# So, this is it (Syria) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2013, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113 "2013-08-25T06:41:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/121 "2013-08-28T16:35:36Z")
What I find most disgusting is the gleeful, nearly masturbatory joy of right wingers about the whole thing. “Oh Boy! Obama painted himself right into a corner! Now he’s GOT to do something! Haw haw!” These are real people being murdered by their goverment and some are dying very painful and horrific deaths. Yet because their suffering makes life for Obama difficult, right wing Americans are downright giddy. We as a nation need to ask ourselves if we want tinhorn dictators to slaughter their own citizens with chemical weapons. If the answer is no, then we have to do what it takes to either neutralize their threat or make them pay a high price for using these weapons. This isn’t Iraq- Assad has the goods and is currently using them. Yes there are other places with brutality going on. Rwanda was a place where the US could have made a difference, we walked away from the carnage that was Somalia. But inaction in other cases doesn’t require inaction in all cases. We don’t need to conquer Syria and I don’t think anyone wants to. A few Tomahawk missiles and maybe a no-fly zone for the Syrian Air Force seems about right to me. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/122 "2013-08-28T16:42:07Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > We as a nation need to ask ourselves if we want tinhorn dictators to slaughter their own citizens with chemical weapons. Do we need, “as a nation”, to ask ourselves if we want tinhorn dictators to slaughter their own citizens (in greater numbers, even) with non-chemical weapons? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/123 "2013-08-28T16:45:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Let me ask another way: When before have you ever had these compunctions about a President asking Congress for support for a military operation? Why are you starting now? I don’t think a President must ask Congress for support of a non-self-defense military operation. But this President, unequivocally, stated that a President must do so in such a circumstance. Yet when the time came to do so, he didn’t (with Libya). And he apparently won’t now either. That’s the hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/124 "2013-08-28T16:58:47Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Do we need, “as a nation”, to ask ourselves if we want tinhorn dictators to slaughter their own citizens (in greater numbers, even) with non-chemical weapons? The weapons make it easier. Without them, you’ve got to find soldiers with hard enough hearts to put bullets through babies’ skulls. That’s hard to do. The WMDs make it so all you have to do is push a button. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/125 "2013-08-28T17:04:54Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I don’t think a President must ask Congress for support of a non-self-defense military operation. But this President, unequivocally, stated that a President must do so in such a circumstance. Did you miss the part where the definition of “non-defense”, or any similar terms, is up to him? Since you’re having trouble finding the quote directly, [here](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/): > [@](#): > > **2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites – a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)** > > The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. > > As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. > > As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Context matters, don’tcha think? > [@](#): > > That’s the hypocrisy. That’s not your conclusion, that’s your _premise_. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/126 "2013-08-28T17:06:44Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > …But inaction in other cases doesn’t require inaction in all cases. We don’t need to conquer Syria and I don’t think anyone wants to. A few Tomahawk missiles and maybe a no-fly zone for the Syrian Air Force seems about right to me. Then, if you think that 50.1% of the populace agrees with you, it shouldn’t be a problem getting a Congressional AUMF against Syria. Which hasn’t been done, as far as I know, and probably won’t be, if that 9% approval figure floating around is anywhere close to reality. Assuming though, that the Obama Administration feels like they don’t need something like an AUMF, and goes ahead with military action anyway, they may later wish that they tried to get one. Lobbing TLAMs at a recalcitrant dictator is the modern equivalent of gunboat diplomacy: a Great Power sending a gunboat to shell a foreign port to express the GP’s displeasure with the dictator’s policy. Usually, this is harmless for the GP. And since it’s harmless, no one so far cares about the strict legalities and Constitutionality of the practice. But what if the gunboat explodes? In addition to who knows what sort of global terrorism assets, Syria has [missiles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks) that are, theoretically, [a non-trivial threat to a U.S. carrier group.](http://defense-update.com/20130519_russia-provides-syria-with-advanced-missiles.html) If the USN screws up and has a [really bad day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident), they could lose the carrier and more than a few other ships. Expect U.S., casualties in the thousands if that happens, by the way. Losing a capital ship unexpectedly [has happened before](http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/spanam/events/maineskg.htm). In which case, I’d expect Articles of Impeachment, for getting the U.S. involved in an illegal war, to be presented in the House almost immediately. I don’t think this is likely to happen. A lot would have to happen for a Syrian missile strike to make it into the same time zone as a U.S. carrier group. Further, I think the USN is very good at what they do, and has people who’ve made their profession sussing out scenarios like this and how to avoid them. But it’s quite conceivable. And failure’s often an orphan. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/127 "2013-08-28T17:11:30Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The weapons make it easier. Without them, you’ve got to find soldiers with hard enough hearts to put bullets through babies’ skulls. That’s hard to do. The WMDs make it so all you have to do is push a button. 100,000+ killed with conventional weapons in Syria. 300+ with chemical. Seems it’s not that “hard to do”. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/128 "2013-08-28T17:12:50Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Context matters, don’tcha think? By what possible twist of logic is attack on Syria (or on Libya for that matter) “self-defense”? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/129 "2013-08-28T17:16:42Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > By what possible twist of logic is attack on Syria (or on Libya for that matter) “self-defense”? The same sort of logic that has underlain pretty much every other Presidential decision to use military force anywhere ever - i.e. his own authority to decide what constitutes it. So, what \*was \*your position on Bush’s decision to invade Iraq no matter what? _(cue McCain singing “Bomb, bomb Iran”)_ ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/130 "2013-08-28T17:19:48Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > We as a nation need to ask ourselves if we want tinhorn dictators to slaughter their own citizens with chemical weapons. Everybody knows that the true answer is that “gassing his own people” is a terrible thing to do when America’s enemies do it but that [it is not so bad when its allies do it](http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm) and that America would do it without second thought if it served its ends. It is just that America does not need to use such weapons right now because it has better weapons but if the need came America would have no qualms. Just like torture was totally unacceptable until suddenly it was not torture but enhanced interrogation. By the same token white phosphorus used in the destruction of Fallujah was really just fireworks. Or agent Orange in Vietnam. Or personal land mines which have been banned by most countries. The truth is that America does whatever the fuck it wants without any regard to morality or Human Rights and that any criticism of other countries for their morality or human rights rings very very hollow in the rest of the world. We all know the truth of the matter. But you can go own pretending. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/131 "2013-08-28T17:22:15Z")
> [@](#): > > So, what \*was \*your position on Bush’s decision to invade Iraq no matter what? Irrelevant. Bush’s decision was not hypocritical. Obama’s demonstrably is. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/132 "2013-08-28T17:23:40Z")
The question is about \*your \*hypocrisy, which underlies the credibility of any claim you make regarding anyone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/133 "2013-08-28T17:25:46Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If it’s for real, Putin threatens to respond to any Western attack on Syria by attacking . . . Saudi Arabia?! 😕 Not the least bit credible. Putin and Prince Bandar just concluded some friendly meetings about dividing the world between Saudi oil and Russian gas. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/134 "2013-08-28T17:26:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The question is about \*your \*hypocrisy, which underlies the credibility of any claim you make regarding anyone else’s. You seem to be incapable of understanding certain things. Your problem. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/135 "2013-08-28T17:28:33Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You seem to be incapable of understanding certain things. Your problem. I understand your position very well; better than you do, in fact. The fact that it cannot withstand even casual scrutiny is \*your \*problem. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/136 "2013-08-29T00:18:25Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Do we need, “as a nation”, to ask ourselves if we want tinhorn dictators to slaughter their own citizens (in greater numbers, even) with non-chemical weapons? I hear you and, in many ways, I’m sympathetic to your viewpoint. I also agree that Obama should have _never_ put the red line comment. Still don’t understand why he said it (or if he regrets it now) but I look it simply: if the U.S draws a red-line, and that line is crossed, is incumbent that action be taken, otherwise, it makes us looks like chumps and it shames the party. This is not the time for Democrats to be dovish on this type of shit _especially_ when you have a clear moral mandate for action. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Willcross](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b2d939/32.png) [@Willcross](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Willcross)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/137 "2013-08-29T00:43:19Z")
Does anyone think our growing tension with Russia figures into the decision to launch a limited strike on Syria and arm the rebels? The rebels are not likely to support the US, but neither does Assad. We would neither gain, nor lose anything. However, the Russians would lose another state they have influence in if Assad is displaced. I guess similar to the same way Russia supports Iran and we support Israel. Do you think we consider a strike on Syria to be something like a “strike by proxy” against Russia and Russian interests? A way to keep potential rivals weakened by losing a customer to sell weapons to? I may be looking at this from way too much of a simplistic “board game” style viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Werekoala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7993a0/32.png) [@Werekoala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Werekoala)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/138 "2013-08-29T01:15:19Z")
I was just talking to my GF about the proxy wars of the Cold War era and how this fits into the template quite well. Yes, Russia would hate to lose an ally in the region, but I don’t expect whoever replaces Assad to become an instant US ally. Russia has other options they’re keeping close to the vest, no worries there. I don’t think Putin respects Obama in the least, and I don’t think he really fears him in any measurable way. A “limited” strike by the US will be seen by Putin as nothing more than a political move by a President who wears a helmet and mom jeans while he bikes. Putin will wrestle another gator and continue to do what he wants. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/139 "2013-08-29T01:16:28Z")
> [@Werekoala](#): > > I don’t think Putin respects Obama in the least, and I don’t think he really fears him in any measurable way. True, and true. ---
**Author:** ![Willcross](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b2d939/32.png) [@Willcross](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Willcross)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113/140 "2013-08-29T01:22:37Z")
> [@Werekoala](#): > > I was just talking to my GF about the proxy wars of the Cold War era and how this fits into the template quite well. Yes, Russia would hate to lose an ally in the region, but **I don’t expect whoever replaces Assad to become an instant US ally**. Russia has other options they’re keeping close to the vest, no worries there. This is true. The score wouldn’t be USA +1 and Russia -1. But USA=0 and Russia -1 is still better than nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-it-syria/667113.md?page=8)