"Syria is a national security risk to the USA" -- President Obama

[Kyriakos]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-chemical-attacks-syria-top-security-risk-190444746--politics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first time in more than two years of a bloody civil war, President Barack Obama has declared Syria a national security threat that must be answered with a military strike — and in doing so he is warning Americans as much about the leaders of Iran and North Korea as about Bashar Assad.

America's credibility with those countries will be an immediate casualty if it stands down now on Syria, administration officials say in making their case for U.S. missile strikes.

Following an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, the White House declared Syria's 2-year civil war a top risk to American interests. If the U.S. fails to respond, officials said this week, it could encourage other hostile governments to use or develop weapons of mass destruction without fear of being punished.

So, president W.Bush Obama has now claimed that Syria is a national security risk for his nearby fiefdom of the USA. The argument was that if Syria is left to continue the war without any missiles sent against it, then other countries might think they can too develop weapons of mass destruction, citing Iran and N. Korea (which already has nukes, but i guess it will be horrible if it also has chemical weapons...).

Furthermore those pariah countries might do other nasty stuff, like actually attack other countries- if the USA does not do the noble thing and attack another country.

-Is this change you can believe in? Obama seems to be W.Bush without the painting-dogs skill.

-Does the theoretical belief/rhetoric that if one does not bomb a country then this will lead in the future to having his own country harmed, constitute an ethical, viable, or even serious position?

Hagel cited "a clear, living example of how we are not insulated from the rest of the world, how things can happen to the United States in this country if we are not vigilant, and think through these things, and stay ahead of these things, and take action to prevent these things from occurring."

"Maybe something would not happen in this country for a couple of years," Hagel said. "But the 9/11 anniversary, I think, is a very clear example you can use with your constituents."

 

[CavLancer]

Man's completely lost it. Why do presidents think this way? It took forever to get out of Vietnam because of this crap. "Peace with honor" in a dishonorable war. They must put pods under their beds first night in the White House. Stupid pods.

Instead, "Yeah, I made the red line and it was a dumb thing to do, so I'm changing my mind on attacking Syria."

Btw I think this thread will be closed, but its just a guess.

 

[REDY]

Obama is worst Potus for decades, hands down.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Weird, what people think about today's president...

Doesn't it remind you of a certain president after a certain other war which was began by a certain terrorist attack?

 

[Antilogic]

The mental gymnastics required to construe the situation in Syria as a direct national security risk to USA #1 are worthy of Olympic gold.

 

[Kyriakos]

The mental gymnastics required to construe the situation in Syria as a direct national security risk to USA #1 are worthy of Olympic gold.

 

[PhroX]

The mental gymnastics required to construe the situation in Syria as a direct national security risk to USA #1 are worthy of Olympic gold.

Well, I could just about see the US being a bit more at risk if the Al-Quaeda led rebels take over Syria.....

 

[TheLastOne36]

Well, I could just about see the US being a bit more at risk if the Al-Quaeda led rebels take over Syria.....

My thoughts exactly.

American supporting Al-Qaeda is definitely a new one. Though they did it with the Taliban.

I'm just puzzled why Washington think that Assad winning the war won't end in returned stability in Syria. That's what Israel is banking on.

 

[druidravi]

Deja Vu..its 2003 all over again. I actually thought Obama was a smart and decent guy. Well he is smart,but he is using the exactly same tactics as that of the Bush administration . What's next a power point presentation at the security council?

 

[Chiteng]

Syria is not a national security risk. Iran however is.

We need to remove the ability of Iran to try and get nuclear weapons.
I am not at all interested in hearing how they already have them.
If that is true, then lets destroy the ones they have.
The point is to not let them have them.

It is a priority to de-fang the Iranian threat, and permanently.

Syria is Iran's proxy. Getting rid of Syria, in theory, weakens Iran.

I personally dont believe that, but so the logic goes.

 

[Kyriakos]

Syria is not a national security risk. Iran however is.

We need to remove the ability of Iran to try and get nuclear weapons.
I am not at all interested in hearing how they already have them.
If that is true, then lets destroy the ones they have.
The point is to not let them have them.

It is a priority to de-fang the Iranian threat, and permanently.

Syria is Iran's proxy. Getting rid of Syria, in theory, weakens Iran.

I personally dont believe that, but so the logic goes.

^I don't see Iran firing nukes against the USA, so they are not a risk any more than any other nuclear power is a risk.
Moreover, arguing that Syria should be bombed just so as to send a message to Iran, is not just an insane way to think about bombs and death, but also one which will in the end only hasten the ugly fall of the US- which has already started since some time now. To keep having eyes only for the bread and circuses while the plague has reached the city is not a good idea.

 

[peter grimes]

Syrian instability is a threat to Israel's security, so that must be the logic here.

[Off-Topic]
Iran, likewise, is only a threat to Israel - not the USA. In fact, the USA is a threat to Iran, so it only makes sense for Iran to want to develop nuclear weapons. When's the last time the US attacked a nuclear state?

A map, to make it clear:

Spoiler :

Which Iranian base is the biggest threat to the US? Is it the one in Bermuda, or the one in Mexico?

Also, consider the case of Libya: Quaddafi voluntarily comes clean about his weapons programs, lets inspectors run all over the country, pays off what he considered to be a bogus extortion fee for Lockerbie, and at the first chance of trouble the US helps to topple him.

These sorts of signals tell other leaders in very plain language what they need to do if they don't want the US to mess with their domestic situation.

So there you have it.

[/Off-Topic]

 

[Defiant47]

Do we really need a 7th thread on this?

Obama's trying to appeal to American citizens who don't care for other people's welfare and only for their own. By framing it as "our own national security is at stake", these people might be willing to sanction a strike.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Apparently, there are a number of people who didn't pay much attention to the remarks that Kerry and Hegel made in the House committee a few days ago. This is just a rehash of those comments.


Link to video.

AFAIK Obama hasn't started using the same rhetoric yet. So there is still at least a shred of hope that this is really more Kerry and Hegel trying to convince those who used the very same tactics a decade ago than it is him. The only thing they did differently is to not include Syria in the new and improved "axis of evil".

Or, again, as Jon Stewart summarized it after hearing the same remarks from a number of different talking heads: "Oh, right. We have to bomb Syria because we are in 7th Grade."

Steven Colbert also addressed the similarities to the previous administration:

Colbert Wishes Obama Would Learn From Bush On How To Sell Syrian War

Stephen Colbert has missed former president George W. Bush ever since the day he left the White House, but never more than during the build-up to a possible military strike in Syria.

"I miss being lied to by a professional," Colbert quipped.

Stephen's Science Project & Chemical Weapons in Syria

The United States has no choice but to attack Bashar al-Assad because he is killing his own people with chemicals weapons. Before, he was just killing them with bullets. But if America cared about shooting people, we would be invading Chicago.

 

[Chiteng]

^I don't see Iran firing nukes against the USA, so they are not a risk any more than any other nuclear power is a risk.
Moreover, arguing that Syria should be bombed just so as to send a message to Iran, is not just an insane way to think about bombs and death, but also one which will in the end only hasten the ugly fall of the US- which has already started since some time now. To keep having eyes only for the bread and circuses while the plague has reached the city is not a good idea.

If you had actually read my various posts you would know that I stridently oppose
action against Syria.

 

[warpus]

Obama's a pawn. This is just a talking point that's meant to signify that airstrikes are just around the corner.

Heck, if the U.S. wanted to attack Moldova, they'd be claiming that it poses a dire threat to the very existence of the United States of America. It's just talk. I'm sure a bunch of rednecks in the south buy it, but all of this is such a farce.. Heck, the position of the POTUS has turned into such a farce. How quickly we went from "Leader of the free world" to "Jackass with no morals, no backbone, and a pretty face, doing the bidding for his rich friends and whoever the hell else"

 

[Chiteng]

Obama's a pawn. This is just a talking point that's meant to signify that airstrikes are just around the corner.

Heck, if the U.S. wanted to attack Moldova, they'd be claiming that it poses a dire threat to the very existence of the United States of America. It's just talk. I'm sure a bunch of rednecks in the south buy it, but all of this is such a farce.. Heck, the position of the POTUS has turned into such a farce. How quickly we went from "Leader of the free world" to "Jackass with no morals, no backbone, and a pretty face, doing the bidding for his rich friends and whoever the hell else"

Blame the fools who elected him. I surely did NOT!

 

[Borachio]

Apparently, there are a number of people who didn't pay much attention to the remarks that Kerry and Hegel made in the House committee a few days ago. This is just a rehash of those comments.


Link to video.

Yeah. I haven't watched the whole video (owing to data limitations).

I have some sympathy with him bewailing the fact that some people still don't believe the intelligence reports. Nevertheless, should you wish to be believed, about something which you hold to be true, it does help if you haven't previously lied. (Where the "you" refers to the intelligence agencies.)

 

[warpus]

Blame the fools who elected him. I surely did NOT!

Nah, you can't fault the electorate; they didn't have any real options. They could have voted for Jack Johnson or John Jackson. Any man being elected to the position of POTUS likely quickly learns what sort of political constraints exist and that as president he is not really working for the citizens of the country, but rather special interest groups, lobbyists, and whoever the hell else.

Yeah. I haven't watched the whole video (owing to data limitations).

I have some sympathy with him bewailing the fact that some people still don't believe the intelligence reports. Nevertheless, should you wish to be believed, about something which you hold to be true, it does help if you haven't previously lied. (Where the "you" refers to the intelligence agencies.)

The U.S. has a history of playing dirty in order to get a Causis Belli so that they can be diplomatically justified in pursuing military action. With that in mind I don't think it's unreasonable to be suspicious here.

 

[Angst]

If you had actually read my various posts you would know that I stridently oppose
action against Syria.

I do not understand why you are
talking like this.