Stace on Syria

The situation in and around Syria is dangerous to say the least, and getting worse by the hour. United States war ships are poised to send missiles and a conduct a limited air-strike. Russia saying if we strike, they will send in a missile shield. All the while chemical weapons are being used in this (un)civil war.

I asked (via E-mail) all of the current senate candidates about their position on Syria, as it might be something they will have to deal with once they assume office.

Only one responded so far. From Stace Nelson facebook page:

What is my position on Syria? #1 The U.S. Military should ONLY be used in OUR national interests. #2 They should ONLY be put into combat when there is a clear objective with definitive goals of success that lead to their departure from the combat zone. #3 The American people support our involvement #4 Our troops should ONLY be sent into harms way as a last resort and after all other means have failed.

Those criteria have NOT been met, I do not support involving the USA in the civil secular conflict in Syria.

16 Replies to “Stace on Syria”

    1. Anon

      Because they are gassing babies and will do it again if we don’t stop them. Do you also think we should have let the Nazis keep gassing the Jews?

      1. redacted

        Is anybody really even sure who the “they” is, and if “they” are really gassing babies? We are pretty sure that (depending on who you talk to) most/some/a minority of the guys fighting against the “they” are Al Qaeda. So you’re saying we should bomb the guys fighting Al Qaeda because we’re pretty sure that “they” gassed some babies, or at least we’re pretty sure that somebody gassed some babies and somebody said it was “they”?

        I think Stace is correct to wait for this “he said, they said” to settle down. Then somebody (hopefully an adult) could figure out if it is our national interest to bomb “they” and then we could ask Congress to declare war and our duly elected representatives could decide if we should bomb they or not.

      1. Anonymous

        The other 4 candidates have no foreign policy or national security experience. Nelson is a trained intelligence officer, and operated overseas for 18 years dealing with terrorism and threats to our military. As usual, you slime without merit.

          1. Anonymous

            Wow, really desperate when you have to come up with this type of tripe. Maybe you haven’t seen the TV show? Low level investigators don’t get medals for working counter-terrorism..

  1. springer

    I also agree with Stace 100%. One question about this whole issue that Kerry himself stated yesterday when asked how we were going to pay for this “limited engagement” war; Kerry said don’t worry about it, there are some Arab countries who will pick up the tab. What??!! So maybe we should be looking at why these countries want us to do their dirty work; also heard there was something about a natural gas pipeline involved here, but I didn’t get the entire story.

    We have plenty of reasons to distrust the judgment and motives of this present administration. We should not be committing our young people (I know, no boots on the ground – anybody believe that one!?) to another war in a country that is not threatening us and that the majority of the US citizens do not want and that the administration has failed to say what will happen if our “two or three months of limited bombing” does not work.

    If the objective is to get rid of the chemical weapons so they can’t be used again, then why is Kerry not stating this? Ever hear of the movie “Wag the Dog?”; a was is desired by some and a massacre or something is staged and filmed to get us into a war. We saw pictures of kids supposedly gassed; we didn’t see pictures of how it happened or who did it. Until we have proof of which side is actually doing this, and when both sides are equally bad, why are we even getting involved?

    Contrary to Obama’s statement in Sweden, it is HIS red line and HIS credibility that are at the crux of this. It’s not my credibility or my red line. This is to save Obama’s face and behind, and that is NO reason to risk one single American life.

  2. SDJammer

    There are probably 3 guiding principles that different wings of the Republican Party could claim to follow on this issue. In my opinion they are:

    Libertarian: Isolationist along the lines of Ron Paul
    Conservative: Non-interventionist – Ted Cruz
    Liberal: World policeman – John McCain – Lindsey Graham