Actually, I wasn't referring to the "decision makers", but the respondents. Only 20-25% think it is in our interest or will help. Yet nearly half support intervening in a civil war. Obviously, more than a few in that survey could not be considered pragmatists -- at least not on this issue.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm indignant about this administration arming and supporting the same Jihadis who are not only desecrating graves, but killing westerners as well as innocent civilians inside Syria itself. We've allied ourselves with Al Qaeda, which I find insane.
Hoping to someday understand how world events unfold. Because an attack here makes zero sense to this insignificant ant...Let's keep our nose clean until there is a significant threat to us...Let the Saudi's, Jordanians, Israeli's etc fight. Time for them to clean the slate of the issues yonder. This conflict is not our baby...If it were about human rights/atrocities, North Korea would have been done a long time ago. Pope Francis: " No good ever came of war."
So we sit on our hands and allow the "war in the middle east" as nostrodamus fortold? If Israel and Iran wade in...all bets are off.
I never said that they "make" foreign policy. They are certainly expressing their opinions on foreign policy by their responses to the questions. Again, my apology for not being more clear.
" If Israel and Iran wade in" Iran is already in. The only way Israel gets involved is if the US attacks...Is that not what Iran said - not sure-, but didn't Iran say they'd attack Israel with missiles if the US attacked Syria? Yes, I vote to sit on our hands. Two wrongs...
Obama drew a "red line" with Israel...hes now backed away from the Syria "red line"...This will make Israel VERY nervous, as her enemies can see a reluctant US, and her allies backing away from any action...the time is ripe for Israel's enemies.
Obama's delaying is actually embarassing Hollande. Hollande was ready to launch operations this weekend and has to wait for the U.S Congress vote. As a result, French opposition leaders are calling for a vote in France too now (the French Constitution does not demand it, but it would be a matter of courtesy to have support from the oppostion as well). Obama's move had weakened Hollande's position , as some claim he would be the only one to send his country to war without a vote . Assad has used this opportunity to threat French interests, for example in Libanon (700 Ground troops are there on a permanent basis with a U.N. mandate) .
We should take into consideration that historical stakes and interests of France over Syria is much more than US (US mainly interested due to its two allies Israel and Turkey plus images of chemical attacks and civilian suffering ) Syria and Lebenon used to be French colonies and France never cut its ties with that area complately both in commercial , cultural or political sense So with Hollande non restrained by French parliment for initial militry operations we can see France taking lead in military intervention in Syria (like happened in Libya) then other NATO members joining without enthusiasm if any cracks appear in Assads regime (which is doubtful. Assad has a much stronger power base than Quaddafi , cordoned rebellion in north and isolated it plus better international legitimacy from Russia and China )
Not me mate...British Commonwealth war graves have been descrated many times over the years, even in Europe...Its nothing new.
You've got a point with economical ties and colonial heritage but the "Grand Liban" colony (the Syria and Libanon mandate from 1919) area has ceased to exist for decades now and with the exception of a large proportion of French made cars still driving around and a part of the Syrian Upper middle class speaking French , the French heritage is just symbolic. The average Frenchman does not feel linked to a common past with Syria, which basically lasted for 27 years (1919-1946) and which is not really remembered and hardly mentionned in schoolbooks in both countries . Nor do the Syrians feel closer to the French than anybody else. Both countries are independent and have chosen different ways long ago. The Syrians have a tremendous cultural heritage (for instance Roman) and I believe tourism could be a way to recover after the war. As to a French leadership , this was suggested in Lybia , but rejected by the U.S., so I'll think if there is a Franco-American offensive, it would probably be under U.S command. I do hope, if this happens that other countries will join, and turn this into a small coalition, because otherwise France and the U.S. would be the first target for potential retaliation . In fact everybody hopes their neigbour will do the dirty job and nobody really wants to go. more about Grand Liban here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Lebanon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_al-Abid http://www.lesclesdumoyenorient.com/Le-general-Gouraud-et-la-naissance.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Gouraud_(French_Army_officer) Proclamation of the Grands Liban Mandate
What everyone seems to be ignoring is that this was a chemical attack. Normally I agree with the positions being taking but this is different. I just listened to Kerry and I agree - never but never should chemical weapons be considered fair game - they are along with nuclear the ultimate indiscriminate evil weapon. They are outlawed and the only regret I have is that we turned a blind eye to Saddam when he used them against the Kurds and Iranians - we should have reacted then but lets not repeat our mistake. This needs to be stopped and by all accounts the US possesses the technology to destroy Assad's chemical arsenal without massive collateral damage. Lets not confuse this with regime change - these weapons are evil.
I might agree (I doubt it, but I just might...) if the administration hadn't leaked all the info about the attack, then delayed it. By now, all those stores have been moved and the sites probably occupied by school children and old ladies. The AA batteries and SAM sites are geared up, redeployed to new locations, etc. It's as if Churchill had went on the radio in 1943 and declared the air force would attack the ball-bearing works at Schweinfurt next Monday - take that Hitler!
I'd love to know what Cameron would have done if we had voted for it...and then Obama went to his own vote...Cameron would have been crapping himself...ok Brits...off you go...sorry we voted against in USA... And while we're on the thing....its no good Cameron sulking...it can indeed be voted on again. Perhaps instead of blaming labour he should be looking at his own mp's who voted against. and 10 cabinet members who couldn't be bothered to even turn up and vote... And then maybe if he had tapes from Ayios Nik in Cyprus it might have been the done thing to say so and not just say trust me...when its no secret Ayios Nik is monitoring Syria. Cameron and Clegg are sulkers not statesmen.
Is this entirely fair, many critics demanded proof and detailed assurance that this would be strike on WMD's only (no mission creep), Obama complies and asks Congress to approve and now you say you can't support it because he told you what was demanded of him for support?
Latest news. -Hollande has called for a E.U. meeting to gain support. -Obama and Holland will meet other leaders at the G-20 The psychological aspect is in favor of Assad, the more the west waits..... -I don't know about other countries, but Syrians have been holding two French hostages for months .
Yes, it's entirely fair. Obama said he was going to strike (no idea why he announced that) without congressional approval, which is technically legal since the war power act is still in force, then when the UK balks he reverses himself and decides he'll go to congress which won't even convene until September 9th. By that time, any chemical weapons will have been removed to new locations and the entire thing will be a farce. Watch for the dead babies on Al Jazeera right after the strikes commence.
