I ask again

[deltex1]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

 

[Old Rocks]

If we start targeting the head of states of other nations, what is to keep them from doing the same to us?

 

[Katzndogz]

I really do not think obama will be permitted to do much beyond throwing a couple of missiles in the desert. One of those military installations is Russian and it's highly doubtful that they will sit back and let our presidunce play with himself like that.

 

[KevinWestern]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

Simply killing Assad would be a cheap and inefficient means of solving their objective, therefore rendering it a rather poor option for companies specializing in weapons/military equipment.

A better option would be to start a much more complex and drawn out multi-year war, so that a steady and consistent revenue stream will form. You have to think with your business-cap here when trying to figure out why these guys do what they do.

On a side note, I don't think it's any of our business what Assad is doing unless the citizens of the United States are being directly threatened by his actions (which they aren't). Like the mess we got ourselves in with Saddam, time we learn our lesson and stay the heck out.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

remove Assad.....and replace with what....?

 

[deltex1]

If we start targeting the head of states of other nations, what is to keep them from doing the same to us?

That's a good question...but I think they know they are doing us far more harm by leaving Obabble in charge, then trying to remove him.

 

[deltex1]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

remove Assad.....and replace with what....?

The answer to the replacement question is the same whether we use one bomb or a thousand bombs. I suppose we leave that to the Syrians ...as we did in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, etc.

 

[deltex1]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

Simply killing Assad would be a cheap and inefficient means of solving their objective, therefore rendering it a rather poor option for companies specializing in weapons/military equipment.

A better option would be to start a much more complex and drawn out multi-year war, so that a steady and consistent revenue stream will form. You have to think with your business-cap here when trying to figure out why these guys do what they do.

On a side note, I don't think it's any of our business what Assad is doing unless the citizens of the United States are being directly threatened by his actions (which they aren't). Like the mess we got ourselves in with Saddam, time we learn our lesson and stay the heck out.

If we were aggressively pursuing a energy independence strategy, I would agree Assad would be far less an issue...however he now contributes greatly to regional instability. All I am saying is kill him as cheaply as possible in terms of cost and lives.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I will echo what a liberal friend of mine on this board said about military action, as I echo strongly it's sound logic.

A nation is NOT a threat to us until they start DIRECTLY affecting AMERICAN citizens or our national interest. If that occurs, then we immediately and swiftly KILL all of those responsible for such behavior. We kill them quickly and we use such an overwhelming force that it is NOT REASONABLE to oppose us.

Once that is done, WE LEAVE. We don't rebuild shit. We don't train anyone and we certainly don't build anything that we have to abandon anyway. We leave a card with the State Department's telephone number telling them that if they want to now be friends, call the number. Otherwise, if they do it again, we'll be back and the next time we will kill and destroy most of their country. And if they do it again, we DO EXACTLY what we said we would do. And then we leave again.

When are we going to learn that these people have been at war with each other for thousands of years? Shia versus Sunni, tribe A versus tribe B, Iranian versus Iraqi, Jew versus Arab. And no matter what we do, they will continue to kill each other and commit unspeakable atrocities against one another for the forseeable future. What we do doesn't mean squat, except we spend money we don't have and we get our sons and daughters killed.

I support aid for the refugees, and that's it. Assad and the rebels want to kill each other, I say that is THEIR business, not ours. Just remember, if they mess with the US, the clock begins to tick until the first Tomahawk and B-2 appear over their skys.

 

[g5000]

Killing a dictator just creates a power vacuum which will be filled with a newer, more vicious one.

 

[dblack]

The objective in Syria is the same as it is for the rest of the region. To destabilize and minimize any potential resistance to US 'interests'.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

remove Assad.....and replace with what....?

The answer to the replacement question is the same whether we use one bomb or a thousand bombs. I suppose we leave that to the Syrians ...as we did in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, etc.

like we did in Libya....we toppled an ally and now the MB is gaining ground.....and Benghazi happened....

like we did in Egypt.....where we toppled an ally and the MB took control and is now killing Christians because the people and their army had enough of them....but Obama continues to support them...

now in Syria.....Obama is supporting the rebel group of his choice.....guess who again...?

the MB is clearly opposite what our middle east 'friends' would choose.....Egypt certainly wouldn't......and Saudi Arabia and the UAE .....only the two most powerful countries there....wouldn't either....

do you detect a pattern that Obama seems to be following.....?

 

[deltex1]

Killing a dictator just creates a power vacuum which will be filled with a newer, more vicious one.

Didn't happen in Iraq...if it does tell him he is next.

 

[deltex1]

"A nation is NOT a threat to us until they start DIRECTLY affecting AMERICAN citizens or our national interest. If that occurs, then we immediately and swiftly KILL all of those responsible for such behavior. We kill them quickly and we use such an overwhelming force that it is NOT REASONABLE to oppose us."

I can't argue with that...when was the last time we did that?

 

[NightFox]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

Why would the objective be to remove Assad? By all appearances those that would replace him would be even worse not to mention this has been the objective of AQ all along, to destabilize the Middle East and if the Assad regime falls Syria will be yet another destabilized country with a power vacuum that Islamic extremists can fill.

 

[deltex1]

My only hope is that Susan Rice or Valerie Jarret is in town to tell Obabble what to do.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

My only hope is that Susan Rice or Valerie Jarret is in town to tell Obabble what to do.

will they even keep him in the loop.....?
(except when to read his teleprompter of course...)

 

[candycorn]

I will echo what a liberal friend of mine on this board said about military action, as I echo strongly it's sound logic.

A nation is NOT a threat to us until they start DIRECTLY affecting AMERICAN citizens or our national interest. If that occurs, then we immediately and swiftly KILL all of those responsible for such behavior. We kill them quickly and we use such an overwhelming force that it is NOT REASONABLE to oppose us.

Once that is done, WE LEAVE. We don't rebuild shit. We don't train anyone and we certainly don't build anything that we have to abandon anyway. We leave a card with the State Department's telephone number telling them that if they want to now be friends, call the number. Otherwise, if they do it again, we'll be back and the next time we will kill and destroy most of their country. And if they do it again, we DO EXACTLY what we said we would do. And then we leave again.

When are we going to learn that these people have been at war with each other for thousands of years? Shia versus Sunni, tribe A versus tribe B, Iranian versus Iraqi, Jew versus Arab. And no matter what we do, they will continue to kill each other and commit unspeakable atrocities against one another for the forseeable future. What we do doesn't mean squat, except we spend money we don't have and we get our sons and daughters killed.

I support aid for the refugees, and that's it. Assad and the rebels want to kill each other, I say that is THEIR business, not ours. Just remember, if they mess with the US, the clock begins to tick until the first Tomahawk and B-2 appear over their skys.

I'm with you in what you've written.

I see nothing in Syria, Egypt, Lybia that is worth the spilling of one drop of American blood.

I know it will never happen because for whatever reason, we Americans prohibit our leaders from thinking this way but we should really just consider intervention a profession. We have invasion and we have occupation and we have eventual withdraw done in a ad hoc way. If there was a plan to stay in Iraq or Afghanistan for 10 years after invasion, it was never communicated. And I think that's wrong.

What I think is that the government should do is come up with a plan that factors in the military, economic, social, and religious implications of invading a country, and simply budget the military commitment, the economic commitment, train our people in the social and religious atmosphere of the theater and implement the entire package.

Tell the American people it will take 4-8 or 8-12 or 12-16 years commitment, we forecast spending an exponent of whatever is budgeted each year.

 

[deltex1]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

Why would the objective be to remove Assad? By all appearances those that would replace him would be even worse not to mention this has been the objective of AQ all along, to destabilize the Middle East and if the Assad regime falls Syria will be yet another destabilized country with a power vacuum that Islamic extremists can fill.

Obabble has said thru Kerry that those responsible must be held accountable. Who is more responsible than Assad?

 

[NightFox]

If the objective in Syria is to remove Assad, and the experts say "the coalition" will have to destroy all of Syria's major military installations to achieve the objective...is it not far more efficient and effective to simply attack and kill the objective?????????

Why would the objective be to remove Assad? By all appearances those that would replace him would be even worse not to mention this has been the objective of AQ all along, to destabilize the Middle East and if the Assad regime falls Syria will be yet another destabilized country with a power vacuum that Islamic extremists can fill.

Obabble has said thru Kerry that those responsible must be held accountable. Who is more responsible than Assad?

Responsible for what? held accountable for what? and since when has the President or John Kerry given any indication that either of them have the first clue as to what they're doing when it comes to foreign policy? both of these geniuses (as well as their Republican predecessors) seem to think that AQ is playing checkers when actually they've been playing chess all along. Syria is just another piece in the game and it should be patently obvious that the United States has been stumbling through helping to destabilize country after country from day 1, starting with the boneheaded idea to invade the graveyard of empires, following up with the ultimate act of stupidity in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, now Syria , with Bahrain, Jordan and Pakistan teetering on the edge.

To top it all off we're bleeding ourselves to death economically and allowing our federal behemoth to walk all over our civil liberties living in fear of another major domestic that will never come, AQ doesn't need to take the risk or the expense to carry out major operations here anymore, they can just agitate in the Middle East to get what they want (restoration of the Caliphate).

Our hubris and our own stupidity will be the final death of the Republic.