The United States quandary - what to do with the drive by the Obama Administration to Militarily Intervene in Syria with bombs and missiles and perhaps ground troops? What are the internal and international dynamics and implications? What political factions are for and against intervention? What do the American politicians think? What do the American people think? Who is to be believed? What are the International implications ? Will the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives approve of obama's strike plans?

Your opinion is welcome ...

As the OP -- just so TVF members will know... I am against intervention into the Syrian Civil War ... What do you think?

Meet the Syrian Islamist Organization Controlling Senator McCain’s Agenda

Senator McCain mentioned Elizabeth O’Bagy’s op-ed during the Senate hearings, when he wasn’t playing poker, and tweeted it. That should come as no surprise, considering that O’Bagy is credited with arranging McCain’s infamous photo op with the Syrian rebel leadership.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/meet-the-syrian-islamist-organization-controlling-senator-mccains-agenda/

I'm conflicted about this. Getting involved in Syria seems plain stupid to me, but not doing anything serious about chemical weapons use just seems crazy.

Some silly cosmetic strike - to save face for Obama - seems like a waste of lives, time and money, but a full on assault might turn the war in favor of the terrorists on the other side. McCain says that they are moderates, but I am very skeptical about that and some recent photos, showing the "moderate" leaders sitting in front of an Islamic radical flag, makes it look unlikely that the are big fans of the West.

It is funny to see a bunch of conservatives that usually support military action saying that we should stay out of this - often just because they don't like Obama - and a bunch of liberal peaceniks - who have been protesting military actions all of their lives - supporting this because they will vote for anything that benefits Obama.

I thought it was ironic when some loud-mouth protesters interrupted Kerry's speech a few days ago. He would have been doing the same thing in his younger days and it really made him and the commander in chief look like hypocrites.

At the moment, I am against the strike, but, to be honest, I keep wavering back and forth.

Voters Explode on John McCain at Phoenix Town Hall: ‘We Didn’t Send You to Make War for Us’

This is what I think of Congress,” he said, holding a bag of marshmallows in his hand. “They are a bunch of marshmallows. That’s what they are. That’s what they’ve become. Why are you not listening to the people and staying out of Syria? It’s not our fight.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/05/voters-explode-on-john-mccain-at-phoenix-town-hall-we-didnt-send-you-to-make-war-for-us/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons

If the US continues to support the rebels to overthrow Assad., even allowing for good intentions of being careful who they arm. You can be damn sure that a year or less after they win. We (the west) will be having problems with the Islamist government. There are no good guys in this fight.

If the US continues to support the rebels to overthrow Assad., even allowing for good intentions of being careful who they arm. You can be dam_n sure that a year or less after they win. We (the west) will be having problems with the Islamist government. There are no good guys in this fight.

Exactly -- Even removing the question of who did the gassing ... how does one choose between the warring factions -- Assad vs the nefarious 'Rebels' ... wow what an awful choice... Gassing is indiscriminate ... but so is beheading priests and nuns, truck drivers and who ever comes along ... which is likely to continue - even when 'peace breaks out'... We just do not need another Libya or Egypt aftermath...

It's time to stop playing games.

The U.S. interest in doing anything in Syria is related to Iran.

Why not start a war with Iran NOW and get this over with?

Everyday the Iranians get closer to finishing their WMDs. The naive among you think they won't use them. They will use them. The USA policeman of the world? Who ELSE is going to stop Iran?

Three strikes against striking Syria IMO:

1. Obama has certainly NOT offered a coherent, consistent, clear strategy. We hear limited strike, but we also hear that we're not taking anything off the table, and now we're just beginning to hear the word "bombing".
2. No vision for what's supposed to happen AFTER the strike, what we expect to happen, or that contingencies are in place for the multiple possibilities. You just can't do stuff like this one baby step at a time and "see what happens". I can't stomach the "pass it and we'll see what's in it" approach to lawmaking (OR warmaking). You either have a plan, or you don't. We apparently don't. We can't even answer the question about chemical weapons: are we merely "punishing" Assad for using them, or seeking to control them so as to prevent any future use?
3. There are no good guys in this with whom to align ourselves. There are simply bad, and (maybe) less bad. The guy we're supposedly punishing may actually be the "less bad". Before it's over, we'll undoubtedly ourselves, be considered among "the bad" by many at home as well as in Syria and the wider mid-East. ('Course that'll happen even if we do nothing! Oh, trust me, there'll be dead baby photos all over the internet before we're 24 hrs into it!)

Yes, I'm pretty much what the My-Obama-right-or-wrong crowd would refer to as an Obama-hater, but crap on a cracker, man - this program just defies all understanding! I DO know the US simply can't tolerate another full-on war, even less than we can tolerate the use of chemical weapons in the middle East, and I see NO guarantee that's not where this could be headed. Russia & Iran are lining up with Syria, just the way Russia did with Serbia way back in 1914 prior to its being invaded by Austria-Hungary. And we know where that led. I'm not really a WW3'er, but I am very much convinced that a strike on Syria, whether it lasts one day and accomplishes nothing, or 2 weeks and measurably degrades Assad's military capabilities, simply WON'T be the end of it. It seems to me that if you're going to speak out in support of this thing, you'd better be prepared to sign on for the full program, including exigencies you can't possibly foretell (and which might well scare the piss out of you if you could).

If the US continues to support the rebels to overthrow Assad., even allowing for good intentions of being careful who they arm. You can be dam_n sure that a year or less after they win. We (the west) will be having problems with the Islamist government. There are no good guys in this fight.

And saddest of all to my way of thinking, is that amongst those "no good guys", we can count ourselves, if we engage in warfare there.

Oh, one more thing, for those who maybe haven't heard. It was never Obama's red line. Now he says it was "the world's" red line. I'd laugh, but as an American, I'm way too embarrassed to do anything but maybe cry.

I'm really depressed at the thought of more young Americans having to go over there again and risk their lives & maybe die again for people who always seem to end up not ever having really wanted to be saved from anyone in the first place, except US! And if this thing does kick off, I'm having visions of an opposition back home in the States that will grow & intensify until it becomes reminiscent of the Vietnam years.

At the G-20 summit, Obama and Hollande are on one side, and all the rest are on the other (or on the fence, but leaning towards Putin etc). It is becoming more and more obvious that any military attack by the US would be a disastrous mistake.

One can sympathise with Obama for not wanting to let a chemical attack go unpunished, but it would be better if he knew who were the perpetrators. Anyway, he should have acted first and asked afterwards if he was going to act at all.

I only hope that Congress will refuse to back him.... as indeed appears quite likely.

Otherwise, you can look forward to yet another waste of young American lives with no beneficial result in sight. Oh, and more than a few Syrians may die as well.

Obama will still act even if Congress rejects. He is not bound by their vote under the law. The level of action he was proposing is not a declaration of war so it does not require any action by Congress. Besides, it's not even necessary to have an act of war with an actual war, as recent history has shown. Obama has little to lose politically if he still acts. He's not running again.

It's time to stop playing games.

The U.S. interest in doing anything in Syria is related to Iran.

Why not start a war with Iran NOW and get this over with?

Everyday the Iranians get closer to finishing their WMDs. The naive among you think they won't use them. They will use them. The USA policeman of the world? Who ELSE is going to stop Iran?

At least you sputter what your prophet O will not.

But really folks like you either need to evolve or become extinct

Because what you root for is far worse than anything Iran could ever do

Your so called preemptive policing/murder to avoid murder is the sign of a sick twisted mind

Illegal, immoral, and dangerous.

A viewpoint published by Al Jazeera.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/201391142319670421.html

It's time to stop playing games.

The U.S. interest in doing anything in Syria is related to Iran.

Why not start a war with Iran NOW and get this over with?

Everyday the Iranians get closer to finishing their WMDs. The naive among you think they won't use them. They will use them. The USA policeman of the world? Who ELSE is going to stop Iran?

At least you sputter what your prophet O will not.

But really folks like you either need to evolve or become extinct

Because what you root for is far worse than anything Iran could ever do

Your so called preemptive policing/murder to avoid murder is the sign of a sick twisted mind

I don't think Obama is sensible enough to understand Iran's nuke program must be attacked. Bush was a loon of course, too bad he attacked the WRONG country!

Illegal, immoral, and dangerous.

A viewpoint published by Al Jazeera.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/201391142319670421.html

Not as illegal, immoral, and dangerous as the chemical weapons used by the Assad regime, close ally of Russia and Iran.

Obama will still act even if Congress rejects. He is not bound by their vote under the law. The level of action he was proposing is not a declaration of war so it does not require any action by Congress. Besides, it's not even necessary to have an act of war with an actual war, as recent history has shown. Obama has little to lose politically if he still acts. He's not running again.

This is not about Obama's future. It's about thousands of human lives.... Syrians, Iranians, Americans and whoever else gets sucked into the mess.

Do you really think that Assad hasn't got his response lined up? Missiles aimed at Israel, I would think, though some reports have suggested kamikaze bombers might be at the ready.

This is sheer madness.

Illegal, immoral, and dangerous.

A viewpoint published by Al Jazeera.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/201391142319670421.html

Not as illegal, immoral, and dangerous as the chemical weapons used by the Assad regime, close ally of Russia and Iran.

This attitude might be comprehensible if it had been proved that the chemical weapons were used by Assad. We all know at least one of the rebel groups has sarin in its possession. How comes Obama doesn't seem to know this? or is it just that he doesn't want to?

Illegal, immoral, and dangerous.

A viewpoint published by Al Jazeera.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/201391142319670421.html

Not as illegal, immoral, and dangerous as the chemical weapons used by the Assad regime, close ally of Russia and Iran.

This attitude might be comprehensible if it had been proved that the chemical weapons were used by Assad. We all know at least one of the rebel groups has sarin in its possession. How comes Obama doesn't seem to know this? or is it just that he doesn't want to?

Why not start a war with Iran NOW and get this over with?

Not a war. A "limited" strike on their nuclear facilities with the latest bunker-busters for however long it takes to pound them into dust. These nutcases have been warned repeatedly, so no need to tell them that we are coming.

From what I have seen Obama has fallen back on his normal routine when in doubt point fingers and blame Bush. I have no faith in the community organizer and the world deserves a far better leader at the helm of the USA war machine if it is going to flex its muscles. Under Obama the USA should stay as far away from military conflict as possible.

Why not start a war with Iran NOW and get this over with?

Not a war. A "limited" strike on their nuclear facilities with the latest bunker-busters for however long it takes to pound them into dust. These nutcases have been warned repeatedly, so no need to tell them that we are coming.

Thank you.

That's really what I meant.

But face it, they would likely react to that and make it into a war if they possibly could and they possibly can.

Anyone who seriously believes Iran will negotiate an end to their nuke program is smoking strong stuff. Somebody is going to have to bomb them sooner or later, so why not sooner before they get even further?

Somebody is going to have to bomb them sooner or later, so why not sooner before they get even further?

You have some serious issues to deal with.

Somebody is going to have to bomb them sooner or later, so why not sooner before they get even further?

You have some serious issues to deal with.

So you think Iran with nuclear weapons is acceptable?

I don't.

Yes, that's a very serious issue.

Somebody is going to have to bomb them sooner or later, so why not sooner before they get even further?

You have some serious issues to deal with.

So you think Iran with nuclear weapons is acceptable?

I don't.

Yes, that's a very serious issue.

Who gets to play god & deem what is acceptable?

If had a choice I would choose no Nukes for anyone.....Is that allowed?

No? Then is it ok to bomb those with the Nukes 1st then work on those that do not yet have them?

All sounds like the basic insanity you & your type try to push off as normal responsible thought.

It is no better than those you seem to fear. You just think yours is more ok...It is not

Somebody is going to have to bomb them sooner or later, so why not sooner before they get even further?

You have some serious issues to deal with.

Indeed. How to prevent hateful, Islamic lunatics from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Somebody is going to have to bomb them sooner or later, so why not sooner before they get even further?

You have some serious issues to deal with.

Indeed. How to prevent hateful, Islamic lunatics from obtaining nuclear weapons.

How about all the hateful aggressive types that already have them?

It is too late to do anything about North Korea and Pakistan, but no new nuts need to be added to the pile.

Can someone please explain to me why ~110,000 deaths over two years by 'normal' means are not enough to persuade the West to attack Syria yet ~1000 deaths by sarin are? That is a genuine question.