Syrian Strike Vote

[metis]

Democrats have a history of war lust too, so it was quite easy to "sucker" them
into going along. Since we're so aware of the disastrous effects of Bush jumping
the gun, I'm actually surprised at the weak opposition to Obama's doing the same.

Most opposition to wars in the 20th and 21st centuries have mostly come from the Democrats.

Secondly, where do you see Obama doing the same? Which claims did he supposedly make?

No, I see a lot of difference between how the two have been handled, and a reminder that Obama has not said if you're not for attacking then you're against us, which is what Bush had proclaimed to Congress. Obama, as a reminder, was a no vote.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most opposition to wars in the 20th and 21st centuries have mostly come from the Democrats.

And yet, we saw Kennedy & Johnson ramp up the Viet Nam war.
Now, lookie here, bub...people can argue about who is more hawkish. I don't know.
But I certainly don't see Democrats as the anti-war/anti-foreign adventurism party.

Secondly, where do you see Obama doing the same? Which claims did he supposedly make?

The similarity I see is that Obama threatened war against Syria, albeit using allusions of the ole "surgical strike", just as Bush threatened war. The reasons offered aren't as concerning as the cost & probability of failure.

No, I see a lot of difference between how the two have been handled, and a reminder that Obama has not said if you're not for attacking then you're against us, which is what Bush had proclaimed to Congress. Obama, as a reminder, was a no vote.

For Obama's fans, there are differences to see.
For those of us who oppose foreign adventurism, there are similarities to be wary of.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And yet, we saw Kennedy & Johnson ramp up the Viet Nam war.
Now, lookie here, bub...people can argue about who is more hawkish. I don't know.
But I certainly don't see Democrats as the anti-war/anti-foreign adventurism party.

Not over the last 60 or 100 years, no. A person's age gives them a real bias. I'm under 40, so I didn't live through Kennedy or Nixon. I'm a 'Reagan' baby.

The similarity I see is that Obama threatened war against Syria, albeit using allusions of the ole "surgical strike", just as Bush threatened war. The reasons offered aren't as concerning as the cost & probability of failure.

Now here is where the Dem's deserve to get criticism whether or not they drag us into another war, but at least they didn't.

For Obama's fans, there are differences to see.
For those of us who oppose foreign adventurism, there are similarities to be wary of.

Yeah, ok. I'm fairly convinced that presidents become isolated in their thinking, mainly due to so much lobbying. They don't trust anybody, and nobody trusts them. Not only does their hair gray quickly but they burn out when really they ought to be very happy. They're at the 'Top of the world' with bullet proof suits and people following them around, always in demand. I think their attention span starts to slip, I really do.

 

[esmith]

I follow politics very closely and I don't recall any talk of impeachment of Bush coming from any serious political figure. Secondly, if these "Liberals" are so willing to "blindly" follow their "messiah", then why are so many questioning and willing to go against him? Seems like you totally undermined your entire point as you posted an oxymoron.

Finally, Bush jumped the gun on Iraq and, unfortunately, also suckered way too many Democrats in going with him, but Obama has not done the same.

FYI if you look at my post http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...biden-says-president-should-impeached-if.html I think you might find that there was mention by a serious political figure, the current VP, to impeach President Bush if he did "something".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I remember the last time the cost-benefit analysis was used in a conflict was by the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during Vietnam and it turned into a total debacle.

I highly doubt that (a) Vietnam was the last time cost-benefit analysis was used in a conflict, and (b) that is what caused it to be a debacle.

 

[metis]

And yet, we saw Kennedy & Johnson ramp up the Viet Nam war.
Now, lookie here, bub...people can argue about who is more hawkish. I don't know.
But I certainly don't see Democrats as the anti-war/anti-foreign adventurism party.

Historians do know which party has been more hawkish as should most people.

The similarity I see is that Obama threatened war against Syria, albeit using allusions of the ole "surgical strike", just as Bush threatened war. The reasons offered aren't as concerning as the cost & probability of failure.

He has not threatened "war", which is different that using "surgical strikes" in terms of what he's proposing. Even though there is never a guarantee when one does use military force, neither are there any guarantees if we just sit back and let the atrocities go unchallenged. If we just let Assad have his way, we'll be doing the exact same thing as Chamberlain did when he said there would be "peace in our times" when he refused to confront the NAZI's. Appeasing tyrants almost never works.

For Obama's fans, there are differences to see.
For those of us who oppose foreign adventurism, there are similarities to be wary of.

The issue isn't partisan with me, so the above doesn't apply. I've studied the Middle East for many years (I was a member of the Council on North African and Near Eastern Studies out of the University of Michigan for roughly 15 years, plus I've studied in the Middle East). What you are proposing is essentially a surrender to elements that will see us as cowards, and so will many other countries, including even some of our allies.

If we do nothing, the implications will most likely be disastrous, not only for that area, but also the west, including us. And for all practical purposes, the nearly 100 year ban on chemical weapons is dead since there'd be no enforcement for violators. Instead of preventing more deaths by these weapons, we'll be pretty much guaranteeing that they will be used more and more, quite possibly on us as well.

Like probably most people, I detest war-- but sometimes one simply has to fight to protect the innocent.

 

[esmith]

I highly doubt that (a) Vietnam was the last time cost-benefit analysis was used in a conflict, and (b) that is what caused it to be a debacle.

What other conflict do you think that used the same criteria that Sec Def Robert McNamara used? No, it was not just this one issue that was the cause of the debacle in Vietnam. It was that politicians were attempting to micromanage the war.

Now, it looks like President Obama wants to go into Syria with the idea that this is just a one time little engagement(heard that before). I hear that their will be consequences if we don't go and consequences if we do go. I hear that if we don't go this will be an open invitation for Assad or supporters of Assad to attack us or our allies. I find it troubling to think that the Assad regime or his supporters would want to expand this conflict beyond the borders of Syria. I also hear that if we do go that there is a possibility that the conflict would expand outside the borders of Syria in retaliation for the attack . I kind of believe that the latter has the higher probability of occurring. I also hear that by "backing down" (as those that support the attack imply) would embolden more WMD attacks and send a signal that the US is weak and will not act on other provocations. However, on the other hand one would think that any country that acts in a manner that threatens the US or our allies would think twice before doing so since it would be two different scenarios.

 

[metis]

FYI if you look at my post http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...biden-says-president-should-impeached-if.html I think you might find that there was mention by a serious political figure, the current VP, to impeach President Bush if he did "something".

Which is different than what was posted as what Biden proposed was a hypothetical and not a statement that Bush should be impeached, period.

 

[esmith]

Which is different than what was posted as what Biden proposed was a hypothetical and not a statement that Bush should be impeached, period.

Everything is hypothetical until it occurs, then it is no longer hypothetical. Do you not think that Biden would not have called for President Bush's impeachment if he had gone ahead and did what Biden said was an impeachable offense? Or was it just "ole Joe" grandstanding and "misspeaking" again?

 

[LuisDantas]

What other conflict do you think that used the same criteria that Sec Def Robert McNamara used?

Analysis of cost/benefit is just sensible for pretty much any initiative, definiltely including war operations.

It should be employed. If it is not, we should all be scared.

 

[metis]

Everything is hypothetical until it occurs, then it is no longer hypothetical. Do you not think that Biden would not have called for President Bush's impeachment if he had gone ahead and did what Biden said was an impeachable offense? Or was it just "ole Joe" grandstanding and "misspeaking" again?

Biden tends to be a verbal loose canon, so who knows what he would have done.

 

[esmith]

Analysis of cost/benefit is just sensible for pretty much any initiative, definiltely including war operations.

It should be employed. If it is not, we should all be scared.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you. There are times that the cost of a battle far outweighs the monetary value of the objective. This is the type of thinking that SecDef McNamara used was basically "killing the last enemy with the last bullet as the last soldier eats the last can of beans in the quartermaster's stores" A comment by Robert Hotz editor of Aviation Week & Space Technology

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you. There are times that the cost of a battle far outweighs the monetary value of the objective.

Oh, so you meant monetary costs and benefits?

I did not. Not exclusively, anyway.

 

[esmith]

Oh, so you meant monetary costs and benefits?

I did not. Not exclusively, anyway.

No, not necessarily.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, not necessarily.

Then what do you propose as better than a decision guided by a study of cost and benefit?

 

[esmith]

Then what do you propose as better than a decision guided by a study of cost and benefit?

The reason.

 

[LuisDantas]

The reason.

Meaning...?

 

[esmith]

Meaning...?

Well first you are going to have to give me what you mean by cost. It is possible that I am misreading your definition of cost vs benefits.

 

[esmith]

Latest figures on where Congress stands of this issue, list both houses of congress and search facilities by state.

Where Congress stands on Syria - The Washington Post

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Haaretz ...

AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action​

From Neil Lazurus* in the Times of Israel ...

An open letter to AIPAC from a frustrated friend

As AIPAC sends lobbyists to Congress in support of President Obama’s beleaguered attempts to muster support for an attack on Syria, one question remains unanswered; who exactly does AIPAC represent?

Why is AIPAC lobbying on behalf of President Obama? Who said it should support a policy very few Americans agree with? Moreover, why are they supporting a military strike that could lead to an attack on Israel by Syria, Iran or Hezbollah?

Israel is keeping quiet, quite wisely not taking sides. Yet AIPAC has placed itself fully on the side of a short sighted, if not dangerous policy. AIPAC has become for Obama, what Hezbollah is for Syria. A blind supporter of a war that may ignite the region. Maybe AIPAC should rebrand to OPAC; Obama’s Public Affairs Committee. Clearly on the issue of Syria, they don’t represent the interests of Israel.

Don’t misunderstand me, AIPAC has had an important role in supporting the people of Israel. Yet by supporting Obama’s Syrian policy, many will blame Israel for leading the USA into another war and not a lobbyist group that has overstepped the mark.

* Neil Lazarus is an internationally acclaimed expert in the field of Middle East Politics, Israel Public Diplomacy and Effective Communication Training. He is emerging as one of Israel's leading key note speakers. He is the author of book "The Five Rules of Effective Israel Advocacy." [ibid]