Kaptur opposes U.S. war role in Syria

Tom Jackson
Apr 30, 2013


U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Toledo, hopes the U.S. won't intervene militarily in Syria.

Some lawmakers have been calling for U.S. air strikes. Peace activists hope the U.S. will stay out. Kaptur indicated she leans more toward the latter position.

"I don't think it's the United States' role to be the warlord in every single country in the Middle East," Kaptur said Tuesday.

"My worry is that will happen this week while we're not in Washington," she said.

Congress currently isn't in session and Kaptur was at Floyd Churchwell Memorial Play Park Tuesday afternoon to tout her support for community gardens.

It's not as if the U.S. isn't doing anything to help the suffering of the Syrian people, Kaptur said.

"The United States is already providing safe havens and hundreds of millions of dollars to supply those who have been injured," she said.








IMO, the first question that needs to be asked is:

Is involvement in our national interest?

In 1947, the bankrupt Brits handed the "world policeman" keys to the U.S. and said:

Good luck!

We've been pretty much been attempting to clean up the old British and French colonial messes ever since.


We need to quit "trying" to clean up other's messes. We need to quit funding insurgents and terrorists that we seem to like at the moment because we don't like the gov't that country has installed, currently. As long as they don't threaten us directly, let them have at it. The only thing that happens when we meddle is, we create more hate towards this nation that we call the USA. The people we "help" end up turning on us. Everytime.


@ luvblues2:

I think some of his interpretation is a bit "specious," but Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" will make ya think.

Episode 4 is what I'm referring to about 1947 and the "changing of the guard."


He ain't kind to Harry Truman AT ALL and is far too sympathetic to the (bleepin') Soviets.

The Big Dog's back

Off topic. Again.


"Off topic" only to the ignorant.

"The modern Syrian state was established after the First World War as a French mandate, and represented the largest Arab state to emerge from the formerly Ottoman-ruled Arab Levant. It gained independence in April 1946, as a parliamentary republic."



@ BD:

So if Pres. Obama decides to get involved in the Syrian civil war - you'll support him RIGHT?


Off topic to whom, BDb? You? Who made you debate moderator? I find it well on topic. It's history and even history itself says it repeats itself. I don't mid a good discussion now and again. I don't always agree with Contango, but you never seem to have a side except disagreement without backup.

The Big Dog's back

That's your opinion.

The Big Dog's back

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Off-topic comments.


At least Contango gives sources for me to refute with my own. All you seem to have on the table is an opinion.


little pooch just throws out agitating stuff....thats it. Sitting at home collecting his Obie check.


Iraq should have been a 6 month deal AT MOST, after 6 months, we should have just completely pulled out. But 9/11's timing was perfect, to help convince the ignorant united states masses to invade the middle east. We could have pulled out around the time Obama was first elected, he could have fixed Bush's big mistake but he made it worse, he disbanded the middle east's police force for no logical reason, all it caused was a "reason" to stay there longer.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when the United States of America is stuck in a two party system, when both parties are un american, and unconstitutional.


Nobody but the most obtuse or psychotic FAVORS war. Ever. But there are some questions concerning Syria that need to be asked. One of them, as Contango so rightly points out, is whether or not some kind (and what kind) of intervention in Syria would be in our national interests. Another is, assuming we decide it would, indeed, be in our national interests, what the repercussions could and would be. (Of course, the definition of "national interests" is subject to some debate as well. Is it physical? Is it economic? Does one trump the other? Is it direct or indirect?)

The truth is that we were almost appointed the world's policeman. To our everlasting shame, we didn't just do the jobs that needed done but rather enjoyed doing them just a little too much! But outside of the "national interest," is there any other justification? Maybe.

How about genocide? Though if we intervene in Syria over the use of chemical weapons, how do we justify our FAILURE to intervene in certain African countries? (That's more economic than racial, I suspect, but either is largely inexecusable if you can justify one intervention but not the other.)

Syria's not a simple question, not even if genocide IS taking place. But Marcy's on the wrong side more often than not, so I won't take HER word for anything. And with O'Bumbles in the White House, his incessant kissy-face with the Muslim Brotherhood puts the President's opinions concerning the Middle East in serious doubt as well.

What do I REALLY think? I think what effectively amounts to a few tribes have been fighting over the same desert for thousands of years, all sides justifying their wars and murders with one holy book or another. Whether I think they're right or wrong is immaterial (but for the record, I don't only think they're WRONG, but IDIOTS). The point is that they've been after each other for thousands of years now without any end in sight, and to pretend that intervention of ANY kind by ANY nation will change that is naive at best.

I'm far more an isolationist than an interventionist, though I'll concede both sides have valid arguments given certain circumstances. I also think that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. I'm unconvinced, however, that Syria calls for the need for either. Do I CARE that the Syrian government is apparently evil? Of course! But the worse it is, the more inevitable its overthrow. Unfortunately, given the previous Arab Spring results, it'll probably be replaced by more of O'Bumbles buddies and the populace will be further quashed via strict Sharia.

As a former acquaintance of mine used to say, there are few problems in this world that couldn't be solved by the impact of a decent-sized asteroid in the Western Indian Ocean...

The Big Dog's back

Kissy face? sam, that was bush with the man crush on the Saudis. Also with Putin.

Darwin's choice

So, is Obama the bend over guy?


no WE ARE ,because its the American people that are paying for the price in all ways , and not Obama . He is thier to see to it that it gets done


if the goverment wants to do something in the best intrest of this country , they should focus on helping Americans find jobs
And not try to police the rest of the world when this country needs the help to make this country what it should be .
I am against any kind of war that does not pose a treat to the homeland , and this has been going on long enough and anough American lives have been lost to a war that is never going to end
As long as you have people that show no intrest in peace and want to controll in ways that are being done on daily bases and have been going on sense the beginning of time , then we are not going to live in the world that we should be living in .In a world of peace


....*sigh*...Another one who fell victim to "Hooked On Phonics".

Darwin's choice

lol !!


(Second Request)

@ Dawg:

So if Pres. Obama decides to get involved in the Syrian civil war - you'll support him RIGHT?


I oppose war on all levels. The only time war is warranted is if you are attacked! PERIOD!


So you were fine with the war in Iraq who aided and harbored those responsible for 911. Thank you for finally posting something relevant.

AJ Oliver

The US's enormous military threatens our freedom and is bankrupting the country.
Think about joining Veterans for Peace.
And BTW, before ya spout off about Syria, you should be able to name all the countries that border it, and their roles in the conflict. Otherwise, you really do not have an informed opinion.