War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Hoffstra]

it we were gonna take action, it would have been better if we had done it on Saturday.

doing it in 2 weeks, will be much worse.




I think Obama made a boo boo, if his intention is to go to war with or without Congressional approval.

 

[RandallFlagg]

it we were gonna take action, it would have been better if we had done it on Saturday.

doing it in 2 weeks, will be much worse.




I think Obama made a boo boo, if his intention is to go to war with or without Congressional approval.

This whole thing is taking a turn for the surreal. It really is. Nothing that is going on here makes an ounce of sense - but something stinks to high heaven here.

Time will tell I guess.

 

[Kat3eWhit]

Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks

 

[Geaux4it]

Sounds like we were testing air defense system

-Geaux

Breaking News Reuters

Russia says ballistic 'objects' fired in Mediterranean | Reuters


(Reuters) - Russian radar detected the launch of two ballistic "objects" towards the eastern Mediterranean from the central part of the sea on Tuesday, Russian news agencies quoted the Defence Ministry as saying.

Interfax news agency quoted a ministry spokesman as saying the launch was detected at 10:16 am Moscow time (2.16 a.m. ET) by an early warning radar station at Armavir, near the Black Sea, which is designed to detect missiles from Europe and Iran.

The agencies did not say who had carried out the launch and whether any impact had been detected. The ministry declined comment to Reuters.

Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu had informed President Vladimir Putin of the launch.

"The trajectory of these objects goes from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea toward the eastern part of the Mediterranean coast," Interfax quoted the spokesman as saying.

A ministry official had earlier criticized the United States for deploying warships in the Mediterranean close to Syria.
__________________
In Honor of my Great Grandfather (3x) who served in The 49th Regiment- Tennessee Infantry- 'K' Company

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.

The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.

No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.

 

[Geaux4it]

Military has concerns about Syria mission

Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A frank assessment of the risks
In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.
In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.

 

[Geaux4it]

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?

Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.

The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.

No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.

You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.

-Geaux

 

[U2Edge]

"...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.

Sorry, but the President will get his way. Republicans don't want to be seen supporting a dictator like Assad or standing passively by in the face of the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction or appear weak on a national security issue.

Democrats will support their President mostly. 50% of the house and the senate is an easy bar to pass.

Plus, even if the President doesn't get to 50% approval, he can still launch the missile strike.

George H.W. Bush was willing to launch the first Gulf War in 1991 even if he did not get a majority of the members of congress behind them.

The fact is, the only real power the congress has over the Presidency is its ability to cut funding. But in order to cut funding, congress needs a veto proof 2/3 majority. Congress does not have that right now in either the Senate or the House, so Obama can go ahead with the strike PERIOD!

 

[U2Edge]

Military has concerns about Syria mission

Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A frank assessment of the risks
In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.
In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.

That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.

The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.

No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.

You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.

-Geaux

On this website, that would indeed be the case. But I don't base what I think the United States should do or not do based on how popular something is, but whether its the right thing to do or not!

 

[Geaux4it]

Military has concerns about Syria mission

Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A frank assessment of the risks
In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.
In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.

That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.

But it will not stop Assad from doing anything. You are not with the majority of Americans on this issue and I think Congress will see that as well

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.

The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.

No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.

You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.

-Geaux

On this website, that would indeed be the case. But I don't base what I think the United States should do or not do based on how popular something is, but whether its the right thing to do or not!

But on this site and every other poll I have seen, Americans say this IS NOT THE RIGHT thing to do

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Military has concerns about Syria mission

Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A frank assessment of the risks
In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.
In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.

That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.

And back in July review his comments about a limited strike

-Geaux

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power was a necessity and the United States, vital Persian Gulf Oil and natural gas, the global economy, middle east region and the world are all safer now that Saddam is gone!

Yep, the Saudi's launched the chemical attack, just like all those monkees that randomly fly out of Putins ass from time to time.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The United States has huge interest in preventing the proliferation and use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION around the world. Such weapons are a threat to the United States and its interest and erode the United States advantages in conventional military strength.

We want to reduce the probability that the United States military will come under attack from such weapons. Doing nothing about Syria's use of chemical weapons increases the probability that they will one day be attacked by such weapons!

 

[007]

Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.

The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.

No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.

You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.

-Geaux

On this website, that would indeed be the case. But I don't base what I think the United States should do or not do based on how popular something is, but whether its the right thing to do or not!

The right thing for America to do is to stop meddling in the middle east with invasions and nation building. We're not the world's police either. We need get our nose out of all these little fights in the ME which have been going on for thousands of years, and will probably continue to go on for thousands of more years. They're taught to hate each other from birth, so trying to stop them from killing each other is the dumbest thing to attempt on the planet. Best thing the rest of the world could do is sit back and let them kill each other until there's not enough of them around to even worry about, and if they attack another country outside the ME like they did us on 9/11, then go in, light them up like the fourth of July for a couple weeks, set them back a decade or so, then leave them alone, no aide, no money, no occupying, no nation building, just thank for attacking us when we were leaving you alone, now enjoy your parking lot for a country. THAT is the right thing to do.

 

[U2Edge]

Military has concerns about Syria mission

Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A frank assessment of the risks
In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.
In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.

That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.

And back in July review his comments about a limited strike

-Geaux

Again, were talking about the Mass use of chemical weapons and the impact of a limited strike to deter further use. There had been no mass use of chemical weapons back in July 2013.

The Presidents entire cabinet is on board with the strike so whatever Dempsey has advised them of recently appears to be more in line with the Presidents stated goals.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

The United States has huge interest in preventing the proliferation and use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION around the world. Such weapons are a threat to the United States and its interest and erode the United States advantages in conventional military strength.

We want to reduce the probability that the United States military will come under attack from such weapons. Doing nothing about Syria's use of chemical weapons increases the probability that they will one day be attacked by such weapons!

I see your copy/paste function skills from yesterdays failed debate are fine and well.

Your on the wrong side of this issue, but keep trying to convince others if you must

-Geaux

 

[U2Edge]

You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.

-Geaux

On this website, that would indeed be the case. But I don't base what I think the United States should do or not do based on how popular something is, but whether its the right thing to do or not!

The right thing for America to do is to stop meddling in the middle east with invasions and nation building. We're not the world's police either. We need get our nose out of all these little fights in the ME which have been going on for thousands of years, and will probably continue to go on for thousands of more years. They're taught to hate each other from birth, so trying to stop them from killing each other is the dumbest thing to attempt on the planet. Best thing the rest of the world could do is sit back and let them kill each other until there's not enough of them around to even worry about, and if they attack another country outside the ME like they did us on 9/11, then go in, light them up like the fourth of July for a couple weeks, set them back a decade or so, then leave them alone, no aide, no money, no occupying, no nation building, just thank for attacking us when we were leaving you alone, now enjoy your parking lot for a country. THAT is the right thing to do.

In the real world, the United States and the rest of the planet is dependent upon Persian Gulf oil and natural gas to prevent the price of energy from rising to quickly.

Whether you like it or not, the price you pay for gas at the pump as well as the price you pay for the food that you put in your mouth every day is dependent on whether oil and natural gas is freely flowing from the Persian Gulf or not. Its been that way since World War II and its not going to change any time soon. Just remember that the next time you pay for food, put gas in your car, or use anything that requires electricity!

 

[U2Edge]

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

The United States has huge interest in preventing the proliferation and use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION around the world. Such weapons are a threat to the United States and its interest and erode the United States advantages in conventional military strength.

We want to reduce the probability that the United States military will come under attack from such weapons. Doing nothing about Syria's use of chemical weapons increases the probability that they will one day be attacked by such weapons!

I see your copy/paste function skills from yesterdays failed debate are fine and well.

Your on the wrong side of this issue, but keep trying to convince others if you must

-Geaux

Don't worry, the missile strike is coming whether you like it or not.