War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

What a great answer to my question.

 

[U2Edge]

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

Well, at least my assumptions are based on the facts on the ground in Syria and what Assad has already demonstrated what he is willing to do and not do.

He could strike back at Israel, but he didn't because he has more important things to use his military assets for.

Syria used Gas because its away to successfully speed up Syrian success and taken of ground from the rebels and his less costly in casualties for the Syrian military. Its a cheap, easy, quick way to make dramatic gains on the battlefield.

They did very limited testing in the Spring, so limited that people question if chemicals were even used and whether it was the rebels who used them.

Obama did nothing. That led to the attack on August 21. The Syrians miscalculated and thought they could get away with a much larger attack.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

When are you planning to provide proof that Assad used chemical weapons?
About the same time hasbara finds WMDs in Fallujah?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The Soviet Union/Russia loves its client states like Saddam's Iraq, Milosvic's Serbia and Assad's Syria, but they are not willing to go to war with the United States to save them.

Putins beggers are Washington DC already. Warships in the mediteranian and begging lawmakers in Washington DC as well as supplying Assad with more conventional weapons as all that Putin is will to do in terms of going up to bat for Syria.

 

[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.

When are you planning to provide proof that Assad used chemical weapons?
About the same time hasbara finds WMDs in Fallujah?

I already did. That ship already sailed a long time ago.

 

[georgephillip]

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

When are you planning to provide proof that Assad used chemical weapons?
About the same time hasbara finds WMDs in Fallujah?

I already did. That ship already sailed a long time ago.

" Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack..."

"They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said."

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

Bandar Bush did it (again)

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

The Soviet Union/Russia loves its client states like Saddam's Iraq, Milosvic's Serbia and Assad's Syria, but they are not willing to go to war with the United States to save them.

Putins beggers are Washington DC already. Warships in the mediteranian and begging lawmakers in Washington DC as well as supplying Assad with more conventional weapons as all that Putin is will to do in terms of going up to bat for Syria.

Like I said, you didn't answer my question and didn't give any indication that you are doing anything but copy/pasting.

 

[U2Edge]

"...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.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.

The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.

The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.

 

[paulitician]

"...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.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.

The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.

The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.

With friends like those, who needs enemies? Yikes! And there are no interests to protect. Lets sit this one out.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Well, at least my assumptions are based on the facts on the ground in Syria and what Assad has already demonstrated what he is willing to do and not do.

He could strike back at Israel, but he didn't because he has more important things to use his military assets for.

Syria used Gas because its away to successfully speed up Syrian success and taken of ground from the rebels and his less costly in casualties for the Syrian military. Its a cheap, easy, quick way to make dramatic gains on the battlefield.

They did very limited testing in the Spring, so limited that people question if chemicals were even used and whether it was the rebels who used them.

Obama did nothing. That led to the attack on August 21. The Syrians miscalculated and thought they could get away with a much larger attack.

Except you've still provided no evidence the Syrian government was responsible:

"Saudi involvement
"In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.

"Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad."

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

Bandar Bush supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, did you?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Even if any of you could convince me that Syria did it I could give you 5 more reasons why attacking them is a bad Idea, not to mention illegal.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well..."

That's great. Let Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE and France do it, then.

"...The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997..."

All true.

But the Administration knows that it is now on shaky ground and has deferred the matter to the Congress, which, as our duly-elected Representatives, will, hopefully, execute the Will of the People in this matter.

"...The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed."

I'll let the Brits speak for themselves on that one, but, at such a juncture, it is important to remember that the Brits were the first ones to get behind us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and to jump-in with both feet, in a big way, and that they proved themselves to be worthy allies during the course of those conflicts.

They simply chose to sit this one out.

Like we seem likely to do, at this juncture.

 

[georgephillip]

"...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.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.

The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.

The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.

Where's your link establishing the fact Turkey and Saudi Arabia are planning to kill Muslims to defend the petrodollar?

The US needs to secure a UNSC resolution to go to war or demonstrate an imminent threat posed by Syria to the US homeland or risk another violation of international law.

The UK actually embraced democracy in this matter.
What's your problem with that?

 

[Kondor3]

Even if any of you could convince me that Syria did it I could give you 5 more reasons why attacking them is a bad Idea, not to mention illegal.

In my own mind, the blow-back is more important than the legal nicities...

We have a penchant for screwing things up and making them worse, when we do a half-assed driveby-shooting on a country...

There is no reason to believe that the outcome with this one would be any better...

 

[R.C. Christian]

Indeed, WWIII is not an event that I would to see transpire.

 

[georgephillip]

Indeed, WWIII is not an event that I would to see transpire.

John and Lindsey aren't scared:

"Obama appeared to make some headway, however, with two influential Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who came out of a White House meeting with him convinced that the president is willing to do more than simply fire off cruise missiles and also wants to bolster the Syrian opposition."

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

 

[JWBooth]

Indeed, WWIII is not an event that I would to see transpire.

John and Lindsey aren't scared:

"Obama appeared to make some headway, however, with two influential Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who came out of a White House meeting with him convinced that the president is willing to do more than simply fire off cruise missiles and also wants to bolster the Syrian opposition."

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

Lindsey, bless her heart, is a ventriloquist's dummy for McQuisling. The two of them are ever eager for somebody to be dying at the hands of the US military 24/7/365

 

[georgephillip]

Indeed, WWIII is not an event that I would to see transpire.

John and Lindsey aren't scared:

"Obama appeared to make some headway, however, with two influential Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who came out of a White House meeting with him convinced that the president is willing to do more than simply fire off cruise missiles and also wants to bolster the Syrian opposition."

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

Lindsey, bless her heart, is a ventriloquist's dummy for McQuisling. The two of them are ever eager for somebody to be dying at the hands of the US military 24/7/365

And they never hesitate to increase private profits for defense contractors and Wall Street banks while socializing the suffering from Fallujah to Damascus to WTC7.

 

[The Professor]

On the Drudge Report, there was also a poll. The question was asked whether Obama should be given authority to conduct military action against Syria. The last time I checked the response was:

Yes: 2,,351
No: 26,294

DRUDGE REPORT 2013®

 

[Geaux4it]

I just heard on the Five and a Pentagon reporter said the Syrian Air Defense systems are manned with Russians. Now, that's a game changer IMO, if we happen to take those out and kill Russians.

The NIMITZ is moving into position. This thing stinks to high heaven

-Geaux