If Obama was to strike Syria, he should have done it already. Broadcasting our intentions is the worse possible sceneario. It could result in the loss of many lives. Remember Pearl Harbor. Obama is just off loading the responsibility of the threaten action to the US Congress. Basically, his mouth wrote checks that the US can't or will not cash.
Today's Poll: How would you advise Rep. Chris Collins to vote on bombing Syria?
Submitted by Howard Owens on September 3, 2013 - 8:46am
It is impossible to answer the question. What Obama has proposed to Congress is a very specific course of action that we don't know the details of. "Bombing Syria" is a very broad and possibly completely inaccurate description of action being considered. I am not a huge fan of a strike but if it is the course we take, I would hope that only long range cruise missle strikes of known stockpiles of chemical weaponry would be the solution. If chemical weapons are the problem, take out the chemical weapons. The fact that we have telegraphed all our moves thus far means that a guy like Assad is probably moving innocent civilians into areas near likely targets so that he can parade pictures of women and children killed by American ordinances.
Tom I fail to see the correlation of Pearl Harbor to this Syria Issue? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese did a stealth attack, that was what cost us many lives there. Had we known we could of had the entire fleet out of harbor and too spread out for them to attack effectively. As for Obama offloading responsibility, I dont think that was his reasoning. I think he got caught up in his redline stance and due to the outcry of the american public, and his advisors putting a bug in his ear about this, he chose to go thru congress. However I think it's pretty predictable that congress is gonna say no, seeing as how they didnt bother to re-convene early to decide, and they have had overwhelming input from the public not to get involved w syria.
Even our usual allies have declined to support us, our delay as it stands has kinda shocked the middleeasterm world. Syria is of no political, tactical or economic value to us.... so why spend the billions it would cost to get involved? These conflicts we fight today in place of wars, are not the economic booms like WWII and WWI were. They actually place even more negative pressure by getting soliders killed and wounded for little political and economic effect. Then survivors and the widowed familes need even more support as our govt cuts back on the aid these honorable men and their families used to get for serving our country.
Perhaps Obama has finally seen a glimmer of the light that all our politicians need to see...
What I meant by the Pearl Harbor remark; was that the Japanese military did not broadcast their intentions before attacking Pearl Harbor, catching the US Navy with its pants down on that Sunday morning.