War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[U2Edge]

Acceptable risk- BTW- why are we concerned about using conventional weaponry against Syria, for where fear of gas attack would manifest?

We can ignore this just like Obama, and rightfully should

-Geaux

Were concerned what are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines would face in any conflict overseas in defense of US national Security. Not responding to this massive use of Chemical Weapons make it more likely that the men and women who serve this country will have to go into battle against such weapons in the future, whether it be somewhere in the Persian gulf, Asia or elsewhere where the United States is defending US Security!

To advocate to do nothing makes the world a more dangerous place, and the first to see the results of that more dangerous world will be the United States military!

Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?

Yes, and we'll be doing exactly that by not responding!

 

[Circe]

no it is not.

it is our business when it is OUR INTEREST.

IT IS NOT.

CW has been used by Assad numerous times before and others too - we were silent then, we can be silent now.

Besides, what is this virginal outrage nonsense? Germany invented poison gas; Britain and France quickly followed suit; the United States made so much poison gas of many kinds that we had tons and tons and tons of mustard gas stored up till a couple years ago, not to mention all the other modern stuff we STILL have; and Russia made just as much and is now selling Sarin to these godforsaken Syrians.

And the Syrians are using it. Well, duh, what do we expect? Everyone else made it, sold it, used it. Why the sudden outrage?

This genie is out of the bottle and is being used to depopulate enemy strongholds, and it is a weapon well-suited for that, clearly.

Whatever. S.E.P., as it says in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Somebody Else's Problem.

 

[U2Edge]

Acceptable risk- BTW- why are we concerned about using conventional weaponry against Syria, for where fear of gas attack would manifest?

We can ignore this just like Obama, and rightfully should

-Geaux

Were concerned what are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines would face in any conflict overseas in defense of US national Security. Not responding to this massive use of Chemical Weapons make it more likely that the men and women who serve this country will have to go into battle against such weapons in the future, whether it be somewhere in the Persian gulf, Asia or elsewhere where the United States is defending US Security!

To advocate to do nothing makes the world a more dangerous place, and the first to see the results of that more dangerous world will be the United States military!

Then by this logic, we should launch on Russia or Iran because we 'might' have to face them down the road. Sorry, Syria having gas does not reach the level requiring our assault.

-Geaux

Were not assaulting Syria because they simply have chemical weapons, were assaulting them for launching the largest chemical weapons strike in 25 years and to deter them from using Chemical weapons again as well as deter others from thinking that Chemical Weapon use is somehow ok.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Were concerned what are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines would face in any conflict overseas in defense of US national Security. Not responding to this massive use of Chemical Weapons make it more likely that the men and women who serve this country will have to go into battle against such weapons in the future, whether it be somewhere in the Persian gulf, Asia or elsewhere where the United States is defending US Security!

To advocate to do nothing makes the world a more dangerous place, and the first to see the results of that more dangerous world will be the United States military!

Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?

Yes, and we'll be doing exactly that by not responding!

Coming out of nowhere with thousands of times greater armament than Syria and interjecting ourselves is pretty much begging for CW to be used. Many countries have CW, and the U.S. recklessly fighting all these small countries will produce just that. It has been shown that the leadership will be executed when we conquer them, so what do they have to lose by using CW?

 

[Circe]

Chemical weapons use IS okay. For them.

It was okay in WWI, it wasn't used in WWII, but voluntarily, and it's been used several times internally by various dictators who buy it from Russia.

Hey, as long as it's Arabs killing Arabs, what is really the problem here? At least it's a cleaner death than blowing people up with bombs. These are our enemies. This is good. Let Allah sort it out, as Sarah Palin cleverly said. If Allah doesn't approve, no doubt Allah will stop it.



They try to use it on us, we'll nuke 'em.

They won't.

It's just not a problem. At least, it's not our problem.

 

[U2Edge]

no it is not.

it is our business when it is OUR INTEREST.

IT IS NOT.

CW has been used by Assad numerous times before and others too - we were silent then, we can be silent now.

Besides, what is this virginal outrage nonsense? Germany invented poison gas; Britain and France quickly followed suit; the United States made so much poison gas of many kinds that we had tons and tons and tons of mustard gas stored up till a couple years ago, not to mention all the other modern stuff we STILL have; and Russia made just as much and is now selling Sarin to these godforsaken Syrians.

And the Syrians are using it. Well, duh, what do we expect? Everyone else made it, sold it, used it. Why the sudden outrage?

This genie is out of the bottle and is being used to depopulate enemy strongholds, and it is a weapon well-suited for that, clearly.

Whatever. S.E.P., as it says in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Somebody Else's Problem.

The only thing that is virginal here or I should say ignorant is the idea that somehow Chemical Weapons use is common place. Its not. This is the first significant chemical Weapons use anywhere on the planet in 25 years. That's a quarter of a century!

The use of chemical weapons has essentially been non-existent for the past 25 years until now! The United States went to great lengths to destroy Saddam's chemical stock piles in the 1990s after the first Gulf War and returned to finish the job after Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998.

The Chemical Weapons convention was signed in 1997 banning their production and use! There was no reason to sign that if were totally unwilling to enforce it.

Were you outraged that the United States signed that document back in 1997?

 

[U2Edge]

Chemical weapons use IS okay. For them.

It was okay in WWI, it wasn't used in WWII, but voluntarily, and it's been used several times internally by various dictators who buy it from Russia.

Hey, as long as it's Arabs killing Arabs, what is really the problem here? At least it's a cleaner death than blowing people up with bombs. These are our enemies. This is good. Let Allah sort it out, as Sarah Palin cleverly said. If Allah doesn't approve, no doubt Allah will stop it.



They try to use it on us, we'll nuke 'em.

They won't.

It's just not a problem. At least, it's not our problem.

It is a serious problem, that involves the idea of PROLIFERATION. Do you know what PROLIFERATION is?

 

[Kondor3]

"...A rather simplistic appraisal of the situation that fails to see the consequences for the future..."

Au contraire. It was an elegant, simple outline of the present state of affairs. It made no attempt to project into the future, nor was it designed to. Less is more.

"...If chemical weapons start to be come seen as normal, then their possession and use will spread. The threat and consequences or that of PROLIFERATION!..."

We can pick and choose which brawls to engage in, and there is no immediate and compelling reason for us to engage on this one.

We have spent far too much blood and treasure in the past 68 years since 1945, on ventures designed to prevent "What-If" scenarios.

Our track record with a Crystal Ball is not the best.

And we're dealing with a War-Weary Nation and an Empty Treasury that has been fighting Bad Guys for 12 years now.

Let somebody else play Guardian of Tomorrow-Land for once.

We've done our bit for King and Country for a while, so-to-speak.

This does not mean that we would be disengaging, globally.

This merely says that we choose not to play Policeman on this particular incident.

"...But don't worry, the missile strike is going to happen despite your opposition to it..."

God knows what those Whack-A-Doodles in Congress are going to say.

But Smart Vegas Money is on them saying "No - do not strike."

And IF they do, and the Administration goes ahead with it anyway, well, there's going to be Hell to pay on the political front, so, I really do believe that, if Congress says "No" - that's it.

We will know soon enough if it is going to play-out that way.

I'm not putting much stock in Crystal Balls, either way, right about now.

 

[U2Edge]

Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?

Yes, and we'll be doing exactly that by not responding!

Coming out of nowhere with thousands of times greater armament than Syria and interjecting ourselves is pretty much begging for CW to be used. Many countries have CW, and the U.S. recklessly fighting all these small countries will produce just that. It has been shown that the leadership will be executed when we conquer them, so what do they have to lose by using CW?

Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Yes, and we'll be doing exactly that by not responding!

Coming out of nowhere with thousands of times greater armament than Syria and interjecting ourselves is pretty much begging for CW to be used. Many countries have CW, and the U.S. recklessly fighting all these small countries will produce just that. It has been shown that the leadership will be executed when we conquer them, so what do they have to lose by using CW?

Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.

The point is Assad feels threatened, and rightfully so, since it doesn't take much to overthrow any country including our own, if there is a foreign power making it happen. We are supplying the rebels, and that's all it takes.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.

The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face. That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long, and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come. That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.

 

[U2Edge]

"...A rather simplistic appraisal of the situation that fails to see the consequences for the future..."

Au contraire. It was an elegant, simple outline of the present state of affairs. It made no attempt to project into the future, nor was it designed to. Less is more.

"...If chemical weapons start to be come seen as normal, then their possession and use will spread. The threat and consequences or that of PROLIFERATION!..."

We can pick and choose which brawls to engage in, and there is no immediate and compelling reason for us to engage on this one.

We have spent far too much blood and treasure in the past 68 years since 1945, on ventures designed to prevent "What-If" scenarios.

Our track record with a Crystal Ball is not the best.

And we're dealing with a War-Weary Nation and an Empty Treasury that has been fighting Bad Guys for 12 years now.

Let somebody else play Guardian of Tomorrow-Land for once.

We've done our bit for King and Country for a while, so-to-speak.

This does not mean that we would be disengaging, globally.

This merely says that we choose not to play Policeman on this particular incident.

"...But don't worry, the missile strike is going to happen despite your opposition to it..."

God knows what those Whack-A-Doodles in Congress are going to say.

But Smart Vegas Money is on them saying "No - do not strike."

And IF they do, and the Administration goes ahead with it anyway, well, there's going to be Hell to pay on the political front, so, I really do believe that, if Congress says "No" - that's it.

We will know soon enough if it is going to play-out that way.

I'm not putting much stock in Crystal Balls, either way, right about now.

The United States engages in the world to protect its interest! To protect its security. A US missile strike against Syria is first and for-most for United States security, not anyone elses.

The fact of the matter is, US engagement over the past 70 years prevented Soviet communisms attempts to take over the world and prevented World War III. It made the world a stronger, more prosperous and more stable place. American values, capitalism and government have spread across the world. It has been very good for the United States, the best time in its history!

Finally, the United States CAN NEVER AFFORD NOT TO PROTECT its security!

 

[U2Edge]

obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.

The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face. That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long, and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come. That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.

Sorry, but if you really want to put the Republicans back in the white house then you need a Republican party that is willing to embrace the concerns and issues of Americans of latin American descent. They are the future of the country and will be decisive factor in future elections!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

"...A rather simplistic appraisal of the situation that fails to see the consequences for the future..."

Au contraire. It was an elegant, simple outline of the present state of affairs. It made no attempt to project into the future, nor was it designed to. Less is more.



We can pick and choose which brawls to engage in, and there is no immediate and compelling reason for us to engage on this one.

We have spent far too much blood and treasure in the past 68 years since 1945, on ventures designed to prevent "What-If" scenarios.

Our track record with a Crystal Ball is not the best.

And we're dealing with a War-Weary Nation and an Empty Treasury that has been fighting Bad Guys for 12 years now.

Let somebody else play Guardian of Tomorrow-Land for once.

We've done our bit for King and Country for a while, so-to-speak.

This does not mean that we would be disengaging, globally.

This merely says that we choose not to play Policeman on this particular incident.

"...But don't worry, the missile strike is going to happen despite your opposition to it..."

God knows what those Whack-A-Doodles in Congress are going to say.

But Smart Vegas Money is on them saying "No - do not strike."

And IF they do, and the Administration goes ahead with it anyway, well, there's going to be Hell to pay on the political front, so, I really do believe that, if Congress says "No" - that's it.

We will know soon enough if it is going to play-out that way.

I'm not putting much stock in Crystal Balls, either way, right about now.

The United States engages in the world to protect its interest! To protect its security. A US missile strike against Syria is first and for-most for United States security, not anyone elses.

The fact of the matter is, US engagement over the past 70 years prevented Soviet communisms attempts to take over the world and prevented World War III. It made the world a stronger, more prosperous and more stable place. American values, capitalism and government have spread across the world. It has been very good for the United States, the best time in its history!

Finally, the United States CAN NEVER AFFORD NOT TO PROTECT its security!

Can't you see that now things are or are about to spiral out of control or at least the possibility?

 

[Circe]

Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.

You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?

You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.

Hopefully nothing.

You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.

You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.

Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??

No.

None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars. Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.

 

[Kondor3]

My own hoped-for prediction?

Congress will say "No".

We will stand down.

The whole thing blows over.

And we continue to refrain from engaging in combat, in the Syrian civil war.

----------

I could very well be wrong.

But, if I had to come down on one side or the other, in interpreting the cloudy interior of the crystal ball...

That would be my interpretation...

And, if that does materialize, we'll all get-by just fine, for not having done it...

 

[Circe]

obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.

The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face. That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long, and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come. That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.

I wish I knew where people were getting these NUMBERS!

At least you didn't say 300 cruise missiles, like that other guy keeps pulling out of the air.

Well, I agree a big war with Iran and everyone else around there would be even worse for Obama than Bush's failed wars were for him, but I'd just as soon give it all a miss! I mean, darn, could be a problem for the American citizen. How much more of these disasters can we really afford without collapsing?

I'd say we're about at minus one now. Let's don't.

 

[Lipush]

Isn't there something in the middle, between Yay and Nay?

Maybay.

 

[orogenicman]

Since no one is talking about the U.S. going to war with Syria, the pretense of this poll is bogus.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Since no one is talking about the U.S. going to war with Syria, the pretense of this poll is bogus.

As Obama pushes to punish Syria, lawmakers fear deep U.S. involvement | Reuters

President Barack Obama and his aides pressed U.S. lawmakers on Monday to approve military force against Syria but many members of Congress were worried that an attack would only drag America into another Middle Eastern conflict with no end in sight. ...

Obama's proposal to congress asks for unlimited action to achieve the goals. Someone posted it earlier.