General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJohn Bolton: I’d ‘vote no’ on Syria strike
By LUCY MCCALMONT
If former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton were a member of Congress, he said Tuesday that hed vote against a plan to use military strikes in Syria.
I think if I were a member of Congress I would vote against an authorization to use force here. I dont think it is in Americas interest. I dont think we should in effect take sides in the Syrian conflict, Bolton said on Fox and Friends.
Bolton, who said he would not have referred the matter to Congress, added there isnt enough to convince him that a strike would made an impact in the region.
Theres very little to recommend either side to me, and I think the notion that a limited strike, which is what the President seems to be pursuing, will not create a deterrent effect with respect to either to Syrias use of chemical weapons or more seriously, Irans nuclear weapons program. So all in all, since I dont see any utility to, to the use of military force in Syria in this context, I would vote no.
- more -
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/john-bolton-syria-vote-96195.html
Thus far, Noam Chomsky (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586131) Ron Paul (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584212) and John Yoo (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023583127) have weighed in.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)If you want to deal with Iran, deal with Iran. And if you want not to be drawn all the way into a Syrian civil war between factions none of them friendly to the United States, then the best way to avoid being drawn is: don't take the first step. And if you have already inadvisedly taken the first step, at least beware the second, third and fourth.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/03/opinion/frum-syria-four-questions/
boston bean
(36,220 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Doesn't mean you have to agree or even give merit to their statements.
But it does show various angles.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)former9thward
(31,961 posts)Why don't you post the positions of Bush, Cheney, Rove, McCain, etc.? Or don't you want to be in bed with them?
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)...are many people weighing in on this issue. Here is Wesley Clark's:
Wesley Clark
<...>
As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)
Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.
<...>
At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/
Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586008
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)See? Two can play the self-referential blue-linky game.
How's it feel being in bed with the likes of Norm Coleman?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"See? Two can play the self-referential blue-linky game."
..."blue-linky": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586304#post23
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)no bed I want any part of whatsoever. Just Ugh!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I mean, what's your point?
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)your position onto me?
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)David Krout
(423 posts)former9thward
(31,961 posts)I don't read him and I don't care what he thinks. I don't object to the posting of any opinions. That is not my thing. But when you post a Bush era official as being opposed to war then you must know there are plenty with the opposite opinion.
Paladin
(28,246 posts)JHB
(37,157 posts)...he's be crowing about an already-happening bombing, and the plans for a ground "intervention".
Kingofalldems
(38,440 posts)He was all for an attack but claimed Obama was too weak.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)I guess that spoils the idea that Obama is siding with the NeoCons.
This vote has some strange bedfellows... the Far Left siding with Paul Rand and the Teabaggers.
John McCain siding with Hillary and Obama... etc.
The trend I see is the groups most vocal against Obama seems to also be against any action in Syria, as if we need to be on the opposite side of an Obama decision. The Libertarians are so blinded that they feel they can spin any decision opposite Obama as the "good side".
The "progressive" left... (shit, I consider myself Progressive, but I am for action in Syria).. is 90% opposed to any action... I never bought into the "death is death" argument... death by chemicals is a war crime, the worst kind of war crime.
I can see the case for the argument that these "moral" wars are costly, and we just can't afford it. Someone posted that we should fix Detroit before we fix Syria -- and I agree! But then I also feel that if we let the use of chemical weapons slide, even just once - it IS going to happen again. Maybe it will happen anyway... but the NEXT time might be a lot worse. A chemical attack in a major city could kill hundreds of thousands in one day... don't ever under estimate how large a chemical attack can reach a city population.
Crimes against humanity, are crimes against the world. War is always hell, but humans have at least to draw a bottom line in war... and that line is chemical weapons.
David Krout
(423 posts)Or is he one of them?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Since we're playing the A-hole Bedfellows game...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Is that the game you're playing?
I mean, not all despicable assholes have come out against the strike.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023583127
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)'Slippery' doesn't begin to describe it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Crazy how you won't own your tactics"
That was your comment, and you apparently and hypocritically refues to "own your tactics."
That being: projection.
blazeKing
(329 posts)The only ones left are the 9% the polls say..which are the extreme Obama butt kissers and old people that just like watching war on fox news. The right is unified against war because it's Obama. The left is unified against war because we don't think bombing for peace or helping the al Qaeda rebels is a good thing.
Sorry.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)The current public polls don't mean anything... they ask the questions so they get their polls numbers exactly how they want them. I don't trust ANY polls any more....
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Ammar Abdulhamid
Elliott Abrams
Dr. Fouad Ajami
Dr. Michael Auslin
Gary Bauer
Paul Berman
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer (Interim Iraqi 'Authority')
Matthew R. J. Brodsky
Dr. Eliot A. Cohen
Senator Norm Coleman
Ambassador William Courtney
Seth Cropsey
James S. Denton
Paula A. DeSutter
Larry Diamond
Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky
Thomas Donnelly
Dr. Michael Doran
Mark Dubowitz
Dr. Colin Dueck
Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt
Ambassador Eric S. Edelman
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Abe Greenwald
Christopher J. Griffin
John P. Hannah
Bruce Pitcairn Jackson
Ash Jain
Dr. Kenneth Jensen
Allison Johnson
Dr. Robert G. Joseph
Dr. Robert Kagan
Lawrence F. Kaplan
Jamie Kirchick
Irina Krasovskaya
Dr. William Kristol
Bernard-Henri Levy
Dr. Robert J. Lieber
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
Tod Lindberg
Dr. Thomas G. Mahnken
Dr. Michael Makovsky
Ann Marlowe
Dr. Clifford D. May
Dr. Alan Mendoza
Dr. Joshua Muravchik
Governor Tim Pawlenty
Martin Peretz
Danielle Pletka
Dr. David Pollock
Arch Puddington
Karl Rove
Randy Scheunemann
Dan Senor
Ambassador John Shattuck
Lee Smith
Henry D. Sokolski
James Traub
Ambassador Mark D. Wallace
Michael Weiss
Leon Wieseltier
Khawla Yusuf
Robert Zarate
Dr. Radwan Ziadeh
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-iraq-supergroup-reunion.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"List of all the RW assholes on record supporting a Syria strike:"
...the "RW asshole" in the OP is against it.
The list was prior to Obama seeking Congressional approval, and that seems to have pissed off some on the list:
Lieberman: Our enemies are cheering after Obama consulted Congress on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014582663
https://twitter.com/MaxBoot
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I posted an article from Politico, and the reaction here is telling.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)a towering intellect stands alone. Lol.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)vanlassie
(5,668 posts)That anyone thinks John Bolton's opinion is of interest at all.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)unblock
(52,163 posts)oh, wait. obama's in office.
that changes his views on everything.
spanone
(135,802 posts)Response to ProSense (Original post)
Post removed
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And then you'd have a big line of 'em.
K/R