0
Darius11

War with Syria

Recommended Posts

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I find the idea of the international community tolerating chemical attacks abhorable and the message it sends is disgusting. That said, we open a whole different can of worms with a strike.

Situation just blows all around
Performance Designs Factory Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't see how getting involved will help the US or in any way improve the situation over there. I think it will only make things worse.

Well said, sir.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but "because I told you so" is just not a great reason to go to war in another country.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you and this time unlike Iraq or Afghanistan everyone seems to agree.

Is it a failure of government when they do the opposite of what the majority wants?
Maybe not in every case but I do think so in this case .
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't see how getting involved will help the US or in any way improve the situation over there. I think it will only make things worse.



I think the general misconception here is that getting involved in Syria is about furthering US interest in the Middle East rather than the fact that Syria used chemical weapons in violation of an accord signed by more than 150 nations regarding the disuse of these weapons.

I'm a little disappointed in the international community (NATO, UN, etc.) who all think action should be taken but are all conditional on what that action should be. At this time the US & France are the only ones in position to take action and the US is really the only one that is seriously contemplating action. I would argue that the international community is acting like the little kid on the playground running his mouth but counting on his bigger friend (the US) to actually initiate the scrum.

I'm intrigued to see how the debate in the House goes. I think Obama pulled a brilliant poitical move by seeking congressional approval. He saw Tony Blair get defeated in parliment and I think that he is secretly hoping for the same result on Capitol Hill. That way he can save face for his red line comment while recieving approval from the masses and on a diplomatic level by allowing congress to do its job. Although in his speech he made mention that he still holds the authority to launch a strike (he is allowed 90 days of military action without congressional approval) I doubt he ever uses it.

I am starting to ramble but ultimately I think strikes against Syrian ability to mix the necessary chemicals, transport, and launch these weapons is a warrented response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Assad has violated International Law, then let the U.N get this one. I really could care less if people who hate us want to kill each other. I know the Press likes to portray atrocities like this as always about women and children but I wonder how many of those who were gassed were Al Qaeda?
They have been doing it for centuries in one way or another and likely will continue. Besides, they don't have any oil.

This is a very simple problem to solve. Just pass a law that prevents Assad from possessing WMD's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were we to be part of an international coalition, voted by the UN, I'd probably be all over it. I'm not in favor of the US going in alone at this point.

Note that reports are that the Syrian troops are moving students out of schools and moving in themselves, as well as kicking people out of houses in opposition neighborhoods and moving themselves in -- in order to make an anticipated strike harder. So were the US to go make a strike, we'd be entirely likely to hurt significantly.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
melch

Quote

I don't see how getting involved will help the US or in any way improve the situation over there. I think it will only make things worse.



I think the general misconception here is that getting involved in Syria is about furthering US interest in the Middle East rather than the fact that Syria used chemical weapons in violation of an accord signed by more than 150 nations regarding the disuse of these weapons.

I'm a little disappointed in the international community (NATO, UN, etc.) who all think action should be taken but are all conditional on what that action should be. At this time the US & France are the only ones in position to take action and the US is really the only one that is seriously contemplating action. I would argue that the international community is acting like the little kid on the playground running his mouth but counting on his bigger friend (the US) to actually initiate the scrum.

I'm intrigued to see how the debate in the House goes. I think Obama pulled a brilliant poitical move by seeking congressional approval. He saw Tony Blair get defeated in parliment and I think that he is secretly hoping for the same result on Capitol Hill. That way he can save face for his red line comment while recieving approval from the masses and on a diplomatic level by allowing congress to do its job. Although in his speech he made mention that he still holds the authority to launch a strike (he is allowed 90 days of military action without congressional approval) I doubt he ever uses it.

I am starting to ramble but ultimately I think strikes against Syrian ability to mix the necessary chemicals, transport, and launch these weapons is a warrented response.



Let's see, who exactly used Sarin? It turns out that both sides have the capability, and it is much more strategically advantageous for the opposition than it is for Assad's regime to have toxic agents used in anger.

In the grand scheme of things, the Al Qaeda based group stands to gain greatly by foreign intervention instigated by the assumption that the Syrian Government has used WMDs. The Syrian Gov't, OTOH, has been killing people quite nicely using conventional weaponry, thank you very much, and really could not benefit militarily by the use of toxic agents.

Had the Syrian Gov't used WMDs, it would have made sense to go whole hog and truly devastate their opponents. A very local use that had nil for tactical or strategic advantage is pointless, particularly in light of the potential for international backlash.

The jihadist types have shown no compunction regarding collateral damage on either side, cheerfully martyring large groups of their own people (and then loudly bemoaning their demise...). I would not put it past them to stage a very real and very public use of Sarin against a population center sympathetic to them if it served their purpose, and it just well might.

The bottom line is that neither side in this conflict has much to recommend it, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained by spending (borrowed) U.S. Dollars to intervene.

My suspicion is that the Syrian guys that I like a lot are liable to be the ones who take the hits, regardless of what we do or who prevails. 'Twas ever thus.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darius11

I agree with you and this time unlike Iraq or Afghanistan everyone seems to agree.



Public opinion (in the UK at least) was against Iraq but the politicians STILL invaded (actually, as usual the politicians did nothing of the sort .. they sent the troops in whilst they sat at home being brave).

This time the politicians voted (by a small margin) amongst themselves to not get the troops involved ... and this more than likely has less to do with public opinion than some would like to think .. otherwise the vote margin would probably have been wider.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious why people believe it's a binary decision, WAR! or do absolutely nothing at all? There is a pretty big grey area in between.

To invade is off the table, but so is doing nothing.

We -will- do something. What that is hasn't been decided yet.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, lobbing a pile of cruise missiles isn't "war", it's more like "inventory reduction of weapons reaching the end of their shelf life"

pointless strike is pointless; it won't affect the outcome of the conflict

it's not like you can realistically target all the weapons anyway; they have probably been moved around already so we're getting ready to spend a ludicrous amount of (borrowed) money to create piles of rubble in a country that is basically rubble at this point
NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gravitymaster

If Assad has violated International Law, then let the U.N get this one. I really could care less if people who hate us want to kill each other. I know the Press likes to portray atrocities like this as always about women and children but I wonder how many of those who were gassed were Al Qaeda?
They have been doing it for centuries in one way or another and likely will continue. Besides, they don't have any oil.

This is a very simple problem to solve. Just pass a law that prevents Assad from possessing WMD's.



They weren't all Al Qaeda, some of them were from USA/Canada.
Your rights end where my feelings begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

I don't see how getting involved will help the US or in any way improve the situation over there. I think it will only make things worse.



I don't think it has anything to do with improving anything in Syria.

I think it has a lot more to do with indicating how the "defence" field continues to "need" large infusions of cash and investment to keep Americans "safe".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah,

I can see the US attacking Syria and then getting dragged into a long drawn out war. It's like any fight... "Everyone has a plan till you get punched in the mouth."

It wouldn't surprise me if this triggered WW3. US bombs Syria so Iran and Syria attack Israel. Israel retaliates against Syria and Iran.. All out ground and air war starts and drags the US in to help out Israel. Russian gets more involved.. Soon half the world is participating in killing people in the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been following the threads regarding Syria (enjoying the entertainment BTW) but, this "war" does not pass the stink test

Now this

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

Quote

Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies



Not saying anything but, who gains what, if we do set the missles lose?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

Yeah,

I can see the US attacking Syria and then getting dragged into a long drawn out war. It's like any fight... "Everyone has a plan till you get punched in the mouth."

It wouldn't surprise me if this triggered WW3. US bombs Syria so Iran and Syria attack Israel. Israel retaliates against Syria and Iran.. All out ground and air war starts and drags the US in to help out Israel. Russian gets more involved.. Soon half the world is participating in killing people in the middle east.



I think what you're saying is that this has all been engineered by China and India, who get to clean up. Sneaky little bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

Quote

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.


"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0