Town Square

Post a New Topic

Is PA majority against attacking Syria? Let's find out.

Original post made by Chris Zaharias, Crescent Park, on Sep 5, 2013

From a number of conversations I've had recently, it seems that a majority of Palo Altans are against unilateral military intervention in Syria.

Outside PA, it's both perplexing and comforting that the anti-war sentiment unites Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians.

Because it is the Executive Branch that is pushing for intervention, we must let our elected congressional representatives know how strong our desire is that they vote 'No' on this war.

Because it's probably the only time this will be possible, I'd like to link to Ann Coulter, with whom many Palo Altans may agree this time despite generally abhorring her:

Web Link

Comments (9)

Like this comment
Posted by Coulter is an entertainer
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 5, 2013 at 7:18 am

[Post removed.]

Like this comment
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 5, 2013 at 7:23 am

We are there, Syria is a chronic problem in this area in many ways and now would be a great opportunity to nudge some progress along. When a government kills thousands of its own people it really has no legitimacy, and Syria and Iran both are the last holdouts of a toxic dysfunctional order that has hurt this region and its people as far back as we can look. It's a good time for Assad to go.

Like this comment
Posted by Chris Zaharias
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 5, 2013 at 8:21 am

[Post removed.]

Like this comment
Posted by Coulter is an entertainer
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 5, 2013 at 8:35 am

[Post removed.]

Like this comment
Posted by Repeating history
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 5, 2013 at 8:56 am

First, the quickest way to bankrupt a country is to have one or more long-term military involvements overseas. Remember the British? Throughout their history, their government was bankrupted many times by wars, both civil wars ( they had four of them) and wars overseas ( too many to count). Their times of prosperity occurred when they had kings who inherited bankrupt kingdoms (Henry I, II, VII, Elizabeth I) and turned the economy around by avoiding wars as much as possible ( in Henry VII's case, that was completely), and cutting way down on ceremonial events. Also, look,at England after the Crimean, Boer, and Great War--they essentially went into WWII bankrupt, and that was one war they could not avoid out of necessity.

Obama should get a clue, read history, and avoid unnecessary military involvements It isn't just the financial waste, though. Why punish civilians for the misdeeds of their leaders? That is what always happens in the end!

Like this comment
Posted by Marie
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 5, 2013 at 10:56 pm

Marie is a registered user.

IMHO, the Syrian government should be punished for gassing its own citizens, contravening long established international law. My understanding from reading the news is that Pres. Obama is trying to get a multinational agreement on a response to Syria's heinous crime. I think unilateral action is not what is being proposed. Even Putin agreed there should be a response, if it can be proved that Assad is behind the gas attack. I approve of Obama's caution in establishing that Assad is indeed guilty, and trying to get as much international backing as possible. For Assad to get away with his barbaric attack, with no response, is unacceptable to me. The US and the rest of the world have a responsibility to respond to serious violations of international law. They also have a responsibility to make sure it is Assad that suffers, not innocent civilians, which makes formulating a response so difficult. I have confidence that Obama will find that balance.

This is very different from unilaterally invading another country on flimsy pretenses, that turn out to be wrong such as Bush's invasion of Iraq. To compare the two situations as equivalent is specious.

Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Sep 6, 2013 at 1:09 am

Hmmm is a registered user.

Chria, Coulter is a vindictive tool. You know that right off the bat by reading the headline, even if you previously knew nothing about her. She's also wrong: "It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians" she says about the sarin attacks. You can only call more than 1400 people "a few hundred" if you can't count.

Among other things, she fails to mention her party's POTUS' alliances w/Saddam. She also fails to state the cogent point that if action had been taken against Saddam early on after chemical weapons attacks, the later mess may have been avoided. I'm not saying that since we all know hindsight is 20/20, I'm saying it because I recall arguments for & against back then. And her party was responsible- military & intelligence communities knew about - & even helped with one, but did nothing to stop the series of nerve gas attacks. Reagan didn't want Iran to win.

Further proof that she's a tool: "Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest." Shoot blindly? That's not his intention. He's not stupid. She is, but he isn't. She's blinded by her hatred of him and the failings of her own party - her spin about Saddam & the Iraq war would be laughable if it wasn't so detestable.

She also likes to claim the victory of Libya's disarmament in late 2003, but it's arguable. Many more detached experts argue that years of sanctions and diplomatic efforts were more important than Bush's invasion.

I do understand your point that so many people are against taking action & there are many good reasons not to take action. I also think that Marie's excellent post, stating the opposite, is well worth considering. And perhaps an editorial by someone balanced, intelligent, informed & honest is a better way to go.

Like this comment
Posted by Chris Zaharias
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 6, 2013 at 10:26 am

Chris Zaharias is a registered user.

Rep. Anna Eshoo's statment on Syria, dated Aug 31: Web Link

Key quote: "We welcome the opportunity to listen to the facts of this matter in the most public forum. While a review of the evidence, both classified and unclassified, as to the use of chemical is important, we are already inclined to believe that these horrific weapons were used based on public and social media accounts. We believe that the question before the U.S. Congress is not "can the Obama Administration prove that the Syrian government used chemical weapons?" Rather, the paramount question is, if that is true, "what is the best course for the United States to take, and why?"

It's hard to tell if she's for or against intervention.

Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 6, 2013 at 12:18 pm

Crescent Park Dad is a registered user.

$1mil. per cruise missile.

I have to believe there are more effective ways to punish Syria than to spend $20+ mil. and essentially do nothing but momentarily slow down the Syrian government.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 897 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 862 views

Spring College Fairs
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 807 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 487 views