War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Vox]

So...which is it? President Obama is for Assad or for the Rebels?

for the war

 

[Contumacious]

So...which is it? President Obama is for Assad or for the Rebels?

President Obama is for President Obama and the democratic party.

Making Israhell a superpower will make him a gazillionaire and provide lots of prestige

.

 

[Geaux4it]

Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.

As a person who spent YEARS in Embassies across the world, your naïveté impresses me. HUNDREDS of bombs (RPG, Tank Rounds, Arty Rounds, small arms fire, AA batteries) are heard everyday in Damascus each day. Yet, you contend that the US targets a couple of mountainsides (where the CBR munitions WERE kept until Barry told Assad we were coming) and you somehow are deluded that Assad will "step back in line".

Lordy, Lordy......

Sure, and your about to see it all happen. Assad has no interest in fighting the United States or having the US Air Force become the Air Force of the Free Syrian Army.

Assad's military struggles daily to keep Damascus free of insurgents and yes yet to make much progress in taking parts of the largest Syrian city Aleppo back. Much of the Syrian military already deserted long ago and the Syrian military is experiencing severe manpower shortages. The Syrian military has more tanks than they have trained tank crew man and more aircraft than they have trained pilots.

It is an embarrassment to Assad that he is having to get help from Hezbolah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. He does not have time to do combat with Israel or the United States.

That's why Russian lawmakers are now in Washington DC on their hands and knees begging US congressman not to authorize the strike.

For as inept as Congress is, I think they will get this one right and tell Obama no. It's the right thing to do. The consequences of not acting are far more positive than those for limited action

-Geaux

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Because Israel has the kind of military force and clout the U.S. has.

Assad would be more confident about his ability to handle Israel than the United States. Yet, when Israel hit him this year, he did nothing.

Assad won't do anything after the missile strike because he has more important things to worry about.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Because Israel has the kind of military force and clout the U.S. has.

Assad would be more confident about his ability to handle Israel than the United States. Yet, when Israel hit him this year, he did nothing.

Assad won't do anything after the missile strike because he has more important things to worry about.

Then why do the missile strike? It changes nothing

-Geaux

 

[deltex1]

It's out of our hands now, friends...let the experts in DC work out the optimum solution.........pause.......LMAO!!!!!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Because Israel has the kind of military force and clout the U.S. has.

Assad would be more confident about his ability to handle Israel than the United States. Yet, when Israel hit him this year, he did nothing.

Assad won't do anything after the missile strike because he has more important things to worry about.

What could Assad have done?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

.

Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.

Listen asswipe, , will Iran and Lebanon and possibly Russia step back after the missile strike?

Why don't you use the Star of David as your avatar?

.

That's exactly what they did after the Israeli strikes this year!

 

[Geaux4it]

It's out of our hands now, friends...let the experts in DC work out the optimum solution.........pause.......LMAO!!!!!

 

[U2Edge]

Then what's the point in doing it?

BTW- War as defined

Definition of WAR

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
c : variance, odds 3

I meant the Syrian people in general. The Syrian government will remember and this will stop them from ever considering the use of chemical weapons again. Mission accomplished.

O h really, I suspect he will gas even more than last time. Might even lob a few towards Israel. He will not let the Americans declaring war stand. And we best hope Russia does not take issue

-Geaux

Well, be prepared to be proven wrong when that doesn't happen. Assad does not need Gas to win his war. It certainly would be easier and quicker to win it with Gas, but he can still win it without gas. It will just take longer and be more costly.

If using Gas, means US airstrikes, then there is no advantage to him using gas. He'll go back to making slower gains on the battlefield with conventional war fighting because that does not bring on US airstrikes.

You would do the same if you were in Assads position as well.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.

Listen asswipe, , will Iran and Lebanon and possibly Russia step back after the missile strike?

Why don't you use the Star of David as your avatar?

.

That's exactly what they did after the Israeli strikes this year!

We are talking about the future, and you are avoiding the question.

 

[U2Edge]

As a person who spent YEARS in Embassies across the world, your naïveté impresses me. HUNDREDS of bombs (RPG, Tank Rounds, Arty Rounds, small arms fire, AA batteries) are heard everyday in Damascus each day. Yet, you contend that the US targets a couple of mountainsides (where the CBR munitions WERE kept until Barry told Assad we were coming) and you somehow are deluded that Assad will "step back in line".

Lordy, Lordy......

Sure, and your about to see it all happen. Assad has no interest in fighting the United States or having the US Air Force become the Air Force of the Free Syrian Army.

Assad's military struggles daily to keep Damascus free of insurgents and yes yet to make much progress in taking parts of the largest Syrian city Aleppo back. Much of the Syrian military already deserted long ago and the Syrian military is experiencing severe manpower shortages. The Syrian military has more tanks than they have trained tank crew man and more aircraft than they have trained pilots.

It is an embarrassment to Assad that he is having to get help from Hezbolah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. He does not have time to do combat with Israel or the United States.

That's why Russian lawmakers are now in Washington DC on their hands and knees begging US congressman not to authorize the strike.

For as inept as Congress is, I think they will get this one right and tell Obama no. It's the right thing to do. The consequences of not acting are far more positive than those for limited action

-Geaux

We want to stop the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Doing nothing won't accomplish that. It will increase the proliferation and use of chemical weapons on the battlefield.

 

[U2Edge]

Listen asswipe, , will Iran and Lebanon and possibly Russia step back after the missile strike?

Why don't you use the Star of David as your avatar?

.

That's exactly what they did after the Israeli strikes this year!

We are talking about the future, and you are avoiding the question.

What happened with the Israeli strikes is an indication of what will happen in the future with a US military strike.

 

[Geaux4it]

I meant the Syrian people in general. The Syrian government will remember and this will stop them from ever considering the use of chemical weapons again. Mission accomplished.

O h really, I suspect he will gas even more than last time. Might even lob a few towards Israel. He will not let the Americans declaring war stand. And we best hope Russia does not take issue

-Geaux

Well, be prepared to be proven wrong when that doesn't happen. Assad does not need Gas to win his war. It certainly would be easier and quicker to win it with Gas, but he can still win it without gas. It will just take longer and be more costly.

If using Gas, means US airstrikes, then there is no advantage to him using gas. He'll go back to making slower gains on the battlefield with conventional war fighting because that does not bring on US airstrikes.

You would do the same if you were in Assads position as well.

Dude- You have more assumptions than Carter has liver pills

You ever thought why Syria used gas in the first place? Was Assad just checking to see if Obama was bluffing, which he was?

He and his allies want us to attack

-Geaux

 

[paulitician]

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...

Yeah that's my hope too. The People don't support it. However, i'm pretty sure Congress will rubber stamp this War. Congress has been a rubber stamp for useless Wars for many many years. They've ceded just about all authority to the President. It would be great to see Congress reassert its authority and vote against this War. But i just don't see that happening. When's the last time you remember Congress voting down any War? So unfortunately, the fix is likely in once again. I would love to be proven wrong though. I guess we'll see.

 

[U2Edge]

Because Israel has the kind of military force and clout the U.S. has.

Assad would be more confident about his ability to handle Israel than the United States. Yet, when Israel hit him this year, he did nothing.

Assad won't do anything after the missile strike because he has more important things to worry about.

What could Assad have done?

Given the size and equipment holdings of his forces prior to the start of the war in March 2011, he could have done a lot. Two and half years later things are different. His forces are depleted and he is struggling for control of Syria with the much larger Sunni population.

I would say he still has limited means of hitting Israel with Aircraft and Missiles but would rather save such assets for fighting the rebels.

In terms of ground troops, its highly unlikely Assad could put together any sort of an invasion force of the Golan heights without jeperdizing his control of Damascus and other area's of Syria.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I meant the Syrian people in general. The Syrian government will remember and this will stop them from ever considering the use of chemical weapons again. Mission accomplished.

O h really, I suspect he will gas even more than last time. Might even lob a few towards Israel. He will not let the Americans declaring war stand. And we best hope Russia does not take issue

-Geaux

Well, be prepared to be proven wrong when that doesn't happen. Assad does not need Gas to win his war. It certainly would be easier and quicker to win it with Gas, but he can still win it without gas. It will just take longer and be more costly.

If using Gas, means US airstrikes, then there is no advantage to him using gas. He'll go back to making slower gains on the battlefield with conventional war fighting because that does not bring on US airstrikes.

You would do the same if you were in Assads position as well.

Now, I need to put myself in Assad's place.

 

[Kondor3]

"...We want to stop the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Doing nothing won't accomplish that. It will increase the proliferation and use of chemical weapons on the battlefield."

Nolo contendre.

No contest.

The question now becomes...

"Do we want to stop it badly enough to commit an open Act of War"?

The answer appears to be "No" - judging by the UN Security Council vote and the British Parliament vote and popular polling to-date across America and early feedback from many of the members of Congress who will be looking at this, soon.

And, of course, if we don't want that badly enough, then we simply won't get it.

It won't be the end of the world... and America is just a wee-bit war-weary, right about now... we can use the breather... let somebody else deal with this kind of thing, for once.

 

[georgephillip]

So...which is it? President Obama is for Assad or for the Rebels?

for the war

That would be the Long War that Wesley mentioned?

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said.

"'But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

That's exactly what they did after the Israeli strikes this year!

We are talking about the future, and you are avoiding the question.

What happened with the Israeli strikes is an indication of what will happen in the future with a US military strike.

Just because Russia hasn't joined in yet doesn't mean they won't. Do you know what a war with Russia would mean? I fully expect you won't answer this.