Syria

[Scott34]

Scott, you do understand that dropping bombs on a country is basically an act of war, right?

 

It's not something we can just do and not expect any ramifications from.  I just cannot believe this is going to happen.

 

Absolutely I do.  I know the gravity of the situation, I know people that have served and I know the ramifications.

 

I just believe this is necessary.  Take out Assad's ability to launch CW, SCUD attacks.

[Kevin]

What exactly about Syria needs our involvement Scott? A crappy government being overthrown by sketchy rebels? Atrocities being committed on both sides? Like mt said yesterday, it's no different than other parts of the world. There is not one legitimate reason to go there.

The u.s is not in danger or being threatened. Therefore there isn't a legitimate reason to get involved.

[Lhalo]

Read the first paragraph in answer #2 if you want to know more about the fool leading us as we prepare to bomb a sovereign nation.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

[Kevin]

I guess if our allies are being directly threatened I could see some reason but it would have to be pretty serious.

[Scott34]

In what way do you mean exactly? I could already tell you in what ways they will be similar. A money pit and if we get to heavily involved, more of our soldiers will needlessly die or be scarred for life. Both physically and emotionally. Long after the guns have cooled.

I'm not antiwar but it must be a last resort for us, our soldiers, and the innocent caught in the middle of it.

 

1. We have a real national interest here.  Assad has shown the desire to attack Turkey, Israel, etc.  This is not to clear the way for ISI or JAL because that would be disastrous.  Removing his ability to launch large-scale attacks is of the interest of the US.

 

2. We have options of not using Troops on the ground.  This wasn't necessarily available (or considered) for Iraq

 

Jordan collapsing because of the millions of refugees would be terrible.

 

We have allies ready to help and lead with us.  Not Iraq.

[HaloCory22]

Absolutely I do.  I know the gravity of the situation, I know people that have served and I know the ramifications.

 

I just believe this is necessary.  Take out Assad's ability to launch CW, SCUD attacks.

 

What if it isn't Assad using the CW like that video MHD posted and provided a pretty damn good argument.

 

This isn't our problem. Unless this directly has an impact on us and the lives of Americans, we need to stay away. Going to war with them will indeed cost American lives and possibly open up even worse problems.

[Scott34]

What if it isn't Assad using the CW like that video MHD posted and provided a pretty damn good argument.

 

This isn't our problem. Unless this directly has an impact on us and the lives of Americans, we need to stay away. Going to war with them will indeed cost American lives and possibly open up even worse problems.

 

Which video?

 

And your second statement is false.  Like I said, all out war would be a bad decision and shouldn't happen.

[mtangelsfan]

But if we bomb them we may have no choice but all out war.

 

What if we bomb them and they decide to retaliate against Israel?  This is a first step and every direction it leads to is horrible.

 

There is no endgame with this.

[Scott34]

But if we bomb them we may have no choice but all out war.

 

What if we bomb them and they decide to retaliate against Israel?  This is a first step and every direction it leads to is horrible.

 

There is no endgame with this.

 

Right, which is why it's a troubling conflict.

 

Israel has already said they will respond decisively if Assad tries to attack.

[HaloFan85]

The rebels aka Al Qaeda were behind the recent chemical weapons attacks.  It is a well known fact that they have them because some of them got busted Turkey with them.  It was done to bring the US into this war.  There is absolutely zero evidence the Syrian government was behind it.  None.

 

This is a way Al Qaeda gets our money, our weapons and drains our resources even more.

I think it was back in May when U.N. inspectors said they found 'strong evidence' pointing to the rebels as the ones who used sarin nerve gas during an attack back then, not the government.

 

I just wonder why the US is pushing to attack so quickly, and without any U.N. approval.  They're once again calling the U.N. pointless.  Maybe they're afraid that the U.N. will find the same evidence they found back in May?  This is quickly becoming Iraq all over again.

[HaloCory22]

Right, which is why it's a troubling conflict.

 

Israel has already said they will respond decisively if Assad tries to attack.

Let Syria make the first move if they indeed plan on attacking then they will. We don't come out looking like asshole world police, we're just defending our allies. Is Syria really in any position to be a major threat to anyone?

 

This might be one of the only ways to avoid a war of a much larger scale.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Cory

[Gavin]

Further provoking a region that already despises us. And people wonder why there is so much hate over there for us.

The US placed these "leaders" and once they fall out of favor with our government, they are then a "threat to our (or our allies) sovereignty." Ridiculous.

[Caralho]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/rebels-without-a-leader-show-limit-to-u-s-role-in-syria-war.html

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/05/27/chemical-war-in-syria_3417708_3218.html

 

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20232943-what-happens-after-a-strike-on-syria-it-depends-on-how-far-the-us-goes?lite?ocid=twitter

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-an-insular-beltway-elite-makes-wars-of-choice-more-likely/279116/

 

There is a lot of problems with a strike on Syria. First is whether Assad's troops actually committed the chemical weapons attack this time and in previous months. It wouldn't shock me if it was directly ordered but it is a possibility that some mid level general or lower decided to launch a chemical attack. I think it's more remote that rebels would do a false flag attack but it's possible, I can't deny that. Second is that strikes probably wouldn't change much. Lobbing a bunch of Tomahawks will destroy some material and could demoralize some of Assad's troops but it could just embolden them to fight even more viciously. A more robust operation with bombers would hurt Assad more but that entails a lot of risk because the strongest part of Assad's military is air defense, they have very sophisticated Russian built air defense systems so that could result in planes being shot down and airmen killed. The rebels are fractured politically and a decent percentage, which just happens to be the best fighters, are assorted nasty Islamist groups. 

 

Syria is also much more densely populated compared to Libya where it was relatively easy to bomb targets without killing civilians. Of course Gaddafi had very few friends while Assad is backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. I doubt Syria would directly attack Israel in retaliation but Hezbollah is a different story. I detest Assad but another Operation Desert Fox doesn't seem to me to be a good solution here. It's just a really sad situation but I don't think an intervention is going to do much unless you have many of those Arab countries fully buy in and make efforts to push the Islamist rebels to the sidelines while pounding Assad. I doubt that happens so I hope Obama doesn't strike. 

[Scott34]

Let Syria make the first move if they indeed plan on attacking then they will. We don't come out looking like asshole world police, we're just defending our allies. Is Syria really in any position to be a major threat to anyone?

 

This might be one of the only ways to avoid a war of a much larger scale.

 

I guess you haven't seen the bombings in Turkey and Lebanon in recent months committed by Regime elements?

[Caralho]

Here is another decent link with the first person making a good point about the minorities in Syria. 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114481/liberals-advice-obama-syria

[mtangelsfan]

Good read, interesting points of view.  Thanks Rob!

[VariousCrap]

Iraq is not even remotely similar to Syria.

 

 

 

Yes it is. 

[VariousCrap]

I think it was back in May when U.N. inspectors said they found 'strong evidence' pointing to the rebels as the ones who used sarin nerve gas during an attack back then, not the government.

 

 

 

Sorry.  I misread your statement.  Yes, that is 100% correct:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

 

 

 

Feel free to unlike Scott. lol

Edited August 29, 2013 by Jim B

[VariousCrap]

We have a real national interest here. 

 

 

 

Not at all.

[VariousCrap]

I just wonder why the US is pushing to attack so quickly, and without any U.N. approval.  They're once again calling the U.N. pointless.  Maybe they're afraid that the U.N. will find the same evidence they found back in May?  This is quickly becoming Iraq all over again.

 

 

 

Excellent question.  This article discusses this issue:

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/in-rush-to-strike-syria-u-s-tried-to-derail-u-n-probe/

[arch stanton]

I don't know how anyone can say we have no American interests at stake in a country surrounded by Arab oil and Israel and within striking distance of Iran. To believe that is to ignore reality.

 

Doesn't it seem unlikely that a regime with the full support of Russia would invite invasion by crossing our "red line"? Hadn't they had plenty of success killing women and children by conventional means?

 

Doesn't it seem convenient that after 2 years they would cave to the temptation to gas their own cities just in time for Obama to go to Russia? 

[Bruce Nye]

The big O has fallen into a trap.  He drew the line in the sand and said chemical warfare would mean a military response.  Now he does not have UN approval to do so - the Chinese and Russkies will not approve.  He has backed Assad and now signs point to his administration for the chemical warfare, however the rebels are no friends of the U.S. either.  So no one likes the U.S. and most likely the chemical warfare is an underground activity, where the U.S. doesn't have accurate intel.

 

So O will lose face by making the statement of crossing the line and not backing it up not to mention he has a Congress that looks like it will not approve of a strike.

 

Poor leadership again.  O should plan his next vacation.

[Kevin]

The Middle East should be one reason why no one should ever want to be President of the United States. 

[TobiasFunke]

Right, which is why we shouldn't touch Syria with a ten foot pole.

 

 

fixed

[arch stanton]

Of course we all know that Syria is a close ally of Iran and under their mutual defense agreement Iran will be obligated to join in if anyone strikes.