Obama rejects G20 pressure to abandon Syria air strike plan

Super,

So, as usual, crappy option A vs. crappy option B.

I think Mark Steyn sums it up best as to how weary we all irregardless of our politics anymore when it comes U.S involvement in the region.

"For a quarter-century, from Kuwait to Kosovo to Kandahar, the civilized world has gone to war only in order to save or liberate Muslims. The Pentagon is little more than central dispatch for the U.S. military’s Muslim Fast Squad. And what do we have to show for it? Liberating Syria isn’t like liberating the Netherlands: In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy. …So we’ll get rid of Assad and install the local branch of al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood or whatever plucky neophyte democrat makes it to the presidential palace first — and then, there will be, as in Egypt, burning Christian churches and women raped for going uncovered."

The fuse been lit the bullet out of the gun. This can bring the US to a possible confrontation with Russia. This could be a possible smokescreen trying to hide all that stuff that was going on before it. The NSA and the IRS. The people are so concerned about the government being too big and getting out of control. These are important issues people should be looking at.

Air strikes will only kill more people who are not responsible for chemical attacks. At the same time, the politicians of the US must one day realize that they do not have the ability, right or even moral standing to police the world. Like Crazy Joe said, are we trying to deflect attention from the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal and a hundred more Detroit-like bankrupcies?

Obama proved and established himself as DUMB and DEAF...

Typical case for the Middle East......bad option A or bad option B. I wish those idiots would come into the 21st century and give the rest of the world a break.

I have concerns that there will be an unpredictable response to the strikes. Nothing like "World War II" or "holocaust" that some people are talking about here, just little fires that might start and burn for a while. I'm also guessing Syria will strike Israel. We could be opening the door for retaliation.

On the other hand, if the world does nothing, what happens if there is another chemical attack and it kills 5,000 people instead of 1,500? What happens if they are used in a smallish scale in another conflict? I really do think that chemical weapons are a red line that nearly all countries would not cross and if that line becomes blurry they will entertain the thought of using them, especially since everyone can bring up the terrorist angle whenever they want.

So, as usual, crappy option A vs. crappy option B.

I don't think Russia sold chemical weapons just the delivery systems. It was whoever decided what should be put in the warhead who is responsible. Very few people in the US believe we should start fighting in Syria imo. As for hitting a bunch of innocents... have you completely ignored how inaccurate and wide spread a chemical weapon can be compared to a normal explosive missile?

There are plans to launch hundreds of missles at Syria! Why?

Obama has shown the world no concrete proof that Assad was responsible nor has he attempted to engage in any dialogue with the Syrians.

Assad is NOT a dictator. Syria has a constitution and Assad seems to want to run the country according to constitutional principles.

Americans have to reject this war mongering...........

Assad is NOT a dictator. Syria has a constitution and Assad seems to want to run the country according to constitutional principles.

Yes, Assad is a dictator. Personally, I have not seen any concrete proof that Assad's regime is behind the chemical attacks. However, to claim Assad and his father are or were not dictators is complely ignore reality.

Here's the thing: Obama authorises attacks on Syria thus weakening the government which now clearly has the upper hand in this civil war. Al-Qaeda and the multiple rebel groups then fight for power amongst themselves. End result surely has to be a new regime controlled by elements hostile to America. What is the end game in attacking Syria? What are the benefits for America attacking Syria? It is hard to see a good outcome for the US from this other than we punished people for using (allegedly) chemical weapons. And made more enemies. And helped our enemies into power. Then your enemies control the chemical weapons and Israel is next door.

The United States is in the minority and even the majority of Americans oppose military action. As for the films, they appear to have died or been poisoned. There are many ways to make people look like they were killed by gas. Second they conveniently arranged to have camera's at the sites. Third if gas was used the rebels could of done it. We have no hard evidence of anything. Lastly the rebels do not care about killing civilians or POWs for the cause. The USA does not need to act. It is not their conflict and perhaps Russia will help to defend them.

It seems that the forty-two years old Sam Power is the one who provides the "theoretical basis" underpinning Obama's policy, and in particular regarding the Syria strike plan. Suppose that she were engaged in medical research, or in engineering research, would you take it for granted that the theory she offers is correct and applicable?

What's your solution, SimondB? Let them fight it out for another few years ( doesn't look like Assad's forces are going to crush the rebels anytime soon ) with more chemical weapon attacks?

It's now much less about what Syria is doing and why someone should or shouldn't strike and is now just a pissing contest. Obama let the words fly from his lips, and backing down would be the nail in his coffin. You can understand why Russia won't back down -- they sell weapons (and likely the chemical weapons) to Syria and have a naval port there.

Anyway, can it be guaranteed a strike would end Assad's reign, or would it just hit a bunch of innocents?

It's like the mid-20th Century but the reverse.

Back in the mid-20th Century, the US supported anti-communist African strongmen to keep control of their countries, supplying them with military weapons, and as long as they keep communism out of their countries, they could do whatever they want to their people and country (torture or kill them, embezzle the country's wealth, etc.) - while the US kept selling them weapons. So it works out for both sides: the US keep communism out and make money from selling weapons; the African strongmen keep their power over their country and people.

Now in the 21st Century, it's Russia who supports Middle Eastern strongmen to keep control of their countries, selling them weapons, and as long as they keep Islamism out of their countries and spreading into Russia's territories like Dagestan and Chechnya, then the ME strongmen could do whatever they want to their people and country (torture or kill them, embezzle the country's wealth, etc.) - while Russia will keep selling them weapons.

The mirror similarities are so funny.

Regardless what happens: whether the US does air strikes or not, or even if the US puts boots on the ground or not - people will still die, whether by US bombs or bullets or by civil war bombs and bullets or chemical weapons. No matter what happens, people will die anyways, one way or another. There's no avoiding that. Even when there's nothing done, there's still no saving them. So arguing about saving lives is misleading.

Anyways, how about that Obama showing up with gay rights activists in Russian land! Thumbing his nose to Putin on human rights! When just a month ago, it was Putin calling for Snowden's human rights! The mirror similarities are so funny.

It seems that the US would never give up the air strikes because Great America does not want to lose its long time prestige since independence day.