unwilling to wallow in denial any longer. That would be a game-changer. As long as we do NOT fall into the trap of waging war. Neither of our political parties has any solutions at all. Both are WAY off base.
We MUST face reality. And we MUST excise all our partisanship from issues regarding Islam and Muslims. We must see Islam as it really IS; otherwise none of our policies can possibly make any difference.
Will we do that? I doubt it. And it makes me sad. I won't be here by the time they conquer us, but people I know and love WILL be. And so will YOU.
I dread for the future.
So the world sits idly by while once again a tyrant begins to execute his own people and starts to exterminate those that would oppose him, after World War 2 WE PROMISED to NEVER again let this happen, I guess our promises are not to be trusted.
We shouldn't have made promises we couldn't keep.
Let the "world" then handle it. Those "people" seem pretty well armed with machine guns, rpg's and other hardware. If you want to start a revolution, you should garner support before you attempt an overthrow. Not call out that you are drowning after you get blasted.
Oh please Steve.. we’ve gotten involved enough times that the middle east see us a crusaders trying to force our amoral western ways on them. They cry for help and when we do they cry it’s our fault.
Agreed. The real issue though is that women and children are being murdered. There is absolutely excuse for any civilized nation to stand by and not take action against these ghouls immediately. They are tsk-tsking this crime the same way they did the German concentration camps and the genocide in Darfur (or for that matter, the genocide of the American Indians). Our country has a stellar track record of not helping the innocents that are being slaughtered.
Agreed! I don't understand how we can sit by while innocent women and children our killed. Do I want us involved in another conflict, no! Do I think they would turn on us, yes. But as humans we cannot allow this to happen. I guess the question is, is it worth it?
Frenkly, I believe that if we are foolish to interfere we will be sucked into another war, Who want's another war? I have seen many Republicans that are dying to have another Iraq.
We will have to be very careful that it doesn't happen.
That's because our military and civil leaders have not taken the position of 'laying waste to the land'. Bombing them out of existence would pretty much end the three thousand years of warfare in the Middle East.
First wave: take out all energy and communications networks. Second wave: Take out all known military targets. Third wave: Take out all government buildings and associated agency complexes. Fourth wave: Napalm all agricultural tracts, water works and manufacturing plants.. It is really quite simple.
Agree Les. We should besiege them until everyone in there dies from hunger and starvation. Then we should direct ourselves at Russia and start a nuclear war. We should nuke China while we are at it. Then we should reintroduce slavery. Then we should attack Britain to get even. Let us show the world who the real barbarians are!
Why intervene when it costs lives, money, and time? Why intervene when one side (now killing its own civilians) might be replaced by the other side (partially composed of terrorists)? Why does CNN post this yellow jingoistic journalism? Usually I like Fareed Zakaria's writings, but this time I vehemently disagree!
The United States shouldn't intervene in Syria. Why? This is an Arab issue that should be solved by other Arab countries. Why does Europe or the U.S. need to be involved? Why?
Hey , Obama " his father is Muslim " !
So ?
My father was a catholic, but i dont practice it.
Whats your point ?
Very INTERESTING article which explains the weirdness of the Syrian situation:
SYRIA: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31122
Why would you intervene between two groups of mass murderers?
Behind door number 1) The current government that will kill at any cost to stay in power.
Behind door number 2) Islamo fascists – we know where that's going to end up. Burka's for everyone and a bunch of dead christians with their heads cut off.
There is no right choice here except stay out of it. We've sacrificed enough of our brave men and women.
For Fred Phred; behind CNN's website, a sadist who classifies infants as mass murderes.
Agree, Fred Phred !!
I agree with Fred! No more wars!
Amen. I concur. Perfectly stated. I hope President Obama is listening.
Do you like the slaughter of children with knives ?
Alawites who rule Syria are not human beings
They are a minority dirty .
Seriously... why is the world bowing to russia. About time to kick russia out of some world clubs? I can't see how people can just ignore this and not do anything because the commies don't want to budge. Go anyway.
Russias our allie you morron
Russia is our ally where?
lol...ally yet we put defense shields in their neighboring countries...i think your the moron to believe whatever your told and buy it. Muslims are not the enemies.
To Ilussive: You wrote that Russia is our ally. Is it really? Can you name one important matter in which the Russians stood alongside the U.S. or supported the U.S.? When Al Quaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11/2001, did the Russians help us? Did they support our military action in Afghanistan, or our invasion of Iraq? Did they assist NATO in Libya? Have they helped us financially? How, exactly, has Russia been our ally?
You think Russia is our ally ?? LOL
Well said Diana R, Same goes for China, they are not our ally either.
@Diana R: Why does it upset you that Russia might have its own interests? They fought against our enemies in WWII. After 9-11 and since then we have been using their airfield.
They have supported us in almost everything, standing down and withholding their veto against Libya. But seeing how that mandate was abused and went so far beyond its authorization, they will not support another.
To Dominick: It doesn't upset me that Russia has its own interests. As a matter of fact, I'm not upset by anything surrounding this article. But I can't agree that Russia is our ally.
If America believes that Russia is its enemy and Pakistan with Saudis are allies – so be it! It is funny and stupid, but I am not going to argue!
Get rid of the entire country... turn it all to glass
We went into Bosnia without a UN Security Counsel resolution but that was with President Clinton in office and a US congress not bent on seeing that he and the US failed! With President Obama in office, the situation is a whole lot more complex because whatever he does or does not do, the rightwingers in congress have made it clear that they would block any attempts to intervene in Syria or would call for the President's impeachment because simply because the wish of the rightwingers in congress is to see to it that our President and country fail! Remember the Libyan crisis? The GOP were outspoken in accusing President Obama of "dragging his feet while civilians were being attacked by the Ghadaffi regime" but when the President waited for the UN to pass legislation for intervention and the President had the support of the international community to shoulder most of the load, the GOP did a shamless 360, accusing the President of "rushing to war" and sarcastically asking "what is the mission and the end game" But I believe in due time, Mr. Assad will be dealt his faith and will be removed by force if he doesn't decide to step down and he is definitely going to be charged with war crimes against humanity.
Funny stuff!!
What's so funny about what Blah Blah wrote? He called spot on. No matter what the president does, he'll be opposed by Boehner and McConnell in the House and Senate. That is just the way it is. Linsey Graham and John McCain only have so much pull and influence.
It is funny because the leftists are blaming the Republicans for blocking anything Obama wants to do yet they must have a short term memory since they are the same ones who railed on Bush for everything he did.
If Obama chooses to go into Syria he will be fully supported by the same yahoos who opposed Bush going into Iraq.
Can you say HYPOCRITE?
@MIke
Well that’s kind of true lol. But how again does that justify the current actions of the repubs? Your argument is that of a five year olds.
Great post, Blah. I agree 100%. The Republicans will attack President Obama for any action taken regarding this issue.
So it sounds like you want Pres. Obama to intervene...just like Pres. Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq (where there were many U.N. Resolutions authorizing action for non-compliance).
If you are for intervening in Syria, you have to support what the U.S. did in Iraq – Hussein was way worse than any of the Syrian leaders. The Taliban in Afghanistan were also at least as bad as the Syrian government.
WRONG!
If the UN ultimately approves of intervention in Syria, the a hypothetical participation by the USA in that military action would not equate to support for Iraq Invasion of 2003. That is bizarre logic that does work for the conservative mind-set (in an attempt for absolution from guilt), but not for free thinking and well-read persons.
In regards to Afghanistan, I supported the attack and invasion of 2001 and now support the continuation of action by the president's policies and the ultimate draw-down and departure date. This is a separate conflict in which there was a clear enemy that deserved our retribution.
It was President Obama's decision to refocus military efforts in Afghanistan that led to the death of Osama Bin Laden. For that, I'll be forever grateful to Mr. Obama.
"Intervening" would imply getting involved is some currently occurring hostilities within a nation. There was nothing of the sort occurring in Iraq or Afghanistan. Therefore, Bush didn't "intervene," he invaded.
Fred,
You cannot compare intervention in Syria with the invasion of Iraq for several reasons! First of all, in Iraq we invaded a sovereign country in a time of peace where there was absolutely no domestic unrest, atrocities or aggression taking place in Iraq! Secondly, the Iraqi people did not come to the UN asking for a change of regime or for freedom from anything whatsoever! Third, the UN mandate to intervene in Iraq military was conditional as it stated that military intervention was to ensue should Iraq fail to cooperate with UN mandate to disarm! However, UN inspectors were on the ground dismantling the Iraqi military peacefully and without bloodshed and Iraq was in full compliance with the disarmament measures when all of a sudden GWB intervened by ejecting UN inspectors from doing their job prematurely, telling Mr Annan that the UN inspectors had 48 hours to leave before the bombs started to fall! Fourth, we invaded Iraq over a lie about bogus and nonexistent WMD's! In contrast, Syria is different! Completely different!
STOP making SENSE! You're confusing them!
@ Anthony R. Seta
I’m afraid not. Obama’s ‘decision’ to refocus of Afghanistan had already been agree upon when Bush was in office. It also had nothing to do with Osama Ben Laden. That was an intelligence op. An op that had been following the same directive that it has since again… Bush was in office. (btw, it took place in Pakistan not Afghanistan. I’m no fan of that hick Bush but giving credit to Obama for what? Not opposing the already agreed upon plans is as conservative mind-set thinking that Fred uses.
If you do a "360" you go around and end up where you started. Perhaps they did a 540?
HAHAHAHA
or maybe a 180? lol
Please stop–I'm getting dizzy.
McCain wants air strikes. No one wants war but, we better do something soon or it sounds like the violence is going to spread.
Just bomb Asaad's home and a few government buildings in Damascas. That will be enough for them to get serious about some form of peace.
Maybe chaos in the region would be GOOD for America. Instead of the terrorists fighting us, they'd be fighting EACH OTHER.
Yes, that worked out quite well in Iraq.
You have no idea what you are talking about do you? lol
Chaos in the Middle East will raise oil prices to $ 500
This means that the U.S. economy will collapse!!
We need to grow a pair and stand up to this crap. Everyone talks about the Holocaust and says, "Never again." Then it was Rwanda, Darfur.... how long are we going to stand by and watch these innocent men, women, and children die?? Where is the outrage?? These are human beings!!!
Pack your bags and get over there as fast as you can to help them out.
Good intentions stop no train wrecks. Mostly, even trying does little but get you crushed.
Other countries need to grow a pair and support this fully and move forward with action rather than watch us stain our hands with blood and criticize, lets take the back seat in this one and offer a free for all on who ever wants to take action on Syria and see if they can do a better job than us, if no one take the action in a month then we can decide if its worth taking action if we don't then its back up for grabs and we stay the hell out of it but if we do then leave Syria's fate in the hands of America without criticism because it obviously wasn't better in anyone else
Well said
NATO has to intervene. If I was Obama, I would convene a telephone/video conference call of all of the major NATO countries and lay down the law. We still have enough clout to do that. Afterwards, the way to go is this: (1) arm the rebels with all possible modern firepower and train them how to use it. (2) NATO should not put any boots on the ground; (3) NATO should bomb to hell any concentrations of tanks, artillary, communications centers, etc. (4) use drones (5) use our intel capabilities to guide the rebels. Above all, no boots on the ground. The rebels do not want that and neither do the American people. After Asaad is captured, let the Syrian people deal with him and his family.
Perhaps you're right! NATO might be able to intervene in Syria without UN resolution just as President Clinton did in Bosnia and they won't have to worry about ramifications like the Obama administration would face in an election year where the issue would be politicized!
Any action taken by the president will be politicized. Therefore, it is better to take the punches from the Right for doing nothing instead of taking punches for doing something. Doing nothing means the president is weak. Doing something in Syria means that he is supporting muslim terrorists/extremists with US taxpayer money, etc...
You get the point. So do the others. That is why the Right is pushing so hard now to do something, since they can see the political advantages to hurt the president. These folks on the right are not humanitarians.
NATO is pretty much toothless these days–it's basically the US military with a committee in charge, most of the members of which don't even speak the same language. NATO goes to war, we pay the bills.
What should we do about that Russian Military base in Syria ?
Bomb it ?
How do you think the Russians will react ?
Hadley was cautious and realistic. Yes the U.S. could help without putting boots on the ground. It would be most helpful to get Russia on board. Russia will veto any military intervention, but it has invested a great deal in Annan's plan and wants to see it work. Their card is: Bashar steps down, but his regime remains in power and leads Syria to elections like the ones held in Egypt and Tunisia... However, the conflict has reached the point of no return and the opposition wants to see an end of Assad's era. Whether there would be democracy in the country is yet to be seen, it is doubtful that Bashar's departure would end the bloody civil war. Indeed sanctions are still the best option to weaken Assad. The tighter the economic noose around his neck, the more of his supporters will leave the sinking ship.
Let's face it, Soviet Union or not, post cold war or not, Russia is still a superpower militarily and economically, therefore I have to disagree with the assumption that Russia needs Syria or that Russia needs to maintain ties with Syria because Syria is an ally! What does Syria possess stragetically or economically that Russia needs? Absolutely Nothing! And for those who argue that Russia needs to sell arms to Syria for profit, just keep in mind that like the US, Great Britain and France, Russia also sells arms to allied nations in the free world, the same natons they do domestic trade with, therefore Russia and likewise China do not need Syria! Only that China's reluctance to support military intervention has more to do with its doctrine which is to not meddle in other countries business! But China has abstain in the past and I believe that is different to a veto! Perhaps if the UN could get China to lift its veto and instead abstain, maybe Russia would follow suit!
Russia is not a superpower.
A superpower is defined as a country with economic and military stability and superiority! Russia is as strong as we're militarily and though not as strong economically, they're rich in natural gas an alot of other resources!
Russia still has WMD aplenty. So? What else do you want from it? What is Superpower in your view? Superagressive? Superambitious? Superdemocratic – please amuse me!
Russia is not a superpower....
Tell that the the Russians.
I absolutely think we should send troops there. They totally need our U.S. help. Look at those children and their parents :^( So sad
Yea, and how about our dead soldiers families and kids! So sad.
Our U.S. troops have been through enough war the past decade.
I believe US should have as much world policing as it can handle and then some more! Let it do all the hard work and pay for it too – till it go burst! Let it have all the wars it wants and all the blood till it couple more as a bonus! Let it kill and have all the oil and blood till it drawns! And when it cannot take it anymore and everybody abandons it – it may be ready to listen. May be.
It should not really take that long. After 20 years of wars and Iraq and Afghanistan I thought it would be it. But OK, just a few more, may be another million muslim dead – if it needs it, let it have it!
Why not send draft dodging pro-Vietnam war MItt Romney? I always find it interesting these GOP hawks(like Cheney) that are big on using the American military – as long as they are not the ones doign the actual fighting.
And Pres. Obama served how many years in the military?
Well, to answer your question, like Mitt Romney, Pres. Obama has not served in the military either but there's a big difference between the two! See, President Obama is an advocate for peace whereas Mitt Romney is an advocate for war! Therefore, you should pose the question to Mr. Romney!
I see no reason for you to say Romney advocates war and Obama peace. Obama left troops in Iraq, only pulling them out after Iraq insisted he follow the departure schedule set up by Bush. Obama escalated the number of troops in Afghanistan, only announcing they would come out in time for the election. He sanctioned NATO's military intervention in Libya. He has crowed about his drone attacks on terrorists around the world. He took pride in his military assault on Bin Laden.
To cast Obama as Ghandi is just funny.
Oh and GITMO is still open and operating.
@ bear -
Such arguments are rediculous. Romney is a statesman and somewhat knowlegable about world events. At any rate he is far superior in these areas than is the average American or even the average university educated American.
I'm an Obama supporter. I agree with the pull out from Iraq, the escalation in Afghanistan, the intervention in Libya and the drone war.
I love and admire Ghandi and he was a great man. We don't need Ghandi now in the USA. We need a thoughtful CiC that comprehends the world and the proper use and application of military power. Just as I was impressed with Bush I and James Baker in the early 90s, I'm very much impressed with this president and his FP team in the present time.
We'll have to agree to disagree, hopefully with courtesy and respect.
@ bear
Every military measure taken by President Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan was done out of NECESSITY to speed up the process to end these conflicts! Furthermore, President Obama did not withdraw our troops from Iraq because the puppet Iraqi governmenet told us to leave! Our troops exited Iraq on the deadline President Obama set at his 2009 State of the Union Address! Secondly, what President Obama said to the Iraqi government was that in order for our troops to stay beyond the set deadline, our troops must be exonerated from prosecution and detention for civilian casualties while maintaining stability in Irai! However, Mr. Maliki said no so we said goodbye! And again, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the increase in troop levels by the Obama administration was done out of NECESSITY to speed up the process and bring that war to an end after it was abandoned and prolonged by the GOP to invade Iraq! Fourth, as far as Libya is concerned, yes the President supported military action but again, that was out of NECESSITY as a world superpower fulfilling its committed obligations to stop atrocities and protect lives! Fifth, GITMO is still open because the Obama administration is continuously involved in working out an agreement with Arab countries that would commit to housing these prisoners but it is a complex issue that is continuing to be politicize by the right! O' and by the way,President Obama got the Noble Peace Prize because he's a man of peace! Ha!
@blah
President Obama did not withdraw our troops from Iraq because the puppet Iraqi “governmenet” told us to leave! Our troops exited Iraq on the deadline President Obama set at his 2009 State of the Union Address
Afraid not. The time table was set by BUSH.
Let the Muslims kill each other for a change instead of killing Americans. Who cares. Allah akbar!!
We've damned ourselves. Our screwing around in other people's affairs for empire is coming home to roost. Have no fear, congress will spend our last dime to keep the war machine greased. Does anyone really thing this is worth it?
Yea! I mean that like why we’ve already started sending the troops… because like we like to fight’in stuff.
The US cannot get involved in every single conflict. We need to stay out of this one.
sure-a former white house official is just who you want to hear from in the media.ofcourse he is going to defend the gov't's viewpoint.Syria,and all this we are hearing in the mainstream media is OUR point of view,as given us by the gov't.More war propaganda to get the people to accept another illegal activity undertaken by our warmongers in washington.
I'm calling for the Russians and Chinese to step in and end this violence – that's it, a Russian and Chinese peace keeping force should do it.
We're broke, we're in debt, we can't afford to be world police anymore. Bring all troops home.
Agreed. Bring home a bunch of armed, militarily trained men and women and dump them into an economy with too few jobs to allow them to support their families. If that's not a recipe for civil war in THIS country, I don't know what is.
@ Rich
Um.. they don’t kick you out because the war ends. It’s is a VOLENTARY force
@ Rich
If our troops returning home to a bad economy is a recipe for a civil war, then perhaps you should tell that to GWB and the GOP! What did the rightwingers have said for three and a half years? Obama's always blaming Bush! Hey, have you been paying attention to the news lately? GWB is still on the campaign trail, promoting his failed domestic and foreign policies while our troops are still dying in Afghanistan and our veterans at home are going through post traumatic stress syndrome! And sadly to say, many of them have missing limbs and are crippled for life! That's why I love the Dixie Chicks, at the onset of the Iraqi invasion, those brave American women put their careers on the line to condemn what the world was saying from the start that the Iraqi war was wrong! Well, my message to the Traveling Soldier is go wage war on Crawford Ranch! Love you Dixie Chicks!
While the situation is a travesty, the US must not intervene or put US troops, money and reputation on the line unless there is a clear US interest. We have no more right to meddle in the internal affairs of another country than we would want another country meddling in ours. If there is a clear US interest other than just pure humanitarianism, then we don't need UN or Arab League approval (though it might be nice to have). We don't need anyone's permission to act in our own national interests. We also should not act if it is not in our own national interest. Let each nation/people choose their own course and destiny without having another nation's system rammed down their throats (like in Iraq and Afghanistan).
What would be wrong with an Arab peace keeping force? There are several Arab countries that could stop this violence quickly. Russia has already been to Afghanistan; they don't need another lesson. We shouldn't either. The only thing that brings these people together is controlling the crude oil market.
I just cant believe no one is getting involved to stop the killing.
I agree.. have you bought your plane ticket yet?
Damned if we do, damned if we don't! Cheaper if we don't. Let's not!
This is an election year. The republicans in Congress (both houses) will not support an interventionist policy in Syria, either with UN support or simply a US led mission few a few coalition members (which are notably absent).
Though the conservative commentariat and the various editorialist that spew their message will use inaction by the President and the UN as something to bash the president, the truth is these folks (Krauthammer, Faoud Ajami, WSJ editorial board, this former Bush official, etc..) don't have an answer either.
As others have noted, this is an election year. For all those reading the news and paying attention, we already know the costs and risks of an intervention in Syria. It's a long list of costs with no real benefit. The republicans will oppose anything or action championed by the president because, well it's just what they do. In this respect, the Assad regime has no greater ally than the GOP congress, despite all of their protestations to the contrary.
If Obama gets us into Syria, the Republicans will roast him.
If Obama keeps us out of Syria, the Republicans will roast him.
So if you are going to get slammed either way,
may as well make the right choice, and keep us out.
No more war money, no more dying Americans.
Obama has my vote.
It is a dammed if you do ,more than a damed if you don't.I imagine that Russia, China and Iran would love to see the U.S. and nato in there. Iran and Hezzbola would send in fighters to support Syria and Russia and China would supply the armaments. A winning situation for them and a loser for us. As hard as it is to watch the death of innocents, it at the moment really is a winning situation for our side.Syria and Iran always supported terrorism against the west and now it is backfiring on them. The very regime that they financed has now come back to fight them, because Assad is killing his own people.Someone must be paying these Al-Queda fighters to fight against the Syrian Army. For the Syrian freedom fighters to survive this long against the Syrian Army with its heavy artillary, there must be a support system. Hopefully it was Iranian money donated in the past to support this. Don't jump in there too fast.
As a quick fix to the bloodshed, perhaps NATO could send an altamatom in a drone to Mr. Asad, sealed with lots of love and well wishes and O' with a kiss!
@ Blah Blah,
But then another regime loyalist of the Allawite sect would simply fill the void. This is an interneccine conflict in which the Allawite minority views itself as fighting for national and ethnic survival. Assad is a leader and an important one at that, but if he dies – then another general, cousin, uncle, airforce captain, etc... will take his place.
The drone hellfire or cruise missle 'solution' is a false solution to this crisis.
@ Anthony R. Seta
Perhaps a relative could indeed take Assad's place but I would doubt it simply because this is the Arab Spring, a time of reckoning where the voice of the people is sending a loud and clear message to who dare to rule them that they will settle for nothing less than basic human right and freedom!
We are in a terrible position, with no good options. Romney has many of the advisers from the Dick Cheney regime on his team.They, and others in the GOP ,are pushing for military intervention in Syria-like they also want in Iran.I have heard many analysts say that the only real option is to put troops on the ground in Syria.The Syrians have astrong well-funded army; and would have Russian as an ally that would back them.Israel, Syria's neighbor, that has been in conflict with them for years, would even be at risk.This is very serious; and the potential for a full-scale land war, with great international hostilities getting ignited, is very strong.There is also the issue of the funding of this mission.We just left Iraq, are still in Afghanistan, and have other covert operations going on.The American people will potentially suffer even more economic woes because of this; to say nothing of the fact that we have Republicans in Congress who have pledged to never raise taxes under any conditions.Every dollar spent on Syria is one less spent on America; and at a time when the GOP is already looking to make severe budget cuts to vital agencies and programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Education, and more; this will have an adverse effect on our nation.I care about the rest of the world, but there are other countries that need to share the burden, militarily, economically; and even and take the lead.The U.S. is already seen in the region as the purveyor of imperialism.We are already hurting at home. All this means for us is trouble.
@1crusader
I don't think us supporting military intervention in Syria would cost us that much because it would be a joint mission as in Libya with NATO and other allied nations helping out! Furthermore, I disagree that an air or ground campaign in Syria would escalate into a bigger conflict! After all, that didn't happen in Libya as the opposition and the pro Ghadaffi forces have so far mended their differences to work towards a unified country! I'm sure down the road, there will be problems in Libya because as Mr. Zakaria once stated, the road to democracy is a difficult one! But as was the case in Libya, I believe once the Asad leadership is removed, all the people will unite for a better Syria! After all, this is the Arab Spring the world has never seen before!
None of this matters until somebody figures out what to do with the RUSSIAN MILITARY BASE IN SYRIA !!
The US MUST begin to take care of itself. It CANNOT be drawn into another war.
I believe we should be paying more attention to what's going on in Mexico with all the brutal killings taking place there and may spread here.
Mexico does seem to be more important now to US interests than the 'great game' playing out in the mid-east.
All I know is one thing.. SOMETHING needs to be done. I don't believe it necessarily should be boots on the ground. I believe the situation should be handled by NATO (since the UN is a joke). They should go ahead and start no fly zones, and establish a safe haven for those being slaughtered. Maybe a corridor whereby people can flee to another country (clearing the mine fields that the government in Syria has put to keep people from escaping). I think those are some ideas that may not end the problem but will be some sort of action. I believe that if there is mortar/heavy artillery positions not removed from the cities being used on its citizens, it should be destroyed. That atleast would be something.
In a choice between Damned if we do, and Damned if we don't, I'll choose Damned if we don't.
Cries of support for us to "intervene to end human suffering" will end the second we put boots on the ground or aircraft in the air. I am tired of US money, hardware and personnel going abroad, end result being the US potrayed as "invadors and imperialists."
Syria lies on the confluence of too many political disputes, and the result will be a disaster: West vs. Iran; Arab vs. Israeli; Lebenon vs. Syria; Levant Arab nations vs. Israel; China/Russia vs. the West; US vs. NATO; US vs. the UN; Sunni vs. Shia; Turkey vs. Kurds; GCC vs. Iran. The risks are too high, and the rewards too few. And sadly, Syrians will die because of it.
The United States SHOULD NOT be the world's policeman!
Actually I started out human before I became an american... and anyone who understands that understands how wrong this situation is... no matter what country your from.
Sweet, America needs to stay out of the middle east and tend its own yard.
stay close to home. worry about this countries own problems. if neo cons want to go hire a ship and send them off. reduce imperial adventures and foreign entanglments. stop trying to take the place of the british empire. lets see if we can fix 15 trillion in debt before spending 1 more dollar(694 billion in afgan pak alone)
Why don't the Arab countries do something? Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Jordan, etc. are all impotent and silent on this. This is their neighbor and yet there is absolutely no effort from them. Let the US and West stay out and make it clear that the only way things are going to move forward is if the Arab nations take care of their own.
Exactly so! There seems to be tacit approval of this massacre in the other Muslim nations! A coalition of western forces would be futile again since we are seen as infidels and invaders anyway...besides this is a religious skirmish so let their own brothers get in and stop the fray!
If Hadley (and McCain) think that the ongoing carnage in Syria can be stopped by air strikes alone, they are more stupid than I had given them credit for. In the first place, the Syrian Army is so deeply entrenched in the cities that they cannot be attacked without hitting civilian targets. The only way to stop the Syrian Army is with another army (U.N., NATO, etc.). At the moment there is not sufficient support in the U.S. to support deployment of U.S. troops. Until that changes, there is little we can do.
Syria is well armed and well trained thanks to Russia and China. There are most likely russian nuke missles in Syria and that is something they will fight to the end to try and conceal. Letting this brutal leader kill his own people is probably a much better option than an entire country being blown off the map by the hidden nukes.
What's happening, you don't want to go in because you won't face people with rakes and forks this time. What honor is there to get from invading a country when the only weapons that country has is just farmers equipments. So Syria scares you because they might be armed unlike Iraq.
A lot cheaper if we don't.
Let them fight it out amoungst themselves.
Maybe you could tell your children that and see if they understand why you think its o.k. for these children to be murdered for being born in the wrong country.
We are not the world's cop!
It's none of our business!
And every time we stick our noses in the affairs of other countries, it costs us a lot of lives and billions of dollars and, no matter how things go, both sides of whatever conflict we intervene in wind up hating us even more than they already do.
There is exactly zero good to be had by intervening in Syria!
To ALL the STUPID Americans out there: I suppose Syria's fascist regime and terrorist activities are Israel's fault as well, huh?? There are truly a bunch of IDIOTS in your country.
Your paycheque is drawn on American charity–maybe you should be a little more polite to the country that keeps propping yours up.
I think I just got censored.. my point is Help the children. Wack some bad guys.
How many now-grown-up American children to expect to kill by your proposal?
Do you expect a, former White House national security adviser for George W. Bush to advocate non-involvement.
These people are war criminals and should be treated as such. The loss of all these young Americans in Iraq should not be forgiven, because these people are evil are still around us supposedly working for world peace!!!!!!!!!
The world has gone to Hades!
No, that's where it came from in the first place.
Sure-let's get into another illegal military saga,like Lybia.Nice to know our military airstrikes there were done without the approval of congress,as the law says it should've been.However,it shouldn't surprise us,with all the illegal stuff Bush did,Obama carries on the legacy.And we are supposed to blindly follow.Does CNN have any sources who speak,besides those who are for attacking every enemy we have?Ofcourse not-mainstream media is now pro-gov't.Lets hear more from generals and white house officials and beaurocrats-all who want more and more wars and bloodshed in the name of supposed 'democracy'
Chum Joely – I have a better than average knowledge about the Mid East because my husband is originally from Beirut. Everything in the Middle East is about religion because your particular faith ties into your political stance-the two go hand in hand. The Middle East was predominately Christian prior to Islam, and Islam was spread throughout the Middle East by force. You had three choices – you could either convert to Islam, become a second class citizen referred to as a "dimmi", or be killed. Many of the churches in Lebanon have unusually low entryways which were put into place due to Muslims on horseback riding into churches and killing those in the church. For the same reason, many of the convents and monasteries are built high into the mountain sides which gave them a better vantage point for possible raids. While you are correct that there are some modern Muslims who do not espouse violence, the majority do. Their view is anyone who is not a Muslim is considered an infidel. Whether in Chechnya or Toulouse, France or elsewhere in the world, the common denominator is Islam.
I truly don't know that there is a good solution to the violence in Syria. It is appalling that the innocents there continue to suffer. If we are lucky, he will die a natural death soon and hopefully bring healing to Syria.
The most likely reason that no Arab countries are stepping in to stop the violence is that by doing so they would most likely make it worse. Saudi Arabia is a mainly Sunni country so if they provide troops the Shiite would see it as a personal attack on their sect; the same could be said for a country that is composed of mainly Shiite which would be seen a personal attack on the Sunni. The Shiite Sunni conflict is spilling into Lebanon as we speak. Tripoli is a mainly Sunni village that has been involved in recent skirmishes with Syrians trying to create a Shiite/Sunni conflict in Lebanon. The Christians, a minority in Lebanon, hold little political power to try to intervene.
@Kato
I agree with what you said about possible ramifications for other Arab countries if they intervened in Syria! I understand that Assad's father killed over 30,000 dissidents during his rule in the 1970's and he eventually survived to continue his oppressive rule! So far, it is estimated that some 10,000 Syrians have died at the hands of the young Assad's regime! Let's see, perhaps he's hoping that with an additional 20, 000 he'd perhaps be able to pull it off like hid father! Too bad his lovely British wife won't remind him of the brutal faith of strongman Moammar Ghadaffi! But I have to like Yemen's President because he said anyone who refuses to step down at the demands of the masses is insane! Thank you sir! If I had to say something encouraging to the Syrian people, I'd tell them to keep the faith, help is on its way!
Hadley overstates the role of Bashir al-Assad, who politically is an accidental figurehead for privileged Alawites. Bashir does what his Alawite handlers tell him to do.
The tougher problem is that the wider Alawite minority has no attractive options but to fight any opposition to the death. They would be an irrelevant minority under ANY proportional-representation scheme, so they perceive no value in negotiating. Further, their privileged status has been abusive at times, so they also worry about retaliation. The al-Assad family could always be relocated, we've done that with expired dictators in the past, but we can't move 2M Alawites.
The messy deflagration of the Ottoman Empire seems to have the energy of a glacier, it never stops.
As unfortunate as this situation maybe, it is not in the interests of the USA to intervene with boots on the ground. This is not Kosovo, its Syria. The Arab League has the most interest in this conflict, and this organization must take the lead should any military intervention take place. We have been arming our Allies (Saudi Aribia, Jordon, etc) for decades. They have the tools to do the job. Why no intervention? I think the reason is that some of Syrias claims may be true in that terrorists may be at work here. The world is not getting an accurate picture either from the Assad government nor the UN.
agreed on the misinformation-we get the viewpoint of our gov't,nothing else.It's not unbiased reporting-it's what the gov't wants us to hear-that is the modern role of today's media.They are an outlet for the gov't.Sad,but true.
I respectively disagree with your opinion that terrorists are causing the bloodshed. The 'phantom gangs' that the Syrian government is nothing more than private citizens paid to serve as their thugs. Mr. Assad and his father have had no problem in being ruthless with their own citizens for years. The government's message to the Syrians is anyone who defies the government will suffer accordingly. It was Bashir's father who set the standard for ruthlessness. During their stranglehold on Lebanon, my brother-in-law was captured by the Syrians and suffered unspeakable horrors.
I must respectively be objective,then,and say we really don't know do we?As we have said,all we hear from is our pro-gov't spouting media.We don't really know,do we?
And therein lies the problem,doesn't it?When the media decides to print only things that the gov't wants them to hear,and only the opinions of those who favor the gov't,then we cannot really trust what they say,can we?:)
First throw out Russia and China!
They are preventing the international community from holding Assad accountable. They are clearly putting greed ahead of justice and righteousness, and they should be thrown out of the United Nations, for allowing such atrocities to be committed.
Disband the UN; let Syria fight its own civil war.
Throw Russia and China out of the UN,
sounds like a great idea, but changes nothing on the ground in Syria.
Also how would you accomplish that ?
Escort thier diplomats out the door by force ?
Hold a vote, and have half the world on our side
and half the world on thier side ?
Restart the cold war ?
Maybe the solution is world war 3.
Things cannot stay as they are.
Have it out, and winner take all.
Maybe the "New World Order" already has a plan.
Maybe.
The reason that the U.N members, China, Russia did not either abstain or vote for intervention had to do with what the Western allies did in Libya. They were given a mandate to protect civilians, which they did it successfully, but they did not stop. Inch by inch they cleared the path for the rebel armies to go all the way to capture and kill the president of that nation.
Now the rebels in Syria don't manufacture their weapons, they are being supplied/smuggled by foreign intelligence groups ....and when there are casualties in the conflict, blame Syria.....they can't loose.
Syria is in a civil war, those deaths are the result of the civil war not brutality.
If we intervine, we will apreciated as much as Iraq and Afchanistan apreciates us. This is a Syrian problem. We dont need another country to hate us after they get their freedom with our help.
@Tom Tom
You seem to give Bush a whole lot of credit for his failed and misguided foreign policies! First of all, Bush did not set any deadline to withdraw our troops from Iraq! What he did was set a death trap to kill innocent civilians and our troops! Secondly, Bush did not set any deadline to end the Afghan war because President Obama did so! And you have to be insane to say the Obama administration followed whatever from the Bush administration to get OBL when Bush said on numerous occasions that OBL was not his concern! And if Bush had the intelligence to get OBL, then why didn't he do so? Pathetic! Killing or detaining OBL was all President Obama's objective and thankfully our President didn't weaver when he got the 3:00AM call on whether to send our NAVY SEALS to get the job done!
Blah Blah...you are not a very well informed person. You remind me of the Tea Partiers that you probably blast every day. You have one side of the story, and think you know the whole situation, then again, judging by the name you choose to post under, you are also probably a bigot.
I am NOT a Bush fan, in fact i hate the guy.
But Bush had a signed sealed and delivered withdraw treaty
with the Iraqi government, that unless it was renegotiated,
our troops had to be out by the end of 2011.
Obama was in negotiations with the Iraqi's, but the clause that our troops
would not be persecuted for civilian deaths was off the table,
and Obama decided to withdraw.
We left just enough troops to help train Iraq's military, but Obama made the right choice.
As a U.S. Soldier and combat veteran I can tell that only boots on ground can stop the killing. The sad but true fact of our world is that men with guns don't negotiate with men without guns. However as the person who would be tasked with that incredibly difficult, dirty, dangerous and thankless job I vote we sit this one out. I see simply don't see enough U.S. interest in the Syrian Civil War (which is what this is) to justify losing any more of own blood, money, and reputation. Something may change my mind in the future but that's how I feel now.
One has to wonder if Assad realizes that this can only end in his death. The revolutionaries will settle for no less.
The blood of every innocent child is on the hands of the Russians and Chinese
Americans just mind your own business this time, they don't need your drones bombing the wrong places like usual and killing more children than there already is. Let other countries do it, maybe they will be more accurate at their targets than you are.
Other countries need to grow a pair and support this fully and move forward with action rather than watch us stain our hands with blood and criticize, lets take the back seat in this one and offer a free for all on who ever wants to take action on Syria and see if they can do a better job than us, if no one take the action in a month then we can decide if its worth taking action if we don't then its back up for grabs and we stay the hell out of it but if we do then leave Syria's fate in the hands of America without criticism because it obviously wasn't better in anyone else
Blame Allah, IMO.
Oh man... this is such a pickle! I am seriously ticked off seeing women and children being killed... there is no excuse for it and such acts are nothing short of cowardice. The killing has to stop but, if we get involved it won't do us any good. Not that there should be any benefit from helping another other than ensuring life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. In this part of the world though, no such thing exists. Unfortunately, these are very American virtues. As it is; the whole world hates Americans because we meddle in pretty much everything. So what good can come from meddling yet again? I know it seems I am making excuses but I can't help but feel if we DO get involved, what happens if those that take power afterwards do the same stuff all over again and/or turn out to be total terrorists shouting "Death to America"?!
As a country, we are so far in the hole financially that going to "clean house" in another country (especially since they will only hate us for it later) doesn't seem like such a great idea. There isn't just the financial cost either... there is the cost of American lives. It would be worth it if such sacrifices were appreciated but, ultimately they NEVER are. :/
i agree and countries have fallen from economic failure, sometimes your worst enemy is yourself, we don't have to be attacked physically to fall all we have to do is not take care of ourselves, this "will" be costly in many aspects, the harsh truth is that lives do have price tags, and if we don't recover economically 1st it could hinder our ability to take actions again in the future
i agree and countries have fallen from economic failure, sometimes your worst enemy is yourself, we don't have to be attacked physically to fall all we have to do is no t take care of ourselves, this "will" be costly in many aspects, the harsh truth is that lives do have price tags, and if we don't recover economically 1st it could hinder our ability to take actions again in the future
**** the whole world hates Americans ......
I love how people toss this line out.
The whole world does not hate America or Americans.
There are a few people and nations who do, notice how they are mostly
in backwards, uneducated Islamic nations ?
The rest of the "civilized" world gets along with us just fine.
Sorry to say, I am against war but when a countrys military or group of terrorists whatever you want to call them kill kids who have done nothing wrong then we need US Military intervention and soon.
No one cares what Russia or China think .. if they get in the way nuke them as they are both terrorist nations and who support worldwide terror. China crying to hold peace talks .. until all the children are killed? Chinese government picking on the Phillipinos also terroring them and they say peaceful means? China doesnt know the meaning. I lived in China 20 years and learned DO NOT TRUST CHINA ... I have seen massive weapon build ups... why?
I say as an American we need to save the kids and the future no matter what the rightwingers and commies say.
It's not that if you get involved that will tarnish your name again, it's every time you make a mistake you cover it up by a lie. If only you could go in other countries to really and honestly help without causing more damage and not making those places worst than they're already are that would be nice. Every time you get involved it gets worst than before you got there. These people needs real professional and not the so called police professionalism manners. They need help and what they don't need is not to end having their situation worsen by a bunch of idiots who want there 5 minutes of fame.
*** if they get in the way nuke them ....
And then they nuke us back.
Bad chess, your move.
Funny, how no one asked this when we decided to bomb Libya into the stone age. Hypocrites.
I know our press isn't supposed to show truly graphic things, like the bodies supposedly "torn apart" in Syria, but I didn't find the photos on this page graphic at all. The photos didn't even show signs of serious wounds, which usually is allowed. I saw faces which, apparently, had been dead for some time, but still had normal color, and I saw some of what looked like bloodstains. Minor ones. There is ample reason to suspect the photos are faked. But we can't be sure of THAT, either.
At a time when you CAN'T be sure, it is NOT a time to act.
IF these people were truly dead, victims of the massacre, we still don't know which side did it. We only have statements of people, which we are "required" to believe in the total absence of journalists.
But we DO have an option: to believe NONE of it. Make them pony up some hard evidence, not just statements from people. Including OBJECTIVE evidence of WHO DID IT.
Since when do we go to war on an "if"? Well, we did, once – and hopefully learned from it. The loss of thousands of our people, and the trillions of dollars it cost, ought to be a real good lesson, right?
Muslims have learned, too, from the start of the Iraq war. They learned that, if they push enough of the right buttons, they can get America and most of the free world to fight their wars for them. They think we're really stupid enough to get wazooed – yet again – by our emotional buttons into going to war on an "if".
And they may be right; maybe we ARE that stupid.
I'm appalled by the prospect of people who kill babies, but WHO did the killing? If it was real at ALL?
In Libya, that's how it was, too, one bloodthirsty group calling itself government, and another equally bloodthirsty group calling itself the "Arab Spring." Remember? Remember how it turned out, with those "noble rebels" sodomizing and LYNCHING Khadafi? Such nice people. And WE helped them, didn't we? And where is that democracy they all "yearned" for? Whoops! They lied.
If you don't know by now that Muslims LIE, you'd better do some serious homework. They ALL lie, where anything touching on their religion is concerned – lying to us infidels is a VIRTUE in Islam. So are the statements of atrocities we read about lies? Are the photos faked? The odds are even in either direction.
They're Muslims. Killing is their way. It's their country, and their business, not ours. There ARE no innocent sides here, except in the non-Muslim population.
Even when the Sudan was committing genocide in the south and had killed 2 1/2 MILLION black people over 2 decades, our governments and media labeled it a "civil war," so we wouldn't have to try to stop the genocide. If not involving ourselves in their "civil war" was justified because it was "their own internal affair," how is Syria any different? Are they more important people because they're not black? We established a precedent in not wading in on a civil war, so we should stick with that with Syria, too.
And look what happened when we DID wade in – at least on the outskirts – in Libya? All those "noble rebels" who "yearned for freedom and democracy" sodomized and then lynched Khadafy – gleefully. Nobody deserves that. Nice people, weren't they? And where-o-where is that democracy they wanted? Have we learned anything yet about how Muslims operate? If you'd studied Islam, as I have done for years, you'd realize that they are often very predictable. I could predict what the "Arab Spring" would be like the day I first heard of them, before they'd done anything yet.
Yet our media – and many people – STILL think of the "Arab Spring" as a noble movement for liberty! My fellow liberals don't know how to embrace this reality. It's just too ugly. But the conservatives' knee-jerk is "Bomb them!" Both incredibly WRONG.
Even our courts require hard evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict even the worst criminal. Why should we go leaping into war over an emotional reaction to what MIGHT or might not be propaganda?
Either way, though, both sides are Muslims. They are merely exercising their religious rights. It's called a "civil war," and civil wars are entirely the business of the people in that country. The fact that with the Internet we can see, up close, some of its atrocities doesn't change that. Who are WE to tell them their religious rights to jihad should not be tolerated?
But even if they're telling us the truth, what makes us feel we should intervene when they are all – on both sides – merely exercising their religious rights? Who are WE to tell them what is righteous or not about killing babies? They do it, and will do it – both sides will. If we go to war to make them stop killing, and especially to stop killing babies, we are interfering with the free exercise of their faith. I don't say this facetiously. It IS how they operate. Both sides are equally bloodthirsty, both willing to commit atrocities. And they are not above killing some of their OWN babies for the sake of propaganda. Both sides. Simply put, neither side deserves one bit of our compassion. The babies, if really being killed, DO merit compassion, but what CAN we do about it, when we can't even be sure the killings really happened, or which side is (this time) the real bad guy? By OUR standards of measure, they are both bad guys. But not by THEIR standards of measure, which allow any form of slaughter and atrocity.
Our political correctness requires that we subtract Islam from any of this, when the whole thing is about Islam. Whose version of it should prevail. Which sect should rule and slaughter the other sects. All Muslim sects believe in oppression of the other sects, and ALL believe in strongman dictators of Islamic States. It's just a matter of whose ox is gored.
Of one thing we can be sure. No matter who prevails in Syria, the outcome will NOT good-news us. Even if we pick a side and insure that it prevails, that will still be true. In a choice between two nasty things, it makes no sense to choose one and make it happen. But it can hurt US.
Let's hold those who want to go to war with Syria to the same standard to which we hold our prosecutors trying hardened and bloodthirsty criminals. "Proof, beyond a reasonable doubt." How can a lower standard make any sense at ALL, when it extends to whole nations? The only thing we CAN do is to prevent other countries from supplying either side with arms. That's IT. Keep the whole thing internal and let them work it out their way. Since they will do just that, anyway.
Let's not cater to over-emotionalism without any pragmatism coming into play. And let's make our domestic warhawks measure up to the higher standard of evidence, rather than raw emotion. Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice...
No "IF" is adequate basis for waging war.
Grog no have time to read novel.
Grog have short attention span.
Something called strategy... It is in The U.S.'s best interests to A. Save lives in Syria B.Cut off Iran and we actually have a reason or excuse to do so right now C. Restrict the sale of Russian arm to this area. D. Limit Chinese and Russian influence in the area to just Iran. F. Increase Turkey's influence on the middle east as a great democracy with its military involvement.
This is pragmatic! In the long run weakens these nations who aren't our friends, who will do anything to make the "west" look bad. Stopping Syria has immediate effects on the lives of the people who live in Syria, especially the children in Syria, cause its not the dead ones I worry about, its the ones that are still alive! Strategically it makes sense. In the long run it weakens Russia and China influence in the area. I have to disagree with that entire page you wrote, sounds like you have to much emotion in this and need to think clearly on why this country is and was great. We just need to get positioned in the Pacific a little better, than we'll be ready to take care of Syria.
If we're all so "worried" about what's going on in Syria, then why not let one of our rubber-stamp European allies intervene militarily? Then again, when did any of these rubber-stamp allies of ours do anything on their own? The answer is, is that their leaders are a bunch of amoral, money-grubbing bureacrats with no sense of right or wrong!
Well put, Marine5484. Thank you.
As swipe, stop stealing my name.
You are a moron and you will always be a moron.
As stated previously on this blog and others, this islamist Patrick-2 is AKA George Patton, Rosie, j.Foster Dulles, Joseph McCarthy, Marine5484, Yacobi, Warren, Quigley, Willie12345 and Vin harasses when he/she is pointed out to be the sc um he/she is.
Please check your bbs, androids and iphone to see that I have not made this statement.
The thing this mo ron does not seem to realize yet is that the more he/she harasses me, the more determined I am to point him/her out to us.
As stated previously on this blog and others, this islamist Patrick-2 is AKA George Patton, Rosie, j.Foster Dulles, Joseph McCarthy, Marine5484, Yacobi, Warren, Quigley, Willie12345 and Vin harasses when he/she is pointed out to be the sc um he/she is.
Please check your bbs, androids and iphone to see that I have not made this statement.
The thing this mo ron does not seem to realize yet is that the more he/she harasses me, the more determined I am to point him/her out to us.
...
Mr O says let's put economic sanctions on a country (Syria) that does not care about it's people. Kinda reminds you of North Korea. It worked so well there. Russia will continue to support the Syrian dictatorship (big trading partner).
interesting. no where is the cost of the US intervening mentioned.
so, how would we pay for yet another war
again, how would we pay for yet another war
how would we pay for yet another war
how would we pay for yet another war
Watch us treat this the same way we treat Rwanda.
Th US forces were spent in the wars following 9/11 without a UN resolution, sure you can blame it on that but the fact is as long as Russia and China see the US and NATO as compettors they will veto any resolution to stop this bloodbath.
Good luck brave people of Syria resisting the Tyranny and murderous wrath of an opressive regiem. I am afraid that is all that I can offer.
This has been brewing for a long time. Think it is time for someone other than "America, World Police" to step in. Can't we encourage that??
We are no longer the richest country, by a long shot, and have extreme debts due to stepping into international conflicts for decades.
Nothing personal re:Syria, but let's tend to our own issues and people for a change.
Nope. Let Israel fight its own war. Have its own sons lose legs.
No more billions to Israel either.
This has nothing to do with Israel.
You are a moron.
Russians don't like Muslims, but want a Mediterreanean naval port in Syria. Iranians don't like Arabs, but want a land route to Hezbollah surrogates in Lebanon. Syrian Arab Muslims have no say in who runs their country. It's a one-party police state. Anyone who needs to mention Israel in any of this has their own hatred of Israel, which of course is a hatred of Jewish people, and CNN can't help you with that.
Israel hates Americans, but want them continue doing its biddings.
When you get done pooping.
Remember to whipe butt.
The Syrian regime derives its strength from China, Russia and Iran. Therefore peoples of the world must boycott these countries economically at least till they stop their support for the killing of innocent people.
Some Americans here support the slaughter of children with knives.
I'm not sure that they are Americans, the high probability that they Alawites from Syria!
Yes, i was just talking to my neighbor,
and he mentioned to me that it was nice being an American,
because we support killing Syrian children.
Romney's idea seem reasonable since U.s ally saudi is alreay giving them stuff. Romney needs to pick V.P now cuz he's as old as Biden. He needs someone energetic to campaign with him. He puts young people like me to sleep.
Well dear, six year olds do need there sleep.
The countries within the region should be involved because some of them are in support of Assad. The US is still suffering from the humuliating manner France & uk drove them out of Libya, therefore let them move into Syria and stop waiting for the Americans.
*** The US is still suffering from the humuliating manner France & uk drove them out of Libya,.....
So thats what the war was all about.
France & England went to Lybia to drive out the Americans.
Dipstick.
Time to attack is sooner rather than later. The president likely has to weigh in on the fact that Russia and China may not only oppose it, but attempt to stretch U.S. resources and power by actually taking the other side completely. The longer we wait and the faster these economy's grow (Russia/China), allows them more time to prepare for what they want, which is to show up the U.S.. Gotta beat out the dictator now, and our government has to do what it used to do best, which is to be a moral leader, win hearts and minds by supporting opposition and then allow the world to make their own choice. We got nothing out of Iraq, revenge in Afghanistan, we need to do the right thing in Syria.
how about u guys kill every muslim u see and get it over with just like the nazi did with jews as far as what iv read u know nothing about islam your so ignorant criminals doesnt have religion
we should not get involved in this we should stop messing with other nations let them work it out them selves the us getting involved would only put more people like are own soldier in harms way just like vietnam leave people alone we have info problems are self.
I can't believe some of you would not want to intervene, lives are going to be taken away and you are going to sit and watch like you do not care? That is selfish indeed, regardless if it's political or not, the soldiers of the army are to protect the interests of the people, but that does not mean they do not want to intervene. People are so scared of soldiers dying but that is part of the job. You protest the soldiers to not fight but is that the interests of the soldiers or the people? Go ask some soldiers if they want to intervene and I am sure most of them want to help but they are held back by the weak and fearful public. What is the point of having a great military in the US if you are not going to use it? Might as well not have one and watch the world die as countless lives are being taken away each minute, hour and day. Peace does not come without sacrifice.