War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.

There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.

I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.

I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would not be in anyones interest.

Once we fire cruise missiles, we are at war with Syria, and there won't be anymore hurtles to negotiate. To cross that line is to remove all safeguards and common sense, and we will be at the total mercy of Obama's whims and wants, which are well-known. Think ahead and look at how hopeless the debate will be then.

 

[Geaux4it]

More facts.....

Obama's Failures in Afghanistan - Reason.com

Only U.S. Gen. Joseph “Fighting Joe” Dunford, head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) thinks the war on the Taliban is being won, and that the Afghan Army is “steadily gaining in confidence, competence, and commitment.”Attacks by the Taliban are up 47 percent over last year, and the casualty rate for Afghan soldiers and police has increased 40 percent. The yearly desertion rate of the Afghan Army is between 27 percent and 30 percent.

Things have gotten so bad, Hallinan writes, that gunman in Pakistan burned a NATO convoy taking equipment out of Afghanistan. He comments,

There is nothing that better sums up the utter failure of America’s longest war than international forces getting ambushed as they try to get the hell out of the country. And yet the April 1 debacle in Baluchistan was in many ways a metaphor for a looming crisis that NATO and the United States seem totally unprepared for: with the clock ticking down on removing most combat troops by 2014, there are no official negotiations going on, nor does there seem to be any strategy for how to bring them about.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.

There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.

I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.

I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would not be in anyones interest.

Neither are cruise missile strikes. The US declaring war with Syria is not in our best interest. Plus, we have telegraphed our move beyond anything imaginable so the effectiveness of any value that may have been accomplished otherwise has been negated

-Geaux

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.

Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.

In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.

 

[Contumacious]

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

.

Are you

a zionut
war profiteer
a retard?

.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.

There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.

I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.

I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would not be in anyones interest.

Neither are cruise missile strikes. The US declaring war with Syria is not in our best interest. Plus, we have telegraphed our move beyond anything imaginable so the effectiveness of any value that may have been accomplished otherwise has been negated

-Geaux

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.

Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.

In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.

Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?

-Geaux

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.

Which is exactly what?

 

[U2Edge]

More facts.....

Obama's Failures in Afghanistan - Reason.com

Only U.S. Gen. Joseph “Fighting Joe” Dunford, head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) thinks the war on the Taliban is being won, and that the Afghan Army is “steadily gaining in confidence, competence, and commitment.”Attacks by the Taliban are up 47 percent over last year, and the casualty rate for Afghan soldiers and police has increased 40 percent. The yearly desertion rate of the Afghan Army is between 27 percent and 30 percent.

Things have gotten so bad, Hallinan writes, that gunman in Pakistan burned a NATO convoy taking equipment out of Afghanistan. He comments,

There is nothing that better sums up the utter failure of America’s longest war than international forces getting ambushed as they try to get the hell out of the country. And yet the April 1 debacle in Baluchistan was in many ways a metaphor for a looming crisis that NATO and the United States seem totally unprepared for: with the clock ticking down on removing most combat troops by 2014, there are no official negotiations going on, nor does there seem to be any strategy for how to bring them about.

How many provincial capitals in Afghanistan are under the control of the Taliban? NONE

Timothy McVieh blows up Ryder Truck in Oklahoma city, does that mean the Oklahoma City police force is non-existent or a failure.

10,000 US citizens are murdered every year, does that mean the US law enforcement is a failure and people should consider moving to a different country?

Yes, some trucks moving through Pakistan were burned. Any teenager in the United States could do the same thing here and there. Point being, that's not evidence of NATO failure or Taliban success.

 

[U2Edge]

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.

Which is exactly what?

To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Syria is already being devastated. How will a number of cruise missiles make any difference, U2?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.

Which is exactly what?

To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.

It is also just as likely to force him into using CW, since he will have nothing to lose facing certain death.

 

[U2Edge]

Neither are cruise missile strikes. The US declaring war with Syria is not in our best interest. Plus, we have telegraphed our move beyond anything imaginable so the effectiveness of any value that may have been accomplished otherwise has been negated

-Geaux

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.

Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.

In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.

Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?

-Geaux

It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.

Otherwise, Israel has gone to war three times this year with Syria, yet Syria did not even so much as give them the middle finger.

Do you think Israel has gone to war three different times with Syria this year?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.

Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.

In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.

Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?

-Geaux

It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.

Yea, not always, but in this case it surely is with the statement of the red line and our supplying of the rebels.

 

[U2Edge]

Which is exactly what?

To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.

It is also just as likely to force him into using CW, since he will have nothing to lose facing certain death.

Assad is not facing death or injury and will still be able to prosecute his war against the rebels after the strike is over. He might lose his favorite bubble bath in one of his palaces, but I doubt that will make him think its the end of the world.

Assad will still have several other places in which he can take luxury baths with his wife!

 

[Vox]

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

NO, it is not.

everything what was able to proliferate - already DID.
starting with fall of the USSR.
Then - with Saddam's fall.

This does not involve the USSR. Were not talking about nuclear weapons. Were talking about chemical weapons, specifically the use of chemical weapons. Using them is a violation of the chemical weapons convention that we agreed to enforce in 1997.

it does involve the USSR - everything what was being able to be sold after it's collapse - WAS.
CW as well.

upgrade your knowledge a bit, because your zeal to missile strike Syria and in order to do that you negate the well known worldwide facts, obviously interferes with the simple knowledge base.

 

[Contumacious]

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.

Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.

In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.

Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?

-Geaux

It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.

?

Listen dildo, its very hard to fight against a foreign power when a nation is involved in a civil war.

. The CIA and the Mossad have been very very busy encouraging a civil war.

.

 

[U2Edge]

Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?

-Geaux

It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.

Yea, not always, but in this case it surely is with the statement of the red line and our supplying of the rebels.

When Assad reacts the same way to the US missile strike the way he acted to the three previous Israeli air strikes this year, you will see what I mean.

 

[U2Edge]

Syria is already being devastated. How will a number of cruise missiles make any difference, U2?

The Syrian military has large number of important military assets that are intact an important in their plans for fighting the rebels. The loss of some of these assets will deter them from ever using chemical weapons again.

 

[TooTall]

Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we SHOULD do a thing...

At present, my own feelings about this are...

Let 'em rot... let 'em go on killing each other... let 'em have a field day... let the Euros handle it for once... it's their backyard.

I may have mentioned this elsewhere but:

And here we have all the myopic, spineless, irresponsible isolationists indulging in the easy refrain of "**** it, it's not our problem!" Some of y'all must have the memory of a goldfish not to recall what tends to happen when we turn our backs, ignore or avoid problems and let them stew, or count on (of all people) the Europeans to "handle it."

Half-assing it doesn't cut it either. Clinton lobbing a few missiles into some sand or at a baby food factory - or saying "Who's this Bin Laden fellow? No thanks, you keep him" - didn't solve a problem that came back to bite us in the ass. Obama making some empty declarations well after the moment had passed didn't do jack shit for brave Iranians demanding democracy who were gunned down in the street. "Leading from behind" leaves us exactly there, but when the shit hits the fan - and it inevitably does - all those leading in the front will climb all over each other to scurry behind us as they both demand that we act and vilify us for it at the same time.

We are a world leader - the world leader - whether some of you like it or not. A lot of you should have thought of this before electing - twice! - an incompetent, dithering, unqualified one term senator to be Commander in Chief.

Totally agree!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.

It is also just as likely to force him into using CW, since he will have nothing to lose facing certain death.

Assad is not facing death or injury and will still be able to prosecute his war against the rebels after the strike is over. He might lose his favorite bubble bath in one of his palaces, but I doubt that will make him think its the end of the world.

Assad will still have several other places in which he can take luxury baths with his wife!

After Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Khadafy and numerous Al Qaeda leaders, Assad will not take these kind of reassurances as any kind of comfort whatsoever.

 

[Geaux4it]

The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.

Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.

Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.

In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.

Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?

-Geaux

It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.

Otherwise, Israel has gone to war three times this year with Syria, yet Syria did not even so much as give them the middle finger.

Do you think Israel has gone to war three different times with Syria this year?

I don't care about Israel. I'm talking about the United States and Syria. YOu are wrong big time if you think we would stand by and let another country fires missiles into US soil and not consider it an act of war

-Geaux