Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

I had quite the crush on Bill Clinton....so enamored of him that I saw no faults and readily forgave him for Monica Lewinsky. But I wasn't alone! A large partisan sector of the congress wanted this charismatic president to be impeached; this was done by the House but the more powerful senate voted against such and Clinton remained our more than ever popular president. The backlash against the GOP was so strong for trying to impeach Clinton on such a human frailty, that Newt Gingrich was forced to resign as speaker for his vindictive, spiteful actions; later it was revealed Gingrich was screwing around with an office assistant at the same time this bloated hypocrite was pointing the finger at Clinton. We have seen over and over within the Congress, both Republican and Democrat, that there are philanderers; when one becomes powerful, like being in the Congress, the seat of US power, one attracts so many ambition pretty young women wanting to rise, to touch the high and mighty.

In the UK it's normally the Tories who get caught out in sex scandals.

If someone is shagging the secretary they're not going to be shagging the country. Clinton, Kennedy and Roosevelt all liked the ladies, but made a decent fist of being president.

Actually a historian told me that Roosevelt used to employ someone to lift him on and off his mistresses. I always wonder what that person put on his CV, how job interviews went when he was asked about his previous work.

The military options are all bad. Shipping arms to rebels, even if it helps them topple Assad, would ultimately empower jihadists and worsen rebel in-fighting, probably leading to lots of chaos and possibly a second civil war (the United States made this mistake during Afghanistan’s early 1990s civil war, which helped the Taliban take power in 1996). Taking out Assad somehow would probably do the same, opening up a dangerous power vacuum. Launching airstrikes or a “no-fly zone” could suck us in, possibly for years, and probably wouldn’t make much difference on the ground. An Iraq-style ground invasion would, in the very best outcome, accelerate the killing, cost a lot of U.S. lives, wildly exacerbate anti-Americanism in a boon to jihadists and nationalist dictators alike, and would require the United States to impose order for years across a country full of people trying to kill each other. Nope.
The one political option, which the Obama administration has been pushing for, would be for the Assad regime and the rebels to strike a peace deal. But there’s no indication that either side is interested in that, or that there’s even a viable unified rebel movement with which to negotiate.
It’s possible that there was a brief window for a Libya-style military intervention early on in the conflict. But we’ll never really know.
So why would Obama bother with strikes that no one expects to actually solve anything?
Okay, you’re asking here about the Obama administration’s not-so-subtle signals that it wants to launch some cruise missiles at Syria, which would be punishment for what it says is Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians.
It’s true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it’s not supposed to. The strikes wouldn’t be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.

You don't read my posts I presume!!

I agree.

I'm not a huge David Brooks fan, but he was making the point the other night that right now the "cost" of using chemical weapons needs to be increased. The purpose of the strikes is to make whoever used them think twice about using them again.

The problem I have with it is that it puts us in the position of taking on the role of the Air Force for the rebels (a term someone here used recently). Actually, that's only one of the many problems I have with it. I can see Brook's point that the cost of using chemical weapons needs to be increased in order that they don't become commonplace, but the bizarre way this has come about seems almost like Daddy telling a child to come get his spanking.

I understand. Most working class have health insurance through their employers; I am covered by my husband's insurance at his place of business. I still took out Blue Cross and Blue Shield through my office on my own...the way I see it one cannot have too much insurance and my husband is also covered by me....we cover each other.

Most professionally employed people do not possess insurance worries, but supposing one lost one's job, and after a fashion, the insurance collapses. Now supposing one got ill; they could go to the Emergency Room, get treated, and afterwards face price gouging, like $25 dollars for an aspirin....you get the idea. Since many hospitals have had their government grants cut, they try to make up the difference by overcharging the emergency room patient. Or supposing one was visited with a long-term unemployment; oh it's so good to know Affordable Health Care is now available for everyone. Recently on TV to promote the Affordable Health Care and to encourage the young to sign up, there was a middle age couple with a child who was receiving long term care for a life-threatening illness. The doctors had told the parents their child's coverage would only go so far and then the treatments would have to stop because their insurance wouldn't cover all of the visits. Then this family heard about Obamacare i.e., Affordable Health Care, and were so relieved their child would not be cut off midstream.

The UK is far more advanced and aware of one's human needs than seemingly America. Oh you hear grumbling about the long lines and the wait list in the UK, but it's better than being thrown on the streets, as Romney said "You're on your own."

All Americans should be grateful for Obama because if the Republican Romney had gotten into power, there would be no sensitive, empathetic soul in the White House. Romney, who came from extremely wealthy parents, cannot possibly understand the poor and middle class because he has never experienced life on this level.

The same applies to all Republicans, mostly. They are concerned solely or chiefly with their own egotistical interests; hell, they were willing to let the government fall if we did not give the rich and the super rich a tax exemption; fortunately, all we lost was our credit rating which sent chills around the globe. The Republicans' primal dislike for this particular president knows no bounds, but even without a black president at the helm, we would still see an obstructionist congress when it comes to women's rights, and all social issues; fortunately, the Affordable Health Care will have made its mark on Americans and there will not be an appetite to repeal it as it will be like the third rail in Medicare and Social Security. When Paul Ryan went to Florida to address the retires about changing Affordable Health Care, he was resoundingly booed!

So why was the option pushed when there was no chance of it having any effect? There will be no peace deals. It is win or lose. There's nothing special or original in pushing for a peace deal. It's an acceptable way of having nothing to say and sounding good doing it. The Association of Maiden Aunties probably takes a similar position.

It's like Newtown--pushing a policy that can't be legislated. One which sold a lot more guns too.

Maybe Putin will help out and agree a few targets in the desert regions.

Once it's established only a fool will try to get rid of it. The NHS is the closest thing we've got to a national religion.

France has already indicated that they won't go it alone. Now, the opposition is calling for a vote.

Keep up those ad-hominems; they clinch your retorts.

They say the dufe is worried about being "mocked". He should stop worrying.

Most people are probably like me i.e. more into mocking the retards who voted for Obunga than mocking Obunga himself...

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=obama+syria+mocked&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I know; keep those stupid sayings coming. I'll continue to attack them as stupid.

You presume wrong, I do read you, contradictory as you may be.

I agree: I don't want the US to become the primary police of this world, and expectations that the US will always intervene. That's the last thing we need.

We can decide to bomb them only when they use chemical weapons. That would at least ensure (Assad ain't that mad is he?) those sarin shell remain unused.

I don't care for being thought contradictory Ollie and would be glad to be corrected. What have I said that you feel is contradictory?

That a guy like you would be "miffed" by Kerry calling France "our oldest ally" sounds strange. Maybe I don't know you that well. This is just PR, some spin doctor or another penned that down. Now, if France and the US do do bomb Assad together, that may be a game changer of sorts. That's all up for a vote in congress now... Chances for it are thus very low.

How many kids will the guy gas next time around?

I was not in the least miffed. I was saying that Kerry was miffed. Or acting to be. His scriptwriters carefully chose that phrase--our oldest ally--and took care not to mention your most faithful ally. As if we are little lads who are supposed to feel crushed like a young man whose long standing girlfriend has gone off with a newbie.

I laughed. We laughed. I bet Putin did too. There was an alpha Yank on our TV earlier saying that Obarmy is the worst president since Buchanan, a one-termer in 1857.

Not so. Many Americans are for it.