Biden threats Bush with impeachment for attack on Iran without Congressional approval:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DSN79SY4WM

 

Same or different situation today with Syria?

I'm sorry, but who gives a crap if Syria is killing itself? I'd rather they keep murdering themselves than put any of our military in harms way.

 

They're not threatening the US, leave them alone.

I'm sorry, but who gives a crap if Syria is killing itself? I'd rather they keep murdering themselves than put any of our military in harms way.

 

They're not threatening the US, leave them alone.

We don't agree often, but I am with you 100% on this!

I'm sorry, but who gives a crap if Syria is killing itself? I'd rather they keep murdering themselves than put any of our military in harms way.

 

They're not threatening the US, leave them alone.

 

Nothing happens in a vacuum. America has said for years that chemical attacks are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

 

If Assad is gassing people and we do nothing, then why does our blustering mean anything to Iran or North Korea? What does Russia or China then gain out of our willingness to turn the other way while they make deals with harsh regimes?

 

I'm not saying we go in with guns-a-blazing but I am saying that just because they're not a direct threat to America doesn't mean that inaction won't have consequences.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. America has said for years that chemical attacks are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

 

If Assad is gassing people and we do nothing, then why does our blustering mean anything to Iran or North Korea? What does Russia or China then gain out of our willingness to turn the other way while they make deals with harsh regimes?

 

I'm not saying we go in with guns-a-blazing but I am saying that just because they're not a direct threat to America doesn't mean that inaction won't have consequences.

 

The clear difference is both Iran and NK have made threats against America. Syria is not a threat. Let them kill themselves.

 

There's no reason for any American to be put in harms way to accomplish something that won't do a darn thing in the grand scheme of things.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. America has said for years that chemical attacks are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

 

If Assad is gassing people and we do nothing, then why does our blustering mean anything to Iran or North Korea? What does Russia or China then gain out of our willingness to turn the other way while they make deals with harsh regimes?

 

I'm not saying we go in with guns-a-blazing but I am saying that just because they're not a direct threat to America doesn't mean that inaction won't have consequences.

But even when the no-Fly zone was put in place in Kosovo and Iraq, both were done so after UN resolutions. Neither time did the US take unilateral action.

But even when the no-Fly zone was put in place in Kosovo and Iraq, both were done so after UN resolutions. Neither time did the US take unilateral action.

 

I think Getslow's point is simply that what is happening in Syria right now is consequential for the rest of the world, even if the violence is only internal now. I hope that the United States does not intervene militarily (moreso than it has to this point), but it would be naive to deny that what's happening there does not have external ramifications or does not affect US interests. Even the most calculating realist would argue that the United States does not live in a vacuum and would perhaps even suggest that the politics around Syria - the jockeying among Russia, Iran, and even China against Western power - have significant ramifications for US strategic interests.

But even when the no-Fly zone was put in place in Kosovo and Iraq, both were done so after UN resolutions. Neither time did the US take unilateral action.

 

I absolutely agree on avoiding unilateral action. The only way any of this works is to get Russia to deal with it, no matter how blustery they feel like getting. Things were certainly easier 15 years ago in Yeltsin's Russia. Putin's Russia is a roadblock to any resolution the security council makes; Russia must be brought on board.

 

Toning down the rhetoric about Assad having to go would probably be the only way to get that done, I hate to say.

 

US unilateral intervention would be bad... a proxy war with Russia propping up one side and the US propping up another would be terrible, especially since neither side actually gives half a care about Russia or the US... and I'm not too crazy about some of the people on the side we'd be backing.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. America has said for years that chemical attacks are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

 

If Assad is gassing people and we do nothing, then why does our blustering mean anything to Iran or North Korea? What does Russia or China then gain out of our willingness to turn the other way while they make deals with harsh regimes?

 

I'm not saying we go in with guns-a-blazing but I am saying that just because they're not a direct threat to America doesn't mean that inaction won't have consequences.

 

If it goes through congress and they choose to do something, then I won't like it, but I can accept it, because that is the propper procedure for military intervention in this situation.

 

This is the military of the American people, it is not the presidents personal military.

 

The vast majority of the American people are not in favor of military action in a civil war. Congress represents those people and are more answerable.

I don’t believe there has been a realistic goal articulated about what a military intervention might achieve. It’s been explicitly stated that military intervention will not be to tip the balance against the Syrian regime. Whether that can be taken at face value or not is unclear. However, it has long past when such an action might have led to a somewhat stable transition of power as recently seen in Syria’s Arab peers. The opposition is now too divided and rife with all types of conflicting ambitions. Short of Assad barbarically crippling all of Syria into submission again, it is unlikely Syria will be anything but a violent disaster for the foreseeable future.

 

The other major goals being discussed are to enforce the taboo against the use of chemical weapons, to punish Assad or his minions for using them or scaring them into not using them again, or to demonstrate American power. Even if we accept that these goals are worthy, the simple question to ask is: What next? What happens if chemical weapons are used again after American use of force? What happens if Russia/Iran then scale up their involvement? I don’t believe these questions can be answered without also being willing to fully commit American forces into this conflict. Lobbing a few missiles at targets Assad values might achieve the desired effect, but it might not. The US shouldn’t be rolling the dice on that.

 

The last goal often discussed is the need to end the humanitarian disaster there, especially since chemical weapons are in play. As noble and desirous as that would be, without an international consensus on how to do so it would likely be futile and lead to a lot of the same questions posed above. If the Security Council cannot agree to a resolution and/or a broad coalition can’t agree on how to resolve the crisis with force and each commit to enforce and restore peace afterword, then I don’t believe it’s supportable.

 

It’s deeply saddening.

If it goes through congress and they choose to do something, then I won't like it, but I can accept it, because that is the propper procedure for military intervention in this situation.

 

This is the military of the American people, it is not the presidents personal military.

 

The vast majority of the American people are not in favor of military action in a civil war. Congress represents those people and are more answerable.

 

I absolutely agree with you. I don't think that's the way it's going to go.

 

Cowardly politicians looking to escape the blame for things like this decided long ago to cede ever more power to the executive office. And little apart from the occasional spat of partisanship has persuaded them to do otherwise. I'd love for Congress to pick itself up off the mat and demonstrate why Congress was given these powers in the Constitution, but I don't see them scrambling to much of anything these days except find out how to avoid getting the blame for something that might cost them re-election.

I don’t believe there has been a realistic goal articulated about what a military intervention might achieve. It’s been explicitly stated that military intervention will not be to tip the balance against the Syrian regime. Whether that can be taken at face value or not is unclear. However, it has long past when such an action might have led to a somewhat stable transition of power as recently seen in Syria’s Arab peers. The opposition is now too divided and rife with all types of conflicting ambitions. Short of Assad barbarically crippling all of Syria into submission again, it is unlikely Syria will be anything but a violent disaster for the foreseeable future.

 

The other major goals being discussed are to enforce the taboo against the use of chemical weapons, to punish Assad or his minions for using them or scaring them into not using them again, or to demonstrate American power. Even if we accept that these goals are worthy, the simple question to ask is: What next? What happens if chemical weapons are used again after American use of force? What happens if Russia/Iran then scale up their involvement? I don’t believe these questions can be answered without also being willing to fully commit American forces into this conflict. Lobbing a few missiles at targets Assad values might achieve the desired effect, but it might not. The US shouldn’t be rolling the dice on that.

 

The last goal often discussed is the need to end the humanitarian disaster there, especially since chemical weapons are in play. As noble and desirous as that would be, without an international consensus on how to do so it would likely be futile and lead to a lot of the same questions posed above. If the Security Council cannot agree to a resolution and/or a broad coalition can’t agree on how to resolve the crisis with force and each commit to enforce and restore peace afterword, then I don’t believe it’s supportable.

 

It’s deeply saddening.

 

 

No end game without putting boots on the ground.

 

As you have state, the Arab Spring, did nothing but cause more instability.

 

 

Dictators are ruthless evil people.....but they are a necessary evil in my eyes, because most are a known quantity....

I think the adults (political wise) left with Hillary. This administration is being run by a woman with strong ties to radicals in the Middle East (VJ) and a bunch of very young kid wonders....oh...and Joe Biden.

No end game without putting boots on the ground.

 

As you have state, the Arab Spring, did nothing but cause more instability.

 

 

Dictators are ruthless evil people.....but they are a necessary evil in my eyes, because most are a known quantity....

 

Frankly, I think self-determination is better than oppression, even if oppression provides short-term stability. It's fostered radicalism and stifled education and experience with pluralism. The transitions toward self-determination and hopefully eventual democracy have been messy, violent, and uncomfortable, but I think it is a better system in the end.

Let them friggin kill each other, that is all they know and care about anyway. We need to stay out of this, look what we did to Egypt.

At least Assad is not against the Christians like the radicals trying to take over are.