Obama Vs. Syria.

I hope this is the appropriate spot for this, I didn't know where to put it. ;-;

Anyway, do you think Obama should have kept his nose out of their business, or was it right of him to interfere? Do you think it was right of him to risk going to war with Russia because of it?

What is your opinion on the whole thing?

I've seen people talk about these questions above and I just want to know what everyone thinks. Please don't start a fight or bash anyone's opinion, keep it friendly~.

I think that we're all humans and to say we should keep our nose out of something has an awful lot of German on it.

(And I'm not directing that at you personally, I've heard that argument a lot.)

I don't think Obama intended to go to war. I think he used a threat to force Syria's hand.

@ gonna hear dru roar.

That's kind of what I thought. I believe Obama just tried to put the fear of God in them by threatening to use military force on them. Which, he has the go ahead from Congress to attack Syria if they don't give up their chemical weapons.

All interesting stuff..

@ olobersyko;
The thing that bothers me is how he originally said he would launch an attack without congressional authority. Then he revoked it with an apology, and it sort of frightens me that we're not publicly making a big deal about it. >> In the last interview I saw, he directed attention away from the question of what his actions would be if congress did not approve , and instead of answering, just said he was sure America would have his back~

That's a red flag to me.

@ Double Infinity.

Hmm, I see your point. But I didn't know he was going to go in even if he didn't have congressional authority. And I understand there's this thing about not being allowed to use chemical weapons on your own people but.. ugh, I don't know.

My mom said something about how he practically jumped on the chance to go to war, like he basically wants to start a World War 3. But.. I dunno..

I have my doubts about Obama.. ;-;

I for one would not have his back if he decided to just bomb them without congressional authority. Couldn't he get impeached for doing that??

@ olobersyko;

Clinton bombed Afghanistan and entered Kosovo war without congressional approval and he only got impeached because of a sex scandal... funnily enough.

@ Filth in the Beauty
Ohh, okay. Guess I'm probably way off then, haha.

gonna hear dru roar.:

I don't think Obama intended to go to war. I think he used a threat to force Syria's hand.

Which would have been (or still may be) terrible foreign policy when his ass gets held to the fire and he can't follow through on that baseless threat because there is no support in this country for war with Syria.

America needs to learn how to diplomatically solve problems like the rest of the world. We have the United Nations for a reason, and if the US actually took the time to be a proactive member of the UN, it would be a more powerful force. Threatening war before all the cards are on the table is so George Bushy and one of the reasons I think Obama is progressively becoming a failure as a leader.

olobersyko;:

Do you think it was right of him to risk going to war with Russia because of it?

I don't think that was ever a legitimate concern.

@ Kurtni
George Bush went to war with the wrong country and lied about it.

When Obama wants to bomb Pakistan because they used chemical weapons against their citizens, then we can compare him to Bush.

Filth in the Beauty:

@ olobersyko;

Clinton bombed Afghanistan and entered Kosovo war without congressional approval and he only got impeached because of a sex scandal... funnily enough.

The American public tends to prioritize social conflicts over politics... Clinton's sexual misbehavior was prioritized the opposite way I think Obama's symbolic representation to the public of racial equality in office is undermining his potentially destructive legislation. In both cases, it's easier to embrace social issues because they're more comprehensive and empowering, but I believe we have a harder time understanding political mistakes because it's not common information that everybody can draw from. And since Obama is so accepted for his social accomplishments, I think we as a public aren't assessing his leadership qualities in a legitimate way.

Kurtni:

America needs to learn how to diplomatically solve problems like the rest of the world. We have the United Nations for a reason, and if the US actually took the time to be a proactive member of the UN, it would be a more powerful force. Threatening war before all the cards are on the table is so George Bushy and one of the reasons I think Obama is progressively becoming a failure as a leader.

The United Nations is basically useless in this situation (and in general): "Moscow blocks the United Nations Security Council from passing anything that might hurt the Assad regime, which is why the United States has to go around the United Nations if it wants to do anything. Russia sends lots of weapons to Syria that make it easier for Assad to keep killing civilians and will make it much harder if the outside world ever wants to intervene." (source)

I don't know if anyone reads Max Fisher's work (the above source is one of his blog posts; he's a columnist for the Washington Post) but this is another good read. Right now, everything is a negotiation. Once one side—whether it's the US or Syria or Russia—agrees to a stipulation, the other side(s) back(s) off and change the deal. Each side is trying to make the move that's going to land them on top, and right now I think that's still up for grabs.

Now, personally, I don't agree with going to war with Syria/Russia. However, I also don't agree with idly sitting by while a leader uses sarin gas, or any type of chemical weaponry, on innocent civilians. I really don't know what you do in a situation like this, but I guess that's why I'm a journalist and not a foreign policy specialist.

I also agree United Nations is nearly useless nowadays, if not completely useless, especially after the US illegally invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and got away with it.

What I think it's funny it's that civilians and rebels have been killed off with assault weapons and that's been ok until now, but at the first signal of the government using sarin gas, everybody jumped on Assad, nevermind that the rebels have been using chemical weapons as well, they're everywhere in Syria. Anyway, apparently chemical weapons aren't a big deal for Syrians. At the first threat of war, the government agreed to drop them and made Russia all happy that an agreement was reached (and so quickly!).

Right now Assad is back to exterminating civilians and rebels indistinctly -only without chemical weapons this time- and US will need to come up with another way to help Israel out with this Syria thing .

My mom said we just need to send a drone in to assassinate Assad.

@ gonna hear dru roar.
Yes, but this would turn Syria into Iraq 2.0 and no one wants that.

@ Filth in the Beauty
Nor do I. I was using sarcasm, sorry if the inflection wasn't caught in the text post.

@ gonna hear dru roar.
Hmm, ok.
I've heard people saying this seriously before, so I thought...just in case....

My issue is exactly what someone said before: that Obama was planning on going through with his action without Congressional approval. I agree, I think everyone disregards his true abilities as a leader based off of social issues, most of which he truly can't affect THAT much. The other issue is that the rebels are people we're sworn against, so who are we helping here? The other issue is reflected in the title of this debate OBAMA v.s Syria, (not bashing on you, making a gateway to a point) Obama makes everything about him and his decisions. He ASSUMES the American people will support without asking us.

Honestly, if they're already using chemical weapons, they aren't going to care if we bomb their people; they're already hurting them. I agree that there must be a more diplomatic way to handle this. I get that war is war and sometimes it must happen, but I don't feel this is one of those cases.

witheverything;:

Honestly, if they're already using chemical weapons, they aren't going to care if we bomb their people; they're already hurting them. I agree that there must be a more diplomatic way to handle this. I get that war is war and sometimes it must happen, but I don't feel this is one of those cases.

I think this is precisely one of those cases where war can't effect change. Like you stated, while the Assad Regime is awful, turning over control of the government to militant rebels isn't ideal either. I don't think an exterior force can mitigate a civil war, at least not by introducing a third warring party to the scenario.

chibs telford:

The United Nations is basically useless in this situation (and in general): "Moscow blocks the United Nations Security Council from passing anything that might hurt the Assad regime, which is why the United States has to go around the United Nations if it wants to do anything. Russia sends lots of weapons to Syria that make it easier for Assad to keep killing civilians and will make it much harder if the outside world ever wants to intervene." (source)

I don't know if anyone reads Max Fisher's work (the above source is one of his blog posts; he's a columnist for the Washington Post) but this is another good read. Right now, everything is a negotiation. Once one side—whether it's the US or Syria or Russia—agrees to a stipulation, the other side(s) back(s) off and change the deal. Each side is trying to make the move that's going to land them on top, and right now I think that's still up for grabs.

Now, personally, I don't agree with going to war with Syria/Russia. However, I also don't agree with idly sitting by while a leader uses sarin gas, or any type of chemical weaponry, on innocent civilians. I really don't know what you do in a situation like this, but I guess that's why I'm a journalist and not a foreign policy specialist.

It wasn't just Russia though (and let's not forget that the agreement reached by the council ended up being sponsored/supported/approved by Russia). The US media may be fixated with Russia in some kind of post Cold War time warp, but Great Britain and France also have a voice that doesn't necessarily parrot everything America wants.

That's the problem with how the United States views the UN and why it's perceived as "useless". We don't view the United Nations as a medium to effect change, but rather a road block that stops America from being the World's police. The United Nations is not a tool to do whatever America wants internationally; we can't simply expect countries with competing interests to subside to us. We don't know how to negotiate and compromise, it's America's way or the highway, and Obama made that mentality pretty clear in his recent speech. He doesn't give a shit about what the UN does, and possibly not even about what our own Congress does.

@ Filth in the Beauty
Actually, I forgot I posted the drone post. I thought you were talking about my Bush post.

No, my mom meant it. And I don't think it would be Iraq 2.0 because Iraq didn't start with a drone, it ended with one. I mean, if the drone will end the fighting in Syria, sure I'm all for Iraq 2.0.