War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[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.

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

It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!

 

[georgephillip]

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

It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!

You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:

"The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'

"The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test).

"This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."

Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:

"The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'

"The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test).

"This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."

Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indeed- And if this was a real threat to National Security, why is Obama sitting on his hands? There is no sense of urgency so this cannot be an actual threat to the United States

-Geaux

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:

"The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'

"The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test).

"This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."

Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indeed- And if this was a real threat to National Security, why is Obama sitting on his hands? There is no sense of urgency so this cannot be an actual threat to the United States

-Geaux

I suspect some are getting tired of my posting this link; however, I still believes it answers many questions like yours:

"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

Any sense of urgency may stem more from propping up the petrodollar which, I suppose, could qualify as a threat to National Security on Wall Street (and main street).

 

[JWBooth]

Just a random thought...

Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
Proxy war?

 

[orogenicman]

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

It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!

You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.

Yes, and Germany used mustard gas during WWI. But none of that is relevant to the fact that current events have taken place after certain international agreements were met, which, of course, Syria is not officially a party to; nonetheless, if that treaty is going to have any meaning, it certainly must apply to Syria's stockpile, seeing that it is one of the largest on the planet, certainly the largest in the ME. Otherwise what is the friggin point?

 

[Redfish]

It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!

You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.

Yes, and Germany used mustard gas during WWI. But none of that is relevant to the fact that current events have taken place after certain international agreements were met, which, of course, Syria is not officially a party to; nonetheless, if that treaty is going to have any meaning, it certainly must apply to Syria's stockpile, seeing that it is one of the largest on the planet, certainly the largest in the ME. Otherwise what is the friggin point?

despite what obozo, McCrazy, and Grannesty say about Syria, there is no US interest at stake in the syrian civil war. Its none of our damn business. Let them fight it our until someone wins.

the dialog coming out of DC today sounds very much like the dialog before the viet nam fiasco-------"if we don't stop them the whole region will be destroyed or become communist".

That stupid war cost us 58,000 americans and billions of dollars for absolutely nothing, and we also heard the "no boots ont he ground" bullshit before that one.

Stay the hell out of other countries business.

 

[georgephillip]

Just a random thought...

Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
Proxy war?

Iran has said it will honor its mutual defense treaty with Syria which could spike oil prices in this country considerably. There seems little doubt the powers that be are redrawing the borders of middle eastern countries a century after Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire after the War to End All Wars. Personally, I remember the gas lines of 1973 and it makes me glad I don't drive anymore.

 

[Redfish]

Just a random thought...

Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
Proxy war?

Iran has said it will honor its mutual defense treaty with Syria which could spike oil prices in this country considerably. There seems little doubt the powers that be are redrawing the borders of middle eastern countries a century after Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire after the War to End All Wars. Personally, I remember the gas lines of 1973 and it makes me glad I don't drive anymore.

maybe thats obama's real goal in this, drive up gas prices to complete his destruction of the US economy.

 

[georgephillip]

It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!

You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.

Yes, and Germany used mustard gas during WWI. But none of that is relevant to the fact that current events have taken place after certain international agreements were met, which, of course, Syria is not officially a party to; nonetheless, if that treaty is going to have any meaning, it certainly must apply to Syria's stockpile, seeing that it is one of the largest on the planet, certainly the largest in the ME. Otherwise what is the friggin point?

Apparently, the point is regime change in Damascus and Tehran. The following is Franklin Lamb's recent eyewitness account conditions in Syria:

"Informed sources report to this observer that the government decision not to bomb the suburbs including east Gouta, which normally occurs nightly, was taken at the highest level in order to send a reply message from Syria to America and personally to President Obama, whose speech just hours earlier in Washington contained several messages for the leadership in Damascus.

"What the Syrian government was signaling, some claim, was its willingness to join Tehran, Moscow and Washington in finding a peaceful solution to Syria’s crisis, starting with Geneva II.

"Meanwhile, the ever rising cost of living for Syria’s population, due in large measure to the US-led economic sanctions, designed at the US Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Assets Control (OFAC), to target Syria’s civilian population so it breaks with their government, thereby facilitating the US White House goal of regime change in Syria and Iran, continues to devastate many families here."

Syria Countdown » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Kondor3]

To make omelettes, you've gotta break a few eggs.

The question is: "Is regime change worth the hardships?"

That's another animal, entirely.

And, it requires a crystal ball, to predict what comes afterwards.

 

[georgephillip]

Just a random thought...

Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
Proxy war?

Iran has said it will honor its mutual defense treaty with Syria which could spike oil prices in this country considerably. There seems little doubt the powers that be are redrawing the borders of middle eastern countries a century after Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire after the War to End All Wars. Personally, I remember the gas lines of 1973 and it makes me glad I don't drive anymore.

maybe thats obama's real goal in this, drive up gas prices to complete his destruction of the US economy.

Or maybe he gets a performance bonus for every dead child?

"In making his case for setting Bashar Al-Assad right, Obama emotes copiously about the children killed in suburban Damascus – allegedly by 'the Assad regime’s' poison gas.

"We know beyond a reasonable doubt that intervening with American bombs and missiles into the combustible mix that Syria has become is a recipe for guaranteeing that many more children will die..."

CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Circe]

Just a random thought...

Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
Proxy war?

Proxy war in the sense getting the U.S. into a war with Iran shortly after we attack Syria. Israel has been begging and begging us to hit Iran; it is impossible for me to imagine that we'll stop with a few hits on Syria.

I think it's the beginning of World War III. It will spread quickly to Iran, and after that, who knows. Pakistan, probably.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just a random thought...

Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
Proxy war?

Proxy war in the sense getting the U.S. into a war with Iran shortly after we attack Syria. Israel has been begging and begging us to hit Iran; it is impossible for me to imagine that we'll stop with a few hits on Syria.

I think it's the beginning of World War III. It will spread quickly to Iran, and after that, who knows. Pakistan, probably.

I would expect war with egypt before this is over as well. Though Im not sure what side Egypt will be on or what. Regardless. this is not good

 

[Avatar4321]

To make omelettes, you've gotta break a few eggs.

The question is: "Is regime change worth the hardships?"

That's another animal, entirely.

And, it requires a crystal ball, to predict what comes afterwards.

I thought the administration said the goal wasnt regime change.

 

[Circe]

I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.

152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.

I hope we'll see some national polls this week.

Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.

Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.

I can't see it, myself.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.

152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.

I hope we'll see some national polls this week.

Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.

Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.

I can't see it, myself.

The only explanation I can see is the Judgments of God are on us. When the Lord wants to destroy a people, he takes away their wisdom and their judgment as to what's in their best interests.

 

[Circe]

The only explanation I can see is the Judgments of God are on us. When the Lord wants to destroy a people, he takes away their wisdom and their judgment as to what's in their best interests.

Works for me. You're probably right. [:-(