War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Vox]

Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of sudden - such a dire necessity?

 

[Katzndogz]

obama has said, many times, that a strike would not be designed to remove Assad from power. They will not be designed to remove the chemical weapons themselves. Therefore it has no point. There is no end game. obama merely wants to play with his toys while he still has them to play with.

The action in Libya was designed to put al quaeda in power. It worked. obama intends this to work the same way.

Of course there is step two. The movement of chemical weapons to Egypt so terrorists can use them there too asking for America to help the muslim brotherhood.

obama must be stopped. If he ignores our government, someone else will have to step in and stop him.

 

[U2Edge]

Yes, because Assad can't afford to have continued US military strikes against his military when its struggling to fight the rebels in his country. Assad stops Chemical weapon use, no more US military strikes. Mission accomplished and Assad continues to fight his war with just conventional weapons like he has done for most of the past 2 and half years.

Or, the war escalates into Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and finally into Iran, the real target all along. Time to clean up Iran, the administration has decided, IMO; just as the Bush administration decided to use 9/11 to clean up Iraq. "Never let a crisis go to waste."

But that sure didn't work, the Iraq "solve," and I don't like getting lied into WWIII in Iran and against Russia, China, Pakistan, everybody else.

You all should realize that our US immunity to attack from anybody and everybody will someday come to an end: someday, somebody will attack us back.

The Iraq war worked just fine. Saddam was removed in 2003, US troops left in 2011 and our man MALIKI is still in charge of Iraq in 2013 after first coming into office there in 2006!

As for Syria, it would not be in Assad's interest to escalate at all. He did not strike back when Israel hit him over the past year and he definitely won't strike back now. He is struggling against the rebels in his country and does not have time or resourses for foreign adventures.

China has not launched direct military action against another country since 1979 and the Russians did nothing when we bombed their little Ally Serbia in 1999. Iran has not directly engaged in military action against any country since the 1980s. Iran uses proxies like Hezbolah instead.

A missile strike would do a lot of good and have few if any consequences for the world. Chemical weapons use is stopped, and Assad goes back to fighting a conventional war in his own country. Syria once again fades from the headlines.

 

[U2Edge]

Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of sudden - such a dire necessity?

There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO!

 

[dilloduck]

Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of sudden - such a dire necessity?

There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO!

Oh please-----start a trend ????

 

[U2Edge]

Launching a missile strike is considered an act of war.

-Geaux

Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter? | Ron Paul | Safehaven.com

President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.

So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?

When you use the general term WAR without specifically describing the action to be taken, you have people voting their approval or disapproval based on their visions of what WAR is, as opposed to the actual action that Obama is planning. Essentially, people are voting in the poll based on their many different visions of what WAR is, as opposed to the action that has been suggested. That totally invalidates the poll!

I'm sure Syria and Russia would view a missile strike as an act of war. I know we would if tables were turned

-Geaux

So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?

 

[Vox]

Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of sudden - such a dire necessity?

There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO![

have you been in hibernation the last 25 years?

the latest of Assad or rebels using the CW was just the latest.
Assad used it in last December - and where were YOU THEN?

 

[U2Edge]

Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of sudden - such a dire necessity?

There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO!

Oh please-----start a trend ????

If chemical weapon possession and use starts to be seen as OK, and just another weapon in someone's arsenal, then it indeed will become a TREND!

The intelligent thing to do would be to take action to prevent that.

 

[Circe]

Did you support United States going to war with Germany in World War II? What did Germany do to the United States that warrented going to war against Germany in 1941?

They declared war on us formally the week Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and started sinking our ships.

So if tomorrow Namibia formally declared war on the United States without any subsequent military action, you would advocate invading and overthrowing the government of Namibia just because of their "formal declaration of war"?

What if Germany had not sunk any ships or declared war on the United States, you would have supported letting Hitler do his thing?

Well, sure! That's what we were trying so hard to do, stay out of BOTH world wars. We didn't get dragged into WWI until 1917 (the Zimmerman telegram, that functioned as another German declaration of war, to an outraged America public -- Germany offered to help Mexico reconquer three Southwest America states if they would distract us from WWI: whoops, we found out). We didn't get dragged into WWII until December of 1941, very late.

The fact that we cannot stay out of world wars, that everyone conspires to drag us in because we're so big and powerful and rich is why after WWII we started this "world policeman" role with forward power projection foreign bases everywhere. We are committed to stopping world wars before they start, is the idea. It was a good idea for a long time. Obviously that has not been working out lately: we've been starting wars, not stopping them. Any country that wildly starts wars everywhere runs a real danger of being viewed as a rabid dog that nations of the world have to band together to shoot down -- like Germany was viewed (accurately) under both the Kaiser and later, Hitler.

All the same, you make a good point about Namibia. That's why I added "and started sinking our ships" to the Hitler declaration of war. They have to be able to do something about it, and also, they have to ACTUALLY do something about it or their "declaration of war" need not be taken seriously. Obviously Germany was a powerful enemy: we barely won, twice.

Right now both North Korea and Iran have current declarations of war operative against us. NK has been in a state of war for decades and frequently reiterates it. But they don't actually do much, and not against us, wisely. It wouldn't take much, frankly.

Iran regularly says they want to kill all Americans, nuke us, make war on us, etc. etc., and though the speakers are at a high government level, they don't actually DO anything. Again, wisely, because that situation is on a knife edge. Iran has already declared war against us and against Israel. If they suddenly start sinking ships, we would be actually at war with them. A declaration is not enough, you are right. Talk is cheap, but sinking ships matters.

Note that our shelling Syria would be from ships, not from the air, as we did twice against Libya. I see trouble coming. Sunk ships are our normal entry into war: that's why Osama bin Laden, desperate to get our attention, hit the U.S.S. Cole. We still didn't pay attention, because he was not attached to a state. But the faked Tonkin Gulf attack on our ship and the faked Spanish attack on the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor, and the real German attacks on our shipping, and the real Japanese attacks on our ships at Pearl Harbor --- all those attacks got us into war. It's not the only way, but sunk ships are the usual way to get us into war, and sometimes it's a simple lie by our own government.

I think those American warships are out there to play sitting ducks to get us into a war with Iran.

 

[Katzndogz]

The use of chemical weapons should be stopped. Since obama's allies in al quaeda are the ones using those weapons, we will not stop it.

 

[U2Edge]

Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of sudden - such a dire necessity?

There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO![

have you been in hibernation the last 25 years?

the latest of Assad or rebels using the CW was just the latest.
Assad used it in last December - and where were YOU THEN?

I think you should ask yourself that.

The allegations of use on a small scale prior to the August 21st attack are just that. The August 21st attack is indisputability CONFIRMED unlike the other small scale alleged attacks, plus WE KNOW THIS TIME WHO LAUNCHED THE ATTACK!

Please, tell us where else Sarin Gas was used by a State on a large scale in between 1989 and 2013!

 

[Vox]

There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO!

Oh please-----start a trend ????

If chemical weapon possession and use starts to be seen as OK, and just another weapon in someone's arsenal, then it indeed will become a TREND!

The intelligent thing to do would be to take action to prevent that.

it has been a trend for the whole XX and XXI century.

 

[Camp]

Other than what has been noted, what dictators have used chemical warfare? That is a heck of a claim to make to back up your position. You should have to show some evidence of what you claim. And when Assad started to use chem warfare he was told to stop. That is what the "Red Line" was all about.

 

[Vox]

There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO![

have you been in hibernation the last 25 years?

the latest of Assad or rebels using the CW was just the latest.
Assad used it in last December - and where were YOU THEN?

I think you should ask yourself that.

The allegations of use on a small scale prior to the August 21st attack are just that. The August 21st attack is indisputability CONFIRMED unlike the other small scale alleged attacks, plus WE KNOW THIS TIME WHO LAUNCHED THE ATTACK!

Please, tell us where else Sarin Gas was used by a State on a large scale in between 1989 and 2013!

IT DOES NOT MATTER.

It has been used before and it will be used again.

We should NOT GET INVOLVED.

PERIOD.

 

[Vox]

Other than what has been noted, what dictators have used chemical warfare? That is a heck of a claim to make to back up your position. You should have to show some evidence of what you claim. And when Assad started to use chem warfare he was told to stop. That is what the "Red Line" was all about.

Short memory?

Hussein gassing Kurds brings some back?

 

[Circe]

So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?

You are too optimistic, IMO. You think you know that Obama means to launch a single punitive missile to destroy a single empty building in Damascus? How can you possibly know that? It seems to me improbable in the extreme that a punitive strike THAT small would be launched: even the one Reagan launched against Qaddafi with two jets hit more than that, and we add ships to our strike force in the Mediterranean daily now.

You also think everything will stay the same as it is this five minutes. That's the human condition: we think this five minute is it, for good or ill: we can't look past right NOW.

However, in fact, time passes and things change. History shows this five minutes doesn't last: sometimes huge wars start up.

 

[Hoffstra]

The United States is not the worlds' policeman.

 

[U2Edge]

They declared war on us formally the week Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and started sinking our ships.

So if tomorrow Namibia formally declared war on the United States without any subsequent military action, you would advocate invading and overthrowing the government of Namibia just because of their "formal declaration of war"?

What if Germany had not sunk any ships or declared war on the United States, you would have supported letting Hitler do his thing?

Well, sure! That's what we were trying so hard to do, stay out of BOTH world wars. We didn't get dragged into WWI until 1917 (the Zimmerman telegram, that functioned as another German declaration of war, to an outraged America public -- Germany offered to help Mexico reconquer three Southwest America states if they would distract us from WWI: whoops, we found out). We didn't get dragged into WWII until December of 1941, very late.

The fact that we cannot stay out of world wars, that everyone conspires to drag us in because we're so big and powerful and rich is why after WWII we started this "world policeman" role with forward power projection foreign bases everywhere. We are committed to stopping world wars before they start, is the idea. It was a good idea for a long time. Obviously that has not been working out lately: we've been starting wars, not stopping them. Any country that wildly starts wars everywhere runs a real danger of being viewed as a rabid dog that nations of the world have to band together to shoot down -- like Germany was viewed (accurately) under both the Kaiser and later, Hitler.

All the same, you make a good point about Namibia. That's why I added "and started sinking our ships" to the Hitler declaration of war. They have to be able to do something about it, and also, they have to ACTUALLY do something about it or their "declaration of war" need not be taken seriously. Obviously Germany was a powerful enemy: we barely won, twice.

Right now both North Korea and Iran have current declarations of war operative against us. NK has been in a state of war for decades and frequently reiterates it. But they don't actually do much, and not against us, wisely. It wouldn't take much, frankly.

Iran regularly says they want to kill all Americans, nuke us, make war on us, etc. etc., and though the speakers are at a high government level, they don't actually DO anything. Again, wisely, because that situation is on a knife edge. Iran has already declared war against us and against Israel. If they suddenly start sinking ships, we would be actually at war with them. A declaration is not enough, you are right. Talk is cheap, but sinking ships matters.

Note that our shelling Syria would be from ships, not from the air, as we did twice against Libya. I see trouble coming. Sunk ships are our normal entry into war: that's why Osama bin Laden, desperate to get our attention, hit the U.S.S. Cole. We still didn't pay attention, because he was not attached to a state. But the faked Tonkin Gulf attack on our ship and the faked Spanish attack on the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor, and the real German attacks on our shipping, and the real Japanese attacks on our ships at Pearl Harbor --- all those attacks got us into war. It's not the only way, but sunk ships are the usual way to get us into war, and sometimes it's a simple lie by our own government.

I think those American warships are out there to play sitting ducks to get us into a war with Iran.

If the United States had deployed a significant number of troops in Western Europe before the start of World War I, World War I would not of happened.

If the Allies had acted against Germany in 1935 and enforced the treaties from World War I, Hitler would have been removed from the scene with relatively little loss of life compared to World War II.

The cruise missile launches proposed by Obama will not only come from ships but also air platforms like the B-2 Bomber and other aircraft. The United States also has large numbers of ALCM's Air Launched Cruise Missiles.

Also the Cruise Missile ranges and stand off distances for firing outrange anything Syria has.

Also a United States Aircraft Carrier is now moving up the Red Sea toward the area.

 

[Vox]

If the United States had deployed a significant number of troops in Western Europe before the start of World War I, World War I would not of happened.

If the Allies had acted against Germany in 1935 and enforced the treaties from World War I, Hitler would have been removed from the scene with relatively little loss of life compared to World War II.

The cruise missile launches proposed by Obama will not only come from ships but also air platforms like the B-2 Bomber and other aircraft. The United States also has large numbers of ALCM's Air Launched Cruise Missiles.

Also the Cruise Missile ranges and stand off distances for firing outrange anything Syria has.

Also a United States Aircraft Carrier is now moving up the Red Sea toward the area.

if one would know where one would fell - he will put a soft mattress there.

US is not a world policeman or the world nanny.

And should not be.

ENOUGH

 

[U2Edge]

So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?

You are too optimistic, IMO. You think you know that Obama means to launch a single punitive missile to destroy a single empty building in Damascus? How can you possibly know that? It seems to me improbable in the extreme that a punitive strike THAT small would be launched: even the one Reagan launched against Qaddafi with two jets hit more than that, and we add ships to our strike force in the Mediterranean daily now.

You also think everything will stay the same as it is this five minutes. That's the human condition: we think this five minute is it, for good or ill: we can't look past right NOW.

However, in fact, time passes and things change. History shows this five minutes doesn't last: sometimes huge wars start up.

It will probably be about 300 cruise missiles and Assad will get the message and that will be it. You'll see. Esculating against the United States or its allies and counter productive to the objectives of the Iranians, Russians and Assad's regime in Syria. They are focused on defeating the rebels and preserving Assad's regime. Esculating against the United States and its allies would put those objectives in jeopardy.