Watch President Obama Meet Congressional Leaders to Discuss Syria [View all]

[freshwest]

Published on Sep 3, 2013

On Tuesday, President Obama continued his administration's push to convince Congress to vote in support of his plan to launch a limited military strike in Syria. The president met with congressional leaders and cabinet members at the White House. Obama stressed that taking action would fit into a broader strategy of strengthening the opposition forces in Syria.

The beginning of debate with Congress. Speaks of the concerns for Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

If Turkey loses patience and attacks Syria, NATO will be forced to do much more, possibly put boots on the ground. A limited strike just as has been done in the past without longer commitments is what I believe Obama is suggesting here, no more.

This will be difficult in a highly populated area with many interests at play in Syria. I wish that a long debate in the UN with Russia making their case, as the Assad family, father and son have both relied on them to stay in power, would be spoken.

Russia could speak of their true interests and why they supported the Assad family for so long. It would let people really come to understand more than, one side is all bad and one side is all good. What global concern is ever served by allowing or facilitaing a Saddam or an Assad?

BTW, just based on my own logic, and with this map here, and knowing that Damascus itself, the capitol of Syria is now partly in rebel hands, I agree with Kerry. Assad will NOT stop using chemical weapons, so that capacity must be taken from him:



Assad apparently is losing the ground war in Syria. He will become more desperate and dangerous. IMO, he is making his last stand and only by PR in the West will he not fall soon.

The problem for us is that it may not be possible to do so without boots in Syria. Because Assad's actions since the Arab Spring will never allow him to rule Syria as he had before, without his commiting genocide to silence his opposition.

The people have turned against him in sufficient numbers. I would like to know, other than its own strategic interest in having a warm water port, why does Russia support Assad?

Allegedly, they supported the secular regime in Afghanistan that fell due to the religious one that Reagan created with his support of rebels. The Russians felt they had an ally and then things got out of hand trying to keep it going.

It was called 'the Russian Vietnam' and I have a feeling that Syria is the same thing, but with almost 50,000 of Assad's forces dead, and Russians who have already been in country as they have been in Iran, it is much less open and costly than our involvement in Vietnam.

Any thoughts on those things, fellow BOGers?

More to follow.

ATTENTION: THIS IS A PROTECTED GROUP AND NOT A FORUM.

THE BOG IS A SAFE HAVEN FOR SUPPORTERS OF THE PRESIDENT, HIS PARTY, ADMNISTRATION AND POLICIES.

IT IS FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOG TO INCREASE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF CURRENT EVENTS.

PLEASE DO NOT POST IF YOU WANT TO BASH DEMOCRATS, KERRY, OBAMA OR THEIR SUPPORTERS.

IF YOU CANNOT RESPECT OBAMA, THE ADMINISTRATION, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR THOSE WHO DO, PLEASE RESPECT THE SOP OF THIS GROUP OR CONSIDER NOT POSTING.

THOSE WHO POST HERE DISCUSS ISSUES WITHOUT VIOLATING THE INTENT OF THIS SAFE HAVEN GROUP.

THANK YOU.